EREBUS MEMORIAL PARK

EREBUS MEMORIAL – A CREDIBLE SOLUTION IN THE WIND?

At last, some common sense! A dedicated Erebus Memorial proposal is on the table.

If the Government is listening and wise, they will seriously explore the offer by the Erebus Memorial Park Working Group to identify a stand-alone memorial park dedicated solely to sharing the full story of the Erebus tragedy in perpetuity.

The EMP Group’s proposal is on Western Springs land free from historic heritage and other constraints:

•No sharing of the Erebus Memorial with Mayor Robbie’s

Memorial, diluting the significance of both and underselling the singular importance of due recognition of the Erebus tragedy.

•And no sharing with the groups of unified Aucklanders dedicated to protecting Mataharehare – the remnants of the ancient Parnell headland and its great trees, including the biggest Pohutukawa in urban New Zealand and now under immediate threat from Erebus. As the EMP Group state – it is time to reflect and respect what exists. I say: Let’s not create another tragedy!

The scale of the Erebus tragedy - 257 lives lost, a huge recovery operation by Overdue Ice Phase Members and a deep-seated, still smouldering row over cause – deserves a dedicated national memorial - a destination in its own right and a true place for reflection and remembrance, as an independent Boffa Miskell report suggested to the Ministry of Culture and Heritage three years ago.

The EMP Group’s proposal is a get out of jail card for the Ministry’s ill-conceived Parnell proposal. They apparently concealed the Boffa Miskell report from Erebus families and the public. Not only does Parnell’s Rose Garden have no connection to Erebus or aviation, but it is a multiple-use park, is noisy and has limited scope to tell the full story of Erebus including family memories.

There has never been a valid reason stated as to why the national memorial should be in Parnell. There are plenty of reasons why it shouldn’t. It locks in a long-term genesis of conflict with existing memorials, been rejected by numerous groups including Erebus Families, Ngati Whatua hapu and locals who have noted the scale of the planned memorial is destructive to the park itself and blocks the prime view of the Waitematā Harbour.

But at the heart of the conflict is a sentiment showing up currently in nationwide opinion polls. While a relatively small number, the still-growing petition of more than 15,000 signatures reflects a loss of support through a lack of listening and resulting weak leadership to ensure a logical outcome – a site dedicated to Erebus and Erebus alone.

If an ongoing positive, celebratory National Erebus Memorial outcome in Auckland is the goal, the project deserves a location that does not need to be constantly defended; a location at which New Zealand’s political leaders can hold ceremonies without fear of reproach.

A National Erebus Memorial near Christchurch airport is an option favoured by some of the Erebus families. Appropriately designed to evoke the stark beauty of Antarctica, the memorial could record the flight’s non-arrival.

With the Antarctica museum nearby, it would be a wellunderstood memory lasting for generations – on a dedicated site that enables full recognition of the gravity of the tragedy and that gives the victims their place of honour untouched by other events, conflicts and disagreement. It deserves its own exclusive location.

But if the memorial is to be in Auckland, a dedicated location adjacent to MOTAT delivers benefits through association with the Museum and New Zealand aviation history. (TONY GARNIER)  PN

A Parnell resident for 15 years, Tony Garnier is a former political journalist who worked at Parliament in the 1970s and eighties, and ‘covered’ some of the early political fall-out of the Erebus disaster.

MARK GRAHAM: The Question of Trees

The dispute over removing exotic trees from Ōwairaka and the ageing pines from Western Springs Ngahere bring into the foreground the issue of when public trees should be removed, but different cases have different circumstances.

Conflating them is counterproductive and interferes with making good decisions.

The question is being asked–how can we remove trees when there’s a climate crisis?

Most of us acknowledge that not removing trees and planting new ones is at the forefront of our response to Climate Change (alongside getting out of our cars and reducing our dairy herd). But there are several different cases of proposed or actual tree removal that get conflated together despite being fundamentally different issues. Always at the core, however, is the ‘hypocritical Council’ responsible for the damage.

I believe we all strongly wish that the number of trees being removed should be reduced. I have fought to save trees with the Western Springs Pohutukawa Savers group, I have planted around 35 trees on my own property, and I’ve worked with Council to get them planted in the streets in which I live - but I believe there will always be some trees that need to be removed for a range of reasons, and a blanket ‘don’t cut down any tree at all’ response is not practical or ideal.

Set in a context of a massive tree planting programme Council is undertaking, removing a few trees here and there will not make a big difference to our climate change response, especially when the huge number of trees our forest industry cuts down every day is considered.

While we have seen our canopy cover reduced in recent years, almost all is down to private homeowners taking advantage of the removal of tree protections by the Key-led National government. Council, notably led by City Vision elected members, is now leading on pressuring the current Labour government to change the tree removal provisions in the Resource Management Act, giving councils back greater control over which trees can be removed. that around quarter needed to be removed as immediate threats, with about another quarter approaching this stage, the balance being safe for a while longer.

I walked the path, illegally, before the start of the tree removal itself. It was beautiful - a serene and spiritual experience, with the soaring canopy of the pines so high it was like walking through a natural cathedral. I can understand the desire of protestors to protect this beautiful forested area and, while I lament their loss, the fact is they were dead or near it.

There was no question the trees were coming out – either in one action, or over several years. Board members had to weigh up the risk to the public and their responsibilities around sound fiscal management, with a protracted removal but with less damage to the undergrowth, versus the damage caused by removing them in one go. With conflicting advice, they made a choice.

There are those who are intransigent in their beliefs that the Board made the wrong one and are distraught at the damaging removal technique, but there are many in the community who are pleased at the removal of ‘very tall weeds’, as I saw someone comment.

The damaged undergrowth is being replanted, the creek cleaned up, and now that the danger from the pines has been removed, the Zoo can get back into the forest to undertake pest control, which I understand has become near plague proportions.

Even the venerable John Elliot, who has recently been very vocal in his despair at the damage done, in previewing the proposals for Western Springs once reminded opponents of the success of Tiritiri Matangi Island – previously a grass and weed covered rock, now a true native forest full of native fauna - and in less than the 50-year timeframe Council has given itself for Western Springs to recover.