Next move on the dam

Press, 21 August 1982, Page 14

Next move on the dam

The Government has to take the next step in the wrangling about whether there should be a high dam on the Clutha River. It will probably do so early next week. This step should be an announcement that legislation to enable a high dam to be built without further delays will be introduced into Parliament as soon as possible. Other courses are an appeal against the Planning Tribunal’s decision made this week, or an application for a rehearing with new evidence. These would only extend further' a series of hearings that has already dragged on far too long. The outcome would remain uncertain.

The Planning Tribunal has ruled, on the evidence before it, that if there is no reasonable assurance that a new aluminium smelter will be built, a high dam is not justified. To persuade the community that a high dam is justified after all, the Government should demonstrate in Parliament either that a new smelter is likely to be built, or that there are alternative and economic industrial uses for the electricity, or that the power is likely to be needed for the general use of the community after the dam and generating station are built. The Minister of Energy said yesterday that it was “impossible and impractical” to specify the precise end use of power that would be generated from the dam. If the Government remains determined to have the high dam it can surely show, in general terms, why it believes the work is desirable.

If legislation is introduced in Parliament, the Government should expect to be examined rigorously by the Opposition on its intentions for the electricity. Debate would also require the Opposition to make clear any alternative proposals. Social Credit’s position remains equivocal, in spite of the agreement between its leader, Mr Beetham, and the Prime Minister, Mr Muldoon. Mr Beetham, among other conditions, maintains that all legal channels will have to be exhausted before the Government can be sure of Social Credit support in Parliament for a bill to empower a high dam. By linking support for a high dam with irrigation schemes in Central Otago, and with the fate of the Patea freezing works, Mr Beetham has attempted to make Social Credit seem more effective than the league’s numbers in. Parliament could justify. Perhaps Social Credit has gained support as a result of its policy. This support might be lost very quickly through any intransigence about approving legislation or by causing further expensive delays while uncertain legal processes are tested.

The Government might well command enough votes to pass a high dam bill without Social Credit support. The Labour Party, or some members of the party, may not vote against the bill if the test comes. Even if the two Social Credit members do have the votes to pass or block the bill,

they would be unlikely to vote so that the work on the Clyde would have to be stopped. Jobs would be lost and the league would lose whatever power it believes it has now to influence' the Government on such matters as the fate of the Patea freezing • works.

Any other course would be expensive and time-consuming. The Planning Tribunal has reached its decision with commendable speed, but a rehearing would entitle all the parties, including the objectors, to prepare their cases again and to take time presenting them. Work on the dam could hardly proceed through months of delay. The Auditor-General would be obliged to stop authorisation for further spending on the work if the legal status of the project is to remain in doubt. The Auditor-General’s approval of continuing expenditure rests upon an assurance thatthe Government commands sufficient votes to pass a bill authorising the work. Perhaps the Government is hoping that while delays continue a new consortium to build a smelter in Otago can still be put together. Even then, the Planning Tribunal would have to be consulted afresh. Certainty about the smelter should not be the point that finally decides the high dam question, although if the smelter was definitely going ahead matters would be clearer now.

Government members of Parliament appear to be convinced that a high dam on the Clutha is in New Zealand’s best interests. Such reservations as were held by some were reservations about the overruling of legal processes. Members’ convictions should be subjected to the scrutiny of Parliament as soon as possible, and a decision there should be beyond appeal or other uncertainties. If the decision goes against the Government, so be it.

Should a new aluminium smelter be embarked upon in the riext decade, the capacity of the high-dam generators might not be sufficient to meet all demand. This dam is not likely to be the last built in the South Island. The Clyde dam should be the one that will produce electricity as economically as possible. Public demand for more expensive electricity than is necessary does not exist. The high dam has its disadvantages. The Planning Tribunal has given them most weight. Given the compensating features of the high dam scheme, such as irrigation, the public expectation of an adequate supply of electricity at the most economical price should be Parliament’s first consideration. The continuity of work on the scheme also matters. If these considerations do not sway the decision in favour of going ahead with the high dam, the next decision might be to turn to other power schemes elsewhere to supply the power that New Zealand will need. This may prove in the end to be preferable to the low dam to which Labour Party policy has been directed.