CO129-608-7 Future policy- Report on Port Administration by Sir David Owen 24-2-1941 - 24-2-1941 — Page 34

9

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.

31r 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

f 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

liarbour 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.

fact that there had been no officially adopted plan of development.

He comments on the