This page created 19 July 2002
PANZ assessed available party policies on conservation, recreation, public roads, high country, and the Treaty of Waitangi.
Unlike in previous elections, PANZ is not prepared to offer a view this time as to which party scores closest overall in accord with PANZ's objectives. The reason for such caution is that the best in one key area, the Treaty of Waitangi, are the worst in all other areas of interest - the public estate and public roads.
It would be good to be able to pick policies, rather than parties. A possible objective for electoral reform?
Voters will have to decide whether it is the misapplication of the Treaty and the consequences for them as citizens, or the future of public lands and roads that will be paramount when exercising their franchise. At least you should be better informed as to what you are buying into when voting for a particular party.
For summarised party policies go to Policy.net
PANZ is not aligned to any political party
Form Guide
Heaven help public lands and its users if ACT ever get their hands on them! Their doctrinaire advocacy of private property rights over-ride the very concept of publicly owned and managed resources.
ACT's roading policy would bring about "the end of civilisation as we now know it". The basic human right of freedom of movement would be replaced by tolls and freedom only if you can afford it.
ACT's Treaty policy addresses the route causes of misapplication of the Treaty through better scrutiny of Maori claims, by requiring judicial regard for the Treaty's full terms, supporting a finite process for settlement of genuine historical breaches of the Treaty, and removing discriminarory law. Their policy would rank higher if it included an express commitment to remove references to the "principles of the Treaty" from law.
Both inside and outside of Government the Alliance has shown, despite acceptable policies, a lack of interest in protecting, let alone enhancing public access to public lands and waters. The Alliance has demonstrated a consistent intent of divesting control of public places to non-accountable, private Maori interests.
While a policy to retain public ownership and use of roads is welcome, this is partly contradicted by tolls over state highways. Consideration of tolls should be confined to motorways which are single-purpose corridors for motor vehicles only.
The Alliance's planned constitution based on revisionist interpretations of the Treaty of Waitangi would bring about state racial discrimination and the end of democratic rights and representation in New Zealand. That would flow over to all areas of public and private life, including the right to have a say on the management of public resources and the enjoyment of recreation on public lands and waters.
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 would 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. There are no proposals for improving the Queen's Chain, or specifics about 'securing' it.
The transport policy recognises a wider community role of public roads as public places and for all modes of transportation.
A constitution based on the Green's revisionist interpretations of the Treaty of Waitangi would bring about state racial discrimination and the end of democratic rights and representation in New Zealand. That would flow over to all areas of public and private life, including the right to have a say on the management of public resources and the enjoyment of recreation on public lands and waters. 'Shared guardianship' means 'partnership' - a flawed concept that will result in disenfranchisement of the majority of the population from an effective say in the management of public resources.
Most of Labour's policies reflect a continuation or consequence of existing programmes, without commitments to make necessary changes or directions to government agencies to rectify known deficiencies.
All Labour's 'outdoor recreation' policies are satisfactory however most of these were also Labour policy in 1999. Most 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. Expanding a strategy to also embrace rural and urban walkways, to ensure access to 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.
PANZ's ranking of Labour's 'conservation-recreation' 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. If there was demonstrated will to do so the new 'conservation' policies would be very good.
The transport policy provides a welcome recognition that roads mean more than motor vehicles. If private development and investment is confined to new alternative motor vehicle routes (ie. motorways), this should not compromise essential common law rights of unhindered passage over public roads.
A constitution based on Labour's revisionist interpretations of the Treaty of Waitangi would bring about state racial discrimination and the end of democratic rights and representation in New Zealand. That would flow over to all areas of public and private life, including the right to have a say on the management of public resources and the enjoyment of recreation on public lands and waters. 'Partnership' is a flawed concept that will result in disenfranchisement of the majority of the population from an effective say in the management of public resources. Under a Labour-Alliance Government, the Department of Conservation has been actively developing major policy changes towards devolving control over public reserves to iwi, etc., under a spirit of 'partnership'. Such policies reflect Government directions in this regard. Government draft general policies for national parks and conservation areas reveal an intent of systematic alienation of the public from an effective voice over public lands.
Labour is currently changing the essential constitutional character of New Zealand by stealth through incremental statutory amendments, policy and practice. It is likely to be assisted in this mission by the Green's or the Alliance in any future Government.
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, not further "improvement of tourism access to National Parks", etc.
A planned "net conservation benefit approach" to land management means generating DOC's 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 interest does not appear to feature in the equation.
There is a welcome change of stance on creation of Queen's Chain when land is sold to overseas interests. A policy on preventing charging for access to trout fisheries is welcome, however National had plently of opportunity in Government to do so but didn't.
The transport policy reflects a traditional one-dimensional view of public roads as no more than corridors for motor vehicles. There is no indication that proposed road tolling for new roads will be confined to new motorways, and hence a real danger that National's previous intent of privatising/commercialising all roads is still on their agenda.
National's recent renaissance on Treaty matters, as expressed in Bill English's thoughtful reflections, are not carried over into policy. The latter is solely concerned with settling historic grievances, at a faster rate than previously.
There are no policies to ensure "common" or "one standard of citizenship", as advanced by Mr English. Unless future governments grapple with discriminatory laws and remove vague references to the "principles of the Treaty", etc., from the law, there can be no end to divisiveness. Growing and permanent favourable treatment of (some) Maori in all areas of government, irrespective of 'historic' claims and settlements, is becoming a far-greater handicap to society than the burden of formal monetary, land or fishery reparations.
With the exception of an unexplained reference to 'co-management' the NZ First conservation 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.
The transport policy appears to be National's 'Better Transport - Better Roads' strategy in drag, tolls and all, while pretending that roads will not be privatised.
NZ First partly deals with the two central difficulties with the Treaty - 'historic' claims and settlements, and contempory claims and favourable treatment of Maori by government under vague Treaty 'principles'. The merits of the policies must be tempered by the reality that when in Government, NZ First did not deliver while expressing similar sentiments.
Outdoor Recreation NZ 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 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. Their strong emphasis on game animals and 1080 poison 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.
United Future proposes splitting DOC into seperate conservation and recreation agencies. This is in response to the current bias within DOC against recreation. However 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 a will to do so.
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.
United Future make a good point about the 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 is supportive of PANZ proposals for improvement of the Queen's Chain. They also support the idea of creating a public path network to ensure New Zealanders have a right of unhindered passage.
Current revision by United Future of their policies may improve our ranking of them. Check their web site before voting.
In 1999 United led the field with a well-developed Treaty policy founded on Liberal principles of reason, knowledge and justice, rather than political correctness. The 2002 policy occupies so much middle ground, with some PC thrown in, as to be ineffectual. While the party is responding to public alarm about endless 'historical' grievances, it fails to address the underlying cause of expanding Treaty misapplication or the growing issue of contemporary claims arising from legislative 'principles of the Treaty'. It is unclear how the Treaty could be "an instrument of reconciliation" under United Future's proposals.
We rated each party in key policy areas on a scale of 0 to 5
[1] Seriously flawed
[2] Poor
[3] Acceptable
[4] Very good
[5] Outstanding
| DOC / public lands/ Queen's Chain / high country | Public Roads | Treaty of Waitangi | |
| ACT | 0 | 1 | 4 |
| Alliance | 1 | 2.5 | 0.5 |
| Greens | 1 | 3 | 1 |
| Labour | 2 | 3 | 0.5 |
| National | 1 | 2 | 2.5 |
| NZ First | 3 | 1 | 3 |
| Outdoor Recreation NZ | 3 | 3 | - |
| United Future | 2.5 | 3 | 2 |
To view how we ranked the policies, the performance of Government, and the detail of their policies, go to -
