Forest administration—a reply

Press, 2 July 1985, Page 20

Forest administration —a reply

Philip Woollaston, Under-Secretary for the Environment, replies to an editorial article in “The Press” of June 26, 1985. The article questioned the Government’s commitment to consultation over the proposed reorganisation of environmental administration, and asked whether the Forest Service, in particular, was being given a fair opportunity to put its case to the public.

Mr Woollaston replies:

“The editorial seems to have been written some time before it was printed. It does not take into account the Prime Minister’s announcement on June 17 that consultations would be undertaken over the next two months, nor the details of those consultations which I released on June 22. Yet both of these announcements were reported in ‘The Press,’ on June 18 and 24. “In essence -The Press’ accuses the Government of allowing inadequate opportunity for the public and Government departments to put their views on the nature conservancy proposal before it.

“In fact, the process that has been followed over the past nine months has involved extensive consultation. It began with the preparation and release of a discussion paper titled ‘Environmental Administration in New Zealand,’ in 1984. “The views of senior staff of a number of Government departments (including the New Zealand Forest Service) were sought during the preparation of that paper. departments were invited

to submit written comments both on the final paper and on a preliminary draft. Ministers were also invited to comment.

“Following publication of the discussion paper submissions were invited from interested organisations and members of the public. Over 500 were received. They expressed a wide variety of views and contained much useful information and many helpful expressions of opinion.

“Following the receipt of submissions the paper was further discussed at the Environment Forum held on March 6 and 7 this year. Among the participants (including the invited lead speakers) were several who are associated with primary or extractive industry, rather than the environmental movement.

“In particular, the forestry and farming sectors were represented and senior officials of interested departments (including the N.Z.F.S. and M.A.F.) attended the plenary sessions as observers and the workshops as full participants. “Following the forum a working group was by the Minister

for the Environment. It was asked to make recommendations based on the outcome of the forum and on an examination of the reports and submissions on the discussion paper. “It was not asked to make decisions — this Government does not abrogate its responsibilities in that way. Moreover, the Minister indicated to the forum that the report would be published (as it now has been) and that its production would not be the end of the consultative process. “He recognised that the concept of a nature conservancy, put on the back burner in the original discussion paper, had at the forum been raised to a prominence equal to the Ministry for the Environment. He therefore directed the working group to advance proposals for a separate conservancy department (based on a restructured Department of Lands and Survey). “This, he acknowledged, would then require further consultation. That was because the working group could consult only on a limited basis in the time available to it. Wider discussion would clearly be needed once there was a proposal on which to focus the debate. We are now at that stage. “It is unfortunate that draft copies of the report were leaked before the Ministers to whom it was addressed could consider it, and that the Government’s intentions relating to it have been misrepresented. “Cabinet received the report a fortnight ago, approved its publi-

cation and established the timetable for the further consultation mentioned by the Minister for the Environment, Mr Marshall, in his final address to the forum.

“During the next two months he and I will be talking to interested sector groups, local and regional bodies, environmental organisations, and employee groups up and down the country. Other Ministers will also consult groups appropriate to their portfolios and the State Services Commission will hold discussions with departments and employee organisations which might be affected by any change. As both the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment have stated, no decision will be taken by Government on the proposal until these consultations are complete.” [Much as we welcome Mr WooL laston’s assurances about “extensive consultation,” we are not diverted from the views expressed in the editorial article on June 26. Discussions among officials is necessary and all very well; and we would not expect a department, such as the Forest Service, to initiate a public debate without the consent of its Minister. Nevertheless we argue that important and useful information from the Forest Service should be made available to the public, particularly to those immediately interested in forestry production and conservation. The promised consultation will be all the better for this; it is also consistent with the policy of openness espoused by the — Editor.] iXt