New planning bill brings exasperation

Press, 14 November 1977, Page 18

New planning bill brings exasperation

By

CEDRIC MENTIPLAY

In the legislation which has characterised the 1977 session of Parliament, few matters have occasioned more widespread exasperation than the handling of the massive Town and Country Planning Bill. Nearly five years ago proposals for a total review of the parent 1953 act were actively considered. As a result, a draft document of 132 pages appeared some three months ago. It is a major and complex legislative measure which will make drastic changes to the existing law affecting all New Zealanders.

A special select committee was set up to hear representations from interested persons and bodies on the bill — and at the same time it was clearly said that the Government wished the measure to be passed through all stages this session.

An initial period of five weeks was allowed for representations to be filed. This was extended to seven weeks, but responsible bodies have lodged strong objections against the restrictions imposed. An additional irritation lay in the fact that for some time copies of the bill were difficult to obtain. The New Zealand Law Society has expressed its regret on the short space of time given it to prepare

submissions. As soon as it learned the Government’s intention to proceed with the bill this year, the society appointed a six-man committee comprising members from Auckland Wellington Christchurch and Dunedin with considerable experience in local and regional authorities, as well as a member of the law faculty of Auckland University. The bill was introduced into the House on August 24 this year. The Law Society’s committee met initially in August, had two full-day meetings in September, and also received submissions from individuals and two district societies. The Law Society has made strong submissions that a measure of the importance of this one deserves more consideration than has been given. The public issues committee of the Auckland District Law Society, which insists that its views are its own and do not represent the views of all lawyers, has produced a report on what it considers the dangerous practice of successive recent governments to rush legislation through Parliament. “Hasty and ill-considered legislation has become an oft-repeated refrain, not without cause,” says the Auckland committee’s report. “All too often the concern of the critics is verified by the complexity and un-

certainty of statutory provisions and the high proportion of time the New Zealand Parliament spends in assing amending legislation.

“Nevertheless the tendency persists for Governments, backed by a majority in caucus and supported by strict party discipline, to push measures through the legislative process without allowing sufficient time for mature reflection and consideration.”

As applied to the Town and Country Planning Bill, this comment has been strongly backed by environmentalists, local body officers, lawyers and others. Time restrictions on the preparation of submissions have been complicated by the fact that the proposed new regulations ’ contemplated under the new act have not been available for study. There is no legal spelling-out of definitions, such as what constitutes a “public notice.” The bill makes major changes to the structure of town planning throughout New Zealand — but it also exerts a pressure on the rights of the individual citizen. This occurs in a number of special ways: 1. Central government plays

a much more prominent part than at present in planning responsibilities. In certain circumstances the Minister, rather than an independent tribunal, is the final authority. Councils will enjoy new and unprecedented delegated authority, Councils may determine their own application procedures in circumstances not expressly covered, the council being its own determining authority, without appeal,

The simple (but undefined) “public notice” replaces the present requirement that persons materially affected must be notified. If a council acts unlawfully, appeal to the Supreme Court is excluded where there is a

right of appeal to the planning tribunal.

When the select committee, the chairman of which is Mr L. C. Schultz (National, Coromandel) started its hearings, it was faced with 222 submissions, plus 56 individual representations on one clause. In its first six meetings it dealt

with only 18 submissions. One can be sympathetic with the committee-mem-bers, who by this time must realise the 'hopelessness of their task.

Last Thursday the committee decided to hear no more submissions, having heard about 40. It is understood that the committee had received a total of 238 submissions and 70 letters, most of which referred to clause 5 of the bill. The committee chairman (Mr L. C. Schultz, Nat., Coromandel) justified the stoppage of hearings by saying that most of the main national organisations had been heard.

In about a fortnight the committee will begin its deliberations, with the idea of reporting the bill back to the House at the end of this month or the beginning of December. There has been no deviation in the Government’s intention to pass the bill through all stages this year. The experiences of some bodies in trying to get their views before the committee are equally disturbing. The New Zealand Maori Council, for instance, spent $5OO in air fares alone in an attempt to get their views before the committee — and were

given about 15 minutes to make a brief statement, and a similar time to state their case. Many questions posed by members of the council in their own discussions remained unanswered.

Time is now running short. Though Parliament has made prodigious efforts this week to clear the 60odd general bills either on the Order Paper or before select committees, the great mass of promises remains. Before the House rises, apart from the bulk of legislation, it must (if promises are observed) dispose of the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Bill, the Town and Country Planning Bill, and the four component measures of the "industrial relations package.” Heavy deferments are expected. Progress will undoubtedly be made before the Prime Minister (Mr Muldoon) returns at the end of November, but those who predict that Parliament will rise on December 9 are few, and not very many favour December 16. Some of the heat and pressure would undoubtedly be removed if the Town and Country Planning Bill were allowed to remain before its committee for further evidence and study during the Parliamentary recess. This might even obviate the need for amending legislation in the near future — which would be another way to reduce Parliament’s load.

Comment from the Capital