This page last modified 24 June 2003
Back
to news release directory
Treaty of Waitangi & Maori claims
Directory
[Letter submitted to Southland Times 18/12/00]
MINISTER HAS NO MANDATE FOR PRIVATE PARKS
Conservation Minister Sandra Lee predicts (18 December) that there will be a National Park on Stewart Island by June. This was after her meeting stakeholders, including "Maori landowners".
The Rakiura national park investigation was confined to Crown-owned lands and should stay that way. The NZ Conservation Authority was not asked to make recommendations to her concerning private Maori land and have not done so.
The weak terms of protection, and even weaker public use rights, negotiated by the last government over the SILNA Lords River Block in no way qualifies this area for national park status. Yet the Minister intends this area to be included in the park.
Is this to be the first of a new kind of national park for New Zealand? One that is partly or wholely privately owned, subject to the law of trespass? One that requires visitor registration prior to entry? One that allows closures for undefined cultural purposes? One that allows charging whatever fees the owners like? One that denies public say or involvement in the management of the land? This is what 'national park' status over the SILNA lands would mean.
National parks must remain government owned and managed, for the benefit of all New Zealanders. The Minister has no mandate for creating private 'parks'.
Bruce Mason
Public Access New Zealand
[see more]
The recent Government deal to protect Maori-owned SILNA native forests on Stewart Island is a very poor substitute for a national park and a poor use of public money, according to Public Access New Zealand.
On 25 October Conservation Minister Nick Smith announced that in exchange for $10.9 million this land would be managed "as National Park".
However Public Access New Zealand spokesman Bruce Mason says that National Parks are supposed to provide the public with freedom of entry, access and enjoyment. Dr Smith's deal with Rakiura Maori falls well short of this basic requirement.
PANZ's criticism of the deal follows that of Forest and Bird who are concerned about this large expenditure of public money jeapardising other conservation initiatives.
Inspection of the agreement and conservation covenant has revealed that public rights of enjoyment will be very constrained.
The public must register before entering the area, with 'free' use confined to walking tracks. There will be no principle of 'wander-at-will' generally, as applies over national parks.
Conditions of entry can be set.
The public can be charged for services and facilities they may not desire.
The public can be excluded because of unspecified "management" and "cultural" reasons. The Trespass Act continues to apply.
Unlike National Parks the public will have no say on the management of the area. "Given this Government's poor track record on public access it is a bit rich to expect confidence in the Minister and his officials to always do the right thing on behalf of the public", Mr. Mason said.
While the Government may feel that this is the best they could obtain while the land remains under private ownership, it is a fallacy to pass this arrangement off as a National Park.
END
PANZ appears before select committee
considering Tutae-Ka-Wetoweto Forest Bill
3 May 2001
On 8 March 2001 PANZ appeared before the Maori Affairs select committee to elaborate on our concerns about the Tutae-Ka-Wetoweto Forest Bill, which affects the Lords River SILNA lands on Stewart Island. The committee has now reported back to Parliament.
There are three references in the Bill, as introduced, to managing the forest "as if it were national park". This was the primary focus of our submission, as PANZ believes these have the potential to seriously derogate from the standing and nature of national parks. We submitted that an additional clause be added to the Bill "that for the avoidance of doubt nothing in these provisions deems the forest to be subject to the National Parks Act 1980".
While the committee did not accept our concern that the Bill may deem the forest to be national park, they acknowledged that reference to the National Parks Act in the preamble to the Bill [Clause 6(b)] is unnecessary and may create confusion. The committee has recommended deletion from the Bill reference to the National Parks Act.
Other submitters, including Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu, raised substantive matters over other aspects of the Bill, however the committee was powerless to address such matters. This was because Parliament's resolution referring the Bill to the committee included an instruction that "the committee be constrained in its consideration of the Bill by the deed and covenant entered into by the Crown and the people Rakiura". While the runanga is able to privately negotiate amendments with Government (they are in fact doing so), this option is unavailable to anyone else. This highlights the undemocratic nature of agreements between executive government and private parties which commit Parliament to passing pre-determined legislation. The same occurred with the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act. The select committee considering that case either was, or chose to be, a toothless tiger. Consequently the public submission process was a farce, with no prospect of amendment to that Bill.
In this recent case however, the committee under the lively chairmanship of John Tamihere, made some effort to improve the Bill within the constraint imposed by Parliament. PANZ's submission achieved one amendment to the Bill, although in the case of deleting a reference to the National Parks Act this was not unanimous.
It remains to be seen if Parliament as a whole agrees with the recommended amendment. Correspondence with the Minister of Conservation, Sandra Lee, reveals a clear intention to regard this private forest as a National Park. Discussion with the official primarily responsible for drafting the deed and covenant, as implemented by the Bill, also revealed such intent (he also advised the select committee), with such agreements seen as new forms of national park. This reinforces PANZ's concern about unmandated privatisation of the national park concept, with the prospect of legislative restrictions to public rights of use being introduced to national parks generally during this term of government.
28 September 2001
The Bill, as amended by the select committee, has been passed and becomes law on 9 October 2001. Despite removal of reference in the Preamble to the land being "held and administered under the National Parks Act 1980", some government MPs continue to portray these lands as 'National Park'. They are not.
SETTLEMENT HELPS PROTECT PUBLIC ACCESS TO MT HIKURANGI
An out of court settlement was reached today over Government actions to vest the ownership of Mt Hikurangi in Ngati Porou.
Public Access New Zealand and Dr Hugh Barr filed a High Court action last year challenging successive Government actions in extinguishing public ownership of some 3700 hectares of Conservation Park on the North Island's East Coast. This transfer of ownership to Ngati Porou was not the result of a Treaty claim.
This action was filed after former Conservation Minister Nick Smith ignored legal advice that such a transfer was unlawful. In August 1999, immediately after receiving warning of our proceedings, Dr Smith rushed through a new deal with Ngati Porou that PANZ and Dr Barr believe substantially weakened public access arrangements for the mountain.
PANZ and Dr Barr hope that this case will act as a deterrent to Governments from riding roughshod over the interests of the public in their dealings with public land.
Dr Barr is a former President of the Federated Mountain Clubs of New Zealand and well-known outdoor recreationist. Public Access New Zealand is a trust dedicated to preserving and improving public access and recreational opportunities over public lands.
"What was at issue were successive Ministerial actions going back to 1985, all of which bypassed the requirements of the Conservation Act for public objection procedures when Governments wish to dispose of conservation lands", Dr Barr said.
"I was very concerned with the national implications for the security and integrity of lands held for conservation purposes, if a large area of prime conservation park land can be disposed of without public consultation".
As a result of months of negotiations the Crown has conceded that in future, before it can use the Maori Land Act as a means of divesting public ownership of conservation areas, full consideration will be given to the purposes of the Conservation Act. Also the Crown agrees that it would not be suitable to use the Maori Land Act where there are recreation, public access, natural and historic values. Moreover, the Minister of Conservation has now undertaken not to attempt to use this Act for any 'specially protected area' including conservation parks, without first seeking advice from the New Zealand Conservation Authority and the local Conservation Board. The Minister has also agreed to consider instigating public consultation. "These are most unusual concessions from a Government, and makes taking the case very worthwhile," Dr Barr said.
Bruce Mason, spokesman for PANZ, emphasised the important gains achieved in better securing public access to Mt. Hikurangi. He said there were serious weaknesses in the August 1999 agreement. "Public rights of access may now be enforced by members of the public, if necessary, although we would expect the Department of Conservation to take a keen interest in ensuring that free public access to the summit of Mt. Hikurangi is in fact maintained." The agreement now requires the Minister to take steps to remedy any breaches of access and conservation provisions.
"We have now received a clear undertaking that the Walkways Act applies. This guarantees that, except in specified periods of closure, 'every member of the public may without charge at any time pass or re-pass on foot'. These rights now extend to the summit of the mountain, something that was omitted from Dr Smith's deal," Mr Mason said.
'Off-on' access since transfer to Ngati Porou, and the Crown's reluctance to enforce its agreements with the iwi, has been cause of considerable friction with the public. "Now that Ngati Porou have signed an agreement with us that they intend to abide by public access provisions, we hope that such problems are a thing of the past", Mr. Mason said.
As well as strengthening public access rights to the mountain, the proceedings and today's agreement resulted in -
o marginal strips being laid off along riverbanks - this being an omission by the Crown.
o prohibitions on public camping in the adjoining Raukumara Forest Park being removed.
o all public access and conservation provisions being registered concurrently to land vesting.
o annual reporting on the operation of the Crown's agreements with Ngati Porou.
In return for a confidential Crown contribution to their legal costs, PANZ and Dr Barr have agreed to withdraw their proceedings.
The one big issue that was unresolved by the Barr-PANZ settlement was the return of the conservation area to public ownership. This could not be achieved through negotiation. "We still believe that the transfer of this land was illegal and could have been overturned at Court. However the Crown's negotiators made less than subtle threats to enact special empowering legislation, with no guarantees of public access if we won the case. Besides resulting in a waste of our money, such a transfer would likely occur without the kinds of protections that we were able to achieve through negotiation", Mr. Mason said.
Both PANZ and Dr Barr wish to thank supporters throughout New Zealand who contributed towards the considerable cost of the proceedings. They are also thankful that Conservation Minister Sandra Lee, who inherited this case, was willing to resolve it.
The conservation and access improvements achieved by the agreement are not confined to those noted above. The full terms of the settlement is public information and may be obtained from the PANZ web site <www.publicaccessnewzealand.org> [link here to pdf documents]
Both the Government and TRONP choose not to make any public statements at the time of settlement.
Other than coverage of the PANZ release by the electronic news media (Scoop and NewsRoom) and one report in 'The Dominion' on 7 October, the print media appears to have a news black-out on our achievement (see PANZ, Truth and the News Media).
The first coverage of the Hikurangi settlement by the Gisborne Herald, being the only daily paper in the region, was this-
The Editor
Gisborne Herald
18 October 2000
Dear Sir
Your coverage yesterday of the settlement of court action over Mt Hikurangi, is hardly a leading example of balanced journalism.
While your headline writer states that Public Access New Zealand's claims about the settlement were "slated" by Te Runanga o Ngati Porou, you have not provided your readership with any coverage of what our 'claims' are, despite plenty of opportunity to do so.
Our press release has been submitted to you twice since 6 October, without publication, and no one has contacted me to respond to Api Mahuika's comments about us before publication yesterday.
If you wished to verify our rendition of events, our release stated where the settlement document could be viewed. It wouldn't have taken much in the way of investigative effort to do this. In the absence of their own press releases at the time, the Government and the Runanga could have been invited to comment. Likewise, we should have been invited to respond to Mr Mahuika's comments prior to publication.
I resubmit our original press release, in the hope that your readership will be given opportunity to see both sides of the story.
Bruce Mason
Secretary
Public Access New Zealand Inc.
-----------------------------------------
The Editor obliged on 24 October...
Subsequent correspondence...
Earlier coverage about Mt Hikurangi
A comprehensive survey of party policies for the general election reveals a diversity of approaches to Treaty issues.
Public Access New Zealand believes that the Treaty of Waitangi will become a defining issue this election.
New Zealanders have been poorly served by a lack of choice on Treaty matters. 'Politically-correct' appeasement of Maori claimants, involving public lands and waters, has been forced upon the electorate by Government. This has been irrespective of the merits of many claims and that such resources are supposed to remain in Government control for public benefit.
PANZ's survey found that National and Labour remain indistinguishable on the Treaty. However United, ACT, and to a lesser extent Christian Heritage, now provide credible alternatives. However PANZ warns that ACT's privatisation policies would likely spell disaster for public use of the outdoors.
Spokesman Bruce Mason said that PANZ questioned the parties and assessed relevant policies concerning six key policy areas. These were the future of public roads, the Treaty, public lands, Queen's chain, high country, and recreation generally.
In terms of Treaty policies PANZ ranked United as 'very good', and ACT as 'acceptable'. Christian Heritage is 'less acceptable' mainly due to lack of detail rather than intent. The Green's Treaty policy was 'poor' although balanced by willingness for public consultation on Treaty settlements. National, Labour and NZ First were rated as 'seriously flawed' in their Treaty approaches, while the Alliance came off worst as 'gravely flawed'. Their contradictory constitution and Maori policies appear to be a capitulation to the Maori wing of the party, Mr. Mason said.
In overall outdoor policies Labour narrowly leads from the Greens and United in "access friendliness", with Christian Heritage and the Alliance well behind. National, ACT and NZ First barely rate in 'access friendliness'.
This is PANZ's third election-year
assessment of party policies. Over 200 recreation and conservation
groups, plus individuals fund PANZ, representing over 200,000
New Zealanders. The PANZ assessment of party policies is available
at the PANZ website www.publicaccessnewzealand.org.
Government decisions to grant freehold ownership of Mt Hikurangi to Te Runanga o Ngati Porou are to be legally challenged. The mountain is part of the Raukumara Forest Park north of Gisborne.
Proceedings to review a 1990 decision by the Minister of Conservation to gift Mt Hikurangi to Ngati Porou are about to be commenced in the High Court in Wellington. Interim orders will also be sought to prohibit the Crown acting further on an agreement signed on 29 August this year, including any registration of documents on the title to these conservation lands.
The action is being jointly brought by Public Access New Zealand, and Dr Hugh Barr of Wellington. PANZ is a national advocate for recreational users of public lands. Dr Barr is a past president of the Federated Mountain Clubs of New Zealand.
The plaintiffs believe that Government's decisions and those of the Maori Land Court are illegal and they seek to overturn their decisions. They believe that Government wilfully used a vesting order through the Court, as a means of avoiding public notification and objection procedures required by the Conservation Act. The plaintiffs are alarmed at the national implications for the security of public lands that arise from this precedent.
In 1990 the then Minister of Conservation made application to the Maori Land Court for the vesting of the ownership of 3780 hectares of the Park in Ngati Porou subject to a conservation covenant and the establishment of a public walkway. The original covenant and walkway conditions have not been honoured, with Ngati Porou on several occasions closing or restricting public access.
A new amended agreement struck by Conservation Minister Dr Nick Smith makes even weaker provision for public access to the mountain, with closures for farming and unspecified cultural and religious purposes for up to 50 days per year. There is also potential for further periods of closure in case of death or serious accident. The agreement is also subject to review and is therefore impermanent.
Government cannot reclaim ownership of the mountain if Ngati Porou breaches the agreement, however Ngati Porou can terminate the conservation and public access provisions while retaining ownership of the land if they believe Government to be in 'material failure' of the agreement.
Members of the public, as intended beneficiaries of the agreement, are specifically excluded from suing either party for breach of their obligations under the new agreement. These arrangements are a very poor substitute for the protections for the public provided by public ownership. Dr Barr and PANZ believe that the area should have stayed as public land and will continue to advocate this.
The deal between Government and Ngati Porou has not arisen from any Treaty of Waitangi settlement. Ngati Porou has not lodged any claim over the area. The plaintiffs believe that there is no legal or moral justification for Government's actions, these being gravely prejudicial to the public interest.
The plaintiffs unsuccessfully sought resolution of these matters with the Government prior to taking legal action. However Dr Smith rejected their requests for negotiation by signing the amended deal with Ngati Porou on 29 August.
The proceedings will be lodged in the High Court in Wellington later this week.
END
Conservation Minister's response
PANZ Articles about Mt Hikurangi
March 1993
Recreational lobby group Public Access New Zealand calls on Government
to abandon any plans for settlement of land claims with Ngai Tahu
before the general election. PANZ is concerned about the future
of conservation and other Crown lands of importance for public
recreation.
The call is in response to a statement on Radio New Zealand today
by Justice Minister Doug Graham that "only one or two outstanding
issues" stand in the way of reaching a settlement with Ngai
Tahu before the election. Mr Graham hopes to reach a settlement
"in the next few days".
PANZ spokesman Bruce Mason said that Mr Graham's comment is quite
incorrect and demonstrates an arrogant disregard for a consultation
process he agreed to for non-government organisations, including
PANZ, to have input into any settlement agreement.
Only last Friday PANZ and other NGOs were involved in an initial
consultation with Mr Graham's officials on the Government's proposals.
That consultation revealed that there are potentially major problems
with the approaches proposed for settlement of the Ngai Tahu claim.
Officials told the NGOs that it would not be possible for further
consultations before the election; they would occur afterwards.
However within days, the Minister in effect says that he is barrelling
on regardless.
The approach taken by Government on the Ngai Tahu settlement is
also contrary to its own policy that the conservation estate is
not "generally available". However in this case Government
proposes to use at least 32 conservation areas, all the Southern
lake beds and the beds of major rivers, as well as other Crown
lands with high conservation and recreation value. These proposals
have never been canvassed publicly.
As well as offering freehold title over important recreational
areas like the Greenstone Valley there are other proposals that
have potential to subvert the protective status of national parks.
'Topuni' are proposed over Mounts Cook, Aspiring, Earnslaw, and
Tutoko. These would require DOC to manage these mountains so as
not to 'harm or diminish' Ngai Tahu "cultural, spiritual,
historical or traditional values". Clearly, as this is a
requirement, such strictures would override the preservation and
public access purposes of national parks, despite the denials
by officials that this could be so.
Some Ngai Tahu consider that climbing mountains is culturally
offensive. This could lead to restrictions or bans on climbing
activity despite freedom of use being a principal purpose of the
parks. It could also lead to demands on DOC to remove mountain
huts.
Another major unresolved issue is the adequacy of covenants over
freeholded Crown lands, as a means of protecting public access
and conservation values. This was only raised but not dealt with
at the first meeting with officials.
So much land, and new 'protective' mechanisms, are involved that
there was only time to run just the basic proposals past the NGOs,
with insufficient time to research particular areas or to make
meaningful comment.
There is a grave danger that, in its haste to score another Treaty
'settlement' before the election, Government will alienate a large
section of the New Zealand public. This would create a festering
injustice for present and future generations to deal with. That
is hardly the action of a responsible government.
8 September 1996
The overwhelming majority of
public submissions, on proposals developed by Public Access New
Zealand, support the splitting up of the Government-owned Greenstone,
Elfin Bay, and Routeburn Stations between conservation areas and
freehold land.
In 1992 the Government purchased the three high country stations,
near Queenstown, for "possible" future settlement of
Ngai Tahu land claims.
In July this year PANZ released for public comment its own tenure
review for the properties because of Government's failure to deliver
on promises to consult the public. PANZ proposed that 30,000 hectares,
being all alpine lands and the Mararoa, Greenstone and Caples
valleys, be transferred to the Department of Conservation, and
another 2,250 hectares of Lake Wakatipu lake faces be freeholded.
PANZ spokesman Bruce Mason said that there were a total of 244
submissions which he described as 'phenomenal'. On other high
country tenure reviews there are normally only between 5 and 15
submissions.
Ninety seven per cent of submitters want the 30,000 hectares to
become public reserves and conservation areas. Eighty nine per
cent supported freeholding of the other 2,250 hectares, being
the better farm land, to be offered to Ngai Tahu if Government
so wishes.
More submissions came from the North Island, than from Otago and
Southland where the greatest interest might be expected.
"The response reaffirms the national significance of the
properties, a fact that Government would be unwise to ignore",
Mr Mason said. "The Greenstone and Caples Valleys are as
high valued in Auckland as they are locally, with submitters describing
them as "a vital area for public recreation", or as
"one of the best areas in New Zealand for easy family access
to the backcountry".
"The large majority support for freehold being offered to
Ngai Tahu over non-conservation lands should debunk a frequent
accusation that objections to a settlement with Ngai Tahu are
'racist' in character, Mr Mason said.
The primary concern of most submitters is the maintenance of public
control over natural and recreational areas to ensure that these
lands are not over-developed, and that the public will have future
assurance of access and recreational use. "Most submitters
clearly perceive this would be highly unlikely under private ownership
or control", Mr Mason said.
The submission process has helped PANZ refine its original proposals
and will result in significant amendments. Despite support for
limited grazing in the Caples Valley there were substantive arguments
presented against this.
PANZ will now submit to Government that all grazing be excluded
from the area recommended for transfer to the Department of Conservation,
and better provision be made for public access across lands that
could be freeholded.
An analysis of submissions will be presented to Government to
assist its decision-making process. However PANZ is firmly of
the view that Government should reveal its plans for the area
and actively solicit public input before final decisions are made.
"The PANZ proposals have been publicly judged to be fair
and equitable. The challenge now is for Government to treat the
public fairly and equitably", Mr Mason concluded.
30 August, 1995
The Crown's proposals for settlement
of Treaty of Waitangi claims only 'pretend' to protect the public
conservation estate. This is the view of recreational lobby group
Public Access New Zealand after detailed analysis of the Crown's
'fiscal envelope' proposals.
While Government states that the conservation estate will "not
generally be used" for settlement of Maori claims, inconsistency
in treatment of different Crown resources effectively singles
out the estate for 'most favoured status' for use in settlements.
30 per cent of New Zealand is held by the Department of Conservation,
on behalf of the public, for conservation and recreation purposes.
The Crown's proposals deal with this estate, and with other natural
resources owned by the Crown. Notably absent are proposals for
use of state-owned enterprise assets. PANZ believes that this
omission, and different availabilities of different assets, will
put public lands at the top of the list for privatisation.
PANZ is particularly concerned that the Crown's proposals fail
to provide for independent validation of claims or public consultation.
It is incomprehensible, and inexcusable, that the public will
not be fully consulted if any change in the public's interest
is contemplated.
For many months PANZ has voiced concern at the manner in which
Government has embarked on claims settlement. We have repeatedly
called for a public consultation process, and for Government to
stop acting as judge and jury of its own culpability for alleged
Treaty breaches.
Government is increasingly bypassing the Waitangi Tribunal by
deciding whether itself is "guilty" of Treaty breaches
without independent hearing and testing of evidence. The conflict
of interest is obvious, but apparently not compelling enough for
Government to step to one side.
Government is making a habit of dispensing public lands to Maori
claimants with no validity to their claims. It is expedient, and
cheap, to play fairy godmother with public property as a political
sop to Maori aspirations.
Government is proposing that public consultation will only occur
on a case-by-case basis. Ad hocery, inconsistency, and lack of
real standing for the public are destined to continue under the
Crown's latest proposals.
23 March 1995
Claims by Maori protester Ken
Mair and others, that they are "simply asserting their sovereign
rights in their own lands as they are entitled to do based on
Article II of the Treaty of Waitangi" (reported NZPA 23/3/95),
defy the actual terms of the Treaty.
Article II says a lot more than what Mr Mair is asserting. If
read as a whole a very different picture emerges of the legitimacy
of Mr Mair's claims.
Article II states that the Queen guarantees to Maori the full
exclusive and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates
forests fisheries and other properties so long as it is their
wish and desire to retain these in their possession, but also
states that Maori would (exclusively) sell land to the Crown (English
version). The translated Maori version confirms this arrangement-the
Queen would protect Maori in the unqualified exercise of their
chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures.
But on the other hand the Chiefs would sell land to the Queen
(our emphasis).
The Treaty is a two-way contract. There are duties and obligations
on both parties, not one-way as Mr Mair implies. Once land is
lawfully sold to the Crown there is an obligation on the vendors
to honour that sale. In the absence of a proven breach of the
Treaty by the Crown, demands for return of ownership are in direct
violation of the contract.
Public Access New Zealand is very concerned that public lands,
like the Moutoa Gardens, are being targeted for 'return' to Maori
ownership when there is no proven basis for the claims. The Wanganui
District Council has legal opinion confirming that the land was
lawfully purchased from Maori. The onus is on claimants to use
existing legal mechanisms to contest the point if they wish. The
Waitangi Tribunal was set up for this purpose. To act contrary
to the law and to not use institutional avenues available to them
is in itself in breach of Article III of the Treaty which creates
the same rights and duties of citizenship for all New Zealanders.
"It is staggering that claims of ownership by Maori, in terms
of 'sovereignty' and 'tino rangatiratanga' (exercise of chieftainship
or tribal control over resources) under the Treaty, are not being
critically examined by the news media. Instead such statements
are being slavishly reported without any examination of the basis
for the statements. Where is the investigative journalism? Where
are the searching questions of antagonists that would lead to
informed debate and better public understanding of the issues?"
Appended-
The Treaty in English
Translation of Maori Text
8 November 1994
An investigation of South Island
state-owned enterprise lands has revealed that government has
massive commercial assets at its disposal and is able to avoid
using public lands in the claims settlement process.
That is the conclusion of a study by Public Access New Zealand
of Landcorp farms and other government property within the Ngai
Tahu rohe or tribal area.
The investigation revealed 97 Landcorp farms totalling 78,300
hectares, in Canterbury, Otago, and Southland. Several of these
were found to be within areas not awarded to Ngai Tahu at the
time of land sales to the Crown last century.
Spokesperson Bruce Mason of Dunedin said that state commercial
assets have the potential to provide the most suitable basis for
Ngai Tahu to re-establish an economic base. "Conversely we
believe that there is no necessity to use public and Crown lands
such as the Greenstone valley and public reserves for settlement
of proven claims by Ngai Tahu".
In 1992 Government acquired the Greenstone, Elfin Bay, and Routeburn
stations near Queenstown, for "possible" settlement
with Ngai Tahu. This has created public alarm over possible commercial
development and restrictions to public access. There have been
calls for the area to be added to the Mt Aspiring National Park
rather than be given to Ngai Tahu.
PANZ believes that the mountainous Greenstone-Routeburn area is
greatly different, and hundreds of kilometres distant, from the
highly productive farm and agricultural lands denied to Ngai Tahu
elsewhere in the South Island. "Whereas the Waitangi Tribunal
validated Ngai Tahu claims over highly productive coastal and
low country, their claim over the high country, including the
Greenstone Valley, was roundly dismissed", Mr Mason said.
"What we are asking for is consistent with Ngai Tahu's statement
of claim before the Waitangi Tribunal that any lands allocated
to them should be representative of the land lost in both character
and geographic distribution", Mr Mason said.
To proceed with a contentious and divisive decision to allocate
the Greenstone valley area to a private developer, in the form
of Ngai Tahu, would most likely result in on-going acrimony. That
would defeat a principle purpose of Treaty claim settlements which
is to obtain durable resolution of grievances, Mr Mason concluded.
PANZ has produced a 65 page report entitled 'Landcorp farms and
the SOE option' which it has sent to the Minister of Justice and
the Ngai Tahu Maori Trust Board. The purpose of the report is
to put "the SOE option" back on the claim settlement
negotiating agenda.
Landcorp Farming Limited
Most properties are ideally suited for settlement of proven Ngai
Tahu claims, both in character and geographic distribution. Some
are within the areas of 'reserves not awarded' to the tribe. These
include the Mt Parnassus and Tiromoana Stations in North Canterbury.
According to Evison (Te Wai Pounamu, 1993) these properties are
either in or close to the pastoral lands refused to Ngai Tuahuriri,
centred on Motunau and Hurunui. In addition, Landcorp's Eyrewell
Station and Langstone Farm are within the Waimakariri Block not
awarded to Ngai Tahu. Many other farms are in the general coastal/lowland
localities where insufficient lands were awarded to Ngai Tahu
(e.g., Ealing Pastures, Seacliff, Orokonui, Akatore Creek, Waitapeka,
Dawson Downs). Other lands are highly productive and of similar
character to those not awarded.
There is a vast array of highly productive farms in the Te Anau-Manapouri
basin. These are in a highly scenic area bordering the World Heritage
Fiordland National Park. In addition to farming, proximity to
two tourist towns at the entrance to the park creates major potential
for tourism development. The potential for rural-based economic
activity is limited only by imagination.
Landcorp Investments Limited
1345 properties are held by this Landcorp subsidiary, including
several large rural properties potentially suitable for claims
settlement.
Crown Forests
Approximately 19,000 hectares of Crown exotic forests are administered
by the New Zealand Forestry Corporation, on behalf of the government
(Treasury), through a contractor, Resource Management New Zealand
Limited. Unlike other former State Forests, these forests have
not been sold or had Crown Forestry Licences issued. PANZ has
been advised they have been held for possible settlement with
Ngai Tahu. The forests are the Naseby, Herbert, Silverpeaks, Raincliff
(Timaru), and Geraldine forests. With the exception of Naseby,
these forests are in the general localities of 'reserves not awarded'
to Ngai Tahu.
11 March 1994
Recreational rights lobby group
Public Access New Zealand believes that Government is going completely
off the rails in its handing of Maori claims for public lands.
PANZ was responding to a statement by the Chairman of the New
Zealand Conservation Authority, Mr Jim Guthrie, that in strickly
legal terms the Crown has no requirement to consult the public
(as reported in Otago Daily Times 10/3/94).
PANZ spokesperson, Bruce Mason of Dunedin, said that the group
is alarmed that the head of the Authority believes that the Crown
owns national parks and other protected areas and not the people.
"His view is supportive of Government arguments that it alone
has the right to decide the fate of New Zealanders' outdoor heritage",
Mr Mason said.
"This has horrendous implications for the future of the public
estate. Government is attempting to hock off nationally important
recreational lands and wildlife sanctuaries to Maori even when
claims before the Waitangi Tribunal have been disallowed or not
heard".
PANZ believes that Government is hiding behind the mantle of 'the
Crown' and 'Treaty obligations' to avoid accountability to the
public, when in reality it is a clique within Government that
is making ad hoc decisions without the sanction of Parliament
or the people.
"Public lands seem to be fair game for disposal in marked
contrast to a reluctance to use state-owned enterprises in claim
settlements. There appears to be a reverence for commercial assets
rather than citizen rights of enjoyment to the outdoors. There
is no justice in this for the true owners of public lands, all
the people of New Zealand", Mr Mason said.
PANZ has submitted its concerns to the Minister of Justice Doug
Graham and outlined why the Government is obliged to consult the
public. PANZ believes that Government is merely the trustee of
our national parks etc, not the owner. Any alienation to private
interests, including Maori, would be an infringement of a legal
duty of trust to hold in perpetuity and protect the environment
for public purposes including recreation.
PANZ also believes that Government is breaching one of the central
principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, that of equality between
citizens. If there are no valid grievances by Maori over particular
lands there is no lawful basis for prejudicing the public interest
by loss of ownership or control. Mr Graham has acknowledged in
the past that such injustices would be in breach of the Treaty.
PANZ has submitted to Government a proposal for a three-step public
consultation process. "Meaningful public involvement and
checks on Government are essential requirements for restoring
any degree of credibility to the Treaty claim process", Mr
Mason concluded.
9 February 1994
Recreation advocate Public Access
New Zealand believes that it is irresponsible and unjust for Government
to exclude the general public from commenting on the disposal
of Crown lands in the Greenstone and Routeburn areas to Ngai Tahu.
In a letter to PANZ from the Minister of Justice, Mr Graham states
that Government does not consider that the public has a "clear
and appropriate interest" sufficient to warrant consultation
over the issue. An invitation to meet the Department of Conservation
in Queenstown on 24 February has only been extended to groups
such as PANZ. The consultation is confined to commenting on 'conservation
values'. No other avenues for consultation are planned.
PANZ spokesperson Bruce Mason of Dunedin believes that either
Government is woefully out of touch with public feeling on the
matter or it doesn't care. "There is huge public concern
over the future of these valleys, as evidenced by almost 7000
people signing a petition against a Ngai Tahu promoted monorail
up the Greenstone Valley. Most of the signatories are outside
of the groups that Government has chosen to consult. They deserve
a say", Mr Mason said.
PANZ's concerns arise from the national and international importance
of the areas for public recreation and the lack of a substantiated
claim by Ngai Tahu over the areas. The Waitangi Tribunal disallowed
their "general claim" over the South Island high country,
including these areas.
PANZ describes as "posturing" Government statements,
in regard to the valleys, that it is responding to a 'general
claim' by Ngai Tahu. "Government preoccupation with protection
of its commercial assets is leading to erroneous interpretations
of the Tribunal's findings", Mr Mason said. The majority
of state-owned enterprise lands are in the coastal and downland
regions where Ngai Tahu have proven claims, but most Crown and
public lands are not.
Government is actively promoting the use of lands of high conservation
and recreation value for Maori claim settlements ahead of SOE
assets. "Where are the Landcorp farms in lowland Canterbury,
Otago and Southland that are being offered in settlement of Ngai
Tahu's proven claims?", Mr Mason asked. "Government
has been silent on such matters".
PANZ is also concerned that there have been two unexplained deferrals
of the meeting with DOC since its report was produced in May last
year. "If Government was serious about being open to influence
in its conduct of negotiations with Ngai Tahu, there was no necessity
for such delays. We are very concerned that the meeting on 24
February will not be a meaningful consultation, merely a token
gesture before Government announces what it has already decided",
Mr Mason concluded.
22 January 1994
Lobby group Public Access New
Zealand welcomes Government's moves to raise awareness over Treaty
of Waitangi issues through recently published newspaper articles
on Maori grievances and the resolution of Treaty claims. However
PANZ believes that through 'skilled omission' of information Government
is misleading the public over it's conduct and into believing
that only public conservation areas, rather than state commercial
assets, are available for claim settlements.
Many New Zealanders would agree with the sentiments expressed
by the Minister of Justice that proven grievances by Maori against
the Crown should, if possible, be settled fairly.
However a major difficulty arises in settlements involving public
conservation and recreation lands which are held under a duty
of trust by Government for the benefit of all New Zealanders,
present and future. This is in contrast to other Crown assets
such as state-owned enterprises. The latter are government rather
than public property, without the same constraints on disposal
as for national parks etc. Alarmingly Mr Graham does not draw
such distinctions in his articles. There is also no process to
involve the public at large in determining if and how public lands
are used in claim settlements.
Another area not touched on by the Minister is the process for
determining the validity of claims. Mr Graham rightly points out
that some claims are erroneous. It also seems to be a clear breach
of the rules of natural justice that the alleged perpetrator of
wrongs, the Crown, should also assume the role of judge and jury
on its own past actions. Increasingly Government is usurping the
independent role of the Waitangi Tribunal in determining whether
the Crown breached the Treaty. Mr Graham is putting greater government
resources into direct negotiation of claims that have not been
heard by the tribunal than is being put into the work of the Tribunal.
PANZ believes that, in the interests of justice for all, the role
of the Tribunal should be enhanced with greater resources so it
can determine the validity of all claims, rather than the government
assuming the powers of a fairy godmother in its dispensation of
any assets under its control. One could be excused for cynicism
by observing government's moves towards claim settlements involving
public lands with no valid claims over them, such as Stevens,
Codfish and the Crown Titi islands, while state commercial assets
such as Landcorp are jealously guarded.
In response to articles published in--
NZ Herald 13 January 1994
The Dominion 12/13 January 1994
The Press 13/14 January 1994
Otago Daily Times 17/18 January 1994
Southland Times 13/14 January 1994
16 December, 1993
A review of the Treaty of Waitangi
and its implications for natural resources was released today
by the lobby group, Public Access New Zealand.
"The Principle of 'Partnership' and the Treaty of Waitangi"
reviews the validity of the existence of a 'partnership' between
Maori and the Crown under the Treaty. Implications for New Zealand's
public conservation estate are also examined.
Researched and written by Bruce Mason of Dunedin, the report concludes
that there is no 'partnership' derived from the words of the Treaty.
The notion of a 'partnership' is the central principle widely
deemed to arise from the Treaty, and is used by the Crown to justify
sharing equally with Maori the control of public lands.
PANZ is concerned that handing public lands to a minority of the
population could exclude the views and wishes of everyone else.
"That would be undemocratic given that the lands concerned
are held in trust by the government for the benefit of all New
Zealanders, present and future", Mason said.
The report was commissioned by PANZ in light of increasing demands
by Maori claimants over national parks and other public lands.
Mason explained that Government has assumed the role of sole arbitrator
in respect of its liabilities under the Treaty and which assets
it may use in settlement of claims. "Government insists on
negotiating in secret and is asserting that it must exclude the
public from the process".
"Government has chosen to ignore developments in the Courts
which debunk the notion of equal partnership. A climate of well-meaning
rhetoric about honouring the Treaty, in some quarters mixed with
a residue of guilt, is responsible. This means that it is politically
dangerous and 'culturally unsafe' for anyone to question what's
going on", Mason said.
The 'equal partnership' model is uncritically embraced by the
Department of Conservation. DOC is divesting ownership of wildlife
sanctuaries and forest parks to Maori contrary to, or in the absence
of, favourable findings by the Waitangi Tribunal. There is also
a major gulf between the protective purposes of national parks
and similar lands and the utilisation aspirations of many iwi.
The report's conclusions are based on examination of records of
the Courts, official papers, and an extensive body of previously
published material.
"The paper is not an attack on the Treaty of Waitangi. It
is one contribution towards informed reflection on where New Zealand
is at with its Treaty obligations and on the future of the public
estate", Mason concluded.
The report has been sent to every member of Parliament.
20 May 1993
A national newspaper appeal
for support to save the South Island highcountry from privatisation
has been launched by the recreational group Public Access New
Zealand.
An advertisement has been inserted in the Dominion Sunday Times
on 23 May claiming that Jim Bolger is set to give the famous Greenstone
and Caples Valleys near Queenstown to Ngai Tahu. This is despite
the Waitangi Tribunal dismissing their claim to these and other
high country lands. The ad features a photograph of the Prime
Minister, in relaxed mood, on return from one of his annual tramping
trips to the southern high country. Mr Bolger is a repeat visitor
to the Greenstone Valley.
PANZ Spokesperson Brian Turner of Dunedin said that there are
consistent signals from Government that, irrespective of the findings
of the Tribunal and of substantial public concern that the recreational
values of the valleys requires continued public ownership and
control, the Government is hell-bent on disposing of its ownership
and management responsibilities. This would be to an unelected
and non-accountable Ngai Tahu Trust board, being a private body.
PANZ believes that the clear public preference is that the outstanding
environment and angling, tramping, and hunting opportunities be
controlled and managed for public benefit by a publicly accountable
body such as the Department of Conservation.
Mr Turner said that while other aspects of the Ngai Tahu land
claims were upheld in parts of the lowland South Island, these
areas were not. If Government proceeds with using Crown and other
public lands for unjustified Maori claim settlements it will not
only cause loss to the public of these particularly important
areas, it will establish a precedent for the freeholding of all
3 million hectares of the pastoral high country. It will also
discredit the wider Treaty claim settlement process, Mr Turner
said.
PANZ has sent legal opinion to Government which concludes that
its proposed intentions to offer freehold over lands classified
as "pastoral land" under the Land Act would be unlawful.
This includes the Elfin Bay, Greenstone, and Routeburn runs purchased
by the Government last year. The Crown is making substantial taxpayer
investments on improvement to the runs, making a mockery of proposed
public consultations on the future of the properties. "We
believe that the Crown has already agreed with Ngai Tahu what
areas they will get and the future management of them. Why else
would the Government be spending big money on bridges, fencing,
and stock yards, while officially only holding the land for possible
use in settlement with Ngai Tahu?, Mr Turner asked.
PANZ is seeking public support to enable legal action if necessary
to challenge moves to freehold the areas. "Government could
however move to change the law to allow it to do what it wants.
However it would then have to explain, this election year, why
it is suddenly privatising public lands which are held in high
regard by many thousands of New Zealanders. Government would also
have to justify why it would renege on the Minister of Land's
assurance to Parliament, as recently as 6 May, that he does not
intend to introduce amendments to the Land Act for any purpose
prior to the general election", Mr Turner concluded.
17 March 1993
Recreational group Public Access
New Zealand believes the Government is pulling the largest confidence
trick in New Zealand's history.
PANZ believes that Ministers are misconstruing the Waitangi Tribunal's
Ngai Tahu land claim findings, and believes there must be grave
doubts about Government assurances that conservation values and
public access will be protected if the public estate is used for
claim settlement
Having carefully studied the Tribunal's massive report on the
Ngai Tahu claim, PANZ believes there are no grounds for the Government
to consider giving away public ownership and control of high country
pastoral leases or public lands. PANZ believes that these areas
must remain sacrosanct and in public ownership.
The Ngai Tahu claim that there was a "hole in the middle"
in the Crown's land purchases, and it was illegally taken, was
rejected by the Tribunal. This supported the Crown's contention
that the "hole in the middle" was "a myth without
any factual foundation."
PANZ accepts that Government needs to settle proven land claims,
but not by dispossessing the public which owns the public estate
and wishes to retain it.
The Government has no mandate to proceed along its present path
-it is not for Government alone to decide the fate of the public
estate. PANZ believes that by advocating using the public estate
for settlement, the Minister of Justice is in danger of cynically
abusing his power. Rather than use public lands to settle Ngai
Tahu grievances, PANZ says that Government should be looking to
use productive Landcorp properties rather than jeopardising nationally
important recreation and conservation values in the high country.
PANZ believes that in this matter Government is being driven primarily
by concern for money. The financial consequence of using natural
areas for claim settlement is small compared to parting with SOE
assets that give good financial returns.
As an example of what can happen when public ownership and control
is given to an iwi, PANZ points to Mt Hikurangi on East Cape.
Two years ago the Crown and Ngati Porou signed "a legally
binding agreement," resulting in agreement for a substantial
area of forest park becoming Maori freehold. The agreement contained
a right of public access described by the Minister of Conservation
as "secured for all future generations of New Zealanders".
Ngati Porou has since breached this and closed the area. Government
appears incapable of reopening public access -they have lost control.
The Ministers of Justice and Conservation have been enthusiastically
advocating similar arrangements for the rest of the public estate.
Spokespersons-
Brian Turner
Bruce Mason
Appendices:
Ngai Tahu land claim
Questions to the Minister of Justice, his reply, and commentaries
by PANZ.