CARRIAGE BY AIR

Dominion, Volume 33, Issue 283, 24 August 1940, Page 13

CARRIAGE BY AIR

Uniform Regulations

Desired LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES Advantages of international uniformity in regulations relating to the conveyance of passengers and goods by air were stressed by the Minister in charge of Aviation, Mr. Jones, in moving the second reading of the Carriage by Air Bill. After a brief discussion, during which Mr. Holland (Opposi tion. Christchurch North) criticized. a provision making the carrier liable for damages failing proof lo the contrary, the Bill was read a ‘second time and

referred to the Statutes Revision Committee.

Mr. Jones said the rapid development of air services had led to a demand by a large number of nations for an agreement dealing with international carriage by air. An international convention was made at a world conference in Warsaw in 1929. The convention was ratified by the British Government in 1932, and it was only in 1937 that New Zealand became a party to it. With the establishment of the transtasman and the South Pacific services the ratification of the convention by New Zealand was more necessary than ever, though it would apply to internal services as well. The unification of rules provided for in the convention affected the carrier, the consignor and the consignee. State services could be excluded from the convention, and he understood that the United States of America was the only nation that had asked to be allowed to do that. If uniformity could be brought about it was all to the good.

“I should have thought that the Bill would have dealt with the rights of the aircraft of one country to fly over another,” said the Leader of the Op position, Mr. Hamilton. “When Imperial Airways instituted its service it had some trouble about flying over countries on the route.” Mr. Holland said that from what the Minister had stated it seemed that the carrier was to be liable for any damages unless he could prove his innocence. If that was so, the Bill struck at 7 the fundamental principle of British justice. Mr. Jones: It is copied from the British Act. Mr. Holland said he realized that there were particular classes of cases when the onus of proof rested on the defendant, sly-grogging, for instance, but the general principle was that the plaintiff should have to establish his case. It seemed that the ordinary rules of law should apply. If a man was arrested for .drunkenness he did not have to prove his innocence; the prosecution had to prove his drunkenness. “We have always in this country acknowledged the principle that a party is innocent till proved guilty," said Mr. Holland.

A suggestion that the passage of the Bill should be delayed so that the point raised by Mr. Holland could be looked into was made by Mr. Endeau (Opposition, Remuera). The Prime Minister, Mr. Fraser: The principle in the Bill is what was adopted in the convention and agreed to in Britain. Mr. Endean said the Bill should have been submitted to the Statutes Revision Committee. Mr. Fraser: The Minister and I have no objection to that. If there is doubt about the legal application the question should be looked into. •