Summit Road Bill Rejected

Press, Issue 32333, 26 June 1970, Page 24

Summit Road Bill Rejected

(From Our Own Reporter)

WELLINGTON, June 25.

Labour members united in protest when the chairman of the Local Bills Committee (Mr L. F. Sloane) reported to Parliament today that the committee had rejected the Summit Road (Canterbury) Protection Amendment Bill.

During heated debate on the decision, Mr H. L. J. May (Lab., Western Hutt) moved that the committee should reconsider its verdict. The debate was terminated by the dinner adjournment before a vote could be taken.

Mr Sloan told Parliament that the committee had agreed, though the vote was divided, to reject the bill on the ground that it sought to bind the Crown. The object of the bill was to bind Government departments in the same way as private land-land-holders in the area were bound, so that unnecessary structures would not be built near the Summit Road.

“Our dismay at this verdict will be shared by a large number of South Islanders and conservationists,” said Mr T. M. McGuigan (Lab., Lyttelton), the sponsor of the bill. “The measure was supported by 13 local bodies, including Eyre and Rangiora. There were no objections.” Mr McGuigan said that it was necessary to protect the

priceless asset which Canterbury had in the Port Hills. Today there was much development in the hills. This included “straggling lines of pylons sinking their claws into the soil of New Zealand.” A sub-station was being planted in one of the most scenic valleys, Mr McGuigan said, and a thermal station was mooted for Akaroa. The protection of the Suminit Road route was a matter of urgency.

“Today we are fighting for Hagley Park, and for other parts of Christchurch history,” Mr McGuigan said. “As Christchurch grows so the demand will increase to build along the Summit Road.” Speaking of opposition expressed in the committee to binding the Crown, Mr McGuigan said he had notes of 14 acts which bound the Crown. It was the Crown which introduced the Town and Country Planning Appeal Board. The Minister of Internal Affairs (Mr Seath), said that sufficient protection was given in the act of 1965, when provision was made for mandatory discussions between the Christchurch Regional Authority and a Government de-

partment which intended to build in the area. This arrangement had worked out very well, and structures had been designed and built to standards agreed to by the authority. “TWO VOICES”

“The Regional Planning Authority is the watchdog of Canterbury, and this decision is intended to deprive it of power,” Mr B. G. Barclay (Lab., Christchurch Central) said. “The position is now that the Crown can go ahead and build when and where it likes.

“This is happening with the Lansdowne sub-station at present. The decision has been made by the Electricity Department regardless of scenic values. This isn’t the first time. With the Lake Wanaka Preservation Bill the Government members went the other way. They speak with two voices.”

Mr M. A. Connelly (Lab., Wigram) said that the Government members from Canterbury had had nothing to say. He thought that they should think first of their city. A few years ago, he remembered, one of them had chosen to vote against his Government on the issue. The Minister of Tourism (Mr Walker) said he would do anything at all to protect the city of Christchurch and 'the Port Hills. In 1965, he I said, legislation had been passed to do this. There was no need now for extra legislation.

Mr Walker said that he had not received an invitation to the original meeting to discuss the present bill. He had received the invitation the day after the meeting had been held. Actually, the Regional Planning Authority had determined the route. STATEMENT DISPUTED

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Kirk) had just walked into the House, his first appearance since his trip to South-East Asia. “That is not correct,” he said. When Mr Walker repeated that the authority had determined the route the pylons would follow, Mr Kirk repeated: “That is not right.”

Mr Kirk said that the House had once approved a Summit 'Road Bill binding the Crown, [but had forced it to be recommitted. What better case [existed for committing the Crown? He described as “utter claptrap” Mr Walker's reference to the line of pylons. “There were better routes,” Mr Kirk said.

“It would not have to go through Bishopdale and Papanui if it did not use the hills. It should run along the right-of-way already owned by the Railways Department. I This would need no land resumptions, and would take the shortest route. “If it is in the national interest to bind a private owner, then it should be in the national interest to bind the Crown. Sooner or later this principle will be embodied in the laws of this country.”