Park bill report accepted by narrowest margin

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32708, 10 September 1971, Page 1

Park bill report accepted by narrowest margin

(From Our Own Reporter) WELLINGTON, September 9. A spirited Opposition attempt to send the Christchurch City (Reserves) Empowering Bill (No. 2) back to the Lands and Agricultural Committee failed narrowly in Parliament today. The amendment was defeated by 36 votes to 35, and the report was accepted.

The measure in its present form, as amended by the Lands and Agriculture Committee, now awaits its commital debate, which might take place next Wednesday. ' Opposition members still regard the measure as obnoxious. The purpose of the remit, moved yesterday by Mr T. M. McGuigan (Lab., Lyttelton) was to return the bill to the committee. This move was “in order that the committee may consider that the Botanic Gardens, Cathedral Square and other reserves listed in clause 13 be given the same consideration as Hagley Park, Cranmer Square and Latimer Square.”

For a time this afternoon it appeared as though Opposition members intended to “talk out” the bill for another day. After an hour’s debate, and just before the evening adjournment, the vote was taken after a 36-35 division.

When the Government blocked the amendment by that margin also, the motion that the report be tabled was carried on the voices. Mr H. L. J. May (Lab., Western Hutt) said that though the committee had made significant changes of which Labour members approved, this would not finally change things. “Once the road through Hagley Park is established and carrying traffic, any Government’s hands will be forced on the issue,” he said. “MOTOR CAR SUPREME” “There will 'be no question of going back. As on all other occasions, you will see that the motor car is supreme.” A charge that the amendment was a deliberate attempt to hold up the bill was made by the Under-Secretary for Agriculture (Mr A. D. Dick), who was chairman of the Lands and Agriculture Committee. His description of the Lab-

our manoeuvre as “a wicked and wanton waste of the people’s time and money” was unsuccessfully challenged by the Opposition. Mr Dick said that full democratic procedure applied in the committee, but that no Labour members of that committee had raised the matter of whether reserves other than Hagley Park, Latimer Square, and Cranmer Square required special protection. By its amendment of clauses 5, 6 and 7, the committee had ensured that before any further land could be taken from these reserves it would be necessary to go back to Parliament. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Kirk) said that though the committee had done a good job the idea that even .some of the reserves, including Latimer and Cranmer Squares, were protected in perpetuity was quite false.

“These amendments mean that some reserves are more exposed than ever,” Mr Kirk said. “The qualification involving the master transport plan has been removed, and permission has been given for the City Council, with Ministerial approval, to go to work in Cathedral Square, the Botanic Gardens, or wherever else it chooses. “If justification exists for Latimer and Cranmer Squares to be specially protected, then surely there is justification of the others receiving the same privilege.” Mr Kirk also claimed, through considerable Government interjection, that Hagley Park itself did not enjoy a single level of protection. According to qualifications in the ,bill, there were two separate levels of protection for parts of Hagley Park. “For years I fought this House to get a measure of

protection for the Summit Road,” Mr Kirk said. “Now, if this bill goes through as it is, there can be changes in Cathedral Square. A road can be put through the Gardens. The hospital can be extended into the gardens.” Mr J. F. Luxton (Nat., Piako) said that ample safeguards existed. To think otherwise would be to show want of confidence in the Christchurch City Council. Labour voices: Hear, hear. Sir Basil Arthur (Lab., Timaru) said that the Christchurch reserves were the most carefully protected in New Zealand. It was true that the reserves were in much greater danger now than they had been in 1855, when the original grants were made. On the motion of Mr L. W. Gandar (Nat., Manawatu) the votes were then taken.