National Parks

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31276, 24 January 1967, Page 12

National Parks

More than a year ago the Director-General of Lands (Mr R. J. MacLachlan) appointed a committee to examine the administration of national parks and to recommend any desirable changes. As chairman of the National Parks Authority, Mr MacLachlan appointed the authority’s deputy chairman, the Commissioner of Crown Lands in Christchurch, and an administrative officer of the Department of Lands and Survey to do this job. The committee studied submissions by the authority, by park boards and their rangers, by park administrators overseas, and by individuals and organisations within New Zealand. It has now published a review of its studies and a list of recommendations. Since 1952 the number of national parks in New Zealand has grown from four to 10. Believing that the time has come to improve the management of the 5 million acres of the parks the committee has produced a scheme which it claims would ensure that the best advice and most efficient organisation are employed while the most valuable aspects of the present system of control by local park boards are retained. At the centre of the plan is a recommendation that national parks legislation vest overall responsibility for the policies on park management and development in the National Parks Authority. Legislation would also require boards to classify zones within the parks. This, says the committee, is the key to the conservation and use of the parks. Using the advice of a central body the park boards would prepare zoning plans for their parks to allot areas as wilderness, as zones of scientific interest, natural environment, recreation, development, and villages. Once approved, the plans would be changed only with the approval of the Minister of Lands and the central authority.

Among other recommendations is a timely proposal urging that seashores be protected from subdivision. Indiscriminate subdivision in coastal areas of special scenic beauty could be prevented by existing legislation and the committee wants the proposed director of National Parks and Reserves to urge the Ministry of Works and local authorities to exercise their powers under the Town and Country Planning Act and other legislation. The prime purpose in publishing this report is to obtain public reactions to its proposals before changes are made in legislation and administration. The idea that the management of the parks and the decisions on their development should be highly centralised and that park employees should become a group within the Public Service may be received with some reservation. Certainly it should be examined with caution for much can be said for the value of local interest and control. The committee, however, makes a good case for the change, and it shows that its plan would make the best use of local effort and knowledge and employ the best advice and manpower to advantage. The scheme would probably mean much closer relationships between the park authorities and other organisations, especially the tourist industry, the National Historic Places Trust, scientists, and recreational bodies. The proposal, however, is so farreaching and of such importance to the future of one of the country’s great assets that it deserves close and critical attention by all concerned with park management.