Need for sweeping new legislation questioned

Press, 31 October 1979, Page 3

Need for sweeping new legislation questioned

PA Wellington: The sweeping powers pro-j posed in the National Devel-; opment Bill were strongly questioned by the New Zea-: land Catchment Authoritiesi Association in a submissiefn ;to the Parliamentary Lands and Agriculture Select Com-; mittee yesterday. Hearings on the controversial legislation, which cuts down the planning procedures for works erf national importance, began under the chairmanship of Mr I. C. Schultz (Nat., Hauraki) yesterday morning. The association said it appreciated the need for works of national importance to proceed promptly. “However, after studying , the bill, the association is not convinced that a completely new statute is necessary to achieve that aim as .opposed to suitable amendments to existing legislation and existing procedures." • The association’s misI givings about the effects of jthe bill were: iThe executive would have the absolute right to dej cide finally all major j projects, be they Crown or private, in the national interest. Rights of appeal to an independent planning tribunal would be replaced by a public inquiry by the tribunal. Rights of appeal to the Supreme Court would be severely curtailed. ■The new bill would prevail over much established I and well proven legislaj tion.

The bill would mean that 1 : i existing rights that ; . I people have and mayp exercise in relation to ■ i their properties could be . i lost and there was no I ; : provision for them to be : compensated. This could i be particularly import-: .< ant in cases of existing; j rights to water which; . could be lost or; adversely affected by a > major work. It was clear that water andl sail legislation would be :: subject lb the bill, but it • I was not clear at this I I stage how this legisla- ■ j tion would change as a > consequence of the bill. • 1 ‘‘These matters seem to the association of such funda--1 mental importance that it ’ would urge the Government ’(to make haste slowly with 7 this bill,” the submission: ; said. ’I “It has been said that, major decisions must- be ■taken within the next year, pi that are vital to New Zea- ; land. If such decisions may: a ! be impeded by present '■procedures, it is respectfully: that matters in! jthat category could be dealt: .iwith by special act of Parliament. .1 “It is believed that this: . would be far preferable to y bringing into being new ; legislation of such sweeping : effect that would then, be on - (standby if needed. e “Such a course would also : leave the way open for the ]! Government to appoint a i commission to inquire into: .-(the need for, and make • recommendations regarding,

legislation of the kind set! out in this bill,” the submis- I sion said. Tempers flared during the ! opening moments of the; committee hearing. The Opposition spokesman (on agriculture, Sir Basil Ar- , jthur (Timaru), objected to a 'ruling by Mr. Schultz that submissions from witnesses would be taken .as read. I Sir Basil asked that witnesses be given the oppor-' tunity to summarise their submissions when they appeared before the committee. There are some 300 submissions to be heard over the next month, and Sir 'Basil said it was “frankly; ridiculous" that busy members of Parliament were expected to read them all. The under-Secretary for Energy (Mr Brill) said there would not be time for writ-, nesses to read all the submissions. but if members read them through in their own time there would be ample opportunity during the sittings to discuss points of concern. At one stage Mr G. W. R. i Palmer (Lab.. Christchurch 1 (Central) started to make a comment but was ruled out or order by Mr Schultz. Mr Palmer: I want to saysomething and if you are going to gag me I am going; to object. After about 10 minutes discussion on the procedural wrangle, the 10-member committee got down to discussing the submission from the Catchment Authorities Association. The chairman’s ruling was. not altered. •

' Mr D. L. Kidd (Nat., Marlborough) said in Blenheim [last evening ie would be ' surprised if the National Development Bill were not 'changed or amended. ■Mr Kidd told a public meeting he would not regard the bill as a failure because of this. < When the bill was introduced in Parliament, the .Minister had said it was an (experimental piece of legislation. I Mr Kidd said the Government was “quite relaxed” about the final wording of some of the provisions of the bill. A Blenheim Borough Councillor, Mr R. North, said one of the disturbing aspects of the bill was how a “project of national importance” was defined. Mr Kidd said he respected Mr North's concern. While he could not discuss details of public submissions, quite a few related to that clause, Mr Kidd said. ; The Government would see if it could not reword ; the clause to allay such fears, he said. Asked if he could give an assurance that he knew of no specific projects for which the legislation was intended, Mr Kidd said he could guess at some of the projects which might be applied for. The first, one would expect, would be in relation to the provision of liquid fuels from the Maui gas field. Asked if he knew of other specific projects, Mr Kidd • said, “Not at this stage.”