This page last modified 11 June 1999

Local access issues

[For local issues involving particular roads see
Local issues - public roads ]

 

Directory

(By local authority areas, north to south)

Auckland

Coromandel district

Rotorua district

Taupo district

Tasman district

Waitaki district

Queenstown-Lakes

Dunedin

Clutha district



Public Access, No. 11. April 1999

Anglers may face fees for access

Timaru Herald, January 8, 1999

Upper Waitaki runholders are considering charging anglers a fee to cross their private tracks leading to the Ahuriri River.

Buscot Station owner Tony Gloag is consulting other farmers in the area in the hope of taking united action in introducing a fee for anyone wanting to cross their land. He believed most landowners would support the move.

Mr Gloag's land provides one of the main access routes to the Ahuriri River.. He said yesterday that it was inevitable he would soon follow the lead of his neighbour, Ben Omar Station Ginger Anderson, who recently imposed a fee for those crossing his land.

The fee has already reduced traffic by about 50 per cent.

"...it is not unreasonable that access over private land should be subject to permission from the landowner and that there should be some compensation to the owner who grant such a privilege."

"...However Fish and Game field officer Mark Webb was concerned by the latest move by Waitaki runholders which he said hindered the Council's job of maintaining and improving the access to rivers for anglers.

"It makes it difficult when farmers close their doors. We will have to look at alternative routes and paper roads. Maybe they will be prepared to open up other roads where it is perhaps less costly to maintain."

Omarama Promotions Bureau chairman Peter Casserley said it would be a sad day for New Zealand when anglers have to pay access fees. However, he believed it was a sign of the times.

Public Access, No. 11. April 1999

Farmers look to public access sale as lifeline

New Zealand Herald, January 25, 1999

Auckland farmers with a slice of paradise are lining up to sell public access to their land so that they can hang on to their heritage.

They do not want to part with their properties around the region's multi-million coastline, which in some cases have been in the family for generations.

But making a living is hard because the land is mostly marginal for farming.

A handful, including the owners of the southern part of Ponui Island, near Waiheke Island, have turned to the Auckland regional council, offering to sell public access rights - in a sense a privately owned extension of the council's 37,000ha network of regional parks.

The council is looking closely at the idea.

However it is opposed by City Vision councillor Mike Lee.

The parks committee member said access deals would be a public subsidy for private landowners...

"Taken to its logical conclusion there would be no need to secure parks-instead we would have rented private 'regional parks'."

Only if there was spare money after buying important land should rental access be considered, he said. Its risk was that the council could not prevent the land's sale...

A council parks policy manager, Neil Olsen, said access deals would be cheaper for rate payers than purchases, although in some places buying was preferable to protect land.

Access deals would not give the council a legal interest in the land, so a caveat on the title would be needed to protect the council's ownership of improvements such as toilet blocks and tracks...[but no protection for public use. Ed]

...Peter Chamberlin, whose forebears bought Ponui land from the Government in 1853, said last week that farming on the island had become increasingly difficult since the early 1980s and was now totally uneconomic.

"If we can get some support and go on farming and the support involves yielding some access-controlled access by the public to some of the native bush and some of the walks-then perhaps that's one way of us as a family being able to continue living here."

Public Access, No. 2. March 1993

Poronui Station

Mr. Simon Dickie has applied to the Taupo District Council to operate tourist accommodation cabins on Poronui Station, near the Taharua River tributary of the Mohaka. The accommodation is for overseas visitors undertaking a variety of activities such as 'working farm environment, horseriding, wilderness hiking, angling, hunting.'

The stream does not have a Queen's Chain along either bank but public road access to the stream is available.

In response to concern over exclusive fishing rights PANZ made a submission to the Council asking for esplanade reserves be laid off as a condition of approval--Council declined this, as well as their staff recommendation for improved road access.
Kaufmann's Streamborn Fly Fishing Supplies 1993 Edition (USA)--

Poronui Ranch
"This fishing camp is owned and operated by Simon Dickie and is located on 20,000 acres of private ranch and wilderness lands near Taupo in the North Island. Over 25 miles of private water overs sightfishing for rainbow or browns averaging 4 pounds...These ranch waters are reputed to harbor the largest concentration of trout in the North Island."


Public Access, No. 4. May 1994

Queenstown Botanical Gardens

Otago Daily Times, March 30, 1994
Plans to put a perimeter fence around the Queenstown Botanical Gardens and charge $8 for entry have been dropped. The gardens are a public recreation reserve vested under the control of the Queenstown-Lakes District Council. 300 objectors at a council meeting persuaded it to decline an application by Youngs Greenworld for a $2 million upgrade, under a 20-year lease.

The council's corporate services manager Michael Ross said that the council should investigate all avenues of obtaining revenue from visitors. However the major stumbling block was loss of freedom to enjoy the open spaces of the gardens (ODT & Radio NZ, May 11 & 12, 1994).

Public Access, No. 5. November 1994

A 'Rival for Milford'?

NZ Herald, September 14, 1994
Fairthorne Leisure, an Auckland-based company plans to develop a 42 kilometre 'rival to the Milford Track' in the southern Coromandel Ranges. 28 km would utilise existing tracks, the balance would be new. The company would do the track development and maintenance. The area is conservation park administered by DOC. Two lodges would be constructed, with sleeping accommodation for 28 walkers in each. The guided walk will cost between $800 to $1000 per user. The track would also be open to non-paying walkers, using DOC accommodation.

DOC's Waikato land use manager, Greg Martin, was reported as saying that "there is a possibility the department may become involved in a form of partnership with Fairthorne." "In the Coromandel...if the department decides to go ahead with the idea, it will be a true partnership, with dollars upfront from us". "Part of the department's mandate is to foster tourism, and as long as the conservation values of the area are not at risk we don't usually have problems" (our emphasis).


Public Access, No. 5. November 1994

Private beachfront-Waiheke Island

NZ Herald Real Estate, October 26, 1994
One of the island's premier properties attracting buyer interest identifies with the best of beauty and serenity the island has to offer. Piemelon Bay is recognised among the island's exclusive north-facing sandy beaches extending nearly a kilometre across the face of rolling farm country.

Dominating the bay is an outstanding Spanish home within 100 m of the shoreline. The private beachfront residence is the focal point of a farm and lifestyle property covering 234 ha. The property is up for sale by tender.

Piemelon Bay is acknowledged as one of Waiheke's elite private domains.

Advertisement for the above property read-- "Your own private kilometre long north-facing beach...private retreat...brilliant white sandy beaches, clear blue waters, absolute serenity. Let the magic work for you!


Public Access, No. 5. November 1994

ARC plans to seize Zeus and Phoenix

Gulf News, Waiheke Island, September 30, 1994
The Auckland Regional Council says it will seize the vessels Zeus and Phoenix if its application to the Planning Tribunal for enforcement orders is successful.

In a strongly worded statement this week the ARC said it was also considering a separate prosecution of the vessels' owner, Gary Moulton, through the district court.

"This council has spent more than two years and several thousand dollars in an attempt to persuade Mr. Moulton to face up to his responsibilities," said environmental management committee chairwoman Patrica Thorp.

"We now have no choice but to ask the Planning Tribunal to take this unsatisfactory matter a step further. If granted, and Mr. Moulton still refuses to budge, we will be forced to evict him and take possession of and remove the vessels to a position where they will not occupy the foreshore/seabed."

Cr. Thorp said the Zeus would be taken to a commercial slipway while the Phoenix would be placed on an ARC mooring.

"The foreshore and seabed are intended for use by the entire public and are respected and protected under the Resource Management Act," she said. "We cannot allow anyone to interfere with the public's use and enjoyment of the coastal area, otherwise it can only be to the detriment of us all."

Cr. Thorp said staff and legal advisors were now preparing evidence for the Planning Tribunal.

The manager of coastal resources, Hugh Leersnyder, said that while abatement and enforcement notices were a matter for the tribunal, there was also provision under the Resource Management Act to initiate prosecution in the district court.
Mr. Leersnyder said legal advice was still being taken on what form a prosecution might take.

In a summary of the regional council's position the statement, released on Wednesday, said the Planning Tribunal had issued enforcement orders against Mr. Moulton in October 1992 requiring him to move his vessels from Anzac Bay, and again from Putiki Bay in November 1993.

"More recently, following his return to Anzac Bay, an abatement notice was issued on 31 August 1994 requiring Mr. Moulton to remove three vessels (Zeus, Phoenix and Mary's houseboat) and any associated structures from the foreshore of Anzac Bay by 7 September

This request had not been met and Mr. Moulton had since appealed to the Planning Tribunal against the abatement notice on the grounds that section 418 (6A) of the RMA allowed moorings occupied prior to 1 October 1991 to be occupied until one year after a Regional Coastal Plan becomes operative.

"The council has reason to believe Mr. Moulton does not satisfy this criteria as laid out in the Act," said Cr. Thorp."

Public Access, No. 5. November 1994

Graham's Bush Walkway closed

Otago Daily Times, October 19, 1994

The Editor,
The lower section of the Graham's Bush walking track to Sawyers Bay [Dunedin] was closed by DOC from 10.9.94 to 1.10.94. The reasons given was for lambing. This track has not been closed before. I believe that the closed section of the track follows a legal road, except for a very short section. During the period of closure there were no sheep on or near the track until the last day of closure. They were fenced from the track and on the other side of the valley from the track. I would be interested to know why DOC closed the track when no sheep were near and as it is mostly a legal road.

Alan J. Middleditch
Dunedin
[The Department of Conservation Dunedin field centre manager, Chris Stewart, replies: "The lower section of the Graham's Bush walking track was closed for less than three weeks at the request of the new owners of a section of private farmland across which the track passes. Through managing their stock differently, they hope that closures for lambing reasons Will not be required in future".]

Otago Daily Times, November 2, 1994
The Editor,
The Department of Conservation has not answered Alan Middleditch's question (ODT, 19.10.94) --why did it decide to close the Graham's Bush Walkway when there were no sheep, let alone "lambing", near it? The inference to be drawn from the DOC's response is "because a landowner requested it". But is that good enough reason? DOC is charged under the NZ Walkways Act 1990 with providing unimpeded foot access to the countryside, over both public and private land. If the department acts to impede public access without good reason it is bringing itself into disrepute and laying itself open to review of its actions through the courts.

Bruce Mason, Public Access New Zealand
[The Otago Regional Conservator for the Department of Conservation, Mr. Jeff Connell, replies: "A portion of the lower section of the Graham's Bush Walkway crosses private land over which there has been no formal access agreement. Where privately owned land forms part of a walkway, it is common for conditions such as closure for lambing to be included in agreements with the landowner. In the case of Graham's Bush there are new owners of the private land involved, and as a result of discussions with them we are hopeful closures can be avoided in the future."]

Still no answer to the question! Anyone else want to have a go?


Public Access, No. 5. November 1994

Parts of Kaituna closed to public

Daily Post, October 31, 1994
The Rotorua District Council has permanently closed parts of the Kaituna River to members of the public.

The top gorge section, popular with whitewater rafters and kayakers, would remain open, the council's director of environmental services, Mr. Bryan Hughes, said.

However, the river for several kilometres below the Trout Pools was now off-limits to the public for safety and cultural reasons.
Here the river flowed through a deep, narrow gorge surrounded by Maori land.

The gorge was highly dangerous and was not used by the raft companies, Mr. Hughes said.

It also contained most of the burial sites which made the river sacred to the tangata whenua.

There was also little physical access to most of the river in the gorge, which claimed the lives of at least two people who attempted the trip in the last few years.

A meeting is to be held this week to discuss controls which are to be imposed on the raft companies and kayakers who can continue using the upper section of the river, Mr. Hughes said.

These controls were to be in place within one month, before the peak Christmas tourist season started.

Meanwhile Ngati Pikiao's runanga was to meet today to discuss its response to the district council's heritage order over the river, the runanga's operations manager, Mr. Kepa Morgan, said.

The runanga was still waiting for government approval to gain heritage protection authority status.

This would enable them to place their own order on the river, with the power to ban all or any users if they wished.

However, they were pre-empted by the council's order, which specifically protected public access to the upper part of the river as well as recognising its significance to iwi.

Any subsequent order can not nullify the original one.


Daily Post, October 29, 1994

Council puts Kaituna under wraps

[The Council's Heritage Order] was...hoped to resolve the conflict between commercial rafting companies and some Ngati Pikiao, who felt rafting and kayaking compromised the spiritual significance the river held for the iwi.

In April these concerns led Ngati Pikiao's runanga to apply for heritage protection authority status from the Minister for the Environment. This would give them power to place their own heritage order on the river.

The MP for Rotorua, Mr. Paul East, has praised the council's action.

He said there was a need for an authority to control the river, but he had not supported the Ngati Pikiao runanga's move to do this.

"There is no doubt many New Zealanders would be excluded if an iwi group had total control over a river or lake. Our waterways are there for the enjoyment of all New Zealanders."

It was fitting that a democratically elected authority should be the controlling body, he said.

Ngati Pikiao's runanga are the first iwi group in New Zealand to apply for the status of a heritage protection authority, according to a spokesperson for the Ministry for the Environment.

The district council's move also set a precedent because it was the first time a heritage order had been used in this way.


Public Access, No. 5. November 1994

No Queen's Chain on Kuriwao endowment leases

Otago Daily Times, October 13, 1994

The Editor,
The Government's decision not to include a provision within the Kuriwao Endowment Lands Act requiring the Queen's Chain to be laid off along important South Otago rivers has again exposed the National Party's determined lack of commitment to the concept of secure public access to public waterways. But that is not the end of the matter. Central Government has simply passed the responsibility for providing for the wider public interest in those lands to the Otago Regional Council. The ORC operates under the Resource Management Act, and is required by Section 6 of that Act to recognise and provide for "the maintenance and enhancement of public access to lakes and rivers". That is described by the Act as a Matter of National Importance.

Regional Council chief executive Graeme Martin (ODT, 16.9.94) has given assurance about the conservation and recreation values of the lands concerned but does not want to "ride roughshod" over the rights of existing leaseholders. The reasonableness of that position depends to a very great extent on the Regional Council's commitment to cater for the wider public interest. Clearly the ORC must also ensure it does not ride roughshod over the public's interest in improved public access to waterways and fisheries. Those do not at present exist as public rights within the Kuriwao Endowment lands but should be provided for in the event that the lands are sold out of public (Regional Council) ownership. In that event it would seem entirely reasonable to trade the requirement for a Queen's Chain for the additional benefits of freehold title. That way no one's rights or interests get trampled.

Labour's Pete Hodgson put that argument to Parliament prior to the Act being passed and confirmed Labour Party support for the Queen's Chain concept. He also pointed out that laying off the Queen's Chain on rivers such as the Catlins and Waipahi, which flow through the 16,000 ha of endowment lands, would represent less that 1% of the land concerned. Sir Robin Gray's reaction to Mr. Hodgson's speech was that "There are plenty of other rivers with the Queen's Chain"! Perhaps Sir Robin [MP for Clutha electorate] would like to explain how he can justify such a blatantly elitist remark when outdoor recreation, including angling, has such a strong following in his constituency.

Niall Watson
Manager, Otago Fish and Game Council Dunedin
[Sir Robin Gray did not wish to comment on this letter - Ed]


Public Access, No. 6. August 1995

Law may prevent council lease bid

Nelson Evening Mail, April 15, 1995

Tasman District Council may not be able to consider a lease proposal for part of little Kaiteriteri beach because it could be banned under legislation.

Community services manager Lloyd Kennedy told councillors on Wednesday that the council's solicitor, Warwick Heal, and the Conservation Department's solicitor were discussing whether the council is able to lease out part of an esplanade reserve.
The talks relate to an application from Riwaka man Peter Youngman to extend an existing building on esplanade reserve to serve light refreshments.

Mr. Youngman owns Tasman Windsurfing and Watersports, a small hire business that operates from the building. At present he has no lease agreement with the council.

The council advertised its intention last month to grant Mr. Youngman a lease for the tearooms after it granted resource consents in November.

Mr. Kennedy said it was possible that this was not permitted on esplanade reserve under the Reserves Act.

If that was discovered to be the case, then the council would have to decide whether Mr. Youngman should move his operation.
Nelson Conservation Board chairman Bill Winstanley has been fighting against the lease's approval ever since it was advertised because of the legal issue.

He told the Mail last month that esplanade reserve could not be leased under the Reserves Act because leases compromised public access.

Public Access, No. 6. August 1995

Access to popular Piha spot cut off

NZ Herald, January 13, 1995
By Alison Smith
A West Auckland landowner has outraged locals by blocking the only safe access to a favourite scenic spot at Piha.

Residents of the beach community-- which swells by 10,000 on summer days -- say that as a result beachgoers are climbing 20m cliffs to get to The Gap.

They say that one fisherman needed medical treatment after falling on the rocks, which are cut off at high tide.

Access to The Gap is over private property at the end of an Auckland Regional Council track. The only other access is along the beach at low tide.

But one of the owners of the land Mr. Peter Byers says his riparian rights means the public is not allowed on the sand.

A joint owner of the 80ha family block, Mr. Byers yesterday accused the council and community of "intimidating" his family into allowing public access.

"[The public] just want to encroach and use the whole area," said Mr. Byers. "They are going to ruin it." "Why is it an issue that we should want a fence on our boundary? That's private property. I thought private land in New Zealand still was private land -- I may be wrong." He said people were trespassing by being on the beach at low tide.

The Waitakere City Council, however, says Mr. Byers' boundary officially ends at the mean high-water mark.

The regional council parks service has said it would love to buy the property for a reserve.

Mr. Byers is adamantly against selling. "It's our heritage. It has been handed down to us and we want it preserved as it is."

The president of the Piha Residents and Ratepayers Group, Jan O'Connor, said that for 50 years people had enjoyed access to the area.

"It is sad when you see the hundreds of people that go out over low tide and now can't. It has become a suburban beach and you can't stop it -- the blowhole is beautiful.".

The regional council's principal ranger for Waltakere parkland, Mr. Dave Hayes, said the risk was extreme for people clambering unstable rockfaces to get to the beach.

Apart from putting up warning signs, there was little the council could do. "[Mr. Byers] is saying the whole beach Is mine, even when it is low tide."

PANZ believes that the claim by Mr. Byers that "his riparian rights means the public are not allowed on the sand" is wrong. In the absence of express title to the beach his claim is nonsense.

Mr. Byers is mistaken as to the meaning of 'riparian'. It means "on or of a river bank". Also no person can occupy between high and low tide marks, which includes beaches, to the exclusion of others unless expressly allowed by a resource consent. It appears that Mr. Byers does not possess this.

PANZ believes that the regional council should stop pussy-footing around and assert the public's right of passage along the beach. Then, and not before, should they consider negotiating purchasing additional land for a public reserve. It is within the council's powers to remove the obstructing fence across the beach.



Public Access, No. 7. June 1996

Waikopou Bay-Waiheke Island

Gulf News, April 12, 1996
In October this year, the dispute between multi-millionaire John Spencer and Auckland City Council over ownership of a section of road is due to be finally heard in the High Court. The court, we are told, has determined there should be no further delays. Unfortunately, more than a decade after the dispute began, and four years after Mr Spencer blocked the road, such assurances tend to lose their meaning as far as any public perception of justice being served is concerned. In October, or thereafter, a complicated raft of legal issues will be resolved by highly paid lawyers and the public may or may not get its road back.

Meanwhile, another not dissimilar issue his resurfaced with the recent demolition of a jetty at Waikopou Bay by a group of local residents. As part of an illegal reclamation undertaken by Auckland businessman Melvin Lindsay Jones in 1986, this, too, has a 10-year history of wealthy private interest versus public access. The Auckland City Council inherited from its Waiheke County predecessor, an undertaking by Mr Jones to go through the relevant processes necessity to have the reclamation -- a massive earthworks which redefined the bay -- vested as reserve land. This agreement was to preserve public use of the jetty and foreshore, and access around the coast.

Six years later that hadn't happened. But the lawyers were still writing to one another: "Further to our correspondence last year and .... despite repeated assurances from Mr. Jones, no resource consents have been instigated to complete the terms of the agreement between our respective clients..." By the time council solicitors mailed this piece of correspondence off into the legal ether, Mr. Jones was negotiating the sale of his property to the present owner, Sir Gordon Tait, chairman of Lion Nathan Ltd. The council agreed to lift a caveat on the title (otherwise preventing the sale) and Mr Jones paid $100,000 into a trust to be monitored by Sir Gordon's lawyers -- ostensibly to cover the costs of legitimising the reclamation according to the original agreement.

Another three years on, it appears that rather than any attempt to honour these agreements, the property's respective owners have applied -- so far unsuccessfully -- to have the reclamation amalgamated with the rest of their property.

Whether or not one agrees with such direct action, the demolition of the Waikopou Bay jetty is a reminder: of unresolved conflicts of interest between wealthy individuals and the public at large; of the perennial importance of protecting our coastal access, and that these are important issues of which we need constant reminding.
Simon Johnston

The Auckland Regional Council have now received notice from the solicitors for Sir Gordon Tait that he wishes to withdraw applications for resource consents "in view of the destruction of the jetty".


Public Access, No. 7. June 1996

Ahuriri 'staked out'

Anglers claim river being reserved for exclusive tour access

High Country Herald, June 5, 1996
OAMARU - Recreational anglers claim that sections of the Ahuriri River are being staked out for tour parties, in a forerunner to the common practice in some North Island areas of exclusive access to waterways.

Oamaru Anglers club president Jack Kinzett said tour guides in some areas in the North Island were buying exclusive access rights to waterways running through private land. He said it was important to act early to prevent the practice moving south.

Recreational anglers Gordon Brown and Barry O'Neill both claim to have seen sections of the Ahuriri River staked out with coloured markers. Mr Brown said the stakes were there to mark off sections of the river for people on fishing tours. Mr O'Neill said he usually just kicked the markers over.

The relationship between tour parties and recreational anglers has become stretched with recreational users saying some of the tour parties are getting too big, creating the need for the stakes.

Tour guides and Fish and Game Council rangers say they are unaware of the practice.
Tour guide and honorary Fish and Game Council ranger Doug Andrews said he had not come across the practice. "If I heard of any thing I would be on to it straight away," he said.

Mr Andrews said he restricted tour par ties to two or three people and always gave way to recreational anglers. But he acknowledged that some big tour operators were less interested in the sport and just out for the money. "I thought further along the line, some big guides would like to get into territory," he said.

Guide Frank Schlosser said he had been approached about buying exclusive fishing rights but that would have been contrary to both his own and the New Zealand Professional (Fishing) Guides Association rules. He said land owners that accepted money for access across their land to fishing spots made themselves liable under the Health and Safety in Employment Act--a situation that recently closed the Dingleburn Station to recreational users. Selling exclusive fishing rights could have the same consequence.

Mr Brown said the annual meeting of the New Zealand Federation of Freshwater Anglers had raised the issue of buying exclusive access to water ways in the North Island with Conservation Minis Denis Marshall but he did not accept it was going on.

Mr Kinzett said business lobby groups were pushing for the privatisation of water through the introduction of tradable water rights, as had happened in Britain and the United States.

Public Access, No. 7. June 1996

Whose waters?

NZ Herald, Editorial, February 7, 1996
The annexation of the Kaituna River by the Rotoiti Scenic Reserves Board is another of those disturbing developments, aided and abetted by the Department of Conservation, that threatens public access to, and use of, rivers, lakes and sea. The board and the department deny as much but they quite readily regulate on the basis of an untested legal opinion that the river bed and water are part of the Okere reserve.

The assumption is disturbing because it accepts an effective corporate ownership of the river and could quite clearly be used to regulate other uses of the river besides commercial rafting. The concern, which the Rotorua District Council considers "grave", should not be confused with controls over commercial activities.

In fact, safety issues aside, the case for licensing such use of a waterway that is public is the more convincing. The council and the raft companies agree and up to now have used heritage protection orders made under the Resource Management Act as controls.

For reasons that likely put farmers and Maori land claimants into an odd alliance, a proposed amendment to the act will render these orders no longer applicable to rivers. Yet the provision of the act, as applied by the council with its production of a Kaituna River management plan, are used as the basis for the licensing rules prepared by the Rotoiti board. That board is administered by the department but has connections to the Ngati-pikiao.

The Kaituna is not the only river where the ownership of the riverbed, and the water, has too easily been compromised. The bed of Lake Taupo, which the Maori Land Court vested in the Ngatituwharetoa in 1993, is managed as a reserve, under an agreement between the department and the Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board.

There may be nothing to fear from such an imminent partnership but in the same area there are rivers that have been effectively privatised. Maintaining the sanctity of the so-called Queen's Chain on the margins of rivers and lakes becomes farcical if the public cannot be guaranteed free and unfettered access to the water or to dare to touch the bottom of river or lake without permission.
There is a naivete in the way the department so readily moves from guardian to partner without acknowledging the precedents created. With corporate riverbed and water ownership now established, it is a very short move for some river somewhere to be closed to all but those prepared to pay. And that, for the vast majority of New Zealanders, would be culturally, spiritually and historically offensive.

PANZ asked DOC what the legal basis is for the Reserves Board issuing licences with conditions for rafting the Kaituna River that allow the Board to suspend the licences to observe rahui for spiritual reasons, and to protect the spiritual and cultural aspects of the river. DOC's Regional Conservator Dave Field replied that the licences are prepared under section 56 Reserves Act (leasing powers over scenic reserves), but also observing section 4 Conservation Act (giving effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi). "At an operational, rather than academic level, this means applying both law and lore to an issue".

PANZ believes that the Board has exceeded its authority under the Reserves Act by breaching the statutory principle of freedom of public entry and access to the reserve, and by accommodating Maori cultural wishes well beyond that envisaged by the Treaty and its principles.


Public Access New Zealand, P.O.Box 17, Dunedin, New Zealand