Opposition Criticises Proposed Grouping of Dominion Air Services

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26841, 4 August 1948, Page 5

Opposition Criticises Proposed Grouping of Dominion Air Services

WELLINGTON, Aug. 3

The Minister of Defence had skirted around the subject without mentioning the kernel of the matter at all, said Mr M. H. Oram (Oppn., Manawatu), when the House of Representatives resumed to-night and continued the second reading of the debate on the Civil Aviation Bill. It was incorrect to say that there was a grouping of the air services, because civil aviation was subservient to the air force. The Minister had contended that the grouping of the services had saved expenditure but the Opposition’s contention was that the safety of the public came first. The external air services had nothing to do with the present Bill which was

concerned with civil aviation in the Dominion. The Minister’s speech tacitly admitted that ail was not well with civil aviation in the country because, while the Bill set up an organisation,

arrangements had been made for experts to investigate matters,

“ The Opposition opposes the Bill not because of its general provisions or because it adopted the international convention signed at Chicago in 1944 but because of the whole set-up of civil aviation in New Zealand,” said Mr Oram.

Mr Oram went on to say. after discussing the legislation which the present Bill repealed, that the Director of Civil Aviation, whose appointment would be confirmed on the passing of the measure, would still not be the sole head of his department because the operative clause of the Bill made it clear that he would be under the administrative control of the Air Secretary, who in turn was responsible to the Minister of Defence. The Bill, presumably, was the Government’s last word so far as its intentions and policy on civil aviation were concerned. The Bill had been drawn up after the findings of the commission of inquiry into the return of the Tasman Empire Airways 'Sandringham machine, and it must be presumed that it was intended to neglect the findings of the commission.

Mr Oram reiterated that in the proposed set-up the Director of Civil Aviation would be subservient to the Air Secretary. The Prime Minister, Mr Fraser: If you knew the director you would not think he was subservient. Great Progress

Mr Oram said that in no field had there been greater progress than in aviation, which fell into three categories—the air force, operating companies, and civil aviation, which had the responsibility of laying down the conditions of the issue of licences, certificates of airworthiness, air certificates, the training of personnel, observing the standards of maintenance of aircraft, aerodromes, and many other technical matters which went toward providing for the safety of machines and passengers. A further responsibility was to see that regulations were rigidly and impartially enforced.

Mr Oram said there must naturally be the closest co-ordination between the air force for national defence and the companies which conducted the civilian services. Totally different considerations applied to the development of each branch of aviation. Above all, the Civil Aviation Department must be free from outside influence to enable it to lay down and enforce safety standards.

It was the experience of countries in which aviation was more highly developed than in New Zealand that the administration of military and civil aviation must be separate. In this country the present set-up was entirely wrong, for the Air Secretary, who was over the Director of Civil Aviation, was at the same time director and vice-chairman of one of the operating companies. The Opposition’s contention was borne out by the appointment and report of the commission which inquired into the incident of December last 'when an aircraft was forced to turn back during a Tasman flight. But for the insistence of the Director of Civil Aviation that a proper inquiry be held it would have been merely a whitewashing hearing, declared Mr Oram.

Fortunately the director’s insistence resulted in the appointment of qualified personnel and in the Director of Civil Aviation, through his deputy, being represented at the inquiry as well as the Air Secretary. His deputy led the evidence as well as the Air Secretary and the result was that much evidence came out which otherwise would not have seen the light of day. The Air Secretary, who was also a director of Tasman Empire Airways, should have stepped aside altogether during the inquiry. The commission’s report declared that the control of civil aviation in New Zealand was unsatisfactory in some respects and said that the Director of Civil Aviation had been unable to carry out his responsibilities fully. Ministerial Interference

Mr Oram claimed that there had been interference at Ministerial or some other high level to set aside the decisions of the Civil Aviation Branch, which was responsible for public safety. The commission realised that civil aviation administration could not be free and independent—as it must be in the public interest—under the present conditions. The Bill should not be allowed to proceed at the present time. A committee of the House should investigate the whole question of civil aviation, to consider the report of the commission on the Tasman mishap, to discuss these matters with Sir Frederick Tymm’s mission, and in the light of the facts it would thus ascertain and make recommendations to the Government. The Opposition could not assent to the Bill proceeding in its present form.

Mr Fraser said lie denied entirely Mr Oram’s dictum that civil aviation in New Zealand was not independent. There had not been, as far as he could discover, a scrap of evidence before the Tasman commission of inquiry to support its findings on this aspect of the matter. Mr Oram: The commission did not have the relevant files before it.

Mr Fraser said that if any person had interfered with the safety of civil aviation, even if it were the Air Secretary himself or a director of Tasman Empire Airways, that person should be dealt with, but there was no evidence to support the allegation made by Mr Oram. If any person connected with aviation had at any point interfered in a manner affecting the safety of the lives of those travelling by air then that person was unworthy of the position he occupied. The Prime Minister said he had looked in vain for any evidence tendered to the Tasman Commission supporting its conclusions about tbe control ot civil aviation. He bad asked for any further evidence to that effect but had been unable to get it. Mr Fraser said that while the relative merits of privately owned and publicly owned aviation could be debated, it was worth remembering that in Britain it was not the Labour Government which set up British Overseas Airways Corporation. Aviation had made vast strides in New Zealand under this Government, and the lack of serious accidents compared well with the reco"d of any country. Nothing in the Bill would impinge on or cut across the inquiry to be made shortly by the visiting mission of British experts. Safety must be the first consideration at all times.

Mr Fraser said that in engaging the mission from Britain, the Government was doing as much for aviation as if it had appointed a Royal Commission. It was nonsense to say of civil aviation in the Dominion that “ things must be bad ” because the Government had invited Sir Frederick and his associates to investigate the services here.