BIG BAY AIR

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 80, Issue 257, 29 October 1937, Page 6

BIG BAY AIR

WAS PILOT TREATED FAIRLY?, QUESTION RAISED IN HOUSE MINISTER REPLIES TO CRITIC I I Per Press Association. ] WELLINGTON, Oct. 28. Reference by Colonel J. Hargesl ! (Opp., Awarua) to the fatal air crash at Big Bay on December 30 last and : the official inquiry which followed i drew a protest from the Prime Min- ' ister (the Rt. Hon. M. J. Savage) , during the second reading of the debote on the Air Force Bill in the Hou..e of Representatives this afternoon. . Mr Hargest alleged that the pilot of the machine (Bradshaw) had been harshly treated. Mr Savage said that Mr Har-s r».B re;ice to the case was “over <|ia fence’’ and inat he was making a i definite charge against the Govern- . ment. | Mr Hargest said that he did not I think the decision of the Commission j ol Inquiry was wrong, but if there were to be large numbers of aircraft | in the Dominion they must accept the responsibility for accident and not do I anything to deter young men from ! taking to the air. Bradshaw showed i the most heroic conduct in rescuing all the victims from the sea, despite a cracked spine. Air Savage said the Minister would be bound to produce all the papers in connection with the inquiry. This was a definite charge against the GovernI ment and nothing to do with the Bill. He was going to insist on the Minister having the same right as tht critic. The Speaker (Hon. W. E. Barnard/ said it would hardly be fair for Mr Hargest to elaborate the particular case of the Big Bay air crash in referring to the Bill. He might make a reference in passing to substantiate any particular point which he wished to emphasise, and he would advise •'lie hon. member not to proceed with inference to the matter under the present measure. Mr Savage: If that is the ruling it will exclude the Minister from replying” to Mr Hargest’s contentions. Mr Savage suggested that Mr Hargest should complete his side of the case and that the Minister should be allowed equal freedom in the course of his reply. Mr Hargest referred to the fact. that the Minister had ordcred the in-y quiry into the Big Bay crash to be j held in camera and had given a weak explanation that the witnesses would; be more inclined to tell tie truth if the inquiry were not in fublic. Ha ( referred to the fact that two other , inquiries into air accidents had been made in public, and contended that some rule should be laid lov/n governing all inquiries. Mr Hirgest also stated that some six or se*en weeks after the Big Bay inquiry evidence which had been given, in canera had been produced against Bralshaw by the Crown Prosecutor. The Minister of Defence the Hon. F. Jones) in the course of his reply on the second reading o the Ajf Force Bill, detailed the tions betwen Bradshaw an the department. He stated that whn the inquiry was first mentioned heiad been in favour of having it held h public, but had been advised, first, that it should be held in private beause information might be elicit! which would lead to the saving of lie in the future, and second, that a pblic inquiry would be inadvisablein case subsequent proceedings wee taken against Bradshaw. He wished© clear himself and the Government from a charge that he had been nfair to Bradshaw, and said that he ad done everything he could to safegiird both Bradshaw and the public,and he thought Mr Hargest ha<J do? a disservice to Bradshaw in briring the matter up for discussion on he floor of the House. Mr Junes outlined his aebns and reasons for refusing to renv Brad*, shaw’s licence pending thdehargea which had been made agaiit him. After the enquiry four chafes had been preferred against hi for breaches of the regulations, and he j had been convicted on twof those charges, but, on a rehearinjof the case, had been convicted on fly one charge, that of failing to seehat his aircraft was properly loaded. In the face of those chargi said Mr Jones, how could he possiV have granted a renewal of Brjshaw's licence? The Minister stated'iat he had also been accused of Bradshaw a fair deal in haiig the inquiry held in committee. Ven he answered those charges ttore a magistrate he had that opportlity o£ a public hearing and also of futing the charges which had been ade. The Minister drew attentioto the dillicylty with which he wod have been faced if he had renewelßradshaw’s lidence, and Bradshaw It subsequently charged with manslshter, or, when flying on that Dewed licence had been responsible 1! killing someone else. Mr Jones st)d he had advised Bradshaw, on Sefrnbea 24, that an endorsed licence ifc being reissued to him, but I had learned that Bradshaw had floi be-* fore that. However, he had |ided to give him the benelit of thebubt, and he assured the House he hqione everything possible for Pilotirad-' shaw and had not wanted to s|hirn in an unfair position. Mr Hargest: Why were the fase* quent inquiries held in public? Mr Jones: I'm glad the honofcble member has asked that. When haw the evidence at the Bradshaw iftiry I I saw no objection to it public and when the decision to' whether other inquiries shou ba made public was required of mt decided the yshould be made publ • The proceedings had proveoat Bradshaw had ben careless, Hhe had suffered a good deal anbst money, but, Mr Jones said, h|ad wished to be fair to him andad given hi man endorsed licence. F Mr Hargest explained that h|ad not expressed dissatisfaction withe result of the inquiry.