84
Nos. 3, 5, 6, 8, 12, 15, 19, 20, 25, 26,
Mr. Colman considered that two points alone were sufficient to justify Sir David Owen's conclusions, namely:
(i) that the Port Authority should keep separate accounts, and
(ii) that there should be a separate Port Engineering Department with its own
budget and therewith a chance for future planning.
He also mentioned that control by Government would be a bureaucratic control and thus undesirable.
Mr. Colman envisaged the formation of a separate department to deal with the enforcement of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance and the Board of Trade rules--work which could not be carried out by a Port Trust which would be representative of the shipping community. He also listed other duties, such as those of the Ship Surveyor's Office, the Marine Magistrate, the Examination of Masters and Mates, which the Trust should not undertake. He considered that the severance could be effected without incurring additional expense and would leave the Marine Officer of the Trust free to concentrate on his technical duties.
In a preliminary discussion on Mr. Colman's remarks the opinion was expressed, inter alia, that any necessary improvements in administration might more simply be achieved by improving co-ordination of the work of the Government departments concerned and the setting up of an influential committee with specific terms of reference to keep Harbour matters, including the views of private interests, before the Government, and that such arrangements would result in the advantages claimed by Mr. Colman for the Port Trust form of administration.
The view was expressed that labour conditions would result in the demand for mechanization of the Port and that if private enterprise (which had in some cases already taken action to meet this situation (lagged behind the demand a Port Trust might perform a useful service in providing mechanization.
10. The views of Mr. A. Nicol, Executive Engineer, Port Works Office, Public Works
Department.
Mr. Nicol strongly supported Sir David Owen's proposals believing that a Trust would be progressive in outlook, would be prepared to approve a long-term plan and to carry it out, financing capital works on the basis of receiving revenue sufficient to cover mainten- ance and interest charges.
Mr. Nicol believed that Port development had been ineffectual in the past because no person or body had been entrusted with the duty of development and because there was no guarantee that a plan, even if accepted by Government, would be adhered to and carried out, partly by reason of fluctuating allocations from revenue and partly because the policy, being dominated by the Governor for the time being, had changed from period to period.
Mr. Nicol doubted whether, if it should be decided to adopt some form of control by a "Government dominated" Committee, this Committee would be allowed to draw up a plan of development, to approve of a plan for, say, ten years, would be allowed to raise funds to meet the capital expenditure involved and would be accepted by the Government as the controlling authority over all the waters of the Colony.
11. Representations opposing the establishment of a Port Trust.
The Committee received letters from ten persons and concerns opposing the establish- ment of a Port Trust.
Throughout these ran the conviction that the creation of a Port Authority would involve additional expense which would have to be borne either by the taxpayer or by shipping interests.
While there was some recognition that that there had been weak spots in Port administration in the past there was also recognition that the Port had been developed successfully by Government and private enterprise and that no such marked improvement could be expected from administration by a Port Trust as would warrant the creation of such an Authority.
Several correspondents advocated the formation of a Port Advisory Board or Committee but the need was stressed for well-defined terms of reference, direct access to the Government and the acceptance of the principle that the recommendations of the Board or Committee, subject to Government approval, should be carried out by order of the Government.
12. The views of Mr. J. Jolly, C.B.E., Harbour Master.
Mr. Jolly is opposed to the formation of a Port Trust with the duties suggested by Sir David Owen. He considered that the removal from the Harbour Office of the work of the Ships Survey Office, the Shipping Master's Office and the Marine Court, would cause inconvenience to shipping, a reduction in efficiency and an increase in expense.