NG Shipping

Protests Over NG Shipping Priorities

By a Staff Writer

On Monday, September 10,

e Aros, of the Australia-West

icific Line, berthed at Lae,

ew Guinea, and began to dis

large cargo from the Far East. |N Wednesday, September 12, at * daylight, the Burns Philp liner alaita entered Lae; whereupon the "os was obliged to move out into e stream to allow Malaita to On Thursday, September 13, the alaita departed and Aros re rthed.

On Friday, September 14, at 1 n., the Aros again was obliged to dvc out into the stream to allow e Burns Philp liner Bulolo to berth.

Thereupon, the exasperated A-WP ople ordered the Aros to proceed Brisbane to meet her commit snts, although the liner still had 0 tons of cargo for discharge at ic.

That is a sample of conditions m e Papua and New Guinea ports, ncerning which a lively correspon nce has been going on for years tween the Swedish Minister in Aus dia and Messrs. Wilhelm Wilhelm ti Agency Pty. Ltd., on behalf of ; Swedish-owned Australian-North est Pacific Line, and the Australian apartments of External Affairs and :rritories, which control port regu ions in Papua and New Guinea.

The Swedish Line operates the ves ls Aros, Delos, Milos, Samos and -nos between Australia, the P-NG :rritory, and Far East ports. It thus ovides three services—namely a :ect express monthly (both ways) rvice between Australia and Japan; anthly sailings from Australia to anila, Hongkong and Japan, via P -3 ports; and monthly sailings from pan and Far East ports to Aus ilia, via Lae and (every third sail ?) the Solomons.

The managers of that shipping line ake the point that they provide astralia and the Australian Terri ry with a valuable and growing sight connection with developing arkets, especially in the Far East, d that they are obliged to plan d maintain fairly tight schedules, ley object very strongly to the

frequent dislocation of their timetables, as shown in the above instance.

The Australian authorities have given “priorities” to four vessels called “trunkships”, which run regularly from Australia to Papua and New Guinea ports—namely, the Bu- 1010 and Malaita, of the Burns Philp Islands line (which is subsidised by the Australian Government) and the Shansi and Soochow, of the New Guinea-Australia Line.

In reply to the protests of the Swedish Line interests, Canberra has said that the “trunkships” provide essential two-way services between

Australian and Territory ports; that the Territory depends on these ships for its more important supplies, and for marketing most of its products; and that it is vital to the Territory’s economy that the ships adhere to time-tables. Hence, they are given priority in the ports.

The Swedish Line has answered by quoting figures showing the quan tity and importance of the cargoes which it carries between the Terri tory and its markets, and the man ner in which this valuable trade has increased.

It is claimed that the Swedish Line gave invaluable service in the imme

diate post-war years, when ships were scarce, and that the owners co operated helpfully with Australia in developing Eastern trade (the Delos, for example, was fitted out and ran as an Australian trade-ship, at very low cost).

During the ’fifties, Canberra’s dic tum ruled the situation. But in very recent years the Territory’s trade has increased very much; the number of overseas shipping lines servicing the Territory has grown; and there now is strong pressure upon Canberra to share the Territory’s port facilities more liberally with the “non-trunk” ships.

Early this year, the Swedish Line presented its case to the Planters’ As sociation of New Guinea. The Asso ciation replied that, after considera tion, it fully supported the Line’s contention that the system of allotting berths in the ports should be “first arrived, first served” and priority to none.

Burns Philp & Co. Ltd., which has contributed so much to the Terri tory’s development over the last 50 years, and which now is suffering acutely from the competition of ship ping lines not on Australian articles (which means that the latter ships can be run more cheaply) has a strong case for continued Australian protection.

The other companies reply to that by pointing out that the protection given trunkships in the P-NG ports represents a situation not seen any where else in the shipping world.

The pressure upon Canberra, in this matter, may end by Canberra ordering an open inquiry into the whole situation