THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 1982. Damming the flow of words

Press, 14 July 1982, Page 14

THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 1982. Damming the flow of words

Amid the gropings for political advantage by the three parties represented in Parliament, the essential matters of the Clutha dam controversy become lost in a fog of words. The parties, and their leaders, need to be reminded that the earliest possible decision has to be reached on whether a dam will be built, and if so. which dam. The people of the area, and especially the workers and contractors, have a right to a decision when their futures are at stake. The community as a whole needs to feel that the decision reached is the right one. In judicial terms, the decision needs to be swift and fair, on this occasion it also needs to be beyond the uncertainty of further appeals.

Instead, the Government has hesitated about how best to proceed when faced with the prospect that it cannot be assured of a majority in Parliament if it tries to legislate for a high dam. If it goes back to the Planning Tribunal for a decision, not only will there be a long delay, but there can be no certainty of the outcome. Legislation might still be necessary; a Parliamentary majority might still elude the Government.

This would be a sorry performance for a Government that promised rapid industrial development in the election campaign last year. Neither the Labour Party nor Social Credit is performing any better. Labour's position remains confused. The party approves a low dam. but is uncertain about a high dam. The party opposes legislation to approve a high dam now. but has suggested a decision on a low dam might be made by an Order-in-Council.

Labour's opposition to a high dam seems to be more a matter of expediency than principle. Mr Rowling said in Cromwell last week he could give no assurance then that Labour would vote or abstain on the ' question of special legislation. Labour, it seems, might support the high dam if the Opposition had its way on the question of having the Ministry of Works do the work, instead of private contractors. The party even seems to suspect that the high dam is now to be preferred, but withholds its support because the Planning Tribunal has not ruled in .the light of a High Court decision.

Perhaps the Labour Party believes votes are to be had by appearing as the champion of State enterprise against the private sector. Perhaps it sees advantage among the workers at Cromwell (who stand to lose their jobs) if it can frustrate the dam not on the basic question of whether it should be built, but on the matter of who should build it. Almost certainly, the Labour Party is wrong in believing it will show to advantage with electors. The party is coming close to the attitude of a former Labour leader who announced, on a matter of importance, that he was “neither for nor against."

Social Credit, judged by Mr Beetham's showing this week, comes out no better. Again the object seems to be to score marks with electors, rather than ensure

that the right decision is made as soon as possible. Mr Beetham offered support to the Government for legislation, but only if the long process of a Planning Tribunal hearing is followed through first, and then only with a curious set of conditions that tries to link a decision about a freezing works in the North Island with a decision about a dam in the South Island. Mr Muldoon remarked that the Social Credit proposal was extraordinary and showed “very 7 strong but entirely flexible principles." If Mr Muldoon was being sarcastic, that is what Mr Beeihams proposals deserved. The Governments acceptance of Mr Beetham's proposals is very surprising though the Labour Party would be relieved if the tribunal settled the question. Holding legislative action in reserve does not accord with the Labour view, though the Labour Party’s proposal that an Executive order should be made to acquire water rights for a low dam seems no different in principle.

Another hearing by the Planning Tribunal, with the shadow of legislation hanging over the outcome should the decision go the wrong way, would make the tribunal’s work absurd. The tribunal might well refuse to conduct a hearing. The member of Parliament for Hamilton West. Mr Minogue, remarked this week that to go back to the Planning Tribunal in such circumstances would be “like saying let's give someone a fair trial before we hang them."

The Government's position on the high dam has not been changed by Social Credit's proposals and Mr Muldoon's acceptance. By giving an assurance of support for the Government, if necessary, once planning procedures have been followed. Mr Beetham is giving Mr Muldoon power to legislate, at some future time, for the course that Mr Muldoon would like to follow now.

In the background, the Auditor-General has said that he cannot approve further spending on the dam project until the Government has legal authority to continue the work. That must be the attitude of the Auditor-General. He has been flexible enough to say that if Mr Muldoon has assurances of a majority in Parliament for legislation to continue the work, the work can go ahead. This looks like a way out of an awkward corner; but it is curious auditing practice, to say the least.

At the end of all the words, the conclusion remains that a final decision has to be reached quickly. The obligation is still on the Government to find a way through. Parliament still provides the best forum for debate and decision. Amid the jockeying for position among the parties, legislation to approve a high dam might still be defeated in Parliament. That would be unfortunate for the Government and perhaps for the community. At least the matter would be settled. As it is. the mood of the community is changing from that of being confused by the legal niceties, to being thoroughly fed up with the whole affair.