WATERFRONT DELAYS GIVING CONCERN

Chronicle (Levin), 19 July 1946, Page 8

WATERFRONT DELAYS GIVING CONCERN

SLOW TURN ROUND OF SHIPS IN N.Z. (Special Corresponclent.) LONDON, July 17. Wltile there is understanclable reluctance on the part of shipping people in London to ciuote specitic cases for publication, it is an open secret that the slowness of turn-round of shipping in New Zealand is causing concern here. ' The process of slowing down on the waterx'ront has hcen going on for so long that the pessimistic attitude in ' rnany ciuarters towards any prospect oi iniprovement. It is considered that the present | trends should he checked, and it is ! hoped they may be checked when the j waterside workers themselves realise i . that further accentuation of the present difficulties is as much against their own interest as against those of the pro ducers and of the country. ■During his visit to ; Bi'itain' tlif l.)(']uity Prime Afiiiistcr ( M-r. iNas.fi } discimscd the situation with repiTseiftaii\i's oi tlie shipping eompauies, and although nothing was released foi pubJicMt ion from that mcetiug there L no doubt tliat Mr. Nash was fullv ac (pminted with tlie opininus of the shipping companies and wili be in a position to exphiin them to his colleagues when he returns.

Slnjipmg Tiicn diseoimt auy suggestions that they may be eompelled to curtail sailings for New Zealand if «-osts contimie to rise as a result of heavv wharfage charges and dvhiys caused in ports, but thvy point out tliat theso extra charges nuist sooner or later be passed on to the jiroducer and the consumer. rrhe question of charges is likely to receive verv close attention in future, for the niajority of ships engaged in the New Zealand trade and previously under. the control of the .Ministry of War Transport are now in the process of reverting to tlie control of their owners. In future losses caused by delays ivill fall dircct.lv upon the shipping companies instead of upon the Govcrnments concerned. It is stated here that the present rate of turn-round in New Zealand ports is even slower than hefore the war, when it still left a good deal to be desired. Teehnically it may be claimed tliat ihe rate is still approxiiuately the saine is before the war, but this estimation lakes 110 account of the fact that liefore :he war overseas ships were frequently oaded at the snialler New Zealand inrts, where they had to eontend with lifiicult weather and tidal conditions, vhereas today loading is restricted diiefly to tlie 'main ports.

Gangs ' Work Compared • Tt is also pointed out here that during •ecent vears the sixe of the waterside pmgs in New Zealand has steadily ncrcased. As a result more men are, •equired in tlie Dominion than are leeded in Britain to do the same work. I'his increase in manpower, thongh it night reasonably have been expected to lave done so; did not lead to any in 1

ereased exjiedition in dealing with cargoes. Nowadays, when Britain is so sliort of food, it is not nierely a question of loss to the sliip owners, manu faeturers and cousignees — it is a (piestion of delaying foodstun'ij wliich are urgeiitlv needed by tlie British public. Goods wliich they need in their lanlers are of no use lo British hnusew ives if they are still resting in stores at Ihe other end of the world. There was no disposition here to suggest that the dockers should be askeu to do anything more than a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. It is emphasised, however, that altliougli wages for dockside labotu: have been increased in New Zealand and hotirs decreased, ships are still being handled more slowly than at any time in the Domin- . ion's history. New Zealand is not alone in this slowing down. Tlie rate of turning round ships in British ports is also slower tlian before the war, but still not as slow as in New Zealand and Aus tralia. It is recognised that tliis slowing-down process is due to so-iiu* extent to tlie war, but it is pointed oui that during the war the dockers worke'd under .greater- pressure and .under much more difficult conditioiis tluin tlie watet side laliour in the Dominion. Rccently a London daily I'eatured tlie case of the Jtimutaka, wliich ar rived at the Port of London last moulh with 6000 tons of meat, Imtter, dried fruit s, cheese, caiined foods, and wooJ loaded in New Zealand and Australia. The Rimutaka was held up 011 tlie New

Zealand and Australian coasts for six weeks — oue weok longer than it topk the sliip to do the 1 1,000-mile voyage from tiro Dominion. Alan Aloorehead, the well-known war correspondent, travclled home in the Rimutaka from Australia, and when he arrived he wrote an article in wliich he described strikes, cargo niuddles, and delays wliich jengtliened her fourmonths round voyage into six nionths. The writer of this article could cite another case — a ship 011 wliich he travelled to Britain from New Zealand four months ago. That sliip, carrying 16,000 tons of Jiides, tallow, wool, and other raw materials, was over a moulh late leaving New Zealand, due ptirtly to bacl weather, but also to go-slow tacties and strikes 011 the waterfront. It was stated that by the time tlie shiji reaclied Britain all tlie prolit 011 tlie cargo had lieen dissipated. I11 addition. of course, urgentlv-needed raw materials were well over a montli Jate in reaching tlie factories. Ship-building costS, like all other costs, are steadily rising, and if waterside delays make it necessary to employ ten ships to do the work which eight should be able to do, the costs, when they cdme to be passed on to those who pay the freight, are likely to be correspondingly affected. If to these extra costs are added those caused by unnecessary delays on the waterfront, the New Zealand producers may in due course be asked to foot a considerabie bill or the Government may be eompelled to subsidise the freight charges.