Debate over Heritage New Zealand

Press, 7 August 1985, Page 17

Debate over Heritage New Zealand

By

TESSA WARD

Environment administration, the topic of regional consultations throughout the country, has drawn a wide spectrum of views on what it should and could achieve. At the sceptic’s end of the spectrum the proposed reorganisation is seen as unlikely to achieve the shift of power envisaged. The optimists feel that it will come close to drawing up lasting guidelines for a balance between conservation and development in the allocation of New Zealand’s resources. The Government has already adopted the principle of a Ministry for the Environment and a Parliamentary Commissioner. It has deferred a decision on Heritage New Zealand, giving groups until about August 9 to make their submissions. According to the Environment 1986 document, parts of which the Government has endorsed, the Ministry for the Environment would both advise the Government and offer plans for Government consideration. This is to “ensure that the management of the nation’s natural and physical resources improves the quality of New Zealand’s environment,” the document says. To do this the Ministry would “take full and balanced account of the value of these resources to all groups.” The aim is to “meet the ends of economic development, social justice, and balanced sustainable resource use.” A Parliamentary Commissioner’s role would be to ensure the efficient administration of the environment and improvement of its quality, according to the document. The Minister for the Environment, Mr Marshall, and the Undersecretary for the Environment. Mr Philip Woollaston, have been touring the country to consult with interested groups. Mr Woollaston was confined to bed with the flu when he was to address Canterbury groups in Christchurch on July 19. He is returning to Christchurch for another meeting today. At a panel discussion in Christchurch, a political scientist at Victoria University, Professor John Roberts, explained his sceptism towards reorganising environment administration. He feels that the role of the Treasury has been under-estimated in the final equation. This department would continue to have a powerful influence on Government resource allocation decisions which could cause conflict and confusion with the Ministry of Environment. .'-.“The Treasury’s r’le cannot be (Xminished because t\ere has to be

some agency capable of determining the supply of financial resources to Government economic programmes. This is a powerful role influencing economic policy and the Treasury would not surrender it willingly to another department wanting to influence the use of the country’s resources. “There is bound to be a considerable problem in sorting this out. At the least, both bodies would provide expert advice and to this extent the politicians, who make the final decisions on resource allocation, would be influenced by this advice.” The Ministry for the Environment could not act as the watchdog body on resource allocation that some groups envisaged for it, Professor Roberts said. “It would not be independent like a commission for the environment and could be compelled to silence by the politicians. This means that if the Government is determined to go ahead with an economic project using certain resources, in spite of

the Ministry’s advice, it would be very difficult to find out what advice Ministry had given the Government.” “The Official Information Act did not necessarily make that information available,” Professor Roberts said. “So the people of New Zealand are unlikely to find out on what environmental grounds the Ministry opposed a project. Central government will determine, as it always has, the outcome of issues over resource allocation. “We might want someone to say where the line is between development and conservation of the environment so that we can go ahead with suitable projects. But there are no clear statements to be made about resource allocations and often only confused passionate ideas are submitted.”

“Few regional agencies were strong enough to make major resource allocation decisions for their regions,” Professor Roberts said. “The Canterbury United Council must be about the only hope we have got of a decent example of regional planning. In the wake of the reorganisation of environment administration, local agencies have their last chance to revive the course of reform that began in 1972. “This was the beginning of the regionalism idea on which planning was based. Out of it came the .Town and Country Planning Act providing the basis for regional bodies to assess all implications of resource allocations.” The Government was determined to take over this degree of regional control of the environment, Profes-

sor Roberts said. “The regions have themselves to blame for this. They simply don’t want to carry out this task themselves and want central Government to go on spending the money to do it. “Most regional bodies are just using district plans to zone areas and not to plan the functions of those areas. They should be agitating the Government to secure the power and means to determine resource allocation themselves.” In his speech notes, Mr Woollaston has indicated that Government departments should not have to internally resolve conflicts between the conservation and development aspects of resource allocation. “These conflicts are more properly dealt with either in the judicial or the political arenas,” he said. “One way to achieve this is to have separate advocates of conservation and development within the departmental structure. “That way Cabinet can be sure of hearing both sides of the story

when policy decisions are called for.” In line with this idea, a Heritage New Zealand department would advocate the conservation of resources where it saw fit and be responsible for administering areas of conserved resources.The meeting and panel discussion in Christchurch revealed that several groups with differing interests in resource allocation were opposed to a Heritage New Zealand department. For some it is considered unnecessary if the Ministry for the Environment is carrying out its functions effectively. Representatives of the Canterbury United Council and the Forest Parks Board spoke along this vein. Other groups indicated that a Heritage New Zealand department would generate a biased influence on resource allocation decisions always in favour of resource “preservation.” These groups included the high country farmers, the Lyttelton Harbour Board, and Canterbury manufacturers. Representatives of environmental groups, such as Friends of the Earth and the Native Forests Action Council, spoke in favour of a Heritage New Zealand department. According to the Environment 1986 document, a Crown Estate Commission would act as a channel for consideration of the most suitable use for Crown land and other resources held under the Heritage New Zealand department’s control. “The commission’s primary role would be to ensure that the views of the community on the future of uncommitted Crown estate are brought to the attention of the Government,” the document says. The chief executive for the Canterbury United Council, Mr Malcolm Douglass, says that where resources are of national significance the Government should make the allocation decisions. “There are a wide range of resources and environmental conditions which are best allocated by regional bodies. In Canterbury’s situation there is always a need for more funding to appraise and access these resources. “But the combined resources of the united council, catchment board, Ministry of Works and Lands and Survey Department, in particular, are sufficient to deal with the regional tasks of 1985. Whether there will be enough funds in future years is a matter of calculated risk.” Final plans for resource allocation, whether at the regional or national level, must follow policy determined at the national political level, Mr Douglass adds.