Rival Ports.—Wellington versus Auckland.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XLVI, Issue 5, 2 August 1911, Page 5

Rival Ports.— Wellington versus Auckland.

The chairman of the Wellington Harbour Board stated last week that the Auckland Harbour Board had issued a comparative statement of harbour dues payable by oversea steamers. He felt it his duty to prepare a statement for Wellington. On the surface the Auckland statement exhibited Wellington as the dearest port in the Dominion, so far as ships are concerned. The rates in the statement were correctly quoted—the fallacy was in assuming that, because a given rate was higher at one port than at another, the latter was necessarily cheaper. Wellington’s average for a sixyear period was 1.95 d per ton register, against Auckland’s 2.20 d per ton for the name services. The respective percentages for the last financial year were: Wellington 1.96 d, Auckland 2.69 d net ton. Adding the harbour improvement rate and shedding charges, the figures showed for six years: Wellington 2.78 d, Auckland 2.28 d; for 1910: Wellington 2.98 d, Auckland 2.69 d. This showed percentages in favour of Auckland of O.SOOd for a sixyear period; but when the extra cost to ship in Auckland for work done in Wellington by the Board and charged in wharfage to consignees was borne in mind, the rashness of asserting Auckland to be the cheaper port for ships was evident. In Wellington one very large company paid for stevedoring measurement cargo and ordinary weight cargo lOd pciton, Diverpool cargoes 1/, rails 1/2. In Auckland the same company paid for measurement cargo 1/3 per ton, ordinary weight cargo 1/6, rails 1/6. The position as to claims paid by the same company for a period-of ten months was : Auckland, average claim made per ton of cargo landed, 1.05 d; Wellington, do., 1.03 d. Discussion on the report was adjourned for a month.

Seen on Friday by a representative of the “Auckland Star,” Mr. J. H. Gunson, chairman of the Auckland Harbour Board, with regard to the above telegram, said: —“The official statement from the Wellington Board, as far as I can see, from the cursory glance which I have been able to give to the question, is correct and speaks for itself, and substantiates in every way the statement issued by Auckland, which it is admitted shows Auckland charges to be lower than those of Wellington. In the first place, taking Wellington’s own figures, where they say that for the relative services rendered, the average per ton on register at Auckland is 2.28, as against 1.95, is really beside the question, for the point is not the cost of the relative services rendered, but the cost of the vessel in the aggregate of all port charges. While individual charges in Auckland may be heavier than in Wellington, yet in the aggregate the ship escapes from Auckland with greater decreased charges than those imposed at the port of Wellington. The harbour improvement rate of Wellington falls against the ship, and these obviously are very heavy charges. The issue must not be confused. There are two points, the first as to the cheaper port of the two from the shipping point of view, and the second as to the cheaper port from the importers’ point of view. In the statement prepared by the Auckland Board, the former only was dealt with, and while as I have previously mentioned, the Wellington Board does in the way of receiving and handling cargo, undertake very much work •for which the Auckland Board accepts no responsibility; and while perhaps it may be fairly argued that the fact that Wellington accepts cargo from the ship’s slings relieves the ship somewhat, it cannot be logically reasoned with any fairness that the port charges are decreased. That phase of the question more fully concerns the importer than the ship. The statement prepared by the Auckland Board concerned harbour dues only, and is correct in every detail. The Auckland Board lias no wish to enter into a controversy with Wellington or any other. Board in regard to relative charges. The statement was prepared for the information of the Auckland Board in connection with projected amendments to the by-laws with regard to shipping charges. It has served its purpose, and the present discussion has arisen out of it. but further evidence must be forthcoming before Wellington can mrbatantiate the claim that it is now putting forward.”