Opposition Against Aviation Bill In Its Present Form; Suggests Full Investigation

Wanganui Chronicle, 4 August 1948, Page 5

Opposition Against Aviation Bill In Its Present Form; Suggests Full Investigation

(Press Association) PARLIAMENT BLDGS., 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 (Opp., Manawatu), when the House of Representatives resumed tonight and continued the second reading debate of the Civil Avintinn Rill

It was incorrect to say that ' vices because civil aviation was

Oram continued. 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.

I£ Sir Ralph Cochrane had been asked to submit a report on tire present organisation of aviation it would be a greatly different report from that which he made in 1936. 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 all was not well with civil aviation in the country, because while the Bill set up an organisation arrangements had been made for an expert 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 setup of civil aviation in New Zealand," said Mr, Oram.

He went on to say, after discussing legislation which the present Bill repealed, that the Director of Civil Aviation, whose appointment would be confirmed on the passing of the measure, would still not be the sole head of his department,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 an operative clause of the Bill made it clear that he would be under the administrative pontrol of the Air Secretary, who in turn, was responsible to the Minister of Defence. The Bill, presumedly, 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 rindings <jf a commission of inquiry into the return of 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 setup the Director of Civil Aviation would be subservient to the Air Secretary.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Fraser): If you knew the director you wouldn't think he was subservient. 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 and issue of licences, certificates of airworthiness, air certificates. training of personnel, observing the standards of maintenance of ' aircraft and aerodromes, and 101 other technical matters which went toward providing the safety of machines and passengers. A further responsibility was to see that tbr regulations were rigidly and impartially enforced.

herc was a grouping of air sersubservient to the Air Force, Mr. 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. SAFETY STANDARDS FIRST. 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 safetv standards. It was the experience ot countries in which aviation was more highly developed than in New Zeffland was I hat 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 heanng, 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, 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 dift-ing the inquiry. The Commission's report declared the control of civil aviation in New Zealand unsatisfactory in some respects and said the Director of Civil Aviation had been unable to carry out his re- • sponsibilities fully. Mr. Oram claimed that there had been interference at a 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 a report I of the Commission on the Tasman I mishap, to discuss these matters with the coming British mission of experts, and, in the light of the facts It would thus ascertain, make recommendations to the Government. The Opposition could not assent to the Bill proceeding in its present form.