Roy Nelson a ‘bitter opponent’ of takeover

Press, 27 May 1981, Page 23

Roy Nelson a ‘bitter opponent’ of takeover

In a quiet Petone street north of Wellington, living in an old house cluttered with books and papers devoted to nature, lives an 86-year-old man. Mr Roy Nelson was a friend of the founder of the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society in 1923; he became a member of its national executive in 1940; and he was its national president for 18 years, from 1955 to 1974. Today, Mr Nelson is an angrv man. He has devoted much of his lifeto furthering the aims of the society — first, the protection of birds, then of forests, and then of habitat generally. “I put in a lot of time and work at society executive meetings over the decades, but I wouldn’t be welcome on the executive today,” he says.

His anger is against the “takeover” of his society by the Native Forests Action Council. He believes this move “must cause our members great apprehension.” He is bitterly opposed to it. He refers to a report from the society’s president, Mr Tony Ellis, of Wellington, on the matter as “rubbish.” Mr Ellis’s report has been published in the society's journal. In it, detailing the approach from the action council for its members to join the society, Mr Ellis says that the council has 3000 members and substantial cash resources, which would be transferred (including calendars, cards, and other saleable goods), and that there is no legal or constitu-

tional impediment to the proposal.

“It is a condition of the council proposal that Mr Guy Salmon be employed in a senior position with our society,” Mr Ellis says. “This would involve a substantial overhaul of our head office staff. This is the aspect of the proposal which causes concern.” Mr Nelson shares the concern over this, and is concerned about much else besides. He says: “The condition of the council that its research director be appointed national director of our society is quite unacceptable under the circumstances. In fact, it is almost insulting.

“Another condition is that the council come to Wellington from its head office in Nelson and restructure our

society. That is obviously absurd.”

He catalogues a long list of council actions over the last three years which he considers were designed to acquire control of the society by stealth. He says that most members of the society have been unaware of this progression, and now that because the action council has control of the society’s national council and national executive, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the majority of members to influence what is happening to the society. “Some of us are greatly disturbed about the possibility of loyal staff being dumped to ’make way for others we consider are not suited to run our society,” Mr Nelson says. “The consumation of a plan whereby

good and faithful servants, are discharged four or five/ years before their expected retiring age would be an act of treachery, against both them and the society.”

Mr Nelson feels that because during his term as president the milling of native forest continued, he and his contemporaries are disregarded by members of the Native Forests Action council. But he insists that by cooperation rather than confrontation the rate of milling was drastically reduced over the decades. He also has an abhorrence of illegality, and will not support efforts to suborn public servants into leaking confidential papers, or to frustrate milling by sitting in trees.

He is strongly critical of the financial management

capability of the present society executive, controlled, he feels, by the council. He points to “unwise” land purchases in the wrong part of Wellington, and the need to mortgage the Bushey Park Lodge and forest west of Wanganui as a consequence. He worries about what has happened to funds put aside for special purposes, which have been drawn and spent on current projects. “For 50 years the society, and I had a lot to do with it, has been getting properties and patches of bush around the country to preserve in perpetuity,” Mr Nelson says. "Many of these were given to the society because the donors believed we were the only organisation which could protect the natural properties of the land, and the donors were right, be-

cause we were the only people who could. “What is going to happen to these pieces of land? Will they be sold off to pay for new projects? Will they be disposed of because both the council, and the society which they are out to control, have run into financial difficulties?

“What is the security for these pieces of land and bush for future generations? What guarantee is. there that those people who gave or sold us the land willl have their wishes of security for the land respected? “I know our society is in temporary financial difficulties,” Mr Nelson says, ‘but so is the Native Forests Action Council, in spite of what Mr Ellis says in his report.”

He referred to an action council bulletin published

earlier this, year, which under the' heading, “Fund raising,” says: “The national executive reviewed our financial situation which in many ways is pretty grim. Urgent action is needed by all branches to move $12,000 worth of unsold calendars and pay bills owing to national office.

“The trust fund is overcommitted, yet more workers are needed for the campaign. The trust fund is the biggest problem, as outgoings are currently exceeding income.”

In view of this bulletin, Mr Nelson asks how strong the finances of the council actually are. and whether the Society is getting such a good deal as Mr Ellis suggests.