OCEAN FREIGHTS

Wairarapa Age, 22 March 1929, Page 2

OCEAN FREIGHTS

MAINTENANCE OF FLAT RATE x CONDEMNED. WELLINGTON HARBOUR BOARD PROTESTS | AN UNJUST IMPOSITION Protests were once again made at the annual statutory meeting of the Wellington Harbour Board on Wednesday night against the system of flat rate oversea shipping freights. Mr G. Mitchell said that although the Wellington Harbour Board had made substantial concessions to 'shipping companies, as well as to shippers, users of the port received no benefit from the shipping companies over those ports and roadsteads where loading was several times most costly and dan - gerous The effect of the flat rate and, “ call-at-your-farm ’ ’ policy, Which enabled the 'shipping company to charge shippers from main ports with the loss entailed at other ports, had a very farreaching effect. Within the last four months some leading merchants doing' business with Australia and New Zealand waited on the heads of a -shipping company in London requesting that the freight to New Zealand be reduced by 10s a ton to bring it into line with that to Australia, which was a greater distance. It was explained to them that the extra IQs was due entirely to the number of ports which vessels were required to call at round the New Zealand eoast, and the time ships were delayed in New Zealand waters, and that if the people of New Zealand would expect ships to call at fewer ports and give them -a quicker turn 1 round the freight rate to New Zealand could be brought in line with that to Australia. AN EXTRA TWO MILLIONS

Last year, Mr Mitchell .added, the Imports amounted to 2,147,000 tons, on nearly the whole of which importers paid 10s a ton extra, or, approximately £1,000,000, because oversea ships were delayed so long on our coast. He had previously pointed out that the extra charge foj freight on our exported produce to cover the delay of ships on our coast amounted to over £1,000,000 a year. This, together with the extra 10s on imports, made a total bill of over £20,000,000 a year which the people of this Dominion must pay for the privilege of having expensive Home liners call to pick up a few tons of cargo all round the coast. WAIBABAPA VIEWS

Mr T. B. Barter said that .seeing that 1 the coast line of New Zealand was served by four or five large ports it was utter nonsense to talk of centralisation. Those who did so greatly mistook the temper of the farming people if they thought that the latter would continue much longer to pay the heavy imposts placed upon them. For the first time since the question had been discussed politics had been brought in. The Wellington Harbour Board had t een dubbed intriguers and it had been said they had gone about in a dishonourable way to achieve their end, which would affect the prosperity of the small ports. The question of centralisation had never been raised by the Wellington board. The people of the Wairarapa were tired, and more than tired, of paying this flat rate of freight, which

was a most unjust impost. Ho had no wish to see closed the smaller ports, which had a legitimate purpose to fulfil; but he would say that at one .such port (the freezing companies were loud-

ly protesting at the damage done to their meat between the stores and the ships. Lighterage was costing them £30,000, apart from the coist of reconditioning damaged meat. The flat rate had become a great enormity. The shipping companies were not responsible, because they had; .to contract on specification's drawn up by the boards. Those who wanted the ships at the small ports should pay for them. The present system was a great economic waste to the Dominion.

Mr T. Moss said the Meat and Dairy Boards were largely responsible. It was Very unjust that Wellington should be treated the same in respect of freights as any one of the smaller ports which provided no facilities for shipping. .