National parks — still undecided who will have final power

Press, 10 April 1980, Page 21

National parks — still undecided who will have final power

Bv

BARRY SIMPSON

The Minister of Lands (Mr V. S. Young) has harkened to criticisms expressed by individuals and organisations on the apparent down-grading of executive powers for the recommended new National Parks and Reserves Authority and the local national park and reserves boards. The recommendations are contained in the report of a - Government caucus committee which last year reviewed the administrative structure of national parks and reserves administered by the Department of Lands and Survey. The Minister said recently he would introduce legislation shortly to give effect to the recommendations.

A spokesman from the Minister’s office (Mr Young was overseas) said last week that after considering 20 letters “of reservations held” on the recommended functions of the authority and the boards, the Minister had decided to make some

changes which would more clearly define these.

“He has now laid out quite clearly that the bodies concerned will give their approval to such things as management plans and the extension of boundaries to national parks,” the spokesman said. All bodies would be expected to advise the department and the Minister, he added.

The restructuring legislation would probably be introduced early in the next session of Parliament and it was likely that it would go to a select committee so that a further opportunity for submissions to be made would be available. In the review, the committee considered submissions from 109 individuals and a wide cross section of organisations and Gove r n m e n t departments. Ucon publication of the report, 32 letters commenting on the recommendations contained in it were received at the Minister’s office. Of these, 20 appear to have been criti-

cal of the manner in which the executive powers of the authority and the board had been down-graded. At the root of their dissatisfaction is clause 12 that “the administration and management of national parks and reserves of national and international importance (including historic, scenic, nature, and scientific) be undertaken by the Department of Lands and Survey.”

The effect of this clause is to take executive power out of the. hands of the authority and the boards and place it directly into the hands of the department.

At the same time, the committee recommended that “the main functions of the new bodies to be directed to the oversight of policy, proposals for new parks and additions, management plans, public issues, and other important items of policy with the right to publish views and findings.” The effect of such a recommendation

was to make both bodies merely advisory ones. This recommendation drew fire, and the Minister is now recommending the extension of the functions of the bodies by giving them some power of approval. They are also to have a sort of “big brother is watching” function in that it is also recommended they should be able to review, assess, or comment on the stewardship of the department in its adminis-

tration of the National Parks Act, 1952. and Reserves Act, 1977. This clause is hardly likely to find favour with district commissioners of Crown Lands or their staff involved in the administration of the lands involved. While there has been some criticism of the report, there will be few who could argue that it was high time the whole matter of national parks and reserves was straightened out.

As the report points out, the department administers 1102 scenic reserves, 101 historic reserves, 87 nature reserves, more than 800 former domains controlled by domains boards, and more than 4000 other reserves under the department’s direct control. There are also hundreds of reserves, that local bodies and authorities have been appointed to control.

The committee firmly believes that the present

system which has led to the proliferation of boards (965 administering parks and reserves) should be discontinued. There were 431 cases where local authorities had been constituted as reserve boards and there were no valid reasons for the continued existence of these boards, said the report. The committee’s recommendations, therefore, were that the reserves be categorised and adminis-.

tered under three headings

—. local, regional, and national and international. It was recommended that the oversight and co-ordi-nation of national parks, maritime parks, and reserves of national and international importance should be unified at national level under one

body- and at district level by a district body (or bodies). At national level, therefore, the recommendation was that the National Parks Authority be replaced by the National Parks and Reserves Authority, and at district level, each park board be replaced - , by a (locality) National Park and Reserves Board. The control of reserves of regional and local significance should be handed

over. respectively to united councils and local authorities provided they agreed to accept control, the report recommended.

Presumably, all reserves throughout New Zealand will now have to be categorised; and here there may be problems. Kaiteriteri Beach, a popular tourist centre in the Nelson district, is a case in point. At present it is administered by a domains board. It makes a lot of money. Is this a reserve of national and international importance, regional, or merely local? Odds are, that with the money it is making, it will be slotted into the “national” category. The Nelson Bays United Council. and the authority in whose district it is placed (the Waimea County Council) are likely to have very different views. The work over the years

of all the domains boards members is acknowledged in the report and provision is made for such boards to be retained by the local authorities and united councils as "manageement committees.” Those who have been closely associated with parks and reserves will be please to note that in the membership of both the authority and the district park boards, Government departments will be restricted to a representative on each body who would have a voice but no vote.

“The dissatisfaction widely expressed regarding the predominance of Government members on the National Parks Authority and the difficulties this is causing has led the committee to recommend that the new central body be more independent and

composed solely of private members,” said the report. On the present authority, six of the 11 members are heads or deputy heads of Government departments. The new central body will also find its decisions open to public scrutiny — something it never had to worry about in the past. Its meetings, formerly held in committee, will now, like those of the local boards, be subject to the provisions of the Public Bodies Meetings Act. Although some would see great changes likely to occur in the new set-up, the situation would not be all that different, according to Mr L. H. Russell, of Nelson. Mr Russell, Commissioner of Crown Lands and chairman of two national park boards, says

the onlv real difference will be’ that the park boards will cease to "fiddle about with the nuts and bolts of park management and leave this work to the people who are trained to do it infinitely belter and without their advice and detailed instructions. The boards are going to set the policy. We are going to do the work." To get more effective cover for the Nelson region, for example, a district ranger is to be appointed. His job will be to co-ordinate the activities of all the rangers in the district. He will have jurisdiction over all the area in which there are two national parks and where reserves rangers work. This comprises an area extending from Farewell Spit through to Reefton and the Lewis Pass.