Administration of environment

Press, 3 July 1985, Page 16

Administration of environment

Sir, — Your editorial was timely. I believe that the implications of what this “open Government party” plans are even more sinister than your editorial suggests, and in fact, affect all landowners in the country, whether forest is involved or not. What is being offered to this country is total land control by a welter of new and untried committees and departments appointed without any regard to the wishes of the electorate. Local authorities, regional and united councils, are being invited to a green ball where they must dance

to tunes composed by those who have failed to obtain any significant representation on elected bodies. This invitation must be rejected totally if democracy is to survive. — Yours, etc., J. R. O’REGAN, Reefton. June 27, 1985.

Sir,—A compromise will be needed. The Treasury (“The Press,” June 25) criticises the Forest Service for being “distracted” by frivolities such as forest parks, animal control, research, native forests, when it should be concentrating on production and marketing of exotic timber in a “streamlined commercial enterprise.” Let an exotic forestry corporation be set up to include also the State sawmills. Let all other existing activities remain with the Forest Service. Let a land development and management corporation emerge from Lands and Survey. A Ministry for Natural Areas can now be established based on the remnant departments, structured not by function (protection, stewardship) as recommended by the working party but by resource. It would comprise three divisions: forests/wildlife, lands/natural waters, information (survey, mapping). Unambiguous policies, supported by legislation, for indigenous forests, natural waters, tussock and mountain lands, would prescribe conditions under which multiple use might be considered for non-reserve areas.—Yours, etc., ERIC BENNETT. Wellington, June 30, 1985.