Mr Kirk Says Govt Intends To Go Ahead

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32222, 14 February 1970, Page 1

Mr Kirk Says Govt Intends To Go Ahead

The Government had no intention of departing from its plan to raise the level of Lake Manapouri j for electricity generation for an aluminium smelter, and the national grid, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Kirk) said| yesterdav. Mr Kirk said this when err-' ticising a leading article in “The Press." The article, he said was so misleading and contained such incorrect! assertions as to reduce it to the status usually associated; with anonymous letters “I have not haggled with the Prime Minister over who first wanted to raise the lake, but surely, when the Minister, the Deputy Prune Minister, the Minister of Works and others seek to evade the responsibility and; the consequences of their 1 nwn actions by trying to blame this quite wrongly on events of some 10 rears ago I have the right to rebut them." Mr Kirk sa ' d - “I have not haggled: I don't want to haggle, and I'm certainly not going to take everything that happens to enter the collective mind of

the National Party Govern>ment, lying down. “The editorial asserts that; I and my party have changed: our minds since 1960. This is' ' just not correct. “The facts are that in I 960: an agreement was ratified: with the approval of Parlia-; ment that opened a number! of options for investigation. ’ 1 “None of these options; were exercised at that time., -• nor was any decision made on raising the lake to this, that I or any level. “And indeed, assurances; were given by the then Prime; Minister (Mr Nash) and the Minister of Works and Elec-* tricity (Mr Watt). 1 quote * from Hansard, third reading of the Manapouri-Te Anau Development Bill on October ' 6, I96o:—‘Mr Watt: I have given them an assurance, as has the Prime Minister, that ‘ if the power that is required for the aluminium industry ' can be produced at a price [that will enable the company to sell its products on the world market without raising the lake, then the lake will nnt.be raised.' “This assurance was given; hearing in mind that an alter native to raising the lake may ; have involved alternative , works and expenditure. On ' November 7. 1969. at Bluff.

;and reported in the Southland papers, Mr Watt restated the view that 1 have always held, I and which 1 believe the party : has always held, that it ought to be possible to provide the I requirements of the smelter II without raising the level of *Lake Manapouri beyond its •|natural high water level: and Ithat a Labour Government J would not raise the lake be- . yond that point. i “It will be seen that these !: two statements are quite consistent and do faithfully re- >* present the views that I have • always held," Mr Kirk said >: “There is reference in the • editorial to this escaping the j notice of electors, and this ; may well be so, because i neither this statement nor • statements which I made my- ; self concerning the matter ; apoeared to have impressed t ‘The Press’ with their newsI worthiness at the time, for . there did not appear in your > columns. Surely this is a fault r for which I can hardly be > blamed. , “In making my statement. I on Tuesday night, and again after the caucus, in opposition to the raising of the lake level. I was mindful that it was the changes made to the .[original agreement in 1963 which had created the very ' real danger of the lake levels . now being raised.

* ‘Under the Labour Govern- - menfs 1960 proposal. Mana * , pouri was to generate elec-1 ■ tricity for the smelter alone I : “Under the 1963 agree-* * merit, made by the present National Party Government,’ ’ the project was extended to| > generate electricity—l quote* I from the background notes! * of the Minister of Works of I ■ February this year—‘to pro-] vide cheap electric power fori i both the Comalco aluminium * smelter at Bluff and the ■ national grid.’ ■ “This is the root of the trouble, and the responsi- . bility rests at the Govern- ; ment’s door for this situation, ; just as it does for the decis- ; ion to raise or not to raise ■ the lake level. “The agreement can be’ ‘ changed. The Government has | I changed it twice before, and - when it changed it in the ‘ agreement in 1963, Mr Hanan ‘ told Parliament (page 1680, t Hansard, Manapouri-Te Anau : Development Bill, September 4, 1963): ‘The Government . by this bill assumes complete* i responsibility for the pre ! * servation of the scenic* ■ beauties.’ * “Thus the responsibility! ■: for the present situation is i I clear. The precedents for ■ chanting the agreement are : established, and would be no : more nor less difficult to

, arrange than the abrogation I by a National Party Governiment of the Nelson cotton ; mill agreement. ; “The fact is that in spite of its committees and indei pendent commission, the Government has no intention of [departing from its plan to [raise the lake levels. | “It certainly does not injtend to change the agree- * ment, a point made by Mr Marshall, Deputy Prime Minister. on January 31, 1970. “Finally, while the editorial makes the point clearly enough that the cost of changing the agreement would re suit in an increase in costs associated with electricity * generation, . it unfortunately ; adopts the line the Governirnent has been happy to pursue—that an increase in electricity charges for consumers is implied automatically. “In the first week of February, in the notes provided by the Minister of [Electricity it was said that * increased costs of an alterna- ; tive to raising the lake would * exceed St million a year. “A * few days later, in accordance ;with his usual practice, he increased his estimate to something over $3l million a year. Even so, this does not mean that electricity charges

Ito consumers would need to | be increased. I “Last year the Electricity * Department made a profit on : its operations of $21,756,000. , Such an increase in costs | could easily be carried inside [such a profit margin," Mr [Kirk said. | “Mr Editor, the Labour [ Party’s position on this issue is clear. It would be useful i if your paper’s position was I just as clear, so that both of !us together could try to get the Government to make its position clear. Powers of Crown “1 am sorry that little prominence has been given to the firm proposal that had been made that the Nature Conservation Act, the National Parks Act. the Historic Places Trust Act, the Town Planning Act and all such conservation and environmental legislation should be amended to bind the Crown so that it would be subject to the same strictures and requirements as the rest of the community and that any one of the authorities involved could be overuled only if and when the Government had been given specific authority by Parliament in the form of a special empowering statute.”