PETONE MEMORIAL

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 269, 10 August 1938, Page 15

PETONE MEMORIAL

Marking Centennial Year VIEW OF MINISTER Reply To Mayor Of Lower Hutt The question of the type of memorial to be provided at Petone to mark the centennial —whether it be a park or a structural monument at the spot on the beach where landed the first settlers sent out by the New Zealand Company —was referred to by the Minister of Internal Affairs. Hon. M. E. Parry, in an interview yesterday. At a meeting of sports bodies at Petone last week the mayor of Lower Hutt, Air. J. W. Andrews, stated that the Government’ subsidy provided as a contribution toward the cost of centennial memorials would be payable only in respect of parks. The Minister denied that any statement to the effect given by Mr. Andrews had ever been made by the Government or himself, and pointed out that he had discouraged no type of memorial except those of the purely monumental type which might prove to be costly and of indifferent aesthetic merit. .“I can find no sound basis for the deductions made by the , mayor of Lower Hutt,” said Mr. Parry. “I have never, at any time, suggested that the Government subsidy, which is being provided as a contribution toward the cost of centennial memorials, would be payable only in respect of centennial parks. Certainly I have encouraged the adoption of play-parks and tree-planting as an appropriate and comparatively inexpensive form of marking the centennial, but I have discouraged no type of memorial except such expressions of the purely monumental type as may prove to be costly and of indifferent aesthetic merit. Suggestions Put Forward. “This view was expressed following the receipt of a letter from the Auckland Provincial Centennial Council requesting that the Government define in particular terms the forms of memorials which, in the opinion of the Government, would be suitable for adoption by district centennial committees,” Mr. Parry said. My reply, a copy of which was forwarded tor the information of all provincial centennial councils, amplified in a general way the suggestions I made when I addressed the conference of provincial delegates m August, 1936. . . . . “Briefly, those suggestions are as toilows: That centennial memorials should be of general community value; that " particular form which strongly appeals to me is the provision of recreation grounds or play-parks with community centre buildings; such areas to include, where practicable, swimming pools and children’s playgrounds; that without excessive cost, such areas could be made places of public resort and enjoyment for successive generations and that, by giving to them the name ‘Centennial’ they would stand as living monuments not only, to the first century of our national existence but also to the foresight of the present generation; that another form of inexpensive memorial closely allied to that recreation areas is a scheme of treeplanting which could be adopted by every locality in New Zealand either as its sene memorial dr in addition to aa y, other proposal that might be adopted.

“No Spanner in the Works.”

The Minister emphasised that the terms of the letter 1 called for no modification. They certainly could not, he said, be construed to mean, as Mr. Andrews had informed the sports bodies’ meeting, that centennial parks would be the only form of memorial eligible to receive the Government subsidy. There was definitely no grounds for the statement of one of the speakers at the meeting that that expression of his (the Minister’s) views “threw a spanner in the works.” The position was that the form which any provincial or local memorial should take was a matter for local determination. Mr. Parry said he had been informed that the proposed memorial on Petone beach had been selected as one of three Wellington provincial memorials. If such were the case, the onus would lie with the Hutt Valley committee, through the Wellington Provincial Centennial Council, to convince other portions of the 1 province that the memorial section of the bathing pavilion proposal was entitled to their support. The Government would not interfere in any way. but, in accordance with the scheme of centennial organisation already established, it would rely on the recommendation of the provincial body in the matter of granting the Government subsidy. The procedure had been fully explained to a deputation from the Petone Borough Council which had approached him on June 28 last, Mr. Parry said. He could see no reason why the district should not proceed with its project without regard to his references to centennial parks, which references were made as a guide particularly to the smaller districts, “Seriously in Error.” “Mr. Andrews is also seriously in error,” continued the Minister, “when, in support of his contention that ‘the whole organisation (centennial) is functioning upside down,’ he stated that he ■was appointed to the Dominion Centenary Committee two years ago and that that committee had not met. He is not a member of the National Centennial Council which was appointed in March, 1936, nor was he one of the provincial delegates to the National Centennial Conference, held on August 20, 1936. Perhaps Mr. Andrews is confusing the Welligton Provincial Council with the . National Council. “However, I can assure Mr. Andrews that the centennial organisation is functioning satisfactorily, and that the Government policy is known and is being carried out 'by several provincial centennial councils. I am wholeheartedly behind Mr. Andrews in his enthusiasm for erecting on the spot where they landed a fitting memorial to the first settlers sent out by the New Zealand Company. The Hutt Valley committee is undoubtedly the proper body to advance the proposal, which should commend itself to the people of the Wellington metropolitan area as something worthy of their enthusiastic support.

“Whether the rest of the province can be induced to help would seem very largely to depend on the form of memorial and also on the response of the Hutt Valley and Wellington. Certainly the proposal will, to my mind, be more likely to bear fruit by concentrating on the appeal to the people of the districts concerned than by pointless attacks on myself and the Government which, over two year’s ago, set aside such a large sum for subsidising local celebrations and memorials.” Room For All. That, no good purpose was being served by an effort to further the claims for the memorial at the expense of all others, was; suggested by the Minister. As he saw it, there was room for ail. But whether there should be only oue memorial in the whole province, or whether the provincial memorial should be three, as had been proposed, or whether there should be both a provincial memorial or series of them, together with local.memorials in various localities, were questions to be decided within the provincial organisation itself. Obviously that meant a complete organisation of the province, with local committees in suitable areas, culminating in the provincial council. So long as the provincial council was representative of all localities, it should not, he thought, be difficult after full discussion and con-

sideration of all proposals,' t<- settle a line of policy with regard to both celebrations and memorials. The main consideration was to have any differences of opinion settled now, rather than when the subsidies would be actually payable. The large aud representative committee recently set up in the Hutt Valley seemed happily indicative of centennial enthusiasm, but it was a pity that the committee had uot been set up two years previously when the provincial organisation was established at the Minister’s request, following the first meeting of the National Centennial Committee. For many months past there had been great activity in the Manawatu district in connection with another of the three proposed provincial memorials —the pioneer memorial to be erected ou Mt. Stewart.