Editorial THE MANAPOURI—TE ANAU PETITION

Forest and Bird, Issue 136, 1 May 1960, Page 2

Editorial THE MANAPOURI—TE ANAU PETITION

Responding to a great number of requests from members, from kindred organisations, and from private citizens, the Forest and Bird Protection Society has launched a petition to Parliament praying that the agreement signed by the Government with the Australian Consolidated Zinc Company be not ratified, or, alternatively, that it be ratified only on the understanding that the natural levels of the lakes be not altered. The petition also asks that the National Parks Act be amended to provide greater security for national parks against commercial exploitation.

The preservation of Lakes Manapouri and Te Anau in their natural state is an important matter causing great concern to a large body of New Zealand citizens; but an even more important matter, arising from the agreement signed by the Government—handing the right to exploit the power potential of the lakes to a private company—is the sanctity of the National Parks Act.

This agreement to exploit our loveliest lakes in our greatest national park and in doing so to submerge many islets and beautiful lake-shore features has been signed without the approval of Parliament in assembly, without any reference to the legally constituted National Parks Authority, and it was signed by a Minister who is not the Minister responsible for National Parks-

If any Government in power for the time being can completely ignore legislation solemnly enacted by Parliament to preserve in perpetuity as national parks for the benefit and enjoyment of the people, scenery of such distinctive quality or natural features so beautiful or unique that their preservation is in the national interest, then the Act from which these words are quoted is a meaningless scrap of paper and our national parks have, in fact, no real security. Indeed, the agreement, stated by highly qualified authorities to be illegal, could form a precedent dangerous to the freedom of the rights and privileges of the whole community.

That the agreement was illegal at the time of signing there can be little doubt: the Society’s Executive actually took steps to start an action at law to restrain both parties from operating the agreement, but a letter from the senior geologist for the company in New Zealand, stating that no constructional work would be carried out for many months, made this unnecessary.

The petition now circulating, in effect asks the representatives of the people, assembled as Parliament, to refuse to ratify the agreement, and by doing so confirm that any enactment of Parliament for the benefit of the people shall not lightly be ignored.

A home without trees is charmless; A road without trees is shadeless; A park without trees is purposeless; A country without trees is hopeless. —ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION BULLETIN