THE PORT OF OTAGO

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22065, 22 September 1933, Page 14

THE PORT OF OTAGO

DUNEDIN OR PORT CHALMERS?

COMMERCE STUDENTS’ DEBATE. \ '

The relative advantages of Dunedin and Port Chalmers as the possible sole ports of Otago were discussed in interesting fashion at the University Club last night between teams representing the Otago University Commerce Faculty Debating Society and the Commerce Faculty Ex-students’ Association respectively. The subject of the debate was “That the Otago Harbour Board should abandon the Port of Dunedin and concentrate solely on Port Chalmers,” the case for the affirmative being taken by Messrs G. S. Kirby (leader), W. R. Brown and Ralph Malcolm (ex-students), and for the negative by Messrs A. R. Cameron (leader), P. Wellington and R. Guthrie (present students). The president of the Commerce Faculty Debating Society (Mr L. M. Sutter-; thwaite) was in the chair, and the judge was Mr C. B. Barrowclough.

Opening the debate for the affirmative Mr Kirby said that his side’s contention was not that the Upper Harbour should be entirely abandoned, but that vessels able to use it might do so, although work on -its development should cease. Dunedin, he contended, could no longer be regarded as a first-class port, and he based his argument that concentration should be made on Port Chalmers on the facts that developments in modern transport demanded a change, that the present port charges were excessive, arid that changes in modern trade conditions, with increasingly larger ships, necessitated the greater berthage facilities which could be pi’ovided at Port Chalmers. There was no trouble experienced in negotiating the Upper Harbour by the small sailing vessels which first visited Dunedin, he said, but larger and larger ships became the mode, and this demanded the expenditure of large sums of money for the development of the Upper Harbour. The facilities provided at Dunedin in comparison to the amount of money spent, be claimed, were totally inadequate for handling modern shipping, and all of that extra cost could be eliminated if Port Chalmers were made the port of Otago. In addition, he drew attention to the fact that there were three lines of communication between Port Chalmers and Dunedin—a perfectly good road, an equally good railway, and, as be termed it, a “ ditch.” The “ ditch,” in his opinion, might well be abandoned in favour of the more efficient methods of transport offered by the road and the railway line. The cost of its upkeep was reflected in no small measure by the exceedingly high port charges levied on shipping entering the Upper Harbour.

Speaking for the negative side Mr Cameron claimed that the route for ships from the Heads to Port Chalmers was only one foot deeper than the Victoria Channel, and the amount of money realised by the Harbour Board from the latter was far greater than the expenses involved. The wharf space at Port Chalmers, he said, was totally inadequate to handle the amount of shipping that would enter the harbour, the docks and wharves were old, and from a geographical point of view there was no possibility of their expansion. Mr Cameron drew attention to the increasingly great demand for oil for commercial purposes, and said that as the bulk installation for oil imports was already set up at Dunedin the abandonment of the Upper Harbour would mean a tremendous loss to the oil companies. There was no space at Port Chalmers for such tanks to be installed, and it would necessitate the oil being pumped through a pipe lino from Port Chalmers to the present site at Dunedin. One of Mr Cameron’s main bases of argument was the extra cost that would be involved by Dunedin importers in having to have their goods railed from Port Chalmers to Dunedin, the cost of which, everything considered, would amount to 7s 9d per ton. This, he said, would militate very considerably against the establishment of the port at Port Chalmers. Mr Brown dwelt particularly with the high port charges at Dunedin and blamed the necessity for these to the expense of

maintaining Victoria Channel, after which Mr Wellington continued for the negative, introducing the novel aspect of the probability of the lack of distractions at Port Chalmers being a potential cause of crime and general misbehaviour among the crews of vessels in port for several days. After the remaining speakers had pleaded their respective cases, the leaders summed up, and the judge awarded the decision to the exstudents who bad taken the affirmative. A vote of thanks was passed to the judge and the speakers.