ABEL TASMAN ENQUIRY

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21858, 11 August 1936, Page 12

ABEL TASMAN ENQUIRY

COURT’S FINDING TICKETS RETURNED TO SHIP’S OFFICERS HEED FOR PRECAUTIONS BY BOARD EMPHASISED [THE PRESS Special Service.] GREYMOUTH, August 10. The opinion that the master, Officers, engineers, and crew of the Abel Tasman acted in a prompt and soamanlike manner, and were to be commended therefor, the master in particular, was expressed by the court of enquiry into the stranding of the Abel Tasman. The opinion was delivered at the conclusion of the enquiry to-day by Mr H. Morgan, S.M., who presided at the court, together with Captain J. Mawson and Captain F. W. Baron, nautical assessors, Five questions were submitted to the court by Mr N. A. Foden, who appeared for the Minister for Marine and the Collector of Customs. The following were the questions and the answers: Was the vessel moored in accordance with the practice of the port? —Yes. Was she moored to the satisfaction or the harbour master? —Yes. The evidence showed that both the harbour master and the vessel’s master had given strict attention to the moorings of the vessel. Could the practice of the harbour as to the moorings in flood conditions be improved bv the harbour board providing special moorings for floods? Yes. Is it possible that the casualty would have been avoided if the en-. gines of the vessel had been turning and ready for instant use? —Not in our opinion. Was everything possible done to save the vessel after she broke away?— Yes. Was the accident caused or contributed to by the wrongful act or default of the master or any of his crew, or of the harbour board or any other person?— Not in so far as the master or any of his crew were concerned, but the court desired to consider further this question in relation to the harbour board and its officials. The tickets of the captain and the first officer were returned. Concern of Board

“This casualty and the findings of the court are matters that will vitally concern the Grey Harbour Board.” said Mr N. A. Fodeh, counsel for the Marine Department and the Collector of Customs, in addressing the court m the morning.

“You know that on the previous occasions similar casualties have occurred, and no steps were taken to assure that there was no recurrence of such an incident. “Here we have a river harbour, which apparently is almost unique in Kew Zealand, and it is apparent that the conditions that prevail at times are such that it is extremely difficult to provide against them. Accidents of this kind cannot be allowed to accumulate, end one would have thought that after a previous case steps would have been taken to see that no secon 1 accident occurred. The Minister’s attitude is that searching investigations should have been made into everything that relates to this type of casualty, and to the system of mooring that is used. “Another observation is that if something is not done sooner or later lives will be lost, and valuable property may be destroyed,” continued Mr Foden. “It needs only the mention cf these possibilities to enable anyone to see the significance of this enquiry. The duty of the Harbour Board is Hot merely to attend to its own interests, but its obligations extend to the protection cf the lives and property of the shipowners, and the safety of the lives of men of ail ranks who are employed on ships that come into the port. “It seems from the evidence that there is ample room for improving the system under which vessels are moored to the wharf here. Reputation of Harbour

“It is well known that the Harbour Board is vested with special powers lor the control of the harbour, and t Is fundamental that it should take into account every likely possibility and probability of casualties happening. It seems that the harbour has an unenviable reputation for casualties, and that is a factor which will react to its detriment sooner or later. One might almost say 'that the future prospects of the Grey harbour are bound up with its reputation, and if the position is not improved generally its future will be very seriously prejudiced.” , , Mr Foden then went on to deal with the questions that were submitted to the court at the conclusion of the evidence. The first one, he said, dealt with the way in which vessels were moored. Was the vessel moored in conformity with the practice of the port, he asked. It seemed clear that it was. The next branch of the question was whether it was moored to the satisfaction of the harbourmaster. Again it seemed that the answer was in the affirmative, he said. In other words, the harbourmaster was satisfied with the system for which he and his board were responsible. It seemed clear that they considered the system satisfactory, even after the accident to the Omana. One was inclined to speculate what the Harbour Board would have done after the accident to the Abel Tasman if the enquiry had not been held. He thought that it went without saying that the Harbour Board would have dene something, but having neglected to take any steps after the previous accident, one wondered whether they would have been alive to the advisability of taking remedial steps after this accident.

Improvement of Moorings

The second question raised the point whether there was room for improvement ih the system by the harbour board providing moorings. He suggested that the court might take a very wide view of that question, and bring in as many of the means of improvement to the system as they thought were worthy of consideration. The other suggestion put foxuvard by other officers seemed to lead to the irresistible conclusion that the system was really delV.ctive, and that it failed to take account of the various possibilities.

The third question was whether if the engines had been just turning over as distinct from running, they would have tended to avoid the casualty. The evidence showed that a very important end valuable period of time elapsed be* lore the engines were available. It was not suggested that any special recommendation should be made as to whether the engines should be allowed to run.

The master and the crew could have done nothing more than they did to save the_ vessel, said Mr Foden, discussing the fourth question. It was possible to say that to some extent ths harbour board did contribute to the casualty. Mr Foden said,

when mentioning the fifth question. Hipreferred not to lay the blame on any individual. It might be that the court considered that tne board s most t responsible officer, indirectly, it net directly. contributed to this casualty. It seemed that in some respects th? harbour practice had been tried and found wanting, Mr Foden submitted. The first point was that the practice of unshackling anchors from the chains was not sound. It was quite clear from the evidence that the anchor chains were not designed for moorings. It was quite clear that there was a failure on the part of everyone connected with the harbour to see that there was no repetition of the Omana casualty. The board seemed to have adopted a laissez-faire policy. Department’s Duty

It was very easy to be wise after the event, said Mr F. A. Kitchingham, who appeared for the board, in reply. He said that Mr Foden had devoted most of his time to an attack on the harbour board, which he thought was unworthy of the Marine Deparment. He submitted that if the board had a defective system the department in Wellington should have been well aware of it, and should have drawn the attention of the harbour board to what they considered the defects, and endeavoured to reach a satisfactory solution and safeguard against the defects and dangers wdiich existed. ' Broadly, the criticism took two forms, Mr Kitchingham said. The first was that the system was bad, and the second was that the board was blameable for not having done something after the Omana mishap. For 70 years, that was since Grey had been Grey, there had been three cases of vessels breaking loose from the wharf. All the gear on the Abel Tasman was supposed to be laid out and gone over by inspectors and officers, Mr Kitchingham said. If the gear were put out on the wharf, the harbourmaster was bound to take it that it was good. He could not go round with an instrument and examine.

Mr E. K. Kirkcaldie, who appeared for the master of the vessel and the owners, said that the ship was bought in 1933, and si: a was brought cut to Australia and was subjected to a very severe examination. The vessel was glassed 100 A 1 at Lloyd’s. The enquiries were not only to prevent accidents and censure masters, Mr Kirkcaldie continued. It had been laid down that courts of enquiry might also adopt a much mere pleasant function. That was fur extending praise where praise was due. He submitted that when the master had acted as capably as he had after the vessel had broken away, he deserved the highest commendation.