STILL PASSING IT ON

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1376, 29 February 1912, Page 3

STILL PASSING IT ON

HARBOUR DUnSNO CHANCE OF REDUCTION. CARGO WAGES THE I'AUSK. The Tlarbour Board yesterday were cnllcd upon to consider i> motion by »e chairman (Mr. I!, Flelcher), to iwiml a previous resolution which proposed l« make certain remissions in dues. Before tlio ivlinrf labourers seemed their recent increases in rates of pay, Mr. Fletcher had announced, at a niectinc f>l tho board, that tlio finances and revenue of the harbour won> in Mich » buoyant condition that it would be pofMble to make reductions amounting in all to some .£701)0. per vcar. Then, however, me wlnrf labourers,obtained their new agreement, which entailed upon the boardncting as wharfinger—an additional ex-twiulitui-o of some .£OOOII per year. .u tho next meeting the chairman moved to rescind tho former resolution, but air. Hindmarsh objected, and the chairman had to proceed'by notice. This notice nl motion camo up yesterdoy, aud -«i. Hindmnrsh did not oppose it. Money Must Be Got Somewhere. The chairman stated thai, of the -£"000 which it had been proposed to remit. .£3OllO had been borne by merchants, ami JliWO by shipping. The extra charges which the board would bo required to meet this year would bo JC9300. The increase to the wharf labourers' pay .01 2d. per hour absorbed JtfOOO, and the increases lo nennnnciit staff .Cll7l. I lus money dad to bo found by tlio board from somewhere, and, therefore, it could not, as had been proposed, pive away/1000 in remissions, ire was not asking? .tne board to asreo to any frcsli imposition?, l)«t merely to contiiiuo to collect the rates ■at. present*in force. Ho moved:—

"Tlmt (ho resolution of November 22, 1911, in so fnv as it relates to the reduction of the harbour improvement rate from Gd. to -Id. per ton, and to the reduction of inward wharfage on general goods from 2s. Bd. to 2s. (id. per ton, lie rescinded, and that the various by-laws affected be amended in accordance with this revocation. Mr. Trevor seconded the motion. Why Charge the Ships? Mr. Jones said that tho main cause which had brought forth the motion was in the rate of pay for casual labour on the wharf—an increase of 2d. per hour, and slightly more for overtime. This was in addition to the cost of handling—labour which the Harbour Board, us wharfinger, had to pay. Ho submitted that it was only reasonable and logical that that increase should be recouped by an increase in wharfage, and not by putting the bulk of it on the ships. Koughly, the figures were these: The 2d. which it was proposed to retain for the. harbour improvement rate amounted to .EIOOO a. year, and the 2d. on wharfage to about .£2750. Ho maintained that it was riot reasonable to load the ships with a burden incurred through the cost of handling cargo. Supposing the cost of water for shipping were to be increased, would the board not naturally say—"Tho ships will have to pay?" Or would they say, "We'll put some of that cost on to cargo." The present proposal was an exact parallel, and equally unreasonable. The bulk of tho increased charges was being loaded, on to tho ships-riUOOO on the shipping, as against i!27.>0 on the cargo—ami yet the reason for tho charges was that the cost of handling cargo had gone up. The ships had had to pay in another direction for labour which they employed. He iisked whether members, as reasonable men, could say that increased pay for handling cargo should not be put on cargo instead of on ships. Later in tho debate he was allowed to movo as an amendment: "That the increased cost of handling cargo, duo to the incrcass in rates £aid for labour,'should be.met by an" y increase in wharfage dues." Mr. Froeth seconded the amendment pro forma. Mr. n.iA'kness supported the motion. He recognised that Mr. .1 ones iwd had a special rase to plead, and lie had pleaded it in a special way. J lβ (Mr. Ilnrknossi realised that, it would be a good thing for tho port if the charges on ships could be reduced, but the board proposed to impose no additional taxation—nothing new—and tho circumstances were such tlmt the board, having due regard to the harbour finances, could not let go anv.revenue whatever. Ho believed that taxation should not be imposed if it was likely to drive trade away from the port, but the state of the finances made it imperative that the board should retain the present rates. . Mr. Uenner supnorted tho i>osition taken" up by Mr. Jones." He urged that it was unjust that ships should be require! lo pay two-thirds and cargo only one-third of the additional imposts, especially as complaints were freonent already that the dues in Wellington were too high.

Ship Companies' Own Fault. Mr. Cohen met this contention by stating that the present position was attributable to the shipping companies themselves. Tlic now rates for wharf work had all boon fixed at a conference at which shipping companies hod been very fully represented, but at which the board h'ml not been represented at all. Now, after having brought everybody else into the fold with themselves, was it fair for them to try to escape the con.':er;ucnces? The chairman: That is the position. Mr. Cohen continued that he would like to see the board make some arrangement whereby the rates on farming material would not he increased. Mr. Cobbe thought that it would be disastrous for the board to asm- to the amendment. The shipping companies had tumbled over each other in their eagerness to erant these increases, and no doubt they fully expected that the ships would have to bear their share. Tn anticipation they had already increased freights considerably. Tlip amendment was lost on the voices, and the motion carried without a division.