Bill intended to ‘tidy’ National Development Act

Press, 2 September 1981, Page 1

Bill intended to ‘tidy’ National Development Act

By 1

PHILIP WORTHINGTON

Opponents of the National Development Act, passed only two years ago, will find little comfort from an amending bill introduced in Parliament yesterday.

The Government says the National Development Amendment Bill. is. intended to “tidy up" the act. As introduced, the measure more accurately “tightens up" the procedures.

Particularly curious is a clause which seeks to provide in advance — or in anticipation — a procedure for retrospective validation of errors or omissions of "anything at any time’-' required by the parent act.

The bill also seeks to reduce the scope of audits by the Commissioner for the Environment, and to give to the Planning Tribunal the power to order any party to a national development hearing to pay any other party such costs and expenses it thinks fit.

Another feature, which received little comment on the bill’s introduction, will change the existing requirement of the Minister of Works, and Development or his representative to attend a Planning Tribunal hearing and to also “be available for cross-examination."

Under the bill the Minister is required to be represented at the hearing, but is required only to provide “such evidence as he or his representative considers will assist the Tribunal."

Speaking to the bill s introduction. the Minister of National Development (Mr Birch) said the parent act was innovative and controversial. but there was general acceptance that planning procedures for big projects needed to be streamlined and consolidated. Since it was introduced the parent act had shown it was capable of achieving the aims for which it was passed and had been fully tested by the Petralgas methanol project.

“Fast-track” procedures were used only sparingly and only three projects had been put under the act in its two vears’ existence, he said.

Nevertheless. several anomalies and difficulties of interpretation had been identified and the new bill was intended to rectify these. Mr Birch said.

One of the rectifying measures of the bill is to ensure that any proceedings referred to a court of law which relate to applications under the act can be dealt with only in the Court of Appeal. The-existing act provides for referral to the Court of Appeal only the proceedings of the Planning Tribunal and the proceedings related to an Order-in-Council.

“However, this does not cover all the situations in which Court' proceedings could be taken in relation to the procedures of the act." Mr Birch said. ■

“It is therefore possible that the purposes of the act could be frustrated in a number of cases by actions leading to long delays in the High Court or other jurisdictions."

Mr Birch said that immediate referral of all proceedings direct to the Court of Appeal had been the intention of the original act. The bill also provides for all existing proceedings in the High Court or District Court to be transferred forthwith to the Court of Appeal. Clauses in the bill also seek to clarify the role of the Planning Tribunal, and Mr Birch said that these amendments were at the request of the Tribunal.

Under the existing act, wording has been interpreted as requiring the Tribunal to take into .account in its deliberations such things as the national benefit and availability and preferred use of resources.

This was restricting. Mr Birch said.

Accordingly the bill makes it clear that the Planning Tribunal will prepare a report and recommendation on matters relevant to the con-: sents sought- in an application, and not on the application.

As a consequence of this, the bill will also repeal the existing provision that the Tribunal's decision was to state whether the work should proceed as proposed, or proceed in a modified form, or not proceed at all. All the Tribunal is required to do is determine whether the consents should be granted anyway, in accordance with the normal course of events and irrespective of the project as a whole being “fast-tracked."

The bill will allow, the Minister of National Development to add more required consents to an application being considered by the Tribunal up to three weeks before the inquiry begins. He cannot do this after the application has been referred to the Tribunal.

The change proposed in the role of the Commissioner for the Environment removes his existing brief to “give his opinion on the •environmental implications of the work in the form of an audit.”

Instead the bill proposes that he be required only to “audit the environmental im-

pact report by examining and giving his opinion on the accuracy and adequacy of the report.’’

Mr Birch said that the existing act made no provision for costs to be awarded, although the costs and expenses involved in investigating and reporting on the consents sought in a national development application could be considerable, particularly for the authority and the regional water board.

Accordingly, the bill proposes that the Tribunal be empowered to determine costs, including survey, investigation. and research costs, and consultants and legal fees.

Mr Birch said 'that this was not new. but was similar to the existing provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act. .

On the repeal of the existing provision for the Minister of Works and Development or his representative to be cross-examined at a Tribunal hearing, Mr Birch said the Government intended that every help was given to the Tribunal. “This means that the Crown will place before the Tribunal all the relevant evidence at its disposal." he said. The bill makes it clear that the determination of the relevance of any item, or items of evidence lies solely with the Minister or his representative, and there is no means of challenge.

The last clause of the bill is headed: “Provision for minor irregularities, etc." It deals with those irregularities “where, by misadventure or accident, anything is at any time done after the time "(or is not done within the time) required by the act. or is otherwise irregularlydone in matter of form."

To allow for these irregularities, the Governor-Gen-eral may by Order-in-Council make provision for any such case, extend the time for a requirement to be complied with, or validate any such error or omission “so that the true intent and purpose of this act may have effect.”

Mr Birch said that such provisions were not uncommon, and cited section 264 of the Harbours Act as an example.

But that section does have an important provision not contained in the bill introduced yesterday.

The bill was introduced on a division and referred to the Lands and Agriculture Select Committee for consideration.