This page created 10 June 2002 / modified 11 June 2002
New Zealand faces a general election on 27 July 2002. The following charter has been devised by PANZ and submitted to most political parties for their consideration, and hopefully adoption.
Some of our policies will be a little challenging to many parties. However the policies are founded on hard-won experience of the political and bureaucratic environment, and thorough research. They provide considerable opportunity to improve ordinary New Zealander's access to and enjoyment of the outdoors. All that is required is political will-power. There has been a distinct lack of positive official activity for many years. This has created a large body of voter dissatisfaction with successive governments.
We are certain that a commitment to implement specific measures to improve the lot of outdoor users would not go unnoticed by the hundreds of thousands of voters who place great importance on the outdoors.
PANZ will be following up with a questionnaire to all parties, analysis of their policies, and commentary on their performance when in Government. This will be posted on this web site and distributed to our Supporters prior to election day.
PANZ is not aligned to or supports any political party.
Public roads are the single biggest category of public access provision in New Zealand. However there is almost universal ignorance of their potential for recreation, with consequent lack of identification on the ground, neglect, and obstruction. There is enormous potential for creating a network of public paths utilizing existing roads. The UK has a much-cherished network of paths based on public roads; consequently access to the countryside is much easier than in New Zealand. This is despite the law and public use rights being almost identical.
There is need to move away from the present-day perception that roads are synonymous with motor vehicle use. Most roads, having origins in the 19th Century, predate the advent of motor vehicles. Approximately half the roading network is unformed or disused, with much of this unsuitable for vehicle use.
Create a public path network
When access to public
lands, and to as opposed to along water margins (the 'Queen's
Chain'), is being created, public roads are to be preferred to
other forms of access such as easements and covenants over private
land. Easements, etc. are insecure with no public remedies when
obstructed. 'Dedication' of roads for classes of user, other than
for motor vehicles, has had only limited application in New Zealand,
but is capable of wider application without any necessity to change
the law.
Policy:
Provide public information
Lack of public awareness
of the legal nature of roads and an accessible map record are
the primary deterrents to public use.
Policy:
Counter obstruction of
roads
Obstruction of many
formed rural roads, through a mix of ignorance and willful intent,
is very prevalent. Despite obstructions being unlawful and road
controlling authorities having enforcement powers, most fail to
protect the public interest.
Policy:
Retain citizen rights
of unhindered passage
Continued public
ownership and control of public roads is essential for continuation
of public rights of unhindered passage. Existing common law is
founded on the premise that it is "The King's Highway"
and not someone else's property. Public rights are not to be found
in statute, but in a huge body of case law know collectively as
"The Law of Highways". New Zealand Courts have proved
that they are more effective upholders of these rights than politicians.
Despite the last Government backing off plans for privatisation, there is continual industry and bureaucratic pressure for direct 'user pays' road charges, enforced by electronic surveillance. The present Government is amenable to new privately funded roads and tolls. Passage would be allowed only to those who pay. This would extinguish centuries-old common law rights of use.
Motorways (for motor vehicles only, with no common law rights of passage or access to adjoining property) are different legal entities from public roads (for all forms of passage and for legal access to property). Tolls should be confined to major new motorways, bridges or tunnels until construction costs are paid off, provided alternative public roads remain available. This has been the practice to-date e.g. Auckland and Tauranga Harbour bridges, Lyttleton tunnel.
Policy:
Amend road-stopping procedures
Currently unformed
roads can be disposed of without public process, despite public
use rights being the same over all roads. The presumption that
unformed roads serve no purpose is erroneous because many unformed
roads are regularly used, particularly for pedestrians.
Policy:
References:
1. See 'Resources': 'Public Roads' at www.publicaccessnewzealand.org
2. Mason, Bruce. Public Roads;
a guide to rights of access to the countryside. Public Lands
Coalition. 1991.
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:
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:
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:
Escalating claims from Maori,
and part-Maori, for ownership and control over all manner of public
resources, including the conservation estate, have overwhelmed
New Zealanders. Such claims are inferred to be breaches of the
Treaty of Waitangi, or purposefully ill-defined 'principles of
the Treaty'. Increasingly it is becoming apparent that many claims
and grievances are figments of imagination or wilful invention,
having no justifiable basis in the Treaty or law. Claim WAI 262
to the nation's entire native flora and fauna is an example. This
claim defies the full terms of the Treaty, the huge extent of
land sales conducted in accordance with Article II, and "full
and final" settlements recently concluded. Despite this,
it is inevitable what the Waitangi Tribunal will conclude, necessitating
Government reserving the right to reject both its findings and
recommendations.
Contrary to the last Government's policy, and apparently adopted
by the present Government, claimants have been given ownership
or a prevailing influence over significant areas of national parks
and conservation areas, e.g. Topuni and Nohoanga. These effectively
disenfranchise the vast majority of the population from having
an effective voice in the management and future of these lands.
In some cases such arrangements run contrary to the findings of
the Tribunal. The Treaty has become little more than a convenient
ploy for the alienation and privatisation of public assets to
iwi and hapu.
There are ever expanding demands extending variously to separate
'sovereignty', 'partnership' or 'co-management' with the Crown.
Despite PANZ authoritatively demonstrating that the notion of
'partnership' is a myth*, DOC continues to promote such policies.
Consequently all other citizens become second-class and inferior
in their dealings with the department. That is borne out in most
areas of PANZ's contact with DOC, with growing realisation that
there is preferential consultation and consideration of iwi and
hapu interests.
The Waitangi Tribunal is increasingly acting as a propagandist
or public 'educator', and advocate for Maori, rather than as an
impartial court of inquiry. By making recommendations to Government
contrary to its own findings, and extravagant distortions of history,
it has destroyed essential public confidence in it. The forever-expanding
Treaty industry must be scuttled and everyone returned to a state
of equality.
In PANZ's experience the introduction of cultural considerations,
especially those relating to Maori, into the administration of
the outdoors has subdued debate conspicuously. In this intimidating
environment, local and central government policies and practices
have arisen, along with Maori expectations, which have intruded
on broader public interests and rights. We have challenged some
of these practices directly, and intend to confront others. We
have succeeded in reminding central Government of its obligations
to consult meaningfully with its greater public constituency over
the use of public lands in Treaty settlements or in other circumstances.
Ultimately, PANZ is committed to protecting the more socially
significant principle that New Zealand's public lands belong to
all New Zealanders regardless of ethnicity, social position or
belief. Collective ownership, and its expression in equality of
access to publicly owned lands, derives from citizenship in a
democratic, egalitarian society. The principle of equality is
explicit in Article Three of the Treaty itself.
* 'The Principle of 'Partnership' and the Treaty of Waitangi.
1993. PANZ Monograph No. 6.
Policies:
Disband the Waitangi Tribunal
Remove "the Principles of the Treaty" from legislation
No 'partnership' over the conservation estate