Wildlife changes seen as criticism ...

Press, 20 October 1976, Page 21

Wildlife changes seen as criticism ...

Which are the parties with most to lose and most to gain from any wide-scale reorganisation of the Wildlife Service? OLIVER RIDDELL discusses this aspect in the second part of a series of three articles.

An Inter-departmental review of wildlife management and research in New Zealand is not yet certain, but it must be considered very likely. The call by the North Canterbury ' Acclimatisation Society for amalgamation of ail responsibility- into the hands of the Wildlife Service of the Department of Internal Affairs was received by the State Services Commission — which has responsibility for government department machinery matters — as a criticism of the present structure. The commission has been discussing with various departments the desirability of a review of the present structure of wildlife management and research before deciding whether to recommend to the Cabinet Committee on Government Administration that a review should be conducted. It is likely that the matter will be discussed by the full Cabinet.

Already, either in support or in opposition to a review, the interested parties are lobbying furiously. The State Services Com-

mission has only a supervisory role in a matter relating to proposed changes of responsibility between Government departments, while the other supervisory department, the Commission for the Environment, will be interested to see that environmental interests are protected. In fact, the Commission for the Environment has been one of the strongest supporters for a review, on the grounds that the present organisation for management and research is inadequate. Its position has presumably been determined by the failure to achieve much progress towards reorganisation over the last 10 years. The Commission for the Environment is also understood to support the transfer of ail wildlife functions to the Lands and Survey Department, but its role in any review will be only to comment after al! the interested parties have presented their cases.

The Forest Service is involved because it is responsible for control of noxious animals, a duty which many consider might well be transferred.

The service .has prepared a report on its position, bur. it is not likely to be a serious contender against Lands and Survey to take over all wildlife functions, and is more likely to concentrate on retaining those powers it already has. The party with the most to gain is Lands and Survey, which owns most of the land on which wildlife activities occur, even if much of this land is forest under the control of the Forest Service. The, Hunn Report (1968), which had the most recent look at Wildlife management, recommended the transfer of all wildlife activities to a wildlife commission under the department’s control. Most vulnerable to a takeover is the freshwater fisheries section of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. The Ministry only obtained this section when the old Marine Department was taken over by the Ministry of Transport, which had no interest in this work.

The National Research Advisory Council, a statutory body advising the Government on research

work, is known to be keen for a consolidation of wildlife research work, although a strong case can be made for the D.S.I.R. to retain its present interest in research. Finally, the Wildlife Service has the most to lose as it is the biggest single component in the wildlife management and research structure. It is administered by the Department of Internal Affairs, and is responsible for fauna and flora conservation work.

Any review is likely to include ground already covered by the Hunn Report eight years ago. After an exhaustive investigation of wildlife in New Zealand, the Hunn Committee made a number of recommendations, most of which have never been implemented. It, too, recommended that the Lands and Survey Department take over a new national wildlife commission, after giving its reasons for wanting amalgamation and then comparing the competing claims of the Forest Service, Internal Affairs, and Lands and Survey.

“The factors in favour of Internal Affairs are its existing wildlife jurisdiction,. its relations with and preference by the Acclimatisation Societies and other bodies of sportmen, and its independence to defend wildlife in conflicts of interest,” the report said.

The Forest Service excelled in its sole jurisdiction over noxious animals, its scientific research establishment, the back-up resources of the whole department, and the career prospects for wildlife -staff.

Lands and Survey had paramount advantages in its control of fauna protection reserves, ownership of the wildlife habitat, and potentially, as a base for developing a national parks and wildlife service, including noxious animal control policy. The Hunn Report found that the present responsibilities of Internal Affairs for wildlife could fittingly be transferred to either the Forest Service or Lands and Survey, but that the reverse would not be true. The good public relations established by

Internal Affairs were capable of being maintained by the other two departments.

Both Internal Affairs and the Acclimatisation Societies fought this conclusion, both wanting control to be with Internal Affairs, but ultimately it was the Hunn Report’s wiping of what it called “laymen” from any say in wildlife management and research which led to the over-all recommendations of the report being ignored.

In paragraph 12 of chapter 7 of the report, the committee said: “We share the general opinion that the control of wildlife is a subject for experts and should no longer be in the hands of laymen, dedicated and knowledgeable as they may be.” This was unacceptable to the societies, and ultimately to the Government, so Lands and Survey did not gain control of all wildlife activities and Internal Affairs kept the Wildlife Service.

Nothing very much has changed since the report was published in November, 1968. So, Internal Af-

fairs still has most to lose, and Lands and Survey most to gain, with one as the preferred “independent” department and the other as the preferred “equipped” department.

The Minister of Internal Affairs (Mr Highet) has already begun canvassing support for his 1 department. He called for a clear statement from the South Island Council of Acclimatisation Societies on whether or not it considered “the time is opportune for the whole issue of wildlife administration to be re-opened for public examination.”

But while the departments lobby for and against the review, and for and against change under the review, the chief losers will be the various and scattered wildlife staff in their different and fragmented organisations. Any drop in staff morale would be very unfortunate. Both management and research are fragmented, and this is probably a bad thing. But yet another row between all the parties, even if conducted behind

closed doors as part of an inter-departmental review, will have short-term disadvantages — and if it does not lead to long-term advantages then it would be very damaging.

It is understood that the State Services Commission would hope to limit any review to just management and research, without looking at the Acclimatisation Society movement as well. But just how one could be considered without the other is not at all clear, as the societies are vitally interested in both management and research.

Any review is almost certain to consider all the contentious issues looked at by the Hunn Committee, and the passage of eight years has not made them any less .contentious. Even if the societies might seem to have no place in an inter-departmental review, any review must sooner or later impinge on the societies — and it will probably be sooner. (The final part of this three-part series by Oliver Riddell will be published tomorrow.)