‘Fast track’ amendment ‘a measure to stifle’

Press, 3 September 1981, Page 9

‘Fast track’ amendment ‘a measure to stifle’

Parliamentary reporter Power for the Planning Tribunal to apportion costs on a National Development hearing, provided for in the National Development Amendment Bill introduced to Parliament, is just annother measure to stifle the voice of genuine protest, according to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Rowling). New Zealanders defending their own right and the environment were already required to meet considerable costs of their own and could now also be required to meet the costs of multinational developers, he said during the introductory debate. Mr Rowling said the provision was a further condition imposed by the Government in an effort to scare off objectors to the “think big" projects. The Prime Minister (Mr Muldoon) said that the bill was a simple and necessary one to enable those who objected to aspects of the growth strategy to test their objections. Without the legislation, many millions of dollars would be lost through various groups holding up projects year after year, he said. Mr Muldoon said that objecting groups appeared to have no difficulty in raising money “for interminable appeals which have no substance."

Mr G. W. R. Palmer (Lab., Chch Central) said that the bill rode roughshod over democratic rights, and was particularly critical of the clause seeking to allow for retrospective validation of errors.

“It is a case of ‘lf we did anything wrong, it wasn’t wrong because we say so.' It shows the God-like attitude of this Government,” he said. Mr M. K. Moore (Lab., Papanui) said the bill proved the Government would “do anything to force its ‘think big' procedures down the throats of an unwilling public.”

The bill would gut both the Planning Tribunal and the Commissioner for the Environment of existing powers because the Government wanted to “super fast track the fast track,” he said. Mr Moore said that the Government intended to send environmentalists the bill for the work done by multinationals, and that this was a

complete reversal of an earlier proposal that developers should be required to pay a levy to environmental protection. Mr I. McLean (Govt, Tarawera) said that the Opposition was paranoid about everthing that promoted jobs and growth. The reduction in the scope of audits by the Commissioner for the Environment was logical and necessary, he said. It would restrict the audits to the matter at hand and not “bring in the sun and the moon, the stars and the satellites of Jupiter as well,” he said. Mr D. F. Caygill (Lab., St

Albans) said the bill was an example of “arrogant centralism. saying that the Government knew best." The clause permitting retrospective validation of errors was an outrageous one. “No-one invents a clause like that for fun. It has an origin, a cause. What mistakes is it intended to validate? What mistakes have already been made?” he asked." The Minister of Broadcasting (Mr Cooper) said that without the provisions of the act, and if the Opposition had its way. the country would be “confined in a straightjacket of inactivity." The executive officer of

the Environmental Society, Mr Gary Taylor, says he is “absolutely astounded” by the bill. “If it becomes legislation it will make Planning Tribunal inquiries a complete farce,” he said. “There would be no point in objecting to ‘think big’ projects through the tribunal.” He said he could hardly believe that the Government would try to limit the rights of objectors more than they already were. Mr Taylor said he suspected that clause four of the bill, providing for the tribunal to award legal costs and consultants’ fees against objectors, was a drafting error.