PROTEST BY-LAW Control Sought, Not Suppression

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32358, 25 July 1970, Page 14

PROTEST BY-LAW Control Sought, Not Suppression

The proposed City Council by-law on protests did not seek to prohibit or suppress demonstrations or marches in public places, but did seek to exercise some control, said the Deputy Mayor (Cr H. P. Smith) in a statement yesterday.

Cr Smith said that the special meeting of the council on Monday was called to permit, by resolution, the making of the by-law. The by-law-had still to be publicly notified; it could be inspected, so that its object and purport were known.

A resolution of the council, confirming the motion that the by-law be brought into being had also to be passed at a meeting in the future, before the by-law could be enacted. “The very purpose of this notification, required by law, is to give citizens generally a chance to make representaions for amendment before ‘he notified date of the conming resolution,” Cr Smith lid.

“The correspondent to The

Press,’ Mr W. Rosenberg, seems mistakenly to have assumed that the council has rushed through this by-law restricting the right of persons to demonstrate, and has stated that the point of view of the people concerned had been ignored, and democratic procedures discarded,” said Cr Smith. “But the by-law has not yet been passed, and the ‘democratic procedure’ still permits Mr Rosenberg, or any other citizen, to make representations. “He and others should be reminded that the by-law does not seek to prohibit or suppress anything. It does seek to exercise some control in the interests of all the citizens of Christchurch.” Cr Smith referred to a leading article in “The Press” of last Wednesday, headed “Protest By-Laws,” which said that it was not clear who

would enforce the provisions. “In making such comment does ‘The Press' not overlook the fact that the enforcing of by-laws is by the ordinary procedure laid down in the Summary Proceedings Act (1957), whereby any person may lay an information for an offence? Usually a person authorised by the council takes this step. “The article further says that no mention is made of penalties for non-compliance. This critical comment, I suggest overlooks the fact that the by-laws provisions are expressly stated therein to be in substitution for existing provision of by-law No. 1, and thus will become part of that by-law which provides that the penalty in the Municipal Corporations Act ’ applies—namely, not exceeding $lOO.

“May I add that the council, as legal owner of the streets , and with control of reserves, has special powers and duties in the discharge of which it seeks by the proposed bylaw to strike a just balance between preserving civil liberties and giving due regard to the good rule and government of the district,” Cr Smith said. Reply To Police The City Council and the Christchurch police had always enjoyed happy relations, and had worked in close co-operation, said Cr Smith. “I am sure that will continue to be the case in any move to obtain reasonable control of street marches and demonstrations,” Cr Smith said, referring to the report in ‘The Press” yesterday about the Christchurch police being annoyed and upset over the council’s proposed by-law “The council will welcome any representations the police may care to make before the confirming resolution is put to the council.” Cr Smith said.