SHIPPING COY. AIR SERVICE ADVOCATES

Grey River Argus, 7 August 1948, Page 2

SHIPPING COY. AIR SERVICE ADVOCATES

National Party and ■ Tasman Transport WELLINGTON, August 6 Even in the home of monopolies—the United States—shipping companies were prohibited from owning or operating air companies. The Opposition was not in favour of that nrohibition and Mr W. A. Hudson (Govt., Mornington), continuing the second reading debate on the Civil Aviation Bill and speaking against the amendment moved by Mr C. G. Harker (Nat., Hawke’s Bay), last night. Recentlv a deputation waited upon the manager of the Union Steam Ship Company and asked for reinstatement of the passenger service from Australia to South Island ports. The company was not interested because Australian National Airways was hoping to start an air service between Melbourne and Flarewood. The Union Steam Ship Company were shareholders in A.N.A. and the deputation was told that to provide a steamer service a subsidy of £150.000 would be required to be guaranteed for several years. “The Union Steam Ship Company, more than any other single factor, has been responsible for the neglect of the South Island,” said Mi’ Hudson, “because of their stranglehold on shipping.” Through the A.N.A. the Union Company w-anted to strengethen their stranglehold. The A.N.A., so far as New Zealand was concerned, had nothing to offer us. FOG-BOUND HAREWOOD Referring to the establishment of an international airport in the South Island, Mr Hudson said that for three out of the last four Saturdays Harewood had been fog-bound. Harewood did not possess all the advantages which had been claimed for it. On one occasion, when Invercargill was bathed in sunshine, Harewood was fog-bound. He considered an international airport for the South Island was unwarranted at present, but, if the tourist traffic was going to be catered for, the Invercargill aerodrome must be considered. Mr. T. P. Shand (Nat., Marlborough) supporting the amendment, said the remarks of the member for Mornington were responsible for the feeling of frustration felt by people who were really interested in aviation in New Zealand. NO OCTUPUS

Mr Shand said it was incorrect to say that A.N.A. was an “octopus monopoly,” and, had the member for Mornington studied the origin of the company, he would have realised that. , , Mr Hudson: I had a look at the shareholders.

Mr Shand said there were two other major and privately-owned air companies in Australia and they had made profits last year. A Government member: With subsidies.

Mr Shand said the State-owned airlines had made losses. OBSTRUCTIVE AMENDMENT

The Attorney-General, the Hon. H. G. R. Mason, said the amendment moved by Mr Harker did not merit discussion. It was of an obstructive character and did nothing to advance the cause of civil aviation in New Zealand. “I must leave it to those of weaker judgment to discuss it,” said Mr Mason. Mr R. M. Algie (Nat., Remuera): We’ll all be in then. Mr G. R. Herron (Nat., Awarua) made a plea for more liberal Government support for aero clubs. He said that men who had spent £4 an hour of their own money deserved some help. The Government appeared to be unsympathetic to the aero clubs. Its assistance was far less generous than that given in other countries. Mr Herron said there had been talk of another service to Sydney from Wellington. It would be most unfair if both ends of the North Island were made terminals for the trans-Tasman service and the South Island left with no direct service. It was less important to the South Island whether a terminal was placed at Harewood, Timaru, or Invercargill than that there should be a direct service from the terminal to the other centres. “STONEWALL” TACTICS Mr A. C. Baxter (Govt., Raglan), said the Opposition had attempted to undermine the confidence of the travelling public, to whom he gave an assurance that no plane was taken into the air if there was any doubt about its condition. He said the bill had little to do with the actual administration of civil aviation and the Opposition had chosen to submit the amendment as stonewall tactics. Mr Baxter, on the intervention of Mr Speaker, withdrew the term “stonewall” and said the Opposition was delaying the passage of the Bill by moving the amendment. Mr W A- Bodkin (Nat., Central Otago): Fighting for the safety of the public. Mr Baxter: That’s the point I wish to challenge. The Opposition is trying to. undermine the confidence of the travelling public. I want to reassure the travelling public that thev are in safe hands. Mr Baxter said there was no' reason why the bill should not be passed in its present form. When the report of the experts was submitted, the Opposition would then have an opportunity to criticise it. New Zealand should make every effort to ratify the international agreement and comply with the provisions involved at the earliest opportunity. Mr F. W. Doidge (Nat., Tauranga) said that liaison between Sydney, a partner of T.E.A., and New Zealand must be very weak if the Minister of Defence had not heard of the desire of A.N.A. to run a service across the Tasman, because the manager of A.N.A. had written to Sydney. That letter further mentioned that respective Governments were making a plaything of A.N.A., although when they were in difficulties they approached A.N.A. for aid. < CRITICAL QUESTION The Minister of Finance, the Rt. Hon. W. Nash, said that what he wanted to know was why a private company, which wanted to come to New Zealand, applied to its competitor and not to the Government? A.N.A. was a private company, owned by shipping companies, who desired to continue their monopoly. Mr Nash said he had no doubt that if A.N.A. could get a licence to fly between Australian and New Zealand they would be happy to take it. He did not question the competency of the company in regard to management, but, even if they had applied to the Government for a licence, he would be pleased as a member of the Government to say “No.” BENEFIT TO N.Z.

Mr Doidge: Did the Minister say “no” when we were in difficulties? Mr Nash said the arrangements between the New Zealand, Australian and British Governments for the joint operation of T.E.A., was beneficial to New Zealand and to Australia and linked Britain in the way that was desired with these two British countries in the South Pacific. He would be glad at any time to discuss the most effective way of furthering this association between the three countries, but that wav certainly would not be to let anyone

else in to conduct a rival service. The Government would continue tn monopolise the Trans-Tasman service in conjunction with Australia and Great Britain. The evidence of the nast 2'5 years was that there was an inevitable trend towards monopoly in the control of big utilities, and. while he was not fond, of State ownership as such, it was clear that where monopoly control was necessary it should be in the hands of the State for the benefit of the peoples concerned, rather than in private hands.