Mr Rowling reaffirms stand on Clyde issue

Press, 8 July 1982, Page 1

Mr Rowling reaffirms stand on Clyde issue

From GEOFF MEIN, in Cromwell The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Rowling) yesterdav reaffirmed his belief that the Government could pass an Order-in-Council declaring the Clutha River to be a water of national importance enabling work to continue at the Clyde dam site. When Mr Rowling first suggested in Cromwell on Tuesday that the Government could use an Order-in-Council rather than special legislation to get the project moving again, it was rejected by the Attorney-Gen-eral (Mr McLay). Mr McLay said that once the Government had referred the water right application to the National Water and Soil Conservation Authority under the normal procedure as it did in 197". the Crown was bound by its own decision to follow that procedure. It could not change its mind half-way through the process, and try to declare the waters to be of national importance.

He said that no court would regard a declaration that waters were of national importance made in such circumstances as a bona fide exercise of a statutory discretion.

He said that the procedure could take six months to complete. Mr Rowling told a press conference in Alexandra yesterday morning that it was “clearly legal” for the Government to use the Order-in-Council. and that if it chose to do so. the procedure would not take six months.

If Mr McLay meant that the Government would not pursue an Order-in-Council because there was an appeal proceeding, and it did not want to cut across the rights of the appellants, he was a “goat,” said Mr Rowling.

“This is the same Minister in a Government that says it is going to bury the appellants if it can ... with its weight of numbers in Parliament.” He accused the Government of “ducking for cover” because it was not prepared to take the blame for the mess it had created. “If the Government is genuine in what it says about protecting the rights of the workers in the community, and about the necessity to

build a high dam. it would take the action open to it to secure it," he said. The Mayor of Cromwell. Mr P. J.’ Mead, was not optimistic about the prospects of an Order-in-Coun-cil’s solving the town’s problems. His council’s solicitors had examined the matter and did not believe an Order-in-Council would be a quicker, or more certain, solution than special legislation or reference back to the Planning Tribunal. Mr Rowling said he was aware of workers’ fears that the Government was delaying the project, and disrupting the work-force to justify giving the powerhouse contract to private enterprise. Such a move would be a “complete breach of faith," he said.

Mr Rowling, who has already spoken out strongly against the awarding of the main dam contract to a New Zealand-West German private company partnership, ■ said that to deny the Ministry of Works, the contract to build the powerhouse would destroy the heart of the work-force.

"My understanding from the wbrkers I met on the site was that whatever else happened. the powerhouse was a domain of the Ministry,"

He said that if the Government did plan to turn the contract over to private .enterprise, that would explain why it was not unduly concerned about delays.

"It would not take a very significant delay to completely break down that work-force, and give an excuse for turning the powerhouse contract, which the Ministry expected to do, over to a private contractor:"

Speaking at the end of the Clyde phase of his tour of Central Otago, Mr Rowling said that he had noted considerable changes in the region', some of which had been more abrupt than he had expected. But he declined to comment on. what recommendations he would take back to his caucus colleagues in Wellington.

The leader of the Social Credit Political League (Mr Beetham) is due to visit Cromwell, Clyde, and Alexandra ’today. He will be accompanied by the league’s

member of Parliament for East Coast Bays. Mr G. T. Knapp, and his research officer, Mr T. Heffernan.

Mr Rowling said at Twizel ’ yesterday that the Govern- ’ ment had “made a muck” of ’ the Clutha, and should “take ‘ the lesson aboard” in its approach to the development ’ of the lower Waitaki River. Mr Rowling’s comments ; were borne out. at least in j part, by an Auckland University senior law lecturer. Mr , Ken Palmer, who said it was \ possible for the Government ' to “change legal horses.” but it would be unethical. ■ There was no particular . right of appeal, he said. The only right would be one of review to consider • whether the National Water and Soil Conservation Authority had acted on relevant grounds, or was biased in deciding the issue. Mr Palmer said that in theory the Government could . use the procedure. “But practically, if it did so, there would almost certainly be an application to

the court to review the good faith of the National Authority." He said that it was inevitable that the authority would approve the dam in the present circumstances if the procedure was used. "I think a court would be very troubled by the late adoption of ■> the procedure," he said.

Representatives of several local groups had tried to convince Mr Rowling during his visit to the Central Otago region that a low dam on the Clutha at Clyde — Labour’s standpoint - was now not a viable alternative, according to the "Otago Daily Times" last evening. In Wellington yesterday, the Attorney-General (Mr McLay) said that the Government had no legal power to restart the Clyde dam project through an Order-in-Council.

Legal advice given the Government showed it could not by-pass the Planning Council by making a regulation under the Water and Soil Conservation Act.

Mr McLay said that the assertion by Mr Rowling that the Government had no need for special legislation but could, if it wanted, achieve the same end by passing an Order-in-Council was an "astonishing prevarication.” The Government could in theory pass a regulation, he said, but it would almost certainly be breaking the law. Mr McLay said that the legal principle involved had already been well established in New Zealand, including a case involving Mr Rowling himself. Mr Rowling was judged by the Court of Appeal to have acted in excess of powers conferred on him by Parliament, when he was Minister of Finance between 1972 and 1974, in an action brought by a property development company. The Government’s only option, in the time frame available, was to ask Parliament to pass legislation, Mr McLay said. , Two alternatives, page 3