This page created 19 July 2002
How the parties ranked in 1999
Department of Conservation and Recreation - public lands
Approximately one third of New Zealand is Crown land administered by the Department of Conservation. This is a public patrimony inherited by DOC after decades of effort by predecessor departments and largely as the result of often-protracted struggle for protection by citizen groups and individuals. These are national parks, conservation areas, and a wide variety of reserves. They have become colloquially known as "the conservation estate" or "the DOC Estate". The latter term is increasingly reacted to as being offensive, given that DOC does not own these lands. However the term belies a culture projected by DOC in its dealings with the recreational community - one of proprietorial ownership, rather than of public service. This coincides with an institutional emphasis on 'partnerships' with the tourism sector and iwi, which receive primacy of attention and accommodation - at the expense of everyone else. There is basically a 'free-for-all' for tourism operators - with a burgeoning number of concession applications being granted, without any public process.
The recreational sector senses that their interests are very incidental to DOC, despite the legislation under which public lands are administered saying otherwise. The Conservation Act makes a distinction between tourism and recreation, with DOC having a duty to "foster" the latter, and merely "allow" the former. DOC makes no such distinction, and also overlooks the legislative definition of 'conservation' which includes "providing for appreciation and recreational enjoyment by the public".
Recreation has become synonymous with facility provision and commercial intrusion, with no apparent effort on planning to ensure the retention of diverse recreational opportunities - those that are not dependent on large or elaborate facilities, or effortless air access. Use is becoming rationed by ability to pay hut fees and by tolerance of crowds and intrusive tourism activity. The social dimension of displacement from public lands of the domestic population by hordes of tourists and the affluent, invited by excessive facility provision, and the promotion of "Great Walks", etc., is not being addressed. The welcome boost in Government funding for backcountry huts, etc., provides hope that DOC's distorted facility provision will end; however this does not address the primary issue. Re-creation in the outdoors means far more than dollars spent on facilities or by licencing no-effort, no-risk commercial 'adventure'. There cannot an endless accumulation of developments and adverse impacts without destroying the essence of what is supposed to be protected. That inherent conflict is internationally recognised in national parks and protected areas management, however the balance has been lost in New Zealand. It must be restored.
Policy:
16 percent or 2.5 million hectares of the South Island is high country subject to pastoral leases and licences. This is the largest remaining category of Crown land outside of the public conservation estate that remains in Government ownership.
These leaseholds cannot be freeholded and land use is limited to pastoral farming as of right. Despite large tracts of unfarmable mountain lands, trespass rights are held over all the area subject to lease. There are opportunities for diversification on better classes of land and greater awareness of nature conservation and public recreation needs. Successive governments have signaled a desire to get out of being the landlord over these lands.
The Crown Pastoral Land Act provides opportunity for a voluntary exchange of rights between lessees and the Crown. Leases are surrendered and freehold offered over sustainable farmland in return for the creation of public reserves and access to these. A major tenure review programme is underway with almost half the 300 lessees involved. On average approximately 40 per cent of the land area is being returned to full Crown ownership and control. A public input and submission procedure is in place. The potential rewards for the public, arising from properly conducted reviews, is immense. However adequate funding of the programme and vigorous NGO scrutiny is essential to ensuring good outcomes. Experience indicates that changes are necessary to the process to ensure that public needs are properly accommodated. Public scrutiny is now being undermined by excessive haste in the advertising of proposals, after almost 3 years of official inaction.
Tenure review
Changes to current
procedures are required so that marginal strips, and adjustment
to boundaries and public roads, occur concurrently with tenure
review. The Commissioner of Crown Lands has decided that all dealings
with marginal strips, roads, and boundaries are not to be part
of the tenure review process despite these matters being intimately
related to tenure review proposals. As this is the last opportunity
to sort out such matters, this hands-off policy is inevitably
destined for ridicule and contempt, with the risk of undermining
the programme. As officials are often making arbitrary judgements
on marginal strips, etc., it is essential these become part of
the public process. Research of past and present pastoral lease
administration has revealed serious failings to implement marginal
strip requirements. There is no assurance that, if left to their
own devices, officials will do any better during tenure review.
Policy:
Whole property purchase
Occasionally, exchange
of rights between the Crown and a lessee cannot result in an acceptable
outcome for the Crown. In such circumstances it may be desirable
that a whole leasehold interest be purchased. This allows rationalisation
of boundaries with other properties or the retention of all or
most of the area in Crown ownership. This would apply to leases
containing predominately natural values and little opportunity
for sustainable farming. A contingency fund should be maintained
for use when such properties come onto the market. Government
should consult all national NGOs involved in tenure review to
prioritise purchases. However total purchase cannot be a substitute
for 'exchange of rights' tenure review over the vast majority
of leaseholds.
Policy:
No more parks
There are enough
national parks in the South Island. Tenure review provides an
opportunity to provide a balance of opportunity for a wider range
of recreations in relatively low-key, low-density settings most
suited to New Zealanders rather than affluent foreign visitors.
Property-by-property tenure review is providing these opportunities
right throughout the South Island. Continuation of a voluntary
process depends on individual negotiation, rather than grand visions
of national parks or world heritage areas. Priority for entering
the tenure review programme should be determined by individual
lessee's willingness to participate and the likelihood of achieving
a successful outcome, not on pre-determination of "conservation
values", or priority being given to a few high country icons
or high-profile areas.
Areas restored to full Crown ownership and control are best designated as conservation areas and reserves. These provide adequate legal protection of conservation values and recreational use. It is unnecessary to elevate to national or conservation park status. The latter are being promoted as a means of capturing political attention to expedite the tenure review programme, however NGOs cannot keep up with advertised reviews as it is. Parks are destined to primarily benefit the tourist industry. Promotion leads inevitably to excessive commercialisation, hordes of tourists, and displacement of the domestic recreationist. The social dimension of displacement from public lands by the tourism industry, invited by excessive marketing and facility provision, has not begun to be addressed.
Policy:
Obstruction of access
easements
Tenure reviews are
relying on the mechanism of easements over newly created freehold
to provide public access to conservation areas. NGO predictions
that these will be insecure and inadequate are proving to be correct.
Increasingly new landowners are obstructing or deterring public
use with 'private property' and 'danger' signs, despite access
being registered against titles. DOC signs are being removed.
There is no apparent will within DOC to enforce public rights
and no direct remedies available for members of the public. Complaints
to DOC rarely result in action, and negotiations with errant landowners
can take months, or even years, without favourable outcomes. The
terms of easements can also be renegotiated without public notification
or objection procedures. Easements provide no assurance that public
access will be 'secured' as envisaged by the Crown Pastoral Land
Act.
Policy:
Foreign ownership of the
high country
Increasingly foreigners,
who cannot lease or own mountain lands in their own countries,
are purchasing pastoral leases in New Zealand, and using them
as private parks, sometimes charging for access. Public access
is often denied so that exclusive fishing and hunting opportunities
are available to clients. This is a most unwelcome trend that
could be countered by removing the financial incentives for such
discriminatory practices. Lessees' use should be confined to pastoralism
until such time as tenure review.
Policy:
This is a unique and internationally envied provision valued by generations of New Zealanders. It dates from 1840 instructions from Queen Victoria to Governor Hobson. The Queen's Chain consists of publicly owned strips of land along the banks of rivers and lakes, and above the high water mark of the sea, nominally 1 chain or 20 metres wide. It consists of public roads, marginal strips (derived from Crown land), esplanade reserves (derived from private land), and other reserves.
On average approximately 70 per cent of major waterways and the coast have a 'Queen's Chain' in one form or another along their banks. However these reserves are capable of major improvement to ensure that public access is available along all major waterbodies.
Extend coverage
Policy:
Make movable
Marginal strips
created since 1990 are movable, however prior to this they are
fixed in position. This means that when watercourses change, the
strips don't move with the bank, and can be left high and dry,
in, or across waterways. This defeats the public access purpose,
and riparian management.
All other forms of reserve and roads are fixed in position.
Section 24E Conservation Act allows the exchange of existing marginal strips for other strips of land where this better serves their access and conservation purposes. The new strips would then become movable. This is an ideal mechanism for permanent realignment of marginal strips along rivers, streams and the seacoast. No changes in law are required.
Policy:
Provide public information
LINZ's current practice
is to rely on notations on certificates of title and survey plans
to show where marginal strips exist. However notations that land
"is subject to section 24 or Part IVA Conservation Act",
etc., are so obscure as to not tell the public if in fact a strip
exists, or is merely liable to be created in the future when there
is a land disposition. Lack of certainty in the public record
as to the existence, extent, location and width of strips is the
primary deterrent to public use. No changes in law are necessary.
Ministerial direction may be required.
Policy:
The New Zealand Government is a coalition of the Labour and Alliance Parties, with the support of the Greens on matters of confidence and supply.
Labour will (highlights of detailed policy):
Source: http://www.labour.org.nz/mediacentre1/speeches/991014.html
Labour's detailed 1999 Election Policy had this to say:
Outdoor recreation and ecotourism
New Zealand's unique natural
heritage offers a wide range of exciting recreational opportunities
from the mountains to the sea. Our mountains, forests, wetlands,
lakes, rivers and coastal waters must be accessible to New Zealanders
of all ages and lifestyles. Access to waterways and wilderness
areas gives us a unique advantage as both New Zealanders and tourists
seek new and different forms of recreation.
Labour will:
The government transfered 130,000 hectares of the West Coast native forest formerly managed by Timberlands West Coast to the Department of Conservation, and into the conservation estate. This honoured an election promise by the parties in the Labour-Alliance coalition to end logging of crown-managed indigenous forest.
Government announced a new national park on Stewart Island, however this did not add any additional areas to protected lands already in public ownership and available for recreation. The park will greatly increase tourism profile and opportunities, but is likely to be at the expense of public recreation. Government attempted to add private Maori land to the Rakiura National Park, while staying as private land with trespass rights, however objections from PANZ thwarted this.
Government prematurely announced a Torlesse Range Conservation Park in Canterbury, but without first securing public access.
In response to PANZ's 1999 election questionnaire, Labour replied-
That "fostering" of recreation by DoC should have a greater priority?
Yes.
PANZ Assessment: Have partly honoured, with substantial new funding for back country huts and tracks. This benefits tourism industry as well as personal recreation. Cabinet decision focused on implementing NZ Tourism Strategy. No known directives to DOC to stop promoting tourism at the expense of recreation - if there were, of no effect.
That it should be a priority for the next Government to investigate the means of completing the Queen's Chain around the shores of all major lakes, the seacoast, and along major rivers?
Yes.
PANZ Assessment: Done nothing.
That public access and recreation should be restored as the primary functions of marginal strips and esplanade reserves?
Yes.
PANZ Assessment: Done nothing.
That restrictions to public access introduced in 1993 via the 10th Schedule of the Resource Management Act should be repealed?
Labour will improve the esplanade provisions of the RMA to improve public access to our waterways and coastline. The 10th Schedule may be part of this review.
PANZ Assessment: Done nothing.
That, in exchange for freeholding of other lands, public reserves should be created over areas of significant value for public recreation, with secure access rights provided?
Yes.
PANZ Assessment: Variable results under Crown Pastoral Land Act. Access arrangements insecure and some impractical for public use.
That covenants should be confined to relatively small, isolated, non-critical natural areas because they don't provide adequate protection of conservation values or security for public access and recreation?
Yes:
PANZ Assessment: Commissioner of Crown Lands has approved extensive covenants over alpine lands, contrary to government policy.
That Government funding of the tenure review process should be increased?
Yes.
That it should be a priority for the next Government to investigate the means of completing the Queen's Chain around the shores of all major lakes, the seacoast, and along major rivers?
Labour: Yes.
PANZ Assessment: Done nothing.
That public access and recreation should be restored as the primary functions of marginal strips and esplanade reserves?
Labour: Yes.
PANZ Assessment: Done nothing.
That restrictions to public access introduced in 1993 via the 10th Schedule of the Resource Management Act should be repealed?
Labour will improve the esplanade provisions of the RMA to improve public access to our waterways and coastline. The 10th Schedule may be part of this review.
PANZ Assessment: Done nothing.
The Alliance said -
DoC to protect more High Country land
A comprehensive programme for High Country lands in the South Island is needed which will include a substantial transfer to DoC of those parts of the high country leases which have ecological and recreational value and which must be protected from grazing, including adequate reserves for tussock grassland, shrublands and wetlands. The additional funding for DoC will ensure it can take responsibility for these lands.
Public access to conservation lands, coast, rivers and lakes will be guaranteed by maintaining the Queen's Chain where it exists and creating it where land is subdivided;
PANZ Assessment: This is no more than a statement of the status quo. An Alliance Minister held the conservation portfolio and did not implement Labour policy on the Queen's Chain, although she stated an intention to do so in correspondence with PANZ.
Policy directly related to PANZ objectives and policy charter highlighted in red, with our emphasis bold.
PANZ looked at five key policy areas, being public roads, Treaty of Waitangi , DoC and public lands, the Queen's Chain, and high country Crown lands.
We ranked available party policies according to their 'access friendliness'. This was a weighted appraisal which was influenced by-
In other words we do not believe any party's claims or 'policies' at face value. We look at their total actions and words, then assess these against how closely they coincide with PANZ's objectives. In the absence of express policies we looked at relevant news media statements, and other material available to us. Naturally the incumbent Government will be judged more by their actions than their words, as they must be.
The question of credibility of party positions is central to our evaluation. There are often inconsistencies between actions/inactions and words (not unknown among politicians!).
PANZ is not aligned to any political party.
We have rated each party in each key policy area on a scale of 0 to 5
[1] Seriously flawed
[2] Poor
[3] Acceptable
[4] Very good
[5] Outstanding
PANZ RANKING = [0] Gravely flawed
Heaven help public lands and its users if ACT ever get their hands on them! ACT's intolerance of obstruction of public access is welcome but completely at odds with everything they else they advocate (private property rights over-riding the very concept of public resources).
ACT
Summary of Conservation Policies
SOURCE: http://www.policy.net.nz/
Private property is the fundamental basis of sustainability.
DoC land [is] a reservoir for pests that invade surrounding farmland.
Allowing private organisations to invest in conservation initiatives would enhance protection of our native animals.
By opening the possibility of an appropriate investment in sanctuary areas and the wildlife they house, the real value of conserved species and habitats will be realised.
ACT
Outdoors Policy
SOURCE: http://www.act.org.nz/action/campaigns/manifesto2002/firearms.html
PANZ RANKING = [1] Seriously flawed
Both inside and outside of Government, the Alliance has shown a lack of interest in protecting, let alone enhancing public access to public lands and waters. Queen's Chain policy identical policy to 1999. No proposals for improvement. The Alliance has demonstrated a consistent intent of divesting control of public places to non-accountable, private Maori interests.
Alliance
Summary of Conservation Policies
SOURCE: http://www.policy.net.nz/
Fund the department of Conservation to protect and rebuild our endangered ecosystems.
Local councils ....exempt from rating all areas of important forest, wetland and wildlife habitat.
Mining to be stopped in conservation areas and national parks.
The natural attractions of the National Parks will be preserved by allowing only basic facilities to be built within Park boundaries.
Recognise the major contribution made by Mäori in gifting land for national parks and reserves.
Alliance
Conservation policy
Wed 10 Jul 2002
SOURCE: http://www.alliance.org.nz/info.php3?Type=Policy&ID=1093
We will work towards further developing the shared responsibility of Maori and non-Maori for managing natural resources under the Treaty of Waitangi.
The Alliance supports the growth of national parks and marine reserves.
Public access to conservation lands, coast, rivers and lakes will be guaranteed by maintaining the Queen's chain where it exists and creating it where land is subdivided.
The Alliance will strengthen legislation to prevent the sale of wilderness and farmland to overseas interests.
PANZ RANKING = [1] Seriously flawed
While the Greens have a comprehensive vision of what is needed for the protection of public lands and waters, their flirtation with Treatism in all matters of public affairs is set to be at the expense of wider public input into areas' management and public enjoyment. The primary beneficiaries of their policies will be the non-Treaty reinvention - 'tangata whenua' - and the tourism industry. There appears to be no consignisance of the distinction between re-creation (both spiritual and physical attributes) and the industry of tourism. Spreading tourist pressure around the country to less well known locations will mean no sanctuaries left for locals to quietly enjoy natural areas. No proposals for improving the Queen's Chain, or specifics about 'securing' it.
Green Party
Summary of Conservation and Environment Policies
SOURCE: http://www.policy.net.nz/
A progressive and substantial increase in conservation funding. Establish new and larger 'mainland islands' of intensive pest management. Eradicate pest species such as chamois, wallaby, and sika deer where they threaten important ecosystems. Work toward the protection of 20% of the coastline as marine reserves. Ensure a minimum 5% of the land area .... is in native vegetation or set aside for the restoration of nature by 2010.
Creation of new national parks and conservation parks, such as a Fiordland Marine Park and additions to Paparoa and Kahurangi National Parks. Tighten control over mining on conservation land, including full consultation with tangata whenua, environmental groups, local communities and the public generally. Adequately resource DoC's role in advocating for conservation and providing education about conservation to the wider community. Enhance the conservation potential of inhabited islands such as D'Urville, Great Barrier, Waiheke, Stewart/Rakiura and the Chatham Islands, in co-operation with residents and tangata whenua.
Ensure high country tenure review leads to a network of protected areas with public access representing all types of high country ecosystem.
Conservation Policy
SOURCE: http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/policy4748.html
Environment Policy Statement
Ratified 4th July 2002
SOURCE: http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/policy5414.html
Te Tiriti [ Refer to PANZ assessment of Treaty Policy ]
Tourism policy
SOURCE: http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/policy4762.html
The Green Party will:
PANZ RANKING = [2] Poor
Most of Labour's policies reflect a continuation or consequence of existing programmes, without commitments to make necessary changes or directions to government agencies (DOC and LINZ) to rectify known deficiencies. In regard to the high country, parks and reserves would, in time, result from individual tenure reviews irrespective of government initiatives, as pastoral lessees will necessarily continue to make their own decisions. This process would be assisted if, as the result of the proposed review, further funding became available for whole-lease purchases. It is necessary that clear guidelines are provided for tenure reviews. However voluminous 'standards' have already been provided by LINZ, but through preoccupation with bureaucratic process is thwarting Government's achievement of its goals as set out in legislation. The policy is unclear if new guidelines will be established by Government, rather than the bureaucracy, which will also require a sizable rocket up it to perform satisfactorily.
All the 'outdoor recreation' policies are satisfactory however most of these were also Labour policy in 1999. Many of these have not been fulfilled. The issues surrounding the conflict between recreation and tourism have not been addressed and there is no evidence that there is any vigour to pursue these next term. The development of a public access strategy for extension of the Queen's Chain was a key highlight of Labour's 1999 policy but remains unfulfilled. This would be a large and complex task given the diversity of tenures and the mix and public and private property implicated in any resultant policies. Expanding a strategy to also embrace rural and urban walkways, to ensure access to (all) natural areas as well as waterways and coastline, would be so large and complex a task that it is most unlikely to be achieved, even assuming a will to do so.
The development of general policies for national parks and other public conservation areas are already well advanced out of the public light, and contain all-encompassing strategies for co-management with Maori. This is unlikely to be overturned through a formal public consultation process unless Government had a fundamental change of heart over its race-based preferences arising from its fallacious reinventions of the Treaty. That is most unlikely if re-elected.
PANZ's ranking of Labour's policies is strongly influenced by the party's performance in Government. With the exception of back country facility funding, almost all other 1999 policies are unfulfilled. We detect no interest in honouring these pledges to the public of New Zealand. If there was demonstrated will to do so the new policies would be very good.
Labour
Conservation Policy
SOURCE: http://www.labour.org.nz/
(for full policy)
CONSERVATION ON PUBLIC LAND
Although nearly 30 percent
of New Zealand was protected in the conservation estate when Labour
came into government, it consisted mainly of steep and mountainous
terrain. The Labour led government has set out to redress this
imbalance by actively protecting lowland forests, wetlands and
tussock grasslands.
Labour will:
OUTDOOR RECREATION
New Zealand's unique
natural heritage offers a wide range of exciting recreational
opportunities from the mountains to the sea. Labour believes that
these opportunities must be accessible to New Zealanders of all
ages and lifestyles. Time spent in the outdoors can enhance physical
and mental health, awareness of the environment and pride in our
nation. Co-existence between the natural environment and recreational
activities is essential if New Zealanders and overseas visitors
are to gain maximum benefit from outdoor recreation.
Labour will:
CONSERVATION ADMINISTRATION
AND FUNDING
Labour led the world
by establishing the Department of Conservation in 1987 as the
co-ordinator of the government's conservation activities. DOC
was consistently underfunded by National led governments in the
1990s, but has been improved and strengthened by the Labour led
government.
Labour will:
PANZ RANKING = [1] Seriously flawed
National has reduced the conservation estate to a 'product' for the primary benefit of the tourism industry. The estate is rapidly being overrun by concessionaires with almost no public process or checks on this invasion. This was the intended result of National's amendments to concession laws in 1996, and in this, former Conservation Minister Denis Marshall has been spectacularly successful. What is urgently needed is reigning in of this sector and of DOC in its partisan preference to this industry, ahead of the wider public interest, not further "improvement of tourism access to National Parks", etc.
A "net conservation benefit approach" means generating DOC income through tourism trade-offs of conservation (and recreation) values and land to fund the department's activities. This is the Treasury line of the 1980s and 1990s aimed at privatising state assets and minimising state expenditure. The public recreational interest does not appear to feature in the equation.
A welcome change of stance on creation of Queen's Chain when land sold to overseas interests. Policy on preventing charging for access to trout fisheries welcome, however National had plently of previous opportunity in Government to do so but didn't.
National
Summary of Conservation Policies
SOURCE: http://www.policy.net.nz/
Create a $500 million Sustainability and Eco-Restoration Fund (SERF) from the proceeds of selling Landcorp,
Create nine new marine reserves.
Review investment in pest control programmes on possums, stoats, ferrets, weasels, rats, cats and rabbits and invest in research to develop more effective means of control.
Review the slow and bureaucratic system of managing concessions on public land managed by the Department of Conservation and explore the adoption of the net conservation benefit approach.
National
Conservation and Environment Policy
SOURCE: http://www.national.org.nz/
National will:
National
Tourism Policy
SOURCE: http://www.national.org.nz/
National will:
Department of Conservation
The Department of Conservation (DOC) is an important player particularly in the eco and adventure tourism sectors. It administers concessions in protected areas and this process needs to be reviewed. DOC must seek ways to improve tourism access to National Parks and areas it administers. It must prioritise ways to ensure sustainability of the visitor experience in key DOC administered areas and thereby avoiding or minimising environmental damage from excessive visitor volume.
National will:
A National Government would encourage the national walkway network. This concept was originally the New Zealand Walkways Commission and is now partly supported by DOC and the Te Araroa Trust.
National will:
National
Nick Smith 12 July 2002
National
will change the law and require any Queen's Chain or riparian
right to be surrendered whenever a property adjacent to the river
or coast is said [sold] to [be] an overseas interest.
National does not want to see charging for access to develop into a defacto commercial trout fishery. We will work with Fish and Game New Zealand to close this loophole and ensure we maintain trout as a true recreational fishery.
PANZ RANKING = [3] Acceptable
It is ambiguous what will be at odds when "protecting the conservation estate is not at odds with the commercial ventures". What is to have primacy - protection or commercial ventures? With the exception of 'co-management' the policy says the right things ( avoiding specific, measureable outcomes), however delivery is another matter. Leader Winson Peters, in Government, has demonstrated that anything is possible.
NZ First
Summary of Conservation Policies
SOURCE: http://www.policy.net.nz/
Promote the development of a strong eco-tourism industry.
Provide conservation authorities with the necessary resources ... to ensure ... not at odds with the commercial ventures which utilise that estate.
Additional funding for opossum and other pest control and management programs.
Ensure effective deterrents to poaching and trafficking of protected species.
Mining should not take place
NZ First
Conservation and Environment
Policy
SOURCE: http://www.nzfirst.org.nz/policy/conservation.htm
New Zealand First will:
PANZ RANKING = [3] Acceptable
This is a new political party founded to advance outdoor recreation interests. It has gained considerable membership since its foundation a few months ago. It was founded in justifiable frustration at the depreciation of recreation interests by successive governments. PANZ has the same genesis, but with a non-partisan modus operandi.
It would be highly desirable that all major political parties were advocates for public recreation in the outdoors. Some clearly are not; most advocate but do not deliver. It appears that the interests PANZ stands for, despite large popular support, do not count for much among any of the well established parties, therefore continuation of electoral support of them is questionable. The danger arising from a single-issue recreation party is that these issues will be marginalised by the parties likely to govern, however this state of affairs has already arrived. With an undivided focus on recreation and no history of betrayal of outdoor interests, provided the 5 percent threshold is reached, a vote for this new party may not be a wasted vote.
The main attribute of Outdoor Recreation NZ is the commitment to regularly seek counsel from recreational organisations in the formulation of policy. That is something none of the established parties do. If this remains the primary vehicle for policy development, this would make up for the relatively undeveloped state of their inaugural policies. The strong emphasis on game animals and 1080 pioson may be a deterrent to support from a wide cross-section of recreation voters, however the potential for conflicting objectives is considerably less than in any other party.
Outdoor Recreation NZ: no specific public lands policies, however two policy planks are directly applicable -
Ensure unrestricted Public Access to Public Land.
Regularly seek counsel from New Zealand's outdoor recreational organisations, lobby groups and users
Other policies with a bearing on outdoors management and users-
PANZ RANKING = [2.5] Poor - Acceptable
We fail to see how separate bodies, with different functions, can administer the SAME lands. Conservation areas have duel purposes - conservation and recreation. The balance between these has already been struck in legislation. The problem is that DOC disregards its legal responsibilities in regard to recreation. This could be rectified by Government direction - given the will to do so. A recreation promotion agency would be ineffectual if it had no area management role. If it had the latter powers, it would be in direct conflict with DOC, to the detriment of both the environment and its visitors.
The only way separate bodies with different functions could administer the existing 'conservation estate' would be to split up the lands into different categories of 'conservation', 'tourism' and 'recreation', with these being the sole function of each area. Ordinary New Zealanders would then expect to be shut out of much of their existing estate by the excesses of the commercial sector or fundamentalist preservation policies.
Good point (see below) about need for independent review of pastoral lease tenure reviews. The Commissioner of Crown lands, left to his own devices, is more concerned about signing off tenure reviews than the quality of the outcomes and proper fulfilment of the objects of the Crown Pastoral Land Act. United Future supportive of PANZ proposals for improvement of the Queen's Chain.
Current revision by United Future of their policies may improve our ranking of them. Check their web site before voting.
United Future
United Future's response to PANZ Charter-
United Future NZ supports strongly the right of all New Zealanders to have access to our outdoor environment. We believe that this is a fundamental value of all New Zealanders and we are anxious to ensure that it is not lost sight of by Government. Last election we had a special policy on Outdoor Recreation and Leisure. We are naturally interested in your proposals which in the main seem well thought out and practicable. They also chime in well with our previous policy which we will revise in the light of them.
Department
of Conservation and Recreation
United
Future notes and agrees with the points that you make about DOC
projecting a 'culture of proprietorial ownership, rather than
of service' and of putting its 'partnerships' with iwi and tourism
ahead of the recreational needs of the general public. We note
your suggestion of a name change and the creation of a Recreation
Directorate within the renamed Department. United Future is sceptical,
given DOC's long-established and strong Departmental culture,
that these would produce the changes we both want. We prefer our
policy of creating a separate department or agency with specific
responsibility for protection and promotion of outdoor recreation.
Your proposals to keep a balance between public recreation and
tourism and a requirement to notify publicly and allow comment
on concessions would be part of its mandate. United Future opposes
fees so that any New Zealander no matter what their economic circumstances
can participate.
Pastoral
Leases
United
Future notes the points you make about the tenure reviews that
are taking place on the above. Our view is that this process,
as with any other government process, needs to have clear objectives,
be managed efficiently and be subject to independent review. Separation
of the farmable sections from areas suitable for nature conservation
and public recreation is eminently desirable. We support your
proposals to ensure equity to the tenants and access for the ordinary
New Zealander. United Future does not see foreign ownership of
the High Country as generally desirable and supports your proposal
that that the Overseas Investment Commission be given powers to
approve purchase and to require the new owners to create marginal
strips on rivers and lakes and create legal road access to them.
Queen's Chain
In our
1999 policy we undertook to maintain and enhance existing Queen's
Chain provisions. Your proposal to extend the Queen's Chain to
the banks of all major rivers, lakes and the sea coast currently
in private ownership is acceptable. Your proposals to make all
such marginal strips under the Queen's chain movable so as to
allow re-alignment if there are any topographical changes and
to clearly mark marginal strips on survey plans are in accord
with United Future's thinking.
Christian Heritage Party: no specific policies
Jim Anderton's Progressive
Coalition: no policies
available
One NZ Party: no specific policies
Back to: 2002 election guide to party policies