Council Wants More Information On Road

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32396, 8 September 1970, Page 1

Council Wants More Information On Road

A late change of mind by the Mayor (Mr A. R. Guthrey) on the next move to be made in the dispute over the Harper Avenue diversion across Hagley Park was the major surprise of a special meeting of the Christchurch City Council yesterday.

The Deputy Mayor (Cr H. P. Smith) was opposed to Mr Guthrey’s proposed acceptance of a local bill to straighten out legal problems and said there should be a declaratory decision sought from the Supreme Court on whether the Minister of Lands (Mr Maclntyre) had the power to consent to the road.

The Minister’s reply that he did not have the power led to the meeting. While there was a motion from the Mayor supporting a bill and an amendment from Cr R. H. Stewart, seconded by Cr Smith, favouring an application to the Supreme Court before it, the council went into committee to hear the City Solicitor (Mr W. R. Lascelles). He spoke at length and when open meeting was resumed a motion that the meeting stand adjourned until the next ordinary meeting of the council on September 21 was put and carried after Cr H. G. Hay had asked for more information for councillors in the meantime. The Mayor said after the meeting that it had been adjourned to allow discussions with the Crown Law Office and for a report by the City Solicitor. First Word Mr Guthrey also had the first word at the meeting, when he said that the Prime Minister (Sir Keith Holyoake), Mr Maclntyre and his department had all indicated that they were prepared to promote a local bill through Parliament this session. “By applying for a declaratory judgment we would lose a lot of good will at Government and departmental levels,

and this would probably delay an eventual decision.” he said. He had spent most of the week-end studying the matter and discussing it, Mr Guthrey said. He had only just reached his opinion on the best course to take, and would recommend that the council promote a local bill.

Crs N. G. Pickering and R. H. Stillwell: Hear, hear. He understood that Cr Smith would move an amendment, Mr Guthrey said, but he was now convinced that a bill was the proper step.

Election Issue Although it was assumed that all Labour members of Parliament would vote against the bill, this was not necessarily so, especially if the council did a good public relations job. Documentary evidence favoured the road proposal, he said. It was most unlikely, therefore, that the Government would not support a city of the size and importance of Christchurch, even if two or three of its own members felt strong emotions about the issue, “and I have that on good advice,” Mr Guthrey said.

The road proposal had been before the council for several years, had been scrutinised by experts and had been a major election issue on at least two occasions. There was no doubt that the council had a mandate from the majority to proceed, although it recognised that there was a strong and influential body of people against it. He thought the Government would be most unwise to legislate against the council’s confirmed policy. If the proposal was rejected there would have to be a major change to the whole transport plan. This would mean considerable expense and inconvenience because all alternative schemes had been investigated and had been found to be much less effective.

Promotion of a bill might mean the hearing of objections again, but Mr Guthrey said these could be dealt with quickly. Council officers were prepared to say that preparation of the bill should not take more than three weeks, so there was every possibility, “given urgency and good will,” of its being heard in Parliament this session. Local Bill A local bill would clear he issue once and for all, Mr Guthrey said. If the council applied for a judgment there was no reason to suppose it would be in the council’s favour, especially as the Crown Law Office had advised the Minister that he did not have the power to make a decision. Although the council’s own solicitors were of the opinion that the Minister had the power, they did not now recommend applying for a declaratory judgment. “If it is against us we shall have lost time, prestige and good will, all of which must

affect the passage of the bill,” the Mayor continued. “If the judgment is to the effect that the Minister has the power, he does not necessarily have to exercise it. The City Solicitor says that the Minister can still determine that, because of the complexity of the issue he will not say yes or no. but reaffirm his decision that a local bill should be promoted.” After Cr Pickering had seconded the Mayor’s motion to promote a bill, Cr R. H. Stewart said the issue should be decided more clearly. If there was a local bill dealing only with Hagley Park and perhaps Latimer Square, it would mean that every time there was a proposal for any alteration to a domain or park another bill would have to be sponsored. World Experts His amendment: “That we have a judgment on the Minister’s ability to make a decision," was seconded by Cr Smith, who said he had not been going to move such a motion after hearing the Mayor. “However, I am sick and tired of the vacillation that is occurring at Government levels and now at our own levels," he said. “The public had the occasion to demonstrate its views twice at the ballot box. World experts have examined the proposal. Objections and emotional appeals have been made ad nauseum and have been listened to. Talk of a tangled skein of legal complexities is only burking the issue.”

There was no tangled skein, Cr Smith said. The Crown Law Office did not have better officers than any other law office. It gave an opinion, but so could another solicitor, and he had discussed this with a number of his colleagues who were of the same mind that the Crown Law Office’s advice to the Minister was not necessarily right. Law Office “If we are going to use local bills to determine legislation we. are going to make a new phase in legal history’ he said. “The courts are our cherished safeguards of our; rights. Is it wrong to ask a court to determine our right to do something?” Cr Smith said he would be surprised if the court decided the Minister had the power to consent and the Minister then either refused to exercise his right or voted against it. From the Minister’s remarks during the controversy it appeared that if a bill was promoted he would support it. It would be a farce to go through everything and still not know whether the council had the power to determine a local issue. If it did not have the power it should get it, but a local bill would not decide this Cr Pickering, who said he derived no pleasure from saying “I told you so,” reminded the council that Lab-

our councillors had suggested a local bill on April 27. If it was now suggested that the advice of the Crown Law Office to the Minister of Lands was incorrect, would it be suggested that advice to other Ministers and the Prime Minister might be incorrect and could be challenged. Cr Smith: Yes. Mind Changed Parliament was the highest court in the land, Cr Pickering said. The Minister recognised this and wanted a decision from Parliament. “And I don’t think any declaratory judgment will force him to say he will decide, not Parliament,” he added. Cr E. B. E. Taylor found it sad that the Mayor should I move as he had done. “We have got years ahead of us to administer this city, and a declaratory judgment would bring clarity to the Minister’s powers,” he said.

This would not necessarily delay matters, because preparation for a local bill could continue in case it was necessary.

Cr P. D. Dunbar said he had changed his mind and would vote for the Mayor’s motion after his assurance that a bill would be passed at the present Parliamentary session. The council then went into committee to hear Mr Lascelles.