Nature Conservation Council to oppose Development Bill

Press, 11 October 1979, Page 2

Nature Conservation Council to oppose Development Bill

The Nature Conservation; Council yesterday became the first Government agency publicly to announce its intention to oppose the Nat-i ional Development Bill. This legislation has been introduced by the Government to simplify and streamline planning and ap-i proval p-ocedures for projects designated as being of' “national importance." The bill was introduced in Parliament on October 5 and has gone to the Lands; and Agriculture Parlia-! mentary Select Committee to hear public comment. A meeting of 18 different environmental organisations met at the invitation of the Nature Conservation Council and agreed unanimously to send a letter to the Minister of Lands (Mr V. S. Young) expressing their opposition. This said: “All the individuals and organisations represented agree to oppose the bill on the grounds that the authority vested in the Minister (of National Development) is unwarranted and unnecessary to achieve the aim. which we support, of streamlining planning procedures.” The council’s chairman (Dr Caroline Burns) said it was the view of the meeting that the bill sought to concentrate unnecessary power in the hands of the executive arm of the Government, and more particularly the Minister of National Development (Mr Birch), in the guise of streamlining planning procedures. “That concentration of power is not necessary to achieve the ostensible aim of the bill.” Dr Burns said. “As it stands, it is a disturbingly radical proposal that cuts at the heart of the democratic process.” The checks and balances within New Zealand’s sociopolitical system were essential to the preservation of the rights of the individual, she said. The confinement of the role of the courts that would occur if the bill were passed was a factor that far outweighed the benefits that might accrue.

11 Dr Burns said the council, :'was particularly alarmed; 'iabout clause 4 of the bill., •jThis made the recommen-j ■idation to the Governor-Gen-' eral for an Order-in-Council a project of “nat.l ional importance” the sole j perogative of the Minister of ..National Development. J “We read this to mean fl that the Minister can get his [Order-in-Council first before .J even beginning the process jiset out in the bill of public . hearings before a tribunal,” ’[she said. j “There are enough objections to the system proposed . in the bill, but if the MinisJ ter can act first before hav- ’ ing public hearings, those [objections will be much stronger.” i The council will probably , put forward alternatives iff ' its submissions to the select! committee. These would be I

jto streamline existing proce- : dures rather than to - introduce new ones. | Those attending the meeting were concerned that the bill meant that “deyel- ■ opment” had been given the stamp of approval by the ' Government before “conservation” or other options i for the future were eyen ■ considered. They felt the ■ Commission for the Future . had been made redundant. AH 18 organisations are ' expected to make submissions on the bill. Some will oppose the bill outright, I while others will seek • amendments to it. One suggestion is certain ; to be that the Government i consider separate empowering legislation for different main projects, rather than lumping all future main projects under one piece of •I legislation.