Conservation tends to suffer under National governments, and this year's budget was true to form. Meanwhile, some private schools may be saved from extinction
You got to wonder what the Department of Conservation did to the National Party in a prior life. By the law of karma, it must have been a rather unpleasant act.
That seems the only explanation for DoC forever being National’s punching bag. When you need to swipe a few million from somewhere – maybe for a really good cause like a new polo field at Christ’s College – National realises those pesky tree-huggers know how to get by on a bag of nails and not much else.
Not that you’d know that DoC lost a few million from the government’s budget day propaganda. Conservation Minister Tim Groser somehow forgot to issue a budget day statement. While the word ‘infrastructure’ was mentioned 11 times in Bill English’s budget speech, conservation was not mentioned once. (And the only mention of ‘environment’ was in association with the word ‘business’.)
What Groser and English did not want to tell the public was that $4 million was swiped from Conservation this year, and another $39 million is forecast for cutting next year. If the latter eventuates, it amounts to around 10 percent of the department’s total vote.
One area being cut is the Community Conservation Fund, which gives money to community groups to restore public spaces. The truly weird thing about that is that the first paragraph in National’s 2008 conservation policy reads: ‘National believes the next step forward for conserving our unique flora and fauna is to encourage the initiatives of thousands of volunteers and dozens of organisations in community conservation projects.’
That policy’s first ‘principle’ was to ‘reduce barriers to the participation of community organisations in species recovery programmes and make funding of community eco-restoration projects a priority.’ As Borat might say, not.
The tragedy about cutting DoC’s funding is that, as anyone who knows DoC and observes them in action will be aware, few government agencies share its penurious approach. While other agencies throw Koru membership around fairly liberally, organise retreats in swanky-ish locations, and view the public purse with a sense of, well, entitlement, DoC is the opposite. Retreats, when held, are in spartan locations in which hair-shirts would be de rigeur if the budget extended that far. Visit the DoC head office in places like Taupo and Rotorua and you get a sense of the frugality which permeates the organisation. (There is some irony that another exemplar of public sector frugality – Christine Rankin – returns to public office just when DoC finds its budget pared back.)
What the funding cuts will mean is that tracks will not be built or fixed, pests will continue to wreak havoc on flora and fauna, underpaid DoC staff will continue to work more for love than money, and corners will be cut. As history shows us, such an approach can have tragic consequences. The Greens are basking in the supposed influence they’re having on this government. Some influence.
But, at least, the Wanganui Collegiates, King's Colleges, and St Cuthbert'ses will get some relief under this government, with $35 million being earmarked to help make independent schools even more affordable for even more rich folk. It is truly inspiring to know that one's taxes are helping these long-suffering and endangered species struggling in the rugged habitats of Remuera, Wadestown, and Havelock North.
Comments (2)
A couple of comments by way of context,
The outgoing National Government in 1999 left DOC with ~1200 staff, which climbed to +1800 EFTS under Labour, plus temp staff and contractors rounding things up to about 2000 people in and out of DOC offices every day.
Nevertheless and despite the increase in staff there is a culture of near-constant reviews and restructuring at DOC, mainly to do with realigning work with Govt priorities (but also, if common wisdom holds, removing dead wood without the need to go to through the employment court). This has an ongoing and deleterious effect on staff morale and if it werent for the lack of options/competition in the "Conservation Market" and the passion which most DOC staff have for their work, it would lose staff at a great clip...DOC staff until about a year ago made on averge 1/3rd less than the average public service salary.
The office I worked in went through 3 reviews and restructurings in the four years I worked there, and shed 5-7 positions in that time. The office had been through several more restructurings in the five years before arrived. This has been replicated across the country...In the last two to three years at least half the 13 conservancies (mostly North Island) plus head office have been reviewed, with the subsequent loss of more than 100 positions under the last Labour government. Most notable and obvious of these was the marine unit at head office.
I suspect that at least in part this constant fiddling around the edges was in order to appear proactive about cutting costs, as DOC is also very aware that while it has made great strides in mainstreaming the work it does in the national conciousness, it is still viewed as a fringe organisation by a large proportion of the electorate.
I should also note that while Vote Conservation and money for biodiversity protection and restoration increased markedly under Labour, by far the largest increases were to the Visitor Assets budget - for the things the public walk on and sleep in while visiting the DOC estate. This is despite the fact that while important, it is not the Departments core work under the Conservation Act...Preserving natural and historic heritage is first and foremost, and providing for public access and enjoyment is secondary. However it is far easier to monitor and report on kilometres of track built and huts refurbished than more ephemeral conservation outputs/outcomes, and there is the added impetus of not repeating Cave Creek...No one has noted that while it is still a cut in real terms, the recreation component of Vote Conservation 2009 increased from $123 to 125 million.
I both loved and hated my four years in the Department (which was spent in a role unrelated to natural heritage and only tangentially related to recreation). I came into the role with a poor understanding of what was important for conservation and biodiversity in New Zealand, and left believing that the most important work to be done was killing more pests and planting more trees.
The least well-paid and understood but the most vital DOC staff are the hunters, trappers, and poisoners, and those who pull or spray the weeds, and put spade to ground to plant. Everything else is a nice to do, but those two things are the most essential.
Thanks for that insight Jono. Really interesting, and frustrating to imagine the money and energy wasted on restructuring. Sounds like those trappers and poisoners are the 'frontline staff' that this government should be supporting.
Post new comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.