‘Beautiful N.Z.’ report ready

Press, 4 June 1982, Page 3

‘Beautiful N.Z.’ report ready

Parliamentary reporter

The Beautiful New Zealand Planning Committee has presented its report to the Government, but its details will remain confidential for at least 10 days. The committee, especially set up by the Cabinet in September last year to consider beautifying New Zealand by planting roadsides and unattractive areas in shrubs and trees, presented the results of eight months of study to the Minister of Tourism (Mr Talbot) yesterday.

Its chairman, Mr Miles Warren, a Christchurch architect, said the 18 members of the committee had approached their task with a "healthy scepticism.” This had changed to unqualified support. Mr Talbot said he would make a decision on release of the report on his return from Australia in mid-June, and welcomed the boost he believed the planned beautification would give to tourism in New Zealand.

Speaking generally about the report, members of the committee said one scenario showed that spending of $5 million a year would provide work for about 270 people. This, level of employment would be reached in the first year.

Effects of the planting would be immediate — shrubs would mature in five years, and trees in 10 to 15 years. Flowering annuals and perennials would be limited to local plots, mainly in urban areas. •

Mr Warren said planting would probably begin on the drier east coasts of both islands, and in “tatty” areas round city fringes.

It was not the intention to produce' uniformity through

the country. "Wild untamed"' New Zealand would be left untouched, or its naturalness enhanced. Planting would vary according to soil, exposure, and environment.

Asked whether the programme might be subject to the 3 per cent cuts exercise, Mr Talbot said it had “nothing to do with it.” The director-general of Tourism and Publicity, Mr W. N. Plimmer, said' cuts could not be applied to a programme which had no budget. The study had shown that although foreign exchange- returns to tourism alone would not quite match money spent on the project, the benefits to tourism would be substantial.

Eight hundred more visitors to New Zealand would earn $l. million more in foreign exchange, Mr Plimmer said. The evidence was that money spent beautifying the landscape would bring in specialist gardening and landscape design groups, and lengthen visitor stays and off-season visits, both of which would increase use of tourist accommodation. A promotion based on “the world’s most attractive country" would be successful, and “word of mouth" recommendations overseas were the best tourist advertising. A Wellington property developer, Mr Bob Jones, said that “Beautiful New Zealand" was not an unemployment project but a touristrevenue earner.

Those employed on the project would undergo a 10week course in horticulture at one of New Zealand’s 50 nurseries, and having gained other skills from the project, would take up jobs in horticulture. Mr Jones said there were more jobs in horticulture in New Zealand than the scheme could produce

workers to supply. In the long term, local authorities would take over a lot of the maintenance of areas planted, Mr Plimmer said.

Local authorities were “right behind” the scheme, which would be financed wholly by the Government through the Tourist and Publicity vote. They were all wanting to be first. Mr Jones said. The committee had received “hundreds” of letters from local authorities supporting the scheme.

Asked if other works financed by the department would be penalised when “Beautiful New Zealand” got under way. Mr Plimmer said he believed an extra appropriation would be made.