THE PRESS MONDAY, MARCH 18, 1985. A bill condemned?

Press, 18 March 1985, Page 18

THE PRESS MONDAY, MARCH 18, 1985. A bill condemned?

Canterbury interests, eager for the rapid replacement of the Lyttelton container crane, would have drawn scant comfort from the comments of the Minister of Transport, Mr Prebble, on Friday, when he was debating the introduction to Parliament of the Ports Authority (Replacement of Plant or Equipment) Bill. The bill is intended to remove the present requirement that harbour boards must seek approval of the New Zealand Ports Authority before they can spend more than $500,000 to replace or repair expensive equipment that has been damaged by accident. Had the bill been law today, the Lyttelton Harbour Board would have been able to proceed with replacing the wrecked crane immediately. As matters stand, the board may not even agree to ask the permission of the Ports Authority to replace the crane until the end of this month. After that, the law requires that the full procedure of calling for objections and hearing submissions be followed. Permission to replace the crane could be delayed for months, although this seems unlikely given the good will shown to the Lyttelton Harbour Board since the accident. Nevertheless, the replacement or repair of an existing facility that has been approved years .previously and damaged by accident should not depend on good will or sympathy. The bill introduced on Friday would have made it clear that any harbour board in similar circumstances would have the right to spend the insured value of the item of plant or equipment on its repair or replacement. The bill has been referred to the Commerce and Energy Select Committee — and there Mr Prebble hopes that it will “rot.” Mr Prebble’s assurances to Parliament that the bill was not necessary because “nothing is holding the board up” in getting a replacement, and that a crane was working the container wharf at present anyway, belie the facts. Mr Prebble also displays strange logic when he says that the effect of the amendment would be to “open up the container port controversy again.” It should do exactly the opposite, by removing the

opportunity for renewed debate on an issue settled years ago. The oversight in the drafting of the existing law that has left this obstacle in the way of the Lyttelton Harbour Board need not frustrate the board’s efforts to replace the crane. The point is that the present law could be used to prevent Lyttelton replacing its container crane and the legal requirements are, in any event, complicating and delaying the issue. The commendable efforts of the board and its staff to keep the container berth working with equipment not intended for it, and capable only of something less than half of the normal capacity, are no reason for Government complacency. During the introduction debate, the public did not have the opportunity to hear the views of the Minister for Overseas Trade, Mr Moore, or the Minister for Trade and Industry, Mr Caygill. Both of these Ministers have an interest through their departmental responsibilities in a rapid return to full efficiency at Lyttelton. Together with the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Palmer, and the Minister of Police and member for Lyttelton, Mrs Hercus, Mr Moore and Mr Caygill might be expected to take a special interest in this bill on behalf of the people of Christchurch and Canterbury. When these four Ministers come to make their views known, it may be hoped that they are less willing than their Cabinet colleague from Auckland Central to condemn the measure to oblivion. Let the committee amend or alter the words by all means, and improve it where possible: these are the proper functions of a Parliamentary select committee. The proper business of the committee does not include acting as a legislative waste bin because a Minister is displeased. Perhaps, on second thought, Mr Prebble will see the merit in the amendment and give it his full support. Short of that, he will do all in his power to ensure that the board, and other harbour boards in similar circumstances, will not be delayed in supplying the services needed by their customers.