Two Govt M.P.s to vote for high dam

Press, 23 June 1982, Page 2

Two Govt M.P.s to vote for high dam

Parliamentary reporter

Two of the three Government members who wanted more proof that special empowering legislation was needed for the Clyde high dam have come out in support of such legislation. “In the spirit of open government” the member for Selwyn, Miss Ruth Richardson, and the member for Waikato, Mr S. D. Upton, yesterday made their opinions public and said their “hands had been forced by a fait accompli,” and that they were being “asked to be accessories after the fact.” Their decision does not commit the member for Hamilton West, Mr M. J. Minogue, who said yesterday that he had still not made up his mind, and would comment no further. He is expected to support the bill, ensuring its passage by a majority of one. Miss Richardson and Mr Upton made it clear that they would vote for the legislation if it addressed itself only to granting water rights for the high dam. There has been talk in the caucus of’’applying any empowering legislation to the construction of the Luggate and Queensberry dams planned for the Clutha River. However, the two members said they did not think the caucus would make the legislation wider than it need be for uninterrupted construction of the high dam. They said it was hypothetical to discuss whether they would cross the floor of the House if the legislation were wider in compass, and on possible abstention, Mr Upton said members were not elected to “sit on our seats and not vote.”

They planned to present to the caucus a plan to ensure more disclosure of information and public participation in the decisions of the Government, in short to make sure the Clyde episode could not recur with other big projects. In part this would seek amendments to the four principal acts.under which most big projects proceeded — the Water and Soil Conservation Act, the Town and Country Planning Act, the National Development Act, and the Public Works Act.

Big projects perhaps could be subject to select committee examination to provide for public input before the judicial process began. At present the judicial process was almost the only way for the public to “get the facts,” and participate in major development decisions.

It was too easy for the Government to "hide behind policy,” Miss Richardson said.

Both members said they had put their plan for more open government on big projects to the Minister of Energy (Mr Birch) and the Minister of Works and Development (Mr Friedlander). Their response had been very helpful, they said. Asked if the public would view their decision to support the legislation as a desertion of principle when the crunch came, they said that the “compelling" reason was the “bricks and mortar."

They could not accept the Government's case q that seven years of hearings, was long enough to givq. the Clyde dam, and that “now it is time to get on with the job. •;

“To tire of these proceedings at this stage is by Itself, no justification for legislation,” they said. - “While admitting •;< the lengthy nature of the process we believe the Government proceeded with its eyes .open and should accept this ,lin)itation.” Senior Ministers and, their advisers had seriously misunderstood the significance of the legal process, viewing it as a community participation exercise rather than what it was, a process that could overturn the Government's decisions.

Objectors should not be blamed for causing delays, they said. The chairman of the Planning Tribunal; to avert criticism of the tribunal for delays, had recorded on January 8, 1980, that fixtures for hearing at the earliest available time had on more than one occasion been vacated at the request of the Crown, they said. . '

They had no confidence that electricity planners were right this time in assessing that the high dam was needed to meet projected power demand towards the end of the decade if the second smelter did not go ahead. “We accept that the art of power planning is an inexact science, but if the power planners are right this time, and a smelter is built, further generating capacity will be needed in the North Island to provide the 3440 GWh the smelter would consume.” '

If the smelter did not go ahead, it was fair to ask why the high dam was needed to meet general demands by 1988-89. The projected shortfall in power supply that

year could be met by a low dam.

However, it was clear that the time needed to redesign the high dam would push the completion date of the dam beyond 1988-89, they said. If power planning alone were, the only justification for empowering legislation, it would be insufficient. “The forecasts have been wrong before and we see no reason to regard them as any more reliable in the present case."

What brought them down in reluctant support of the legislation was the “fait accompli” at Clyde, — the third justification by the Government of the need for legislation. Six hundred jobs were at stake, more than $lOO million had been spent, and tenders had been let. The dislocation, if work stopped, would be “enormous."

“It is of particular concern to us that our hands in this matter should be forced by work having proceeded beyond the point of no return,” they said. Technically ‘the Government had not prejudged the outcome of the water right appeals; from an early date most of the work done was equally referable to a high dam or a low dam, and only in the last few weeks had $5 million been spent specifically on the high dam.

But it was clear that from an early date planning related only to the high dam, they said. ■■ “What the Crown has done is perfectly legal, but it breached the spirit of the whole (legal) process in which people took part in good faith. The Crown implied that it was going to abide by the legal procedure it chose, but it was not prepared to submit its actions to that procedure.” Mr. Upton and Miss Richardson denied that the legislation, if it failed in the House, could be seen as a vote of no confidence, over which the Government should resign, but this was "over to the Prime Minister.” ,-T They a Government members vote against the legislation had' come to be seen as a vote of no-confidence in the party’s policies by those who exercised that free vote.

“We support our party’s policy,” they said. “But this measure is not part of that policy — it has come .from nowhere.”

Both Miss Richardson and Mr Upton commented on the willingness of certain Cabi-

net Ministers to come forward with information.

"Mr Quigley, in particular — ■ then the Minister of Works and Development — went to considerable lengths to meet our requests," they

Miss Richardson said she believed the best use of South Island surplus electricity was in irrigation In Canterbury particularly.

If the second smelter did not go ahead, and the high dam proceeded, a surplus of electricity of up to 1200 GWh would be locked in the South Island from 1989 to 1994 because of a fully loaded Cook Strait power cable.

The Labour member of Parliament for St Kilda, Dr M. J. Cullen, said last evening that no major work on the Clyde high dam had occurred, the Press Association reported.

“The main structure in place is the diversion channel. The main concrete sections of that can be incorporated into either a high or low dam,”.Dr Cullen said.

“Obviously, since the river is not yet diverted, only very limited other work can have been done. “Parts of that would have been better used for a high dam but could be used for a low dam,” he said.