Opposition still against a changed Development Bill

Press, 5 December 1979, Page 3

Opposition still against a changed Development Bill

PA Wellingtonl The National Development! Bill reported back to Parlia-; ment by a select committee i yesterday was still unsatis-l factory, said the senior Oppo- I sition member of the commit- i I tee, Sir Basil Arthur. But it was a very different j piece of legislation from that I originally introduced, he said. I The bill had been an af- ; front to the intelligence and j tolerance of the people of i New Zealand. Sir Basil said. ■ Under the guise of a development measure, the Government sought dictatorial powers, he said. Evidence that the bill was not going to be tolerated by the people was very quickly demonstrated. But the changes reported back yesterday by the Lands and Agriculture Committee did not go far enough. The Opposition would move that the bill be referred back for further consideration, Sir Basil said. The country and Parliament owed a debt of gratitude to all those concerned i New Zealanders who were prepared to face ridicule and insults to go before the select committee and present their views, he said. The Minister of Lands (Mr ;V. S. Young) said the bill ' represented a determination Ito plan development properly. [ “Far better do it under the I tribunal method than to just have national development .approved by Parliament,” he 'said. I Most of the objections to jthe bill had been met by the select committee changes, Mr Young said. There had been considerable criticism that there was no review to the courts. “This has been included in the bill as reported back — a single right of review to the courts on matters allowed under the legislation,” Mr Young said. “The bill reported back is a better bill than the first considered because of the Parliamentary process,” Mr Young said. He said the select committee had not been “pushing” its business and full consideration had been given to all submissions. New Zealand simply must speed up its planning procedures, particularly as they related to the development of ’ liquid fuels, Mr Young said. Mr F. M. Coleman (Labour,

Pencarrow) said it had become clear that the authors of the bill— a few in the Government caucus — were ill-informed, naive, and out of touch with realities. “It became abundantly clear that the authors had not sought the advice of Government departments or principal advisers,” he said, The Government was setting out to provide the “red carpet” for overseas multi- | national corporations while ■leaving smaller projects still [tied up in red tape. The Under-Secretary for [Energy (Mr Brill) said it had i been significant that once the news media were excluded from the select committee hearings and the Government members had explained the bill’s intention. Labour members had shown a “remarkable turnround” in their approach to the bill. Previously they had shown

"paranoia” about it, but [when the news media were [not there. Labour members had sat down and considered ■the bill calmly. Mr Brill said two Labour lawyer members of the committee, Mr F. D. O’Flynn, (Island Bay), and Mr G. W. R. Palmer (Christchurch Central) had been helpful to the [committee “acting as Parliamentarians rather than partisan political opportunists.” Mr Palmer said the Government had made “one oi the biggest and most complete retreats it is possible to see.” The revised bill was full of amendments, including fundamental ones. “It. is. a shell, although it is still masquerading undei the title of National Development Bill,” Mr Palmet said. The bill had been supposed to streamline but ii did not do this because ii had been “completely, utterly, and totally unworkable.” “It is possible this : amended bill can work, as its predecessor could not,’ Mr Palmer said. The bill was still toe wide, he said. “It gives a fast track tc the big boys but nothing tc the small boys,” Mr Palmei said. There was still a seriout constitutional deficiency ir that the Minister could stil change the recommendations of the Planning Tribunal bj Order-in-Council. The Opposition had unsuccessful!} moved in the select committee to have the Order-in-Council made subject to rat ificatio i by Parliament. Mr Palmer said the Opposition thought the content o‘ the environmental impact report on development projects should be defined, bu: the bill did not do this. The Minister of Energj (Mr Birch) said the bill’s

aim was to give New Zealand better than 50 per cent [ self-sufficiency in transport fuels by 1987. Mr Birch said the Municipal Association had surveyi ed municipalities and only ■ five of the 51 which replied i had opposed the bill. i “There are a few changes ; in the bill,” he said. "There are a few detailed changes.” He said the bill was not a I retreat from the “fast track” | procedure. The three substantive amendments were that there iwas to be an appeal to the I Court of Appeal, as projects must be urgent, and the Minister must consult with regional councils before an application proceeded on the ■ “fast track.” He said the Minister would have consulted regional councils anyway and it was not necessary to go in the bill. ■ Mr O’Flynn said Mr Birch had referred to three substantive amendments but had said nothing about the dropping of the provision in the original bill to override 28 acts. The removal of the Minister's original “almost untrammelled” power to vary Orders-in-Council was also a substantial amendment. Mr O'Flynn said the rights of judicial review had now been restored. The Leader of the Opposition, (Mr Rowling), said that if there were any projects in the pipeline that needed the “fast track” procedure, the Government should say what they were. Mr Birch: All right. Mr Rowling said there was nothing specific before the committee to suggest there were any development projects being frustrated by the existing law. “Or has the Prime Minister embarked on one of his

secret agreements?” he asked adding: “If he has, this surely; is the time to come clean.” The Labour Party stood for, balanced development but; that did not mean capital de-, velopment at any cost. Mr M. J. Minogue (Nat., Hamilton West) said the select committee had been a good one and he complimented some Opposition mem-, bers on their contribution. | ”1 hope we can conduct this discussion tn the spirit' that not all of us have a monopoly of all wisdom all the time,” he said. It was significant that under the amended bill the Commissioner of the Environment was not to be subjected jto any direction by the Minister for the Environment or iany other Minister on the ; environmental implications ■of development projects, Mr i Minogue said. There were now positive; I rights of review of the Order-' in Council and of the Planning Tribunal. ’ It was significant that the : Commissioner of the Environment and the Minister of Works were now to be avail-, able for cross-examination before the tribunal. The Deputy Leader of the l Opposition (Mr Lange), said, Mr Minogue was asking Par- 1 liament to take the Government at its word in administering the bill. As late as November 26, the Prime Minister had said there would ‘be no change in the bill at all, but only some changes in details. “What we have is a complete backdown on major matters of principle,” Mr Lange said. He said the bill had not; been referred to the chairman of the Planning Coun-I cil (Sir Frank Holmes), be-i fore it was introduced.

“They chose not to go near him because they didn’t want to hear anything that would upset their aspirations for centralised Executive control,” Mr Lange said. The bill was reported back’ by 40 votes to 32 after the! Opposition forced a division. Sir Basil Arthur tried to get it referred back to the; select committee again for 1 further consideration but the Speaker (Mr Harrison) said i he could not accept the motion at that stage. The bill will now go to a second reading.