Civil aviation bill ‘unsatisfactory’

Press, 19 April 1982, Page 29

Civil aviation bill ‘unsatisfactory’

PA Wellington A bill the Opposition said gave Civil Aviation officials the power to create criminal offences has been introduced in Parliament. The Labour Party did not try to stop the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill’s introduction but called it legally objectionable and entirely unsatisfactory. The Opposition’s contention was that the bill gave the Director of Civil Aviation the power to create a criminal offence, said Labour’s spokesman on constitutional affairs, Mr G. W. R. Palmer (Christchurch Central). The power of prescribing requirements with the force of regulations was first given to the director by the principal act in 1964. But the Minister of Transport (Mr Gair) said in introducing the bill that “a degre of uncertainty” had crept in concerning whether the original act actually granted that power. “On two occasions the courts have expressed doubts as to the validity of certain regulations that prescribe offences against the requirements issued by the director,” said Mr Gair. The bill aimed to fix that by validating eight regulations and remove doubt with further provisions clarifying the director’s power. Mr Gair answered the Opposition’s assertion that the director was being given too much power to make regulations without consulting anyone by saying some of the matters concerned were so technical and so detailed that the. situation envisaged by the bill was “not unreasonable.” The regulations concerned were almost entirely in the field of aircraft safety, he said.

Mr Palmer said that the sort of power being granted to the director had been criticised two years ago by the Statutes Revision Committee of Parliament, and the Government had ignored that fact. Mr Gair called the Opposition’s arguments “a storm in a teacup” and said the proper time to raise this sort of matter was before the Commerce and Energy Select Committee, to which the bill was referred later. Mr R. W. Prebble (Lab., Auckland Central) suggested that the bill go to the Statutes Revision Committee because of its highly technical legal nature. But Mr Gair said there were “two good lawyers” on the Commerce and Energy Committee, and if the committee did not feel confident about considering the bill it could refer it to the Statutes

Revision Committee itself. The Labour Party did not oppose the move to send it to the Commerce and Energy select committee. The bill also clarified the role of the Aviation Security Service and provided regulations to require aircraft owners to implement their own security programmes to complement it. This was to enable New Zealand to comply with international obligations. - Also, the bill made the Chief Inspector of Air Accidents responsible to the Minister of Transport rather than the Ministry of Civil Aviation, said Mr Gair. Although the two posts have been held by the same person in recent years, the move was made to save the inspector making criticisms of the Civil Aviation Division to its Minister in charge, he said. *