"Nohoanga aren't for fishing. They exist only to exclude others. The only purpose to be served by nohoanga is the alienation of most of the population from use of public reserves."
Public land +
NO public camping = nohoanga private camping
This page created 30/9/00 /updated 23 September 2000
"Nohoanga aren't for fishing. They exist only to exclude others. The only purpose to be served by nohoanga is the alienation of most of the population from use of public reserves."
Public land + NO public camping = nohoanga private camping
Public Access New Zealand
[published 7 September 2000]
The Editor
The Dominion
Sir
Exclusion from parks
Conservation Minister Sandra Lee's proposed nohoanga entitlements in Te Urewera National Park are a very confused expression of 'justice'. Nohoanga aren't for fishing. They exist only to exclude others.
Ms Lee is incorrect to claim that nohoanga are for fishing, etc., and not for exclusive camping. All the North Island claims settlement agreements involving nohoanga describe these as 'camping licences'. As these are located near waterways, but are not themselves waterways, there can't be much scope for fishing on the actual nohoanga areas.
If fishing is the real intent, there is no need for nohoanga. Rights of access to and use of fisheries, etc., exist for everyone without the presence of exclusive camping areas near their banks.
The only purpose to be served from this Alliance Minister's nohoanga is the alienation of most of the population from use of parts of their national parks. It is indeed ironic that ACT spokesman Gerry Eckhoff applauds this privatisation.
Bruce Mason
Public Access New Zealand
Press Release: ACT New Zealand
24/08/00
ACT Supports Forest and Bird's Call For Privatisation
Forest and Bird Society director, Kevin Smith, is to be congratulated for calling for an end to the Crown's monopoly over the administration of National Parks, said ACT Conservation spokesman, Gerry Eckhoff.
Mr Smith said the Minister should not be condemned for exploring ways of tackling Maori concerns and aspirations over management of the park.
Tuhoe's natural association with the Urewera National Park makes them obvious candidates as well as affording an excellent opportunity for commercial enterprise to offset administration costs of this asset.
A precedent already exists in the South Island where the Greenstone Valley and environs, while still owned by Ngai Tahu, is leased back to the Crown to ensure access.
The issue of the road upgrade is a completely separate matter. It is not appropriate for Sandra Lee to direct the local Board to spend money on a road depending on who lives at the end of it
Ms Lee, as a Minister of the Crown, must respect established democratic principles. Funding formulas for roads remove the ability of Ministers and senior government officials to arbitrarily allocate funds to their friends.
Whether the road should be upgraded is neither an issue of race, location or politicking. If the road meets the appropriate funding formula it should be built, if the road does not it should remain a track.
Any deviation from this process raises serious question of Ministerial favouritism.
ACT supports Kevin Smith in his call for the end of the Crown monopoly over National Parks, said Gerry Eckhoff.
ENDS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PANZ understands that the Maungapohatu road referred to above is not 'public'. It was constructed as a private easement across the national park to provide loggers with access to Maori land. The 'road' is therefore a private asset. The Minister appears to have created a precedent for DOC (ie public) money to be diverted from public purposes to the maintenance of private assets. What next? The Hermitage at Mt Cook?
Kevin Smith was subsequently appointed as Sandra Lee's new senior conservation adviser (announced 18/9/00).
Tuesday, 5 September 2000
The Editor
The Mirror
Fax (03) 214 3713
NOHOANGA
Recent advertisements by Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu (30.8.00) concerning nohoanga entitlements being set up on recreation reserves, etc., disguise their reality. Nohoanga aren't for "the gathering of food and other natural resources". They exist only to exclude others.
They are exclusive camping licences. As these are located near waterways, but are not themselves waterways, there isn't much scope for fishing, etc., on the actual nohoanga areas.
If food gathering is the real intent, there is no need for nohoanga. Rights of access to and use of fisheries, etc., exist for everyone without the presence of exclusive camping areas near their banks.
The only purpose to be served from nohoanga is the alienation of most of the population from use of public reserves.
Bruce Mason
Public Access New Zealand
Mark Solomon, Kaiwhakahaere,
Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu responds:
Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu takes issue with the points raised by Public
Access New Zealand.
Nohoanga do not exist to "exclude others" or to "alienate most of the population from use of public reserves." While the sites do give Ngai Tahu an exclusive right to occupy specific sites alongside a number of lakes and rivers there is a no effect whatsoever on public access to any waterways.
Ngai Tahu accepts that the term nohoanga may be new to some members of the public but the concept is not so new. The nohoanga sites are set aside to provide a place from which Ngai Tahu may gather fish and other natural resources that exist in the locality as long as they do this in accordance with the law.
Thus nohoanga are not significantly different than the exclusive rights that any individual or group holds when granted a licence or a lease over an area of Crown-owned land.
Many recreational groups such as anglers, trampers and climbers already have a number of areas of the Crown estate set aside for the provision of campsites, and huts for the use of their members to facilitate their recreational activities. There are also many areas where individuals have built cribs or baches on Crown land. Once the Crown licences these sites the general public may be excluded from using that area of land.
It should be noted that the total area covered by nohoanga sites amounts to about 72ha out of the many thousands of hectares of Crown land still accessible by the general public for recreation purposes.
Ngai Tahu is working hard to ensure that they maintain good relationships with all adjoining land users of nohoanga sites so that the similarities and the common interests of the various user groups are identified.
------------------------------------
Thursday, 14 September 2000
The Editor
The Mirror
Fax (03) 214 3713
[letter declined for publication]
NOHOANGA
It is contradictory for Mark Solomon of Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu
to acknowledge my point that nohoanga convey rights of exclusive
occupation, while at the same time denying this to be the case
(September 13).
Mr. Solomon attempts to confuse public waterway access and use, which should be unaffected, with dry-land recreation like camping and picnicking that used to be freely available for everyone over the areas now staked out for exclusive Ngai Tahu use.
Mr. Solomon says that nohoanga sites are set aside "to provide a place" from which Ngai Tahu may gather fish and other natural resources in accordance with the law. In addition to Crown-owned rivers and lakes, such places are already provided for everyone. These are public reserves, and parcels of Crown land that, as a matter of policy, government has allowed recreational use. In some cases, while having no formal status, government agencies have provided facilities for the use of the general public.
On the shores of Lake Hawea exclusive nohoanga enclaves are already apparent. A prime recreational area that was used for picnicking near the lake outlet has been cordoned off with log barriers, despite the nohoanga supposed to be only for temporary use. I believe it is an affront for the public to be prevented from camping in this locality (district council and Ngai Tahu signs say so), while a privileged few now can.
At the mouth of the Dingle River, over half the suitable camping area has been demarcated as a nohoanga, leaving too little flat ground for other campers. That can only cause disappointment and resentment among the many people that have camped there before and expect to do so again.
Ngai Tahu should forgo these unnecessary impositions. Nohoanga have not arisen from any proven Treaty breach. They don't fulfil their stated purpose of "fishing", the nearby waterways do that. The runanga should certainly not attempt to freehold or sell these public areas. The damage to community relations would be immeasurable.
Bruce Mason
Public Access New Zealand
[additional points about Mark Solomon's reply:
He states that "nohoanga are not significantly different than the exclusive rights that any individual or group holds when granted a licence or a lease over an area of Crown-owned land."
They are when they involve public reserves. In normal circumstances if a controlling authority proposes granting an exclusive licence (really a lease), this would require prior public notification and objection procedures. The granting of exclusive or other rights is required to be in accordance with any management plan, if in existence, and the reserve classification under the Reserves Act. These basic protections of the public interest have been undemocratically set aside by governments imposing nohoanga through special legislation, without any regard for public opinion.
Mr Solomon continues that "many recreational groups such as anglers, trampers and climbers already have a number of areas of the Crown estate set aside for the provision of campsites, and huts for the use of their members to facilitate their recreational activities" (PANZ emphasis).
The implication of his statement is that such facilities are for the exclusive use of the club providers. Other than in specific development zones, like the Whakapapa skifield, PANZ is unaware of many. If there are any there are very few and these generally do not intrude into prime public use areas. If they do, generally authorities have made these of limited term, often with phase-out provisions (eg batches on Rangitoto Island, which arose through past maladministration of this reserve).
There are however many huts provided by clubs in public parks, conservation areas and reserves that, while they are available for use by their members, they are also available as of right for use by the public at large, on a first-come-first-serve basis. There is a proud tradition in New Zealand of tramping and climbing clubs providing public facilities on public lands. Nohoanga couldn't be more alien to such publicly-spirited actions.]
Public Access New Zealand
8 October 1997
Nohoanga pretext for privatisation of reserves
The Ngai Tahu settlement opens the door to permanent alienation of the public from river and lakeside reserves.
Public Access New Zealand has completed an analysis of the 1800 page Deed of Settlement. PANZ refrained from making substantive comment on the settlement when it was announced recently because the full document was unavailable.
PANZ has discovered Government claims to be untrue that the Nohoanga provisions are confined to temporary camping on public reserves to allow Ngai Tahu access for fishing.
Researcher and spokesman Bruce Mason said that the Deed allows for the Crown to offer freehold title to Ngai Tahu over any or all of the 73 Nohoanga at any time.
Doug Graham and his officials have previously not revealed any intention of giving away riverside public reserves. "This underlines the reason why Government kept the settlement negotiations secret and why inquisitive interest groups such as PANZ were shut out of the process."
Not only will Ngai Tahu beneficiaries be able to exclusively camp on riverside reserves 'temporarily' for 210 days a year, they will now have an expectation of doing it for 365 days a year as freehold owners. The prospect of becoming land owners will likely cause Nohoanga occupiers to assume proprietary rights not only over the reserves they are camping on but also adjoining marginal strips and waterways. This will result in conflicts with members of the public wishing to use these areas for recreation, especially fishing.
"This is a grave injustice of the Minister of Justice's creation. While Mr Graham recently stated that the public is not at fault for Ngai Tahu grievances (ODT 4/10/97) he seems to be consciously out to penalise the public through unjustified alienation of their assets.
END
Reference:
Deed of Settlement 23 September 1997
Section 12.7. Freeholding provision: 12.7.2 (f) on page 12-16.
Nohoanga sites: 12.145-1 to 12.145-20.
