ADMISSION TO ZOO

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 96, 27 April 1929, Page 10

ADMISSION TO ZOO

SUNDAY CHARGE ISSUE

HISTORICAL SURVEY

A LABOUR VIEWPOINT

Mr. Peter Butler, -Labour candidate for the City Council, reviewing the published statements regarding the Wellington Zoo, wishes it understood that he docs not hold^Mr.B. G. 11. Burn responsible for the> conditions there, but desires to discuss the matter impersonally and impartially, but to hia suggestion by letter that they shouM meet to discuss things, Mr. Burn had replied to-day that "the matter would receive consideration, "whereas there were only., two days before the poll. The Ministerial ring'in this reply says Mr. Butler, meant probably that Mr. Burn would not discuss the matter in public with him,;6o he wishes to place the facts : before the electors. SEASONS AGAINST CHARGE. Ho is against the proposal for two vital reasons. ■ (1) The proposal for Sunday charges if carried-into effect will place a further burden on the wageearners, whether ratepayers or , rentpayers, and will not ease the cost of the upkeep of the Zoo from:the rates to any extent. (2) The proposal-is anattack on the right of citizens' access to the reserves.' Another attempt to alienate the reserves from the public. It means an average charge of ,2s : O,Jd to a man and wife and two children visit the Zoo on Sunday. In the-case, of children aged 15\years or. over-tho cost is more. The proposal :to . admit children free is too .thin;-parents', would not allow their young children to, wander there unattended,.and jwould have to pay for the privilege of.prtecting them. If the matter-was submitted.to the poll of the ratepayers only, it ' would be turned down." '- . HOW TOWN BELT ..CAME. ' In a brief history of the reserves (which he insists should be . handed down intact to posterity), Mr. Butler says: '"The-first report of the directors of the New Zealand Company on 14th .May, 1840, iueludes .the following:— "'Your directors ..-. . desired that ample reserves should.be made for all public purposes, such as cemetery, a market place, wharfage, and .probable public buildings, a botanical garden, a park, and extensive boulevards—that a broad belt of land should be left for public use between the town and the country sections—-that in the form of the town, the future should be provided for rather than the present—and that, the public convenience "should be consiWted,'and the beautiful appearance of the city secured so: far- as : possible rather than the immediate profits, of the company.' ■' . "It was these instructions," says Mr. Butler, "which gave us that magnificent Town Belt, the, subject of 'praise by visitors. ■ ...... 1. ... I HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF. "Mr. J. Staccy, a resident and ratepayer of Wellington- South' 'for 51 years," continues, Mr. Butler, "informed me that he was present at the opening of Newtown Park, when the then Mayor of Wellington, the late .Mr. W. Hutchinson, stressed the -need- of' the people, to preserve their, rights, . and ■forecasted-the time when,attacks.would be made. 011 them.' Mr. Staeey (now agd 76) has along: with others fought attacks in the past, and when the Wellington City Empowering Bill of 1921 was before the House, he gave evidence against it. To .read the speeches- of members when that Bill was before Parliament, one would think that his-' tory was repeating itself to-day; Many of the men who opposed • its passage used the arguments which I am using; and although some are'dead,-there still remain many, who will continue to battle to preserve the peoples' property intact for ever. The B'ilVin 1912 was thrown out on the report of the Local Bills Committee, but it/was stealthily rehitroduced per medium of the Lands Bills Committee and passed, but the right of the people to 'be admitted to their own property -on -Sundays was maintained. "Then commenced a long tight to pass a Bill to enable the ■council to make a charge on Sunday. In/October, 1921, it was road a first time, but was rejected Ijy the report of the Local, Bills. Committee. Sir George Hunter (whoso father was the first Mayor of. Wellington) -then contended that it would be affirming a wrong principle;-'the'-'public should have access to the public reserves of'the country on one day of the week without charge." , : REPEATEDLY. "KILLED."' . "Thc ; Bill was-'killed-,' but/was resurBills. Committee, just-likel the : Lands B ills Committee,,: just' like ■ the Bill of 1912.' ' The Hon.T.'M. Wilf ord said the position -was absurd,-'but the Bill went on, the clause relating to-Sunday charges being killed by: the Legislative Council. Again : and ■ again ■ the proposal was thrown out by both' Houses, either/ as a straight-out; Bill, or sandwiched as a clause in- other -Bills. Had Parliament passed the- proposal, the citizens of Wellington would: have had. no say in the matter, but their interests were'protected by men like Sir G. Hunter, the Hon. Mr. Earnshaw, the Hon. Mr. Izard, Mr. Ell; Mr.'Fras'er, Mr. H.

E. Holland, Sir J. Ward, Mr. M'Combs, Mr. W. Sidoy, Mr. V. Brown, and others, incu of all parties, But united iv this issue. "Those favouring the Bill did not, until 1924, accede to the demand that 1 the Wellington citizens should have the right of deciding' the question of referendum! and they would not have given in then, had they not been defeated again and again in the House. In 1924 a'Bill was introduced in which the proposals was again sandwiched, but this time making provision for a poll oJ! the citizens. It is per medium of this poll that the electors will give their decision; and it is to stampede them into favouring the proposal .that so many exaggerations have been made. "During the period in which attempts were made to rustle the proposal through Parliament, . many eloquent | speeches were made" by men, whose names are household words in the community, thundering abovo the winnings of those who would steal our very Jungs. This is not a question of ratepayer versus rentpayer, but one involv-' ing the rights of the people of New Zealand generally. HOW THE ZOO GREW. "The Zoo.at Wellington South was brought into being by the presentation to the city of the lion "King Dick" by Wirth Bros.' Circus in 1906. 'A number of public spirited men and women formed themselves into a commiltep and purchased a collection of animal Those people later formed themscKci into the Wellington Zoological Society, which has at considerable expense to its members presented numerous zoo logical gifts to the city. The council, acting oji powers conferred upon it b law, fenced the portion containing thrj animals from the Newtown Park Ami I tcok upon itself the responsibility o«. I its upkeep. The late Rev. J. Crcnr a most enthusiastic member of the so ciety, aided the collection considerable He was the greatest opponent of in ; charge being levied for admission. Mr John Castle is another who has ghen time and money and service to the Zoo, | and who was instrumental, with, the assistance of H.B.H. the Prince of Wales, obtaining for the city the magnificent elephant which it owns. He also is opposed to the Sunday charge. SMALL COST TO CITY. "It has cost the citizens very little for the procuring of animals, and during the last five years the council has only spent £205, or an average of £40 per year for animals. In this regard it might be as well to mention that the Auckland City is responsible for the purchase of all animals, and this item alone has cost the Auckland citizens many pounds. The cost of the upkeep of the Wellington Zoo for the year just ended has been greatly increased by the bungling methods of the present council, particularly in reference to the bear-pit, and this is being made the excuse for levying the charge. This pit, which was estimated to cost £700, really cost £2527. "Last year the expenditure on the reserves, excluding the/Zoo, was.£3o,----2G2. This is a large sum of money, yet no one would suggest that a charge should be levied to meet it. Added to this was £4130 for baths and beaches, a total of £34,392. If any councillor or council, suggested that the public should pay for admittance to any of our beaches they would'bo sent to the right about. Of course, the baths and reserves bring in a'icertain amount of revenue, but sa does the Zoo, and I contend, if properly organised, .the Zoo would be made practically self-support-ing without the Sunday charge." Contrasting the position of the local Zoo with others which are superior, Mr. Butler closes:—"lt cost the Wellington Council nothing to' acquire - the Zoo site and very: little'for ' animals. They took a portion of .the 'people's, land, the public provided the animals, they bungled its management, levied a charge, to meet the cost, increased the bungling, iiicreasJd the cost, and now want to charge for admission on Sundays. This in a nutshell is the whole position." ' . :