Salient. Newspaper of the Victoria University Students' Association. Vol 42 No. 13. June 11 1979
Top of the Week — On the Environment
Top of the Week
On the Environment
Mr Venn Young the Minister for the Environment recently released a press statement outlining the ways in which he proposes to deal with the forthcoming public submissions on the Whirinaki Forest Management plan. The [ unclear: ]] plan represents the way in which the Forestry Service and others involved on the commercial side of the fence will be allowed to fleece the forest over the next few years. For the public, their submissions are an opportunity to influence the Minister in his final decision as to the degree of exploitation versus other non-commercial user that ought to be reflected in the plan that he finally adopts.
In his statement the Minister explained that while the public's submissions would be given due consideration, there were overwhelming considerations, that apparently the. Forest Service had put before him. These representations have led him to believe that the Old Fort Road (a major area of con concern) contained the only remaining source of carvable wood. Further it is claimed the only way in which the alleged contractual responsibilities of the Government to a local mill could be fullfilled would be by the wholesale destruction of this unique habitat area.
It can only be felt by those close to the issue that once more the Minister has been poorly advised by his department, in this case the Forestry Service. It has been shown by many informed people that the allegations the Minister has been asked to act upon, are simply not true. Bodies such as the as the Native Forest Action Council, the Environment and Conservation Organisations and the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society are calling for more open decision-making. They want to allow New Zealanders to view the issues that are involved in these decisions.
Under the same bracket must come the recent decision taken in America regarding the entry of nuclear vessels or vessels with nuclear attachments into New York harbour.
The question that this raises, is whether New Zealand should not carefully reappraise its current policy of allowing g the visits of some nuclear vessels in the light of public safety considerations.
The Prime Minister's answer to this suggestion was, firstly that he had information (unknown to American Embassy ofiicals) that the decision in the States had been taken because they felt that there were problems with radical terrorist groups.
Secondly, Mr Muldoon maintained New Zealand had built up its internal security to a level that supposedly surpassed that of the United States, and that therefore we would not have to worry about the problems that might arise in America. It would seem that either Mr Muldoon was trying to draw one of his all too familar red herring veils over the issue or that he seriously was maintaining that New Zealand leads the world in matters of security. Given that the exact business and activities of the Security Intelligence Service are now beyond public discussion we can only take the word of the Prime Minister that we have such a fine intelligence service.
These are not however the true reasons for the American's decisions. If we are to believe offical spokespeople the factors that influenced their thinking were more along the lines of a true regard for public safety. Perhaps the evnts surrounding Three Mile Island (the USA reactor that tried to [ unclear: explode] recently) and the disclosures that followed about other similar occurances that had beer dealt with secretly, were issues that brought the Americans to their humane reasoning.
If the American's will not trust their own nuclear devices near their settlements, many are asking, why should New Zealander be asked by the National Government to to accept what is now unacceptable to the Foreign Power in question.
However nuclear risk is not the [ unclear: only] desirable element being presently [ unclear: important] [ unclear: ed] by the Government on shaky [ unclear: Envir] [ unclear: mental] grounds. The Ammonia- [ unclear: Urea] that is proposed to be placed near [ unclear: Kap] has a history that is just as full of [ unclear: intri] and fanciful decisions at Govemmental level as those already mentioned. [ unclear: Without] any prior consultation the Minister [ unclear: of] Energy announced that we were to [ unclear: buy] a plant, and then insisted that there be [ unclear: up] hold-ups to the installation, ignoring the accepted Environmental Vetting [ unclear: Process]
The reasons' for the purchase are still a matter of wild debate, however the basis for the Minister's demand that [ unclear: the] plant not be vetted are not so [ unclear: mysterious] The model that the government has [ unclear: comm] ted itself to became defunct and [ unclear: superce] in 1968 because at that time no country [ unclear: in] the world was prepared to accept the [ unclear: effect] and other discharge issue by the plant in its day-to-day running. The plant will however make use of the Governmeat's [ unclear: that] of the Maui gas field, a problem that has been facing the government as an embarasing blunder of planning.
Perhaps the time has come for New Zealand and to be governed along the lines of [ unclear: informe] [ unclear: ed] decision-making, rather than the not [ unclear: so] fancy faltering footwork that is apparent [ unclear: at] the moment.
Paul Norman