Little cheer for harbour board in new act

Press, 11 January 1978, Page 12

Little cheer for harbour board in new act

By

OLIVER RIDDELL

in Wellington

The Marlborough Harbour Board has reason to be . pretty unhappy over the amendments made to the Marlborough Harbour Amendment Act passed through Parliament just before Christmas.

Changes made to the legislation after hearings by a Parliamentary select committee have substantially reduced the powers given to the board in the bill as it was originally drafted. The board was to have powers, with the written consent of the Minister of Transport, to sell any of the land vested in it by almost any means it chose. After strong representations, this power was deleted altogether from the legislation. Also, the beds of the ports and harbours under the jurisdiction of the board, to the extent that they lay below the mean high water mark, were to have been vested in the board.. This section, too, has been struck out. Liquor was to have been available for sale at the Picton ferry terminal under the same conditions applying to airports and aircraft under section 658 of the Sale of Liquor Act, 1962. This section, too, was struck out. Significant changes were also made to the sections dealing with the board’s powers over community jetties, particularly over the setting of fees for the use of the jetties. The combined effect is to reduce the authority of the board. The act does extend the region covered by the board further south to include the whole of Kaikoura County, but otherwise the harbour board does not seem to have gained very much — a far cry from the first draft of the legislation whic’ gave it substantial powers. It is unusual for legislation to come back from a Parliamentary select committee altered so much and yet still go through. The strangeness of this result will not have escaped the member of Parliament in whose electorate Picton falls and who introduced the bill to Parliament — the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Rowling). But its fate owed more to the opposition of a number of outside organisations than to any desire of the Local Bills Committee to do a bad turn to Mr Rowling. His involvement should be seen only as a coincidence. For instance, the Nature Conservation Council was strongly opposed to the powers giving the harbour board authority to sell or lease reclaimed land. The council said this would give the board power to sell any part of the land vested in it. The vesting of the harbour beds in the board aroused more general opposition. Submissions claimed that the board shoul 1 remain responsible for port operations and not involve itself in other facets of marine management, particularly if this conflicted with the proposed town and country’ planning legislation. There 'was also a call for a proper marine planning authority7' to be responsible for the planning of activities and facilities other than port operations. Finally, a move to validate and declare lawful previous reclamations by the board of the land under its control, drew heavy fire.

The Nature Conservation Council said it would not like to see unlawful and unauthorised reclamations completed over the j’ears now declared lawful and so establish a precedent, particularly whet, some Government departments

were opposing reclamations on environmental grounds. The legislation was reworded so that any such validation would not affect any previous approval, and with that the Marlborough Harbour Board had to be satisfied.