WON'T USE WHARF

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 72, 27 March 1933, Page 5

WON'T USE WHARF

VESSELS AT NAPIER

BOARD SEEKS ADVICE

TALK OF COMPULSION

Napier has had many worries over its harbours, inner and. outer, and though now the inner harbour scheme has moved further into the background, as a result of the smashing of much of the work by the 1931 earthquake and. the improvement .. of. outer harbour facilities to make good that loss, cer: tain interests still apparently prefer the former methods of lightering cargo from vessels lying in the roadstead to bringing them to the wharf.

Such methods are, in the- opinion of the harbour board, so costly to the producer that the legitimate trade of Napier's port may be driven to "Wel^ lington. The board proposes to obtain legal advice as to its power to enforce the use of facilities at the outer harbour by' those vessels which do not draw too.much water to berth there. '' . : .. ." .

The question was introduced by the reading of a letter from a Hawke'a Bay business man; remarking that the steamship Benmohr had on her last visit to Napier been lightered in the roadstead, whereas ca her previous visit she had been worked at the breakwater wharf. . : "Much has been heard lately about the centralisation of shipping at the four main ports, but surely the board realises that the best means of cdnibating this danger is to handle our exports and imports in the cheapest possible manner, thereby placing' our port charges on a more competitive basis with our main rival, ■Wellington.'.' the letter continued. DELAY AND GREATER COST, i A report made by the board's wharfinger, stated that the; Benmohr arrived in the roadstead on February 28 and sailed on March ±, and during that time loaded 6818 bales of wool and 177 casks of pelts. There was not the slightest doubt that this ship suffered at least two days' delay by being worked in the roadstead by lighters, as during her stay there were also two other overseas vessels being lightered* The limited service by lighters no doubt also caused delay to the other overseas vessels. To cite the case of the Golden' Cloud-: t this vessel arrived in the roadstead at noon on March "3 to load approximately 650 tons of manures, and was unable to get any service until. 9 a.m. on March .4, and then only.one small lighter-load. Two lighters were not available to this ship until Monday, March 6. The demurrage would represent quite a tidy sum, arid in the case of the Benmohr would be in the vicinity of £300. ' ' -~ Had the Benmohr berthed an.4 worked her cargo at the. breakwater, the report continued, she would have saved at least two days, and in addition the very considerable amount of primary producers' money needlessly; expended in lighterage. Detailed figures snbmitted by the wharfinger show,ed that the lighterage of cargo taken, by the Benmohr had cost £634 Is 6d, whereas if the vessel had 'berthed at the breakwater the haulage cost would, have been £88 18s 6d, a difference of £545 2s. . ■■'■'". ~ "IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST." '"' "I see no reason why the affairs of this board sbxiuld be in the hands of any. vested interest in Hawke's Bay, and when boats come in, if the board has the power—and I understand It has—they should be. handled irrespective of vested interest, safd the chairman. Our duty as a board is to protect the public interest, and in this case the public, interest is not being safeguarded. This vessel berthed before and had she done so again o,n this occasion the primary producers would have been saved £500. This is a time to save money wherever possible, and here ts an instance." Mr. Geddis moved that the board should seek legal advice on the subject. . ' ' ..-■■ ■■'~ . . Mr. P. P. Higgins said that though, the Benmohr had previously used the breakwater wharf, the vessel was now under charter to overseas firms, some of which refused to work the breakwater; even when they could. "Harbour boards in New Zealand, constituted as they are, are vested in the, public," said Mr. Higgins. "The public are called upon to provide harbour facilities. In Napier they have been provided at great cost, and boats should use the facilities available whenever possible-. The- Harbour Board should have the power to enforce the use of those facilities. Shipping com: panics, apparently, could refuse to use facilities and make use of lighters in any port. They would not; in fact, /they dare not. But in Napier, torn assunder as we are, .the public, whom it vitally concerns, think that certain, things are impracticable. It-has been a serious matter for many years, and it seems that it is going to be more serious. If one thing is going to force centralisation on this district, it is the factional scrapping, misrepresentation and lying that go on." ;. -.. After further discussion'the chairman's motion that the board should obtain legal advice was carried. .' FROZEN MEAT CARGOES. f; The board also passed the following resolution dealing with the handling'of meat cargoes:—"That the Harbour Board write to the Meat Producers' Board asking that when making a fresli contract for the carriage of frozen, meat from New Zealand to London'^ provision be made in the contract that if the contractors refuse id berth their ships, drawing 20 feet, or less, at the Glasgow Wharf, Napier, for loading frozen meat and by-pro-ducts, then shippers may make their own arrangements to have their meat loaded by any steamers, at the Glasgow Wharf, provided that they do not pay a higher rate of freight for the .carriage of their produce from New Zealand to London than the rate agreed upon by the Meat Producers' Board for the same service." During the discussion on this motion a speaker said that they had. seen recently eight vessels lying in the roadstead, four of which could have been worked at the wharf. ■ " :