M.P.s' Accommodation

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 31982, 8 May 1969, Page 26

M.P.s ' Accommodation

(N.Z. Press Association) WELLINGTON, May 7. Accommodation for members of Parliament in Wellington was criticised today at the National Development Conference.

“Members have to live in digs; some have to share rooms; I think this is disgusting,” Mr E. E. Isbey, of Auckland, told the plenary session during consideration of the physical environment committee report Mr Isbey will be a Labour Party candidate in the General Elections later this year. Referring to the “slum” conditions under which some members had to live, he said: "Their physical environment must dampen their legislative ability and ability to govern, and must reflect right through society.” The new “beehive” administration building at Parliament should have had some accommodation attached, he said. Mr Isbey also criticised the despoliation of New Zealand beaches by baches or holiday houses—“a man spends his week-ends quite happily weilding a saw and hammer, and creates something ugly.” New Policies A committee member, Mr D. A. Thom, endorsed Mr Isbey’s remarks. He called for new policies and attitudes about coastal development. One conference speaker suggested that off-shore underwater reserves similar in character to the national parks could be established. Because of increasing recreational interest in underwater diving he asked the committee to give consideration to such a proposal. The question of finance for upkeep and development of national parks and recreation areas was debated at some length. .

Mr N. E. Lobb, of the Travel and Holidays Association, said the money made available to national parks could well be increased. In the United States, Government contribution to national park administration was $1 to one acre; in New Zealand the comparative figure was Bc. Additional Funds He suggested consideration might be given to zoning a portion of national parks so that more adequate use might be made of them. The Minister of Finance (Mr Muldoon) said the topic of additional funds for national parks was something on which he would like the conference as a whole to express its views. Referring to Mr Lobb’s figures of Government contribution per acre, he said New Zealand’s national park area was much greater in proportion than in the United States; and if taken on a comparative population figure the result would be much favourable. “In the United States very substantial amounts are paid by users of the parks,” he said. Mr Muldoon declared It

would be of considerable interest for the future developnfent of national parks if the conference could reach a consensus for either the user-pay principle or whether the taxpayer should pay the additional amounts. Entry Charges Mr D. G. Downey, of Auckland, supported entry charges being made for visitors to some national parks. Taking Mount Ruapehu as an example, he said the large numbers of skiers at weekends created a need for services—“and the cost of catering for these people can’t really be met by the taxpayer. “I think the user should pay, although not entirety. The scenic beauty areas do not warrant a charge, but those parks regularly visited do,” said Mr Downey. A number of other delegates considered the “user pays” principle could apply to parks.

Mr Lobb said the Travel and Holidays Association supported the principle.

“We are concerned that overseas visitors are getting a free ride through our parks, and we would like to collect something from them.”