THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1979. Improving the planning bill

Press, 5 December 1979, Page 24

THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1979. Improving the planning bill

Neither Parliament nor the Government can expect that even the most drastic revision of the National Development Bill would silence all critics of a scheme to consolidate planning procedures for major works. Too many people with worthy but highly specialised interests and even some with a psychological or passionate investment in protest would never agree that their particular concerns should be treated on a par with those of others. In fact, the bill does not reduce their opportunity to be heard Rather, it is likely to ensure that their views are better founded Parliament’s lands and agriculture committee appears to have done a fair job of hearing hundreds of submissions and of taking heed of many demands to modify the detail of the bill. Some people did not manage to get their points of view before the committee within the extended time for the hearings, but they still have access to members of Parliament, some of whom might present a view more effectively in the House than could be achieved by one individual before the committee itself. If the House accepts the recommendations of the committee it will go a long way towards meeting substantial objections to the original bill. The debate should not be hurried. It could well last two or three weeks. If needs

be. the House could be recalled after a Christmas recess. Little purpose would be served by delaying the bill further. The submissions made have much in common and the likelihood of someone’s introducing a completely new consideration is remote. The bill’s purpose is to streamline a planning process and the course of the bill itself should not be longer than is reasonably required for proper consideration. Discussion and understanding of the bill is important: endless discussion, repetition. and the accommodation of those who are never walling to make decisions but are always urgent in their objections would merely emphasise the need for such a bill. Obviously the powers that were initially sought had to be tempered and public opinion and Parliamentary procedure have shown their very necessary strength in the committee’s recommendations. When Parliamentarians have worked out of their systems the desire to make some political capital out of the changes, the House should get down to the job of refining what is a major piece of legislation. Parliament can still do whatever it feels the committee has not done and it should keep its eye on the bill rather than on the points that can be scored at the expense of concentrating on the main business. If the House does this, the Government will not be tempted to cut the debate short