Amendments to park bill

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32707, 9 September 1971, Page 1

Amendments to park bill

/From Our Own Reporter) WELLINGTON, September 8. Further amendments made to the Christchurch City ( Reserves) Empowering Bill (No. 2) by the Lands and Agriculture Committee of Parliament did not find favour with Labour members when the bill was returned to Parliament today.

After brisk exchanges, which culminated in a move by Mr T. M. McGuigan (Lab., Lyttelton) to have the measure referred back to the committee, the debate was interrupted by the evening adjournment. As the bill has not yet been officially tabled, the debate will be continued as soon as practicable —probably tomorrow.

Returning the bill to the House, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Agriculture (Mr A. D. Dick) said that evidence had been heard on how the rights and prerogatives of the Crown would be affected. Amendments had been made to clauses 5,6, and 7.

Mr B. G. Barclay (Lab., Christchurch Central), who had introduced the bill, said he was opposed both to the measure and to the amended version, though the amendments, he said, had merit. “I cannot emphasise too strongly that Hagley Park, given to the people in Christchurch in 1855, must be preserved,” Mr Barclay said. ‘‘lt is a matter of record that the public have alway- objected to any ’ attempt to use the park for any reason other than that of recreation.” Vested in council In the original bill, Mr B-rclay said, the park had been vested in the Christchurch City Council, and earlier protective legislation had been removed. The Lands and Agriculture Committee, of which he was a member, had altered the three clauses to ensure that before interfering with Hagley Park, Cranmer Square, or Latimer Square, the City Council would have to put forward a local bill and have it passed by Parliament. As clause 5 was, the City

Council had only to get the permission of the Minister of Lands before proceeding, Mr Barclay said. Now, a local bill was needed. This clause applied to Hagley Park. Clause 6 applied to Latimer Square and Cranmer Square, and again an amendment had made a local bill necessary. Clause 7 as it originally stood would have allowed any alterations to the master transport plan to proceed. The committee had agreed to stopping this. “If left, this .would have permitted plans for an overbridge and grade separation at the junction of the Harper Avenue deviation across the park,” Mr Barclay said. There was evidence, he said, that several plans existed for developments here, though the Christchurch City Council had said in evidence that the road, once realigned, would be there for all time. In accordance with development of the master transport plan, said Mr Barclay, it was quite obvious that more land would be taken.

The Minister of Lands (Mr Maclntyre) said that the main object of the Lands and Agriculture Committee had been to examine the bill as it affected the rights and prerogative of the Crown. The amendments had had to be made for various reasons. “It is obvious that several versions of the Christchurch master transport plan exist,” Mr Maclntyre said. “We had to be sure that protection in those three areas was not completely removed.” Mr Kirk’s views “I agree with the amendments—but I do not agree with the bill,” said the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Kirk). “The amendments are all right as far as they go—but they do not protect equally important reserves.” It might be thought, Mr Kirk said, that Hagley Park and Latimer and Cranmer squares were safe for all time. This was not so. All previous acts had been repealed, and so no real protection remained.

He agreed with the amendments the Lands and Agriculture Committee had made. But there were other parks and reserves which had lost their protection. “That is all right as far as lit goes,” Mr Kirk said. “But | what about Sydenham Park? I And why don’t we have some I protection for Cathedral Square? There is a plan afoot for Cathedral Square. And how about Victoria Square, and the riverside reserve? I know of no intention to interfere with these—but. that doesn’t mean there isn’t one.”

There was also a possibility that the Christchurch Bo-

tanic Gardens could be interfered with, Mr Kirk said. The Antigua Street end had some pressure on it. The City Council could put a road through the Botanic Gardens, under the Reserves and Domains Act, 1953, merely by getting the Minister’s permission—“and then the bulldozers would be working legally.” Mr J. F. Luxton (Nat., Piako) described this suggestion as “pretty silly.” Government members were as concerned as Labour members about the rights of the individual, he said. “Rejection” Mr McGuigan said he rejected the bill. “If the bill proceeds in its present form, the people of Christchurch will be bitterly disappointed.” The original measure was a brain-child of the Regional Planning Authority, Mr McGuigan said. “This Authority has already swept away the homes of many people," - he said.

He discounted all suggestions that the road across Hagley Park would not be a new one. “This is not a realignment. It is a new road. Attempts are being made to fool the public—and Government members have already been fooled.” As an amendment to the motion that the report be tabled, Mr McGuigan moved that it be referred back to the Lands and Agriculture Committee so that the rights of the Botanic Gardens, Cathedral Square, and other reserves should be protected. Mr L. F. Sloane (Nat., Hobson), chairman of the Local Bills Committee, said that the debate had been a concerted effort by Labour members to. delay the bill. Labour voices: That is not correct. Mr Sloane: It is going to have an impact in events on October 9.