Bad Pillaging Record in Australia and New Zealand

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 131, 24 August 1927, Page 1

Bad Pillaging Record in Australia and New Zealand

OTHER PLACES LEFT WELL BEHIND

By Cable.—Press Association.—Copyright

Received 9.15 a.nt. LONDON, Tuesday. AMAZING figures of the extent of pillaging on the Australasian steamer services are disclosed in the report of a sub-committee of shipowners, merchants, chambers of commerce, and protection indemnity associations.

rpHE startling discovery Is that 80 per cent, of one indemnity association’s round-voyage cargo claims in three years arose in the Australasian trade—so per cent, in Australia, 30 per cent, in New Zealand, and 20 per cent, covering all others. Ships carrying cargoes on which this association’s figures are based totalled (42, of which only 50 were exclusively engaged in the Australasian trade. Shipowners trading to Australia have paid £17,000 in aiaims during the past three years. Further figures embracing 110 steamers show that claims average 2s 2d on each ton of pillagable cargo. The amounts that nine lines paid on pillaged or short-landed cargoes for 1924 was £41,723; 1925, £50,154; 1926, £42,368. “One line's figures,” says the report, “show conclusively that pillage in the Australian trade is greater than others, and amounts to pence per ton. Then follow Kobe, ,8d per ton; Singapore, 1d; Yokohama, 1.2 d; Shanghai, 2.5 d; Hong Kong, 3.3 d; Adelaide, 1.7 d; Melbourne, 2.2 d; Sydney, 4.8 d; Brisbane, 15.9 d.

Another line reports the loss of 14.15 d a ton on Homeward cargo from Australia, compared with 1.3 d from the East to Sydney. Importing firms set down the losses of 1925 at £5,600, and of 1926 at £7,000. The report points out that merchants who have adopted metal seals on the joints of caseboards are finding the pillage losses reduced. The committee draw's attention to the fact that as they are privatelyowned, the -wharves at Brisbane are not places under the Police Offences Act. The police have no right to search until the suspect is outside the wharf. Efforts to get wharf-employees appointed as special constables failed. This should be rectified. The report recommends the London Committee to remain in existence, in order to consider further information. It suggests that the same bodies should form similar committees in the principal ports of Australasia, and cooperate with the London committee. —A. and N.Z.