Change in national parks boards criticised

Press, 1 April 1980, Page 16

Change in national parks boards criticised

By

COLIN BURROWS,

reader in botany at die

University of Canterbury •

In March, 1979, a Government caucus committee was set up to review the administrative structure of national parks and reserves administered by thfe Department of Lands and Survey* The report of the committee was published in July, 1979. It recommended: 1. That control of reserve areas of local or regional significance now administered by reserve boards through the Department of Lands and Survey be relinquished by the department and made available to local or regional authorities, respectively, provided they agree to accept control. The present reserve boards would be disbanded* 2. That oversight and coordination of national parks, maritime parks* and reserve areas of national and international importance be unified under one national body. In each district a district body or bodies would ,be set up. In effect the existing National Parks Authority will be replaced by a new National Parks and Reserves Authority. At district level existing national park boards (and as a general rule reserves boards administering reserves of national and inter-

national importance) will be replaced by a series of regional national parks and reserves boards, one per region. The new authority and regional parks and reserves boards will be independent, i.e., will have no Government department voting membership. Their main function will be oversight of policy proposals for new parks and additions, management plans, public issues and other items of policy, with the right to publish views and findings. 3. Administration and management of national parks, and reserves of national and international importance, will be taken over from the existing boards by the Department of Lands and Survey. Other recommendations concern the relationships of the Tourist Hotel Corporation with the national parks system and the establishment of a trust fund for the benefit of national parks* The Minister of Lands, Mr V* Young, called for submissions on the caucus committee report and, after brief consideration of these, was reported as saying on March 20, 1980, that legislation would be Introduced to give

effect to the recommendations of the caucus committee report. He also said “There would seem to be no widespread, public disagreement with the report’s recommendations and only 32 submissions were received.” Criticism of the Government’s plans outlined by Mr Young, relates chiefly to the parts of the report concerning national parks administration and the abolition of existing park boards* The strength of opposition to the proposed changes can hardly be gauged from the number of submissions since one of them, at least came from an Organisation with several thousand members* The public of New Zealand are unaware of the issues because, despite newspaper advertisements, the whole affair has been conducted in semi-secrecy. It is difficult to see what reasons there could be for such considerable changes in the status quo. At a conference in July, 1978, at Lincoln College, working parties considered a wide spectrum of topics related to national parks. It was felt by the conference that some improvements to the administrative structure could be

made, with better communication being needed between different levels in administration and management. But the conference (which was much more fully representative of a wide range of interests and expertise on National Parks than was thfe caucus committee) “ . . . was satisfied that the present administrative framework, based on authority and park boards and -serviced by the Lands and Survey Department, was satisfactory.”

Two motives come to mind as possible underlying reasons for the proposed changes. One is that senior officials in the National Parks Service want* the changes because they think it desirable that .they • should run the show without too much interference from' boards, which, Under the present system, often show their independence. Boards with a purely advisory capacity will have much less impact on the administration and management of national parks. They will, in any case, not have much time to interfere because they will be too busy advising about all . the national parks and reserves in their district. (For * instance, in Canterbury two national parks and many scenic reserves and other reserves).

Another possible motive behind the proposed changes is that, with national pa;ks and reserves entirely administered and managed by a Government department, it would be easier than at present for governments to undertake mining or other environmentally - disturbing developments in parks and reserves.

One outcome of the proposed' change would be the lessening of public;participation in the administration and management of national parks. Surely this contravenes the spirit of recent trends to make government (at all levels) more open and democratic?

A change to a system of boards with merely advisory functions would mean 'the loss of the expertise and interest of the many, dedicated people who ,• could work on boards for the benefit of the national parks. One point which the caucus committee report does not make is that administrative costs for national parks must rise to pay for the services now undertaken gratis by board members. - A thorough review of the administrative and management ■ structure of the national parks system could be beneficial, but the proposed changes in the caucus committee report throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I can see little gain and much loss if the present board system is abandoned because there could never be much sense of involvement by anyone serving only in an advisory capacity. . The present system ensures that a wide range of skills is available to any board, during the administrative process. The system works well.’ Why abandon it?

The caucus committee report is weak on many . points. The full committee visited only Arthur’s Pass and Moupt Cook National Parks' and had no discussion ■ whatsoever with the respec--tive park boards* Whether or not they ever consulted any park boards (or board members) is not mentioned -in the report; : ■ ; 'V To say the least, the committee’s knowledge of the ■ramifications of the present ."■administrative system is per-’ functory. It is difficult to •; see how members could possibly amass the information J which would allow , them to make objective judgments, If they had no discussions with ’ ’ national parks boards. I suggest,, strongly, that a new look needs to be taken at the - administrative and management .-framework of national parks, not by a * caucus committee, but by a group much more representative of expertise on . the national parks of New Zealand. ;