Government may enact new law to get dam built

Press, 14 May 1982, Page 1

Government may enact new law to get dam built

PA Wellington Special legislation will be an option considered by the Government to counter a High Court decision that stalled the Clutha River power scheme yesterday.

Mr Justice Casey ruled in the Court, at Christchurch, that the Planning Tribunal should have considered the end use of the power in upholding a decision to grant water rights for the proposed Clyde high dam. He said that if the power from the dam was not required for the proposed Aramoana aluminium smelter, a project which is in doubt, the tribunal’s decision should be re-examined. The Minister of Works and Development (Mr Quigley) said last evening that five options were open to the Government: (1) Referral of the matter

back to the Planning Tribunal, as his Honour had determined should be done; (2) An appeal by the Crown to the Court of Appeal, “which could take several months"; (3) Using the provisions of the National Development Act. the Government’s “fast track” legislation; (4) Using an Order-in-Coun-cil to declare the water of national importance; or (5) Introducing special empowering legislation. He said, “It is certainly not the end of the matter,” He indicated that the Government favoured an option that would deal with the matter quickly.

“The whole process has been very drawn out... so people have had a tremendous opportunity to express their various points of view,”. Mr Quigley said. “I am concerned about the time it has taken to get to this stage. The original water right was lodged in 1977 and the matter has not yet been finally resolved. “It. raises the question whether you can get involved in a long period of frustration when the power plan being prepared shows that this power that would be supplied by Clyde is needed, irrespective of any‘consideration associated with the second aluminium smelter. “The power is needed for New Zealand’s requirements. It is needed as far as the national grid is concerned.” Asked if he could show a specific market for the electricity, Mr Quigley replied. “There was' a discussion to the effect, initially, that the Clyde dam was required if a second smelter was put in place. That is now not the case. The power is required anyway." Asked it the Government would reconsider the need for the power, Mr Quigley said: “I can rely only on the advice that I am given by my officials. They -say the present power plan is quite clear to the effect that the power we will need for both the North and South islands requires this particular project to proceed as planned.” A spokesman for the Coalition for Open Government, Mr Keith Johnston, said that the Court's decision was an opportunity for the Government to reconsider its position. There was no buyer for the electricity without the proposed aluminium smelter.

and “the Court has said that fact is now something for the tribunal to consider. “The Government has a chance to put public money back into helping New Zealanders to use electricity efficiently. rather than wasting it on more power stations, more electricity, which we do not have a buyer for." Mr Quigley said that if it was riot possible to proceed with the! dam in the short term, the site might have to be “mothballed." Tn the meantime, the Government would “have to look at the judgment and consider the wider implications." The shortest delay would mean that there would be little progress at the site before November. His main concern was for the Ministry of Works employees at the site. They probably had jobs in front of them only until the end of June. After that, they were going onto other work including the building of a power house. . Mr Quigley announced last month that the Government intended to award the damconstruction contract to a West German-Christchurch joint venture, Ed ZublinWilliamson’s. The contract price was $102.6 million. When Mr Quigley made the announcement, he said that it was subject to a “satisfactory resolution of the. legal issues concerning water rights.” .'',7,:./. Mr Quigley said last even" ing, “No contract has been let at this stage. The agreement with the dam builders was on the basis that the water-right appeal was a satisfactory one as far as the Government is concerned." Mr Quigley said that the agreement to let the contract was open until June and that this could be extended.