Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Forest Service fighting to avert carve-up

By

OLIVER RIDDELL

in Wellington

The Forest Service, the department which has overseen all forestry matters in New Zealand for the last 65 years, is fighting for its life. This is the message from its confidential report to the Government to combat proposals to take from it all functions other than control of New Zealand’s exotic forestry. “The Press” has obtained a copy of this report. Proposals to carve up the Forest Service are contained in the wide-ranging report to the Government of the working party into environmental administration. The Government had had a copy of the working party’s report for more than a month before it agreed to make it public. It did so under pressure from the so-

called “Group of Ten.” This group is a coalition of land-use and forestry agencies in the community which was alarmed that decisions on land were being made by the Government behind closed doors and without proper consultation. Members of the Group of Ten include the Manufacturers’ Federation, the Workers’ Union, Federated Farmers, and forest owner and miller groups. An approach by “The Press” for a copy of the Forest Service rebuttal of the proposals of the working party on environmental administration — to provide a balanced picture — was declined by the Minister of Forests, Mr Wetere. Mr Wetere was approached under the terms of

the Official Information Act, but declined on the ground that the Forest Service document was a confidential report to the Cabinet. “The Press” has now gained a copy of the Forest Service document, details from which are published below. However, it has not so far been possible to get copies of other departmental papers on the working party proposals. The most important of these is the report from the Treasury. This backs the working party in wanting the Forest Service divided up, but its detailed reasons for wanting this, and its costings of the whole exercise, are still confidential. This treasury report has also been sought by “The Press” under the Official Information Act. The Minis-

ters of Finance and State Services were approached a month ago, but have not so far responded.

The Forest Service is highly critical of the report of the working party and has made a number of coun-ter-proposals. Its confidential report also reveals that it sent a paper to the Cabinet Policy Committee before the Government set up the working party on environmental administration. The Director-General of Forests, Mr Andy Kirkland, said in the confidential report that this earlier paper, “Future Developments and Directions,” had been deferred by the Government pending receipt of the working party’s report. The Forest Service is not the only Government de-

partment contesting the working party’s recommendations, although it will be the most severely affected if the proposals are adopted. Other departments mounting campaigns against the recommendations include the D.5.1.R., which stands to lose its, Ecology Division; the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, which stands to lose fresh-water fisheries research; and the Ministry of Works and Development, which stands to lose its Town and Country Planning Division. It was not until “The Press” received a copy of the Forest Service counterproposals in the mail that any document the Government had received from affected departments has seen the light of day.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19850702.2.28

Bibliographic details

Press, 2 July 1985, Page 3

Word Count
549

Forest Service fighting to avert carve-up Press, 2 July 1985, Page 3

Forest Service fighting to avert carve-up Press, 2 July 1985, Page 3