FARMERS CRITICAL OF WATER BILL

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31316, 11 March 1967, Page 10

FARMERS CRITICAL OF WATER BILL

In submissions to the Lands and Agriculture Committee of the House of Representatives Federated Farmers strongly urges that no such legislation as the Water and Soil Conservation Bill should be enacted before there is the fullest consultation with all parties affected, and in particular farmers.

Because the BUI represents such a major departure from existing law and practice on the use of water in this country, and because the rights of so many different sections of the community are involved, it is very important that no steps are taken before a thorough examination of the whole situation and the many problems involved is made. . . . This study is not a matter confined to the text of this particular bill. The Bill in turn has affect on more than 80 different Acts of Parliament . . . “A special inter-departmen-tal committee has been considering this proposed legislation for three years and even now there are still many issues and problems which have not been resolved. . . . This appears to us to be placing haste and expediency above other considerations. Government departments represented on the committee have been able to take part in detailed and comprehensive deliberations on the matter. Federated Farmers attempted, at times, to obtain access to this committee but was informed it was a confidential committee confined to

Government departments. At no time during these deliberations were Federated Farmers, one of the groups most affected, consulted or asked for its views.” The federation urges that the report of the special committee, on which the present bill is based, should be released and the Government should appoint a committee of inquiry which would bring down a report on the policy which should be adopted for water and soil conservation in this country. In this way a national water policy could be formulated based on consultation and consensus. The functions and powers of the authority and councils as set out in the bill create a powerful new apparatus of Government, which, with its large measure of autonomy from direct Parliamentary oversight, must surely give cause to any person interested in democratic processes to ask that such a step be taken only after the most

serious and open debate and deliberation. The bin, says the federation, makes radical changes to existing rights and introduces a licensing system for water without anywhere referring to compensation for loss of existing rights. It is also silent on such important matters, which would come under a licensing system, as continuity, compensation for revocation, penalties against abuse and protection of existing water users. . . . Under the legislation licences to use water will be created at the expense of landholders who have rights for which they have paid in the capital value of their land, while at the same time a privileged position is being assured other licence-holders, including irrigators, metropolitan and industrial users. Those losing rights should be compensated and those given a privileged position should pay for this. The federation submits that a system of royalties for water use similar to royalties paid to the Crown for minerals, tim- ' her and ironsands should be introduced. These royalties should go towards reducing local body rates levied in rural areas for water and soil conservation wark. The federation is opposed to the constitution of the National Water and Soil Conservation Authority as set out in the Bill. It is its considered opinion that the proposed authority, which has been given such wide powers, in no way represents rural landholders. It is rural landholders whose existing rights are most affected, whose lands will be subjected to whatever future measures are to be undertaken to ensure the objectives of the present Bill and who are vitally concerned with the use of water. . . . The absence of representation of Federated Farmers on the Pollution Advisory Council as set, out in the Bill is also a matter which it. views with much concern. . . •. “It does indeed seem strange to

us that a position can now be found on this council for a person to represent recreational interests in water and yet no representation is given to farmers.” The Water Allocation Council is an extremely important council but quite insufficient weight has been given to farming representation. The landholders of New Zealand would be represented by only one person and the federation suggests that representation of Federated Farmers should be increased from one to two —one to represent farmers in each island. Among objectionable features of the Bill, according to the federation, is a provision which would appear to vest in regional water boards power to enter any private land and construct works or dam or divert water without prior notice (except public notice) or consultation with the owner of that land. The same sub clause also gives a regional water board the right to cancel authorisations “whenever the public interest so requires.” There is no reference to an appeal or compensation. It is submitted that any works carried out which involved entry on private land or interference with the landholder’s use and enjoyment of his land or of water runn»ng alongside or through his land should only be carried out after consultation and negotiation with each individual landholder, together

with the payment of compensation if necessary. The privileged position given Government departments is not only objectionable, but provisions of the bill would appear to deny substantial rights to individuals and other parties whose property may be affected by Crown decisions, says the federation. The appeal rights in the proposed legislation are entirely inadequate, according to the federation. The federation also objects to the 'provision in the bill under which all applicants and other parties would meet expenses and costs of the board. This could prove very onerous to many individual applicants, farmers who have lost existing rights and would now have to make an application to dam or divert water for stock and domestic purposes. Investigations of such a scheme might involve considerable expense. This should not be borne by the landholder, especially as he was being deprived of very valuable rights and privileges under the Bill.