80
In regard to road facilities as related to the Port, Sir David said there did not seem much to complain of except for congestion on the praya from the Naval Yard to Wing Lok Street. He did, however, envisage the need for widening and improving the road to the frontier as road transport into China increased.
·
The existing ferry services evoked no adverse comment.
The report sets out in detail the mooring buoys and the navigational lights and buoys and gives no hint of any inadequacy in provision, mismanagement or excessive charges.
This portion of Sir David's report appears to demonstrate that private enterprise and Government between them had provided all that was necessary and that there was little, if any, need for development, and in a later paragraph (paragraph 65) Sir David endorses this view when, after commenting on the little control or administration on the part of Government he says, "it must be admitted that private enterprise has succeeded to a remarkable degree in meeting the needs of the situation".
The sum of the criticism or suggestions in this part of the report is that there is need for some reclamation in Western Victoria for the relief of the congestion on the praya (and Sir David would in any case leave reclamation work to the Government-
-see para. 102 (18)), that the policy as to pier leases requires decision and that the Western Victoria piers require reconstruction.
The Committee does not find in this review any substantial reason in support of the proposition that a change in the form of administration of the Port is necessary or desirable. (b) We turn therefore to that part of the report (paragraphs 61 to 83) in which Sir David considers who should control or administer the Port.
The author deals first with the question whether matters should be allowed to remain as they then were, that is to say, whether the position which then, as now, existed, with the Harbour under Government control or administration, should continue. His proposi- tion is that if this position is perfectly satisfactory, then the adoption of any other measure does not arise.
The Government, the author says, may be said to control or administer the Harbour, as it owns all the land, has granted the leases under which piers have been constructed and has laid down mooring buoys and provided navigation lights. Apart from this there has, he says, been very little control or administration, it having been left to private enterprise to do all else that was necessary, and he adds that it must be admitted that private enterprise has succeeded to a remarkable degree in meeting the needs of the situation.
The conclusion is that Sir David did not find the day to day control of the navigation in and the general administration of this great Port susceptible of criticism.
Sir David's next criticism is that the Harbour was not treated by Government as a single entity but came within the purview of various officials in so far as their general duties impinged on it, the engineering side being controlled by the Director of Public Works, the Land Officer dealing with the issue of pier leases and even the Harbour Master having duties other than those usually associated with that office.
The weight of this criticism is somewhat lightened by the fact that Sir David stipulates that the reclamation of land from the waters of the Harbour should be undertaken by the Government and not by the Port Trust and that, unless the Crown is prepared to hand over the foreshore rights to the Trust, pier leases must continue to issue from the Land Office.
Sir David proceeds to comment on the fact that the accounts of the Harbour are not kept separately so that it is impossible to compare the revenue derived from it with the expenditure on it. He says that it would appear that the revenue from light dues, buoy dues, rents of piers and ferry royalties exceeds any expenditure which should be charged against it.
It is highly controversial whether ferry royalties should be regarded as Harbour receipts and should in the event of the creation of a Port Trust be paid to that body. If the receipts from this source ($400,000 in the 1941-1942 Estimates) be excluded from the Harbour revenue it is highly probable that the expenditure by Government on the Harbour considerably exceeded the revenue therefrom.
Sir David expresses the view that there does not seem to have been much in the nature of planning for the future development of the Port, though he pays a tribute to the foresight displayed by Mr. A. Nicol in the many plans submitted by him. He comments on the fact that there had been no officially adopted plan of development.
Sir David at this point ignores the report of Messrs. Coode, Fitzmaurice, Wilson and Mitchell, Consulting Engineers, and the proposals advanced in Mr. Duncan's report, or the reasons, such as strikes, boycotts and the diminution of world trade, which may have contributed to the feeling that the adoption of a plan for development was unnecessary, because the facilities of the Port were likely to be adequate for many years to come and private enterprise might be relied upon, as in the past, to meet the needs of the situation.