SANDERSON MEMORIAL ADDRESS The New Zealand Environment: Survival?

Forest and Bird, Issue 185, 1 August 1972, Page 13

SANDERSON MEMORIAL ADDRESS The New Zealand Environment: Survival?

NEW Zealand has been fortunate to have been endowed with an environment that is not only naturally beautiful but also unique; in fact we have, in world terms, a special New Zealand environment.

IT is therefore a heritage that is priceless both in terms of a national culture and of national economics: priceless culturally because of the isolating conditions under which our flora has survived, priceless in economic terms because the more we maintain this New Zealand aspect of our environment the more the rest of the world will pay to come and see it. Moreover if we preserve our environment into perpetuity, its appeal will increase as the rest of the world becomes more developed, and the tourist value to New Zealand will increase proportionately without limit in time. What then is this New Zealand environment and how does it differ from other environments of the world ? Free of Browsing Animals New Zealand emerged from the grip of the last glacial epoch later than most countries because of our southern aspect. Whether this was the cause of our uniqueness or not is debatable, but certain it was we alone emerged free of any browsing animal, and almost free, save perhaps for our little native rat, of predatory animals. The blessing may have been a little mixed, because centuries of not requiring defence against predators left many of our native birds easy and helpless prey for predatory animals when these were introduced. Hence the catastrophic effect of European rats, cats, weasels, stoats, and ferrets. However, the long ages of development without browsing animals gave us a flora with an unparalleled variety of form habitat and association which produced what has become world famous as “the New Zealand bush”.

Travel the highways through Oregon and British Columbia right through to Alaska and you will not hear tourists say “what beautiful bush”. The constant sombre green of the pine eventually becomes depressing. One leading New Zealand forester said that in his view pines provided a better scene than our native bush. Any world-travelled tourist would soon deny his claim. Travel the vast forests of the Amazon and you will not see anything to match New Zealand’s bush. For nature and a million years without browsing animals have given us in our bush a hundred greens, a score of yellows, with touches of blues and reds and pinks and browns.

Priceless National Heritage This colour makes our bush so different. In fact it transforms what in other lands would be just dark forest into our priceless national heritage. This heritage, this bush is the basis of our New Zealand environment. As if to provide the perfect foil to this vista of bush, we emerge above the bushline to our golden tussock plateaux and alpine gardens rolling away to grey rock mountains whose snow and icy peaks pierce the sky. Much of the early New Zealand scene has gone for ever, but even in the farmed grasslands that replace it, backdropped by forests and snow-clad mountains, we have an incomparable open country scene. But now all this is threatened. Our rivers, once clean, but now heavily polluted, are fast becoming hydro lakes. Our mountains, damaged by erosion, now stand in danger of further scars from mining. Oil, the liquid gold of contemporary commerce, can plague our beaches, destroying their shore life as in the Torrey Canyon or Santa Barbara disasters. Our beech forests may pulp down to Japan in ships. We can in fact now populate and perish, destroying our beaches and alpine hideouts as we go. We may retrieve so much gross national product from all this that no typical New Zealand is left wherein to enjoy our material wealth. What are the requirements for keeping in perpetuity a worthwhile New Zealand environment and why should we ? Duty of All It is the duty of all of us alive today to hand on to posterity unharmed those environmental things we value. In our society practical and political action must be preceded by legislative action. To this end it seems to me that to put our “Conservation house” in order and ready it for practical action we need some new legislation. I suggest three new Acts of Parliament in the field of conservation. The first requirement is an over-riding Environment Act. By an over-riding Act I mean an Act which is not diminished in power, diluted, or even unintentionally negatived by the provisions of any other Act, past, present, or subsequent: an Act which once and for all puts a finite unchangeable limit to the

damage our New Zealand environment may suffer through population pressure, commercial and industrial development, or any other form of social “progress”; an Act which places the administration of all facets of the environment in a single channel. This is not easy of achievement in any country like New Zealand, which does not have a written constitution, but it is something we must be determined to make effective. If we flinch or fail in this task, any environmental action we may take can never pass that essential test of permanence so absolutely necessary for the conservation of all forms of life in the biosphere. Environment Zones Let me first look at what such an Environment Act should achieve. It should require the establishment of, say. four environment zones for the country. Firstly, a sanctuary zone, defined as a restricted area which must at all costs be . kept free of all further unnatural changes. Milford Sound, Dusky Sound, and Mount Cook, the Urewera and off-shore islands would be obvious zones. It is not necessary here to define them all. No sanctuary zone would ever under any circumstances be available for mining, prospecting, hydro dams, or any other form of artificial development. These zones are the control areas for ecologists and the zones to reclothe and repopulate peripheral damaged areas. Secondly, the remaining areas of our national parks and similar reservations would form the reserve or park zone, which would include also coastal and maritime parks, scenic reserves, and marine reserves. In this zone mining, hydro-electricity, and all other forms of development could take place, but not as of right, and subject at all times to conditions aimed at the reasonable protection of regional ecology, flora, and fauna, and the retention of natural features. Conservation Court The judge of these requirements would be a politically independent National Parks Authority, which would be responsible absolutely for the administration of both sanctuary and park zones, subject to the right of appeal to a Conservation Court. Such an authority should have control of every aspect of administration within these ; two. zones, all other authorities, governmental, departmental,

statutory, or local notwithstanding. The Authority would have power to delegate its authority (but always subject to its continuing over-riding direction and veto) on such matters as law and order, health, reading, etc. The third zone would be an open country zone of sufficient extent to ensure the preservation of New Zealand as a country of clean and open aspect. The zone would be largely farming country, excluding all towns and presently populated areas. In the open country zone subdivision, industry, and population expansion would be prohibited, but farming would continue unrestricted. Mining, hydro development, timber production, and similar works could be established as of right, but subject to reasonable screening to protect the overall open nature of the environment with reasonable retention of the essential natural New Zealand quality of the zone. The fourth zone would comprise the balance of New Zealand as a national development zone and would include all areas of urban development and industry. Town and Country Planning Authority These last two zones would be under the overall direction of a politically independent Town and Country Planning Authority to set the standards and principles of social and economic growth and the urban environment with a high “quality of life”. Over all these authorities would be the right of appeal for and against Government, State departments, local authorities, statutory authorities, companies, and individuals to a suitably qualified Conservation Court, a judicial body to protect the environment both natural and artificial against wrong or hasty action and the individual against harsh requirements or unconscionable hardship. What are the main aims of such a system ? Firstly it lets all know clearly before undertaking any project what conditions will be required for operation in any particular zone. At present provision for conditions does generally exist, but it is subject to Ministerial discretion, which usually occurs late in procedure and is not subject to public scrutiny of the matters under consideration at the time. It is not inferred that such discretion would always be anti-conservationist or not in the public interest. In the past, however, too much has been largely anti-environmental and non-conservationist.

In recent times there have been many instances of reasonable Ministerial discretion. The disadvantage is that by the time this discretion comes to be exercised large sums can have been Spent in prospecting, proving, and designing before the conditions of operation have been set. Money then has been spent, and when the financial interest of commerce is already ensconced whether rightly or wrongly as an economic factor, all hope for reasonable conservation is apt to be driven up the chimney in a puff of political smoke. This, I submit, is intellectually typified by saying the word “Manapouri” 1 Perfect Conservation with Development If the above conditions had applied during all stages of the Manapouri affair, it would have been reasonable to expect that the Manapouri scheme could have been two tunnels, one from Manapouri to Deep Cove and one from Lake Te Anau to George Sound, with no extensive upsets to ecology, flora and fauna, or the natural features of Fiordland National Park. This could have provided all the electric potential that Comalco requires at no significant environmental cost or market cost variation. In other words, if we had then had these environment requirements, we would have had perfect conservation hand in hand with complete national development. This idea also sets a limit to the area over which population and industry can expand without limiting that expansion in volume as long as it remains practicable in the limits of human knowledge and technique. In so doing for the first time this would permit the devising of accurate prevention of an overdose of pooulation explosion which could carry New Zealand from a workers’ paradise to a paupers’ slum. A policy aimed at extracting the last ounce of gross national product must eventually lead to this. Under the environment protection I suggest, economic development is automatically pegged to population containment, and both are associated with a welfare state sufficient \ to provide that future New Zealanders have a natural heritage the equal of or better than today’s. Sewerage Disposal The second part of the Environment Act would deal with sewerage, about which there already exists sufficient knowledge and tech-

nology for all sewerage to be treated to a potable water stage within a reasonable period and obviate pollution of lake, river, or sea from this source. New Zealand is a country that is in a position to achieve this within a decade or a decade and a half. Sewerage to date has been dealt with in New Zealand mainly from the public health aspect. This has led to some treatment, but there still remains a discharge of excessive nitrogen and phosphorus, causing upsets to ecology with increasing algae and weed growth. The Act would provide that as from its coming into force all new sewerage work would be on the basis of treatment to potable water stage. There are several known and proved methods used in the world today, and the cost of most is less than for our present inadequate “treatment”. All existing sewerage systems would be required to be converted within a period of 10 years for smaller areas, which would be extendable to 15 years for the larger metropolitan areas, and, I further add, provided also that any overall Environment Council was satisfied that reasonable detailed progress was being made toward conversion. On the point of cost remember always that it is only when nature is to be saved that the question of cost is raised as a barrier. By contrast, when commercial interests seek to pollute or destroy nature for industrial development a world bank loan is a certainty. Pollution and Wastes Part three of the Environment Act would deal with pollution and the disposal of industrial and other wastes. In comparision with other countries, notably the United States, New Zealand is in a less serious position in regard to pollution and wastes, but this is no reason for continued complacency. Our problems are growing, but we still have a little time in hand to deal adequately with them before a panic state overtakes us. The less the evil the quicker it ought to be capable of total eradication. Pollution of New Zealand inland waterways is already very serious; none of our lowland rivers now measures up to world standards and this after less than 150 years of European occupation and development. Quite serious red pollution is visible at Nelson from the chip mill there even after so short a period of operation.

The answer is the total prohibition of all pollutive discharges either into waterways ■or so that they may seep to waterways. Similarly the dealing with wastes must be a cost and responsibility of production and this must extend to responsibility for indestructible packaging materials and to the indestructible residues. Present legislation puts the onus for action on local authority, but this means on one hand a hundred or more differing standards of enforcement and a dependence of aim on the local political pressures of district elections, a field unusually sensitive to industrial pressures. An Environment Act on pollution and wastes must be national in concept, national in aim, national in conformity of application and enforcement. The Environment Council therefore, subject to the surveillance of the Conservation Court in cases of hardship, must have the power to direct local authorities on pollution control and wastes disposal when they fail to deal adequately with these matters. Litter Part four of the Environment Act would deal with litter. A fair job has been done by the National Litter Council struggling in difficult circumstances. Much is said, and rightly so, of the basic approach to litter prevention as one of educating the public. In education, however, it is thought fit that the law should provide an incentive of prosecution to lead the parent of a truant child into better ways. So, too, will litter prevention be ineffective until the law provides the incentive of prosecution as a gentle but persuasive reminder to the careless or persistent litter bug. The big problem facing the country, however, is dangerous litter, the foremost example of which is broken glass. Most of this takes its origin from the beverage trade both alcoholic and non-alcoholic, particularly deliberately broken beer bottles. If soft drink bottles can be chargeable and returnable, there can be no valid reason why beer, wine, and spirit bottles cannot also be retreated. Environmental Maintenance Part five of the Act would deal with the research requirements of environmental maintenance and improvement by setting up an Environment Research Authority and by making provision for funds and employment of sufficient qualified staff to carry out the necessary

fundamental investigations in ecology, wildlife management, forestry hydrology, and pollution abatement to marry environmental conservation, food production, industrial development, population control, and the humanities into a new and dynamic philosophy of living. These are the chief requirements of an Environment Act. It is of course important that the provisions do not go beyond the practicable limits for industrial know-how to overcome or the viable cost for industry to meet. But such cost is not a reason to do nothing. If cost is the greatest hurdle, it may be a reason to stop meantime a little short of complete redemption. This is why I suggest a Conservation Court,, which should obviate difficulties such as those recently reported from America, where car manufacturers complained that anti-pollution measures directed against the internal combustion engine threatened the industry. The Environment Act I have outlined could retain in New Zealand a reasonably natural environment at a cost and limitation factor well within the ability of our industry and national economics to absorb. National Parks Act I see as initially necessary some stiffening of the defences provided by the National Parks Act. The principal danger to national parks in New Zealand has historically been from Government; so the Act cannot be effective unless it has an effective shield against Government. This could call for the withdrawal of the provision that the Minister may direct the Authority and the withdrawal from the Authority of all the ex-officio heads of State departments except the heads of the administering Department of Lands and the director of national parks. This has the added advantage of leaving the voting majority in the National Parks Authority in the hands of an independently appointed majority. There is no need for a large Authority; a small board will work better if it has the right personnel. The principal alteration to the Act that is required is the transfer to the National Parks Authority of the complete responsibility for the administration of the parks and other reserves it is charged with maintaining. That complete responsibility must admit no exceptions from Parliament, Government departments, or other authorities except as provided

in the third and last of my proposed three-Act programme, which I am coming to shortly. The National Parks Authority can be given authority to delegate its administrative power regarding law and order, health, roads, marine matters, etc., to police, counties, National Roads Board, Marine Department, etc., but subject to an inalienable right of the National Parks Authority to direct or veto and to give absolute protection for the essential requirements of conservation. No significant proportion of the commerce of the country (other than tourist and recreation commerce) is generated in the park and sanctuary zones being proposed; so no significant opposition could be raised to the transfer of the administrative responsibility for these from perhaps 30 departments, agencies, and counties to one single National Parks Authority. No vast expansion of the staff of the Authority is called for, because the Authority has the power to delegate to existing organisations. But the single-purpose, single-channel administration will make for smooth, sure, and efficient administration of national parks and sanctuaries. No Political Disabilities Nothing in the legislative programme so far outlined appears to present any extensive drafting difficulties. Nor would it appear to have any particular political disabilities. Both parties find it politically expedient to leave such technical matters as grants in aid of the arts and scientific research to specialist bodies. There appears to be no reason, therefore, why the technicalities of the environmental administration I am proposing cannot be equally well removed from the area of politics. All of this is subject to one more difficult, more durable hurdle. We do not have a written constitution. There is no provision which provides that legislation shall affect only a national park if it is contained in the National Parks Act. If Parliament nods in one direction, an egg may be laid. If Parliament later nods in another direction, the egg can be destroyed. No notice of motion is required. There is no trial as to which is best. It is purely a matter of which came last and that in our law shall be first in priority. G. K. Chesterton used the words: “. . . and goodness only knowses the knowselessness of man !”

To a layman it appears that way in our British-based notions of constitutional law. If Act A is passed and is followed by Act B, and if Act B contains no clause that specifically stops any modification of the provisions of Act A, Act B is deemed to have superseded Act A to any degree its provisions may have done so. Anomalies in Legislation Put it this way. Parliament passes a National Parks Act and the Act provides that only the National Parks Authority administers a national park. The Authority permits a road through a park to a lodge and requires that the road should be only the width of one car, that no vegetation be cut along the sides, that it be constructed so that the trees meet overhead and conceal the road, while at the top of the road a lodge be built of not more than 1.500 sq. ft in such a way that it is under the forest canopy and therefore concealed. Conservation of the environment is thus achieved. Later Parliament passes a Counties Act providing that all roads in a county are to be administered by the county at its discretion. It provides that the county may control and require parking conditions. Then a Health Bill is passed which provides that a county may control accommodation houses in the county and prescribe their, conditions. Neither of these Acts refers to the National Parks Act, which was entirely overlooked at the time they were passed. The county decides the road is dangerous and widens it to four lanes with a 6-ft grass median and footpaths on either side, clearing the forest a further 30 ft back on either side to increase visibility. The county decides there is insufficient air in the lodge and orders another storey to bring it into clean air above the forest canopy, and it orders enough trees to be cut down to provide parking for 2,000 cars beside the lodge. Believe it or not, under our laws, the county has the right of way; the National Parks Authority is helpless. The defence of a national park, which under the National Parks Act was considered to be armour plate, has proved to be less effective than a lace petticoat. This year the National Parks Authority has had to admit this. Fortunately no incident as bad as this has

occurred, but this is due to the absence of such an incident, not any law to stop it. Can such an anomalous position be allowed to continue? The National Parks Act 1952 has unquestionably been eroded by subsequent non-parks legislation and is now not effectively shielding New Zealand’s parks. We must impress on all our politicians and administrators that this has to stop. Counties, roads boards, and other agencies must also realise it has to stop. I am not recommending the adoption of a written constitution for New Zealand. Such has been mooted by the Constitutional Reform Society for some years, with no apparent appreciable political progress so far. As to the advantages and disadvantages of written and unwritten constitutions, history does not extol the merits of one over the other, but merely records phlegmatically the deficiencies of both. Constitutional Limitations Act I would suggest a Constitutional Limitations Act passed as an ordinary Act by our Parliament and endorsed by a referendum of the people. It would provide that if any Act (or part of an Act) after the Committee stages of the Bill had been adopted by referendum of the people and then given a third reading, the Act or portion of the Act so passed should be alterable only in the same manner, by referendum, of which not less than 6 months’ notice was given to enable adequate debate and investigation. Let us call this a cooling off, fact-finding, and sense-developing period. In addition the provisions of such an Act, subject to the Constitutional Limitations Act, would supersede the provisions of any other Acts in the event of conflict. Both the Environment Act and the National Parks Act or the essential parts of them should be made subject to the Constitutional Limitations Act. I fully realise that the Constitutional Limitations Act itself would remain capable of amendment by Parliament, but I suggest an attempt to do this to gain an environmental advantage for some Government project is unlikely, and if it did occur, would be an invitation to the political suicide of that Government. Finally, the greatest requirement and the most basic one for the survival of a New Zealand environment is a strong, wide-based, active, and organised movement for the con-

servation of the environment. New Zealand now has this in COENCO, the short name for the Conference on Environment and Conservation, which is the recently formed national action front of the conservation organisations of New Zealand, in which Forest and Bird is the unquestioned leading member. COENCO has been variously estimated in numerical strength according to how the memberships of its members are taken, but I believe it represents today at least half a million New Zealanders. It is remarkable how quickly COENCO has settled down to a solid organisation. This is due perhaps to the magnitude, and the clear recognition, of the task which confronts its members. These proposals I bring down in my capacity as chairman of COENCO. They cannot be the official policy of COENCO until they are adopted by the member organisations. For ‘this they need to be published and I believe this occasion is an appropriate one.

Firstly, because it is the Sanderson Memorial Address —an occasion honouring the founding of the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society by Captain Sanderson, one of the first fighters for conservation of our New Zealand environment. How Captain Sanderson would have enjoyed getting into this project. Secondly, it was felt right to present these proposals first through the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society in appreciation of its sponsoring the foundation of COENCO last year. I believe that at long last we are moving forward. If we can sink the differences that have sometimes divided us and harness the ability and assistance of all those persons with conservation at heart we can say to industry and to Government with confidence and with success that “This land is our land. This land was made for you and me.”

Dr Salmon Prepared Address

THIS year’s Sanderson Memorial Address was prepared by Dr J. T. Salmon, who is well known as an author and is a noted conservationist. He is Head of the Department of Zoology at Victoria University of Wellington, a Fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand, a foundation member of the Nature Conservation Council, chairman of COENCO (Conference on Environment and Conservation), and Deputy President of the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society.

Because of the absence of Dr Salmon overseas at the time of the annual meeting of the Society in June the Sanderson Memorial Address was read by the President, Mr R. C. Nelson.