CARGO HANDLING

Evening Star, Issue 20055, 21 December 1928, Page 2

CARGO HANDLING

QUESTION OF RECEIVING AND DELIVERY The vexed question of the receiving and delivery of cargo at the port of Otago again came up for consideration at the meeting of the Harbour Board last night. The provisions for handling cargo here came in for some strong criticism, and Mr H. C. Campbell suggested that the handling charge of 2s 7d per ton should be cut out and a small charge imposed on everything that came in or wept out. /He was of opinion that if that were done more money would be received, and they could then obtain better cargo handling appliances. It was considered that in the handling of some classes of cargo, such as bales of wool and rabbitskins, where they were brough alongside the ship, placed in a sling and put aboard, the charge was certainly excessive. The report of the sub-committee which had been set up to consider the' question read:—“The committee has given consideration to the various alternatives suggested by Mr Ander-. son, and recommends lotting as at present, by contract, for adoption by the board. “The committee has come to this decision largely by reason of the fact that the board’s financial commitments during 1929 and subsequent years are such that it would be unwise to venture out on a new system. The financial statement covering a period of twenty-three years, submitted by the secretary, convinces the committee that the board would be foolish to risk any loss in the handling of the cargo winch comes within the scope of the contract. “ Finally, the committee recommends that tenders for three years he invited.” \ The committee again met, and its report read:—-“In furtherance of the Board’s decision, at its November meeting, the committee has given further consideration to_ the question of the receiving and delivery of oversea cargo; in additioon to which they have had Mr E. 0. Campbell’s suggestion that a flat-rate should be placed on all cargo-intercolonial and coastal (the shipping companies handle their own) as well as oversea cargo (covered by the receiving and delivery contract). Mr Campbell’s further suggestion was that the oversea ships should handle their own cargo. “ After giving the suggestions consideration, the committee was brought face to face with the, what they venture to think, unsurmountablo position of convincing the oversea shipping companies that they ought to do a work which they have never done, at this port, in the past. The committee does not oversight the fact that the oversea companies do the work .at Auckland—and have done it all down the years—bpt when the delegates from the various representative bodies met on October 26, 1923, Mr Bond (representative of New < Zealand Oversea Shipowners’ Committee) stated that to do the same here was unthinkable. “It is a question of policy whether the board, by by-law, shall compel the oversea companies to do the work themselves, and with respect to this aspect, the committee makes no recommendation. The committee deems it needful to draw attention to the fact fiat when harbour boards, in other ports, have created an additional charge to the ship, similar to what Mr Campbell suggests, the shipping companies have immediately added thp charge to their clients’ accounts. The committee has, after full consideration, come to the conclusion with one disi sentient, to reiterate their previous recommendation.” ’ Mr Anderrson moved that the report be adopted, and, after a general discussion Mr Campbell moved ' as an amendment that the present contractor be asked to continue the contract for another twelve months. On being put, the • amendment _ was lost, and the original motion' carried.