Civil Aviation Control In New Zealand Under Fire

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 22707, 4 August 1948, Page 3

Civil Aviation Control In New Zealand Under Fire

PARLIAMENT IN SESSION

( P R ) WELLINGTON, August 4. “The Opposition opposes this bill not because of its general provisions nor because it adopts the international convention signed at Chicago in 1944, but because of the whole set-up of civil aviation in New Zealand.”

In these words, Mr. M. H. Oram (Opp., Manawatu) began a strong Opposition attack on the Civil Aviation Bill in the House of Representatives last night-

4 The bill should not be allowed to proceed, he said. Instead, there should be an inquiry by a committee of the House into the findings of the Leech Commission and an examination of the relative files of the Air and Civil Aviation Departments. The committee should discuss the matter with Sir Frederick Tymms after he had made his report and then recommend to the Government the form which the organisation for the control of civil aviation should take. Main Points of Criticism

The main criticisms made by Mr. Oram were:— 1. The Director of Civil Aviation was under the administrative control of the Air Secretary who. in turn, was responsible to the Minister of Defence. 2. The Air Secretary was not only the head of the Air Department but also director of an operating company. 3. Only the insistence of the Director of Civil Aviation had prevented investigation into the Sandringham mishap from being a “whitewashing” inquiry. A vehement denial that civil aviation was not independent in New Zealand was made by the Prime Minister, Mr. P. Fraser. There was not one scrap of evidence to justify some of the statements the commissioners had made. He knew of only one case of Ministerial interference in New Zealand aviation administration, and that was his own intervention to resolve an impasse in wartime. The Minister in moving the second reading hardly touched the kernel of the subject, said Mr. Oram. He used the Cochrane report of 193 G as a justificationd for the grouping of civil aviation and air defence, suggesting that the paramount consideration was cnonomy. The Opposition considered that the paramount consideration was public safety. The Cochrane report, if made today, would have been quite different. Should Have Been Deferred The measure should not have been introduced until the report of Sir Frederick Tymms became available. Presumably, the Government had decided to ignore the sweeping findings of the commission which investigated the mishap to the Sandringham aircraft, and to maintain the existing setup whereby the Director of Civil Aviation was subservient to the administrative bead of the Air Department. The Prime Minister: If you knew the director you would know that he would not be subservient. In the hands of the Civil Aviation Department alone should be the responsibility for the safety of aircraft, and those who travelled in them, said Mr. Oram. This department should be free from outside interference in order that safety factors should be strictly enforced. There should be a separate department for the Air Force based on the practice of countries which had had more experience of air development. In the inquiry into the Sandringham mishap, which was conducted by men of outstanding ability, the Air Secretary had insisted on his own representative apearing to lead the evidence, but the Director of Civil Aviation was not satisfied and sent his own deputy. The Air Secretary, said Mr. Oram, should have stood aside because he was an interested party as a director of Tasman Airways. Tire commission found that the control of civil aviation in New Zealand was not satisfactory. They expressed themselves strongly over the nonenforcement of the regulations, and even suggested that if their findings were not accepted, the whole question of control should be investigated by a Royal Commission. Did Not Want Scapegoat He had asked for the evidence from the commission to bear out what its members had said concerning the control of civil aviation, said Mr. Fraser. The reply was that they did not want to look for a scapegoat. All that Mr. Oram had put up was an indictment of the Tasman Airways directorate. “Would any member of the House say that any member of the directorate would risk human life for any motive at all?” asked M.r Fraser. Mr. Oram: Why is the Director of Civil Aviation under the Air Secretary?

His recollection was that the director was not under the Air Secretary on questions of safety, replied the Prime Minister. He had nothing to say against the members of the Leech Commission, but he had looked in vain through the evidence to back up their opinions. New Zealand had a great air safety record. He considered that there was nothing in the present bill to frustrate the investigations to be made by the experts invited by the Government from Britain. The present method of control of civil aviation in New Zealand should have been abandoned five years ago, said Mr. T. P. Shand (Oppos., Marlborough). In'all major countries civil aviation was entirely separate from the Ministry of Defence. The Minister of Defence had suggested that separate departments would mean a duplication of services, but this would be unnecessary. Independence of Control “We should ensure independence of control when the operating companies are Government-owned,’’ Mr. Shand continued. The Director of Civil Aviation in his evidence to the commission had attributed the lack of accidents over the Tasman to good fortune. The operating companies were astonished that a responsible officer should make such a remark, but within a week the commission had recommended the grounding of the aircraft. Either the director did not have authority to stop the service, or he could not use that authority, said Mr. Shand. Some evidence before the commission had been taken in chambers as it oentained criticism of a Government department and the commission did not want to expose the department’s files to public gaze. On those files was a letter from the manager of Tasman Empire Airways to a high officer saying that the Director of Civil Aviation was becoming obstructive and asking the officer if he could take the matter up on a higher level. After some Government interjections Mr. Shand said he could not say if the letter was on the file, but he knew that it was written.

“Just one more example of the Opposition quoting alleged 1 documents without proof,” commented Mr. W. W. Freer (Govt., Mt. Albert).