SURVEY OF SHIR

Hokitika Guardian, 21 November 1932, Page 8

SURVEY OF SHIR

MARINE DEPARTMENT .' criticised!

WELLINGTON, November 17,

Following trenchant criticism by Mr 11. T. Armstrong (Christchurch East) of the finding of a committee a recortimendation that no action be taken in the petition of Cygnet, Ltd., which asked for compensation for loss incurred though alleged negligence on the part of an officer of the Marine Department, was referred back to the committee for further consideration by the House to-day. “The finding of the committee is the most remarkable that ever has been brought under my notice,” said Mr Armstrong. “It is against the weight of evidence, and I can’t, understand how sensible people would bring in such a ro:ommendation.”

Mr Armstrong said Cygnet, Ltd., owned two small vessels. These had to be inspected annually by the Marine Department. When one vessel was undergoing inspection the Marine Surveyor at Lyttelton was asked to report on what repairs would cost, as if they were too high it was the intention of the company to scrap the ship. Repairs costing £IOBO were undertaken on the strength of the report and a certificate of seaworthiness was given by the surveyor, SCRAPED HOLE IN SIDE. Five weeks later, when the vessel was being scraped at Wellington, one of the men scraped a 'hole'in the Aside, ft then was found that ten or 'twelve plates needed renewal', at a cost of £2OOO to £3OOO. The Vessel was worth' only gbout £2OOO, arid' tile company decided to scrap her. If such a ebriditon existed when the vessel was surveyed at Wellington, then it rtitist have prevailed when she was surveyed at Lyttelton, said Mr Armsrong. The Marine Department admitted its mistake and the officer concerned was retired 'on a medical cer. tificate that he was not fit to do his work. ' '' •' ‘ ”' “ JUST A FLUKE.” “I am not so mu_h ct.ri ri.ned about the company, but I am concerned about the safety of the men in ' the ship,”' he added. “It is just a fluke she didn’t go down like the Ripple and' the Kotiti. 1 Siie was sent to sea on the certificate of the Marine Depart, ment when she was rotten and falling to pieces.” He moved that the petition be referred back for further consideration. :

Mr McCombs (Lyttelton) seconded the motion. ' >

The chairman of the committee, Mr Healy, admitted that the facts were as outlined by Mr Armstrong, but said the ship Was forty-seven years old and before deciding to spend money on a vessel of that age the owners should have obtained the opinion of an outside authority: He admitted that the Marine Department did -no 1 have a strong case. The Prime Minister said that under the cicumstances he had no objection to the report 'being referred back; to' the committee, arid this action was taken by the House.