WELLINGTON'S WOOL CHARGES

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1815, 30 July 1913, Page 4

WELLINGTON'S WOOL CHARGES

The proposals of Mr. R. Fletcher, chairman of the Wellington Harbour Board, to alter the incidence of the wool charges of the port, submitted at the last monthly meeting of the board, ! although defeated, present some peculiar features which arc worth examining. The proposals were'to increase tho wharfage on wool from 6d. to 9d. per bale, or an advauce of 50 per cent., ancl to reduce the charge for dumping from Is. 3d. to Is., or a decrease of 20 per cent. Tho increase in the wharfage, which falls upon the woolgrower or wool-shipper, -was estimated to produce an additional revenue of about £1900, and the decrease in the dumping charges, which would benefit the shipowners entirely, was estimated to occasion a loss of about £1750, so that the actual net gain to the Harbour Board, if Mr. Fletcher's proposals had been accepted, would have been the paltry sum of £150. Mr. Fletcher stated that his idea was to increase the revenue of the board, but an expansion of about £150 per annum could not have been the real motive for proposing such a radical changc. Furthermore, his plea that the increased wharfage was wanted because of the increase in the cost of casual labour was very ingenious, but not ingenuous, and the liollowness of it is easily seen when examined. The dumping charges arc mainly absorbed by labour, and itis these charges Mr. Fletcher desired to reduce, while wharfage on wool, which represents mainly interest on capital cost, and very little labour, he wished to increase. He also slated that the concession in dumping was proposed in response to representations made by the shipping companies, and when pressed for information as to when these representations were made, h" somewhat. reluctantly disclosed tnf fact that ths letter from the shipping companies was dated in 1901, a matter- of twelve years ago. If Mr. Fletcher is genuine in this matter, why did he not make a straight-out-offer of a reduction of the dumping charges to the shipping companies, ancl not as part of a bargain affecting other interests'? Tho proposed increase in wharfage of wool of 50 per cent, was .strenuously opposed by the country members of the board, and they were fully justified. Had the board really stood in need of increased revenue wool would pay_Us proportion upon p. ijcpv'n.l revision of .nort charges,

but the board is not in nrgont need of increased revenue, for the profit last year was over £10,000, and there is absolutely no call to pile up charges on wool. Sixpence per bale appears to be the general wharfage rate throughout New Zealand, except at ports which have had to. be won from the ocean, such as Gisborne, Napier, Tiinam, and Nelson, where the charge is Is. per bale; at Lyttelton, where the charge is 10.U1., and where, by the way, there is a movement to obtain a reduction. At Pieton, Auckland. Oamaru, and New Plymouth, as well as at Wellington, the wharfage is Gd., and at some other ports it is 3d. It must be remembered that wool brings in many side revenues to the port besides wharfage, as the following will show: s. d. Wharfage 0 fi Weighing 0 2 Trucking to dump 0 3 Dumping 1 3 Trucking to ship 0 3 Storage per bale per week... 0 3 During the wool Eeason the storage rate is 4d., and wool for shipment is held in store on the average three weeks. In all, wool pays about 3s. 6d. per bale, or 7s. fid. per ton measurement, ordinary cargo. Salt, which has.been instanced by the apologists for Mil. Fletcher, pays Is. 4d. per ton outwards, and 2s. Bd. per ton inwards, and the question is: Which would the board sooner handle—a ton of wool, or a ton of salt? Wool is easy to handle, and that accounts in a measure for tho lower rate of wharfage. Tho proposals of Mr. Fletcher do not appear to have been suggested by any regard for the welfare of tho port, or for the shipping companies for whom he appears to have become suddenly solicitous, but rather do they seem to havo been aimed at a private firm, which has made provision to do all its own wool work. This firm, it is alleged, was driven to take this course mainly because of the inefficiency of the harbour authorities. Mr,. Cohen, one of the members of the board, has remarked that the board is "notoriously failing to satisfy the demands made upon it," and there is a very general impression amongst the mercantile and shipping community that this is in no small measure due to the methods of the chairman in arrogating to himself duties which should bo left to tho responsible officers of tho board.