THE PRESS MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1980. The National Parks Bill

Press, 1 September 1980, Page 18

THE PRESS MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1980. The National Parks Bill

The chorus of displeasure which the National Parks Bill has provoked should not be allowed to divert attention from the shortcomings in the way in which the country’s national parks have been administered under the 1952 National Parks Act. The individual national'park boards, which exercise very wide powers and responsibilities under this act, have at times become overpreoccupied with administrative minutiae, have been insufficiently open to the general constituency of ordinary park users, and have made, for various reasons, some unsound decisions. In turn these shortcomings should not be allowed to obscure the sound principle of giving major responsibility for running the parks to groups of individuals who are independent of the Government and are representative of park users and of those concerned with conservation.

The major fault of the National Parks Bill is that, in attempting to correct some shortcomings of the present system, it has departed too far from this basically sound principle. There is a need for administrative rationalisation and for measures to ensure that those running the parks are open and answerable to a broad range of opinions as well as being accountable for carrying out the principles set out in the act. There is no need for such a complete change in the system as the bill envisages. The need for greater administrative efficiency and for saving costs when this is compatible with effective preservation of the parks justifies the transfer of certain administrative powers from the present individual park boards to the ; Lands and Survey Department. This will have the added advantage of freeing reconstituted boards from such preoccupation with detail so that they can concentrate on the important decisions of policy and principle. Unfortunately the bill fails to leave the boards, and even the proposed new National Parks and Reserves Authority, with sufficient powers and responsibilities for it to be said that they have, as they should, dominant influence • over decisions, of policy, principle, and broad planning. This emasculation is particularly marked, and particularly unacceptable, in the instance of the new boards, but even the authority is not given the powers adequate to the responsibilities it should discharge.

The bill requires the Lands and Survey Department to administer the ■ parks in accordance with general policy statements prepared and approved by the authority and management plans prepared with the participation of the boards and approved by the authority. What is missing is a clear, unequivocal statement that the authority and boards have the final say oyer these policy statements and management plans and that these statements and plans are binding on the department and the Minister of Lands. Granting to the department the right to make all the day-to-day administrative decisions and to assume the other administrative powers at present exercised by the individual park boards is acceptable only if a pre-eminent and indisputable authority over policy and major planning decisions remains with the authority and the boards. ; As it stands, the bill gives the Minister and the department powers which encroach on the formation of policy and planning which should remain with independent bodies. Many of these powers are not needed by the department for efficient and economical day-to-day administration. In an effort to appease critics of the bill, the Minister of Lands, Mr Young, has promised to delegate important responsibilities to the new authority and boards. The authority and the boards should have legislative and not delegated authority. As the bill stands, such practical power as the authority and boards will have would rest very much on the ability of these bodies to mobilise public opinion against decisions of the Minister or the department when they feel that the decisions run against basic statutory principles or against any policy statements or management plans approved by. the authority. . . '

The. bill certainly gives the authority and the boards sufficient powers publicly to question or evert embarrass a Minister who disregards any recommendation, report, or advice that either body has given to him. This should not be regarded as sufficient;

the powers of the boards to draw up and adopt management plans for individual parks should be strengthened and the powers of the authority to draw up and adopt policy statements which are binding on the Minister and the department should be set out more clearly.

One specific change in the bill will help to make it clear that responsibility for what happens in the national parks rests primarily with the authority and the boards. This is the deletion from clause 18 of the requirement that the authority “give effect to” the policy of the Government as communicated to it in writing by the Minister. Elsewhere in the bill, and in the present act, the authority is required only to “have regard to” the Miriister’s views and the policy of the Government. In extraordinary circumstances the Minister should have the power to override the authority or any board; but the Minister should be able to exercise this power only in exceptional circumstances and only under safeguards which ensure that his reasons for going against the policies and plans of the authority and boards are properly spelled out in public. The Minister must, of course, be prepared to pay the political price (or reap the political benefit) of such an action. The Minister should not, as a matter of routine, be permitted to require the authority to give effect to Government policy in its own policies and plans.

Although, under the 1952 act, the park boards were meant to be representative and to provide channels for popular opinion to influence decisions in park administration, some boards became self-perpetuating, almost secretive bodies which were sometimes over-amenable to pressure for development that was incompatible with the principles of. the act or failed to make adequate provision for certain park users. The new bill contains welcome provisions which reduce the possibility that the new authority or boards will follow the same course. Room is given for the public to participate in the framing of policy statements and management plans for individual parks. The bill should probably specify that the boards and the authority must (rather than may) release their recommendations, reports, or advice to the Minister.

The public is also involved, under the provisions of the bill, to a greater extent than before in. determining the membership qf the authority and the boards. ■ The very considerable power of appointment to the authority or the boards remains with the Minister, as it must" for. administrative simplicity. It might be practicable, however, to temper this power by providing for the appointment of some members of the authority on the nomination of specified organisations rather than simply making appointments after consultation with them.

The great problem with national parks administration is that, even at present, the power over the parks can be the preserve of a handful of local enthusiasts who, however conscientious and knowledgeable they may be, are not nationally accountable in any direct way either for the State money they spend or the policies they contrive and enact. They are, in practice, much less exposed to public criticism and checks than even the Minister himself. National parks must not fall into the hands of the representatives of a few active and speciaFinterest lobbies. They must remain finally accountable to the Minister and, through him, to Parliament. A division of power remains essential.

Although the bill contains some valuable provisions/ it does not go far enough to safeguard what must be. the primary goal of any system for. administering the country’s national parks—that the formulation of policies governing, their administration is independent of the Government, except in extraordinary situations, and yet as accountable as is possible to the public. The work in the parks should be. undertaken with the greatest possible degree of participation by members of the public who use or are concerned about the parks and their preservation. The chorus of criticism which greeted the., bill has drawn, attention to its serious defects on this crucial point/The Government, would be well advised to have the bill redrafted to ensure that this goal is achieved while retaining the sound innovations in the bill.