This page last modified 16 December 1999
1999 Questionnare & links to Party
Policies
Public Access No.
12, November 1999
ISSN 1172-3203
[Assessment complete, presentation of policies to be added. Intention is to provide detailed commentary on each party's policies]
Last modified 24/11/99
Election Day November 27 provides a chance to salvage something of New Zealand's proud heritage of egalitarian access to and enjoyment of public open spaces, as well as citizen influence over its management. Democracy requires popular knowledge of the policies and practices of present and aspiring Governments. Presented here are the alternatives, and your choices at the ballot box.
PANZ looked at six key policy areas, being public roads, Treaty of Waitangi and constitution, DoC and public lands, the Queen's Chain, high country, and recreation in general.We ranked parties' policies according to their 'access friendliness'. This was a weighted appraisal which was influenced by-
All the parties listed were asked to supply policies and to answer a questionnaire. Two new parties South Island and NZ Equal Rights answered but were not assessed against other parties. OneNZ had no developed policy so could not answer. Mauri Pacific was also asked but did not reply.
PANZ is not aligned to any political party. We are not backward in being critical, or supportive, of any party's policies and actions, as past Governments will attest!
How the parties rank
Labour leads the bunch, scoring 19 out of a possible of 30 in 'access friendliness'. The Greens closely follow at 18.5, then United at 16. Christian Heritage and the Alliance are mid-field at 12.5 and 12 respectively. National, ACT and NZ First barely rate in 'access friendliness' at 7.5, 6.5, and 6.
The ratings are not uniform within the leading parties. United eclipses other parties on Treaty matters, and the Greens displace Labour as the leading advocate for the high country.
New Zealanders have been poorly served by lack of choice on Treaty matters. National and Labour remain indistinguishable on approaches to Treaty settlements affecting public lands. However ACT and United now provide credible alternatives. However ACT's other 'free market' policies would likely spell disaster for public lands.
Form Guide
Labour
Has a comprehensive programme which addresses many issues. Labour's score has dropped significantly since 1996 due to inconsistent high country policies and from a major shift towards Mäori interests at the expense of the wider electorate.
.
Greens
Provide a credible platform of advocacy for outdoor recreation that wasn't apparent when part of the Alliance. Have evolved from a single-focus 'ecology' party. 'Politically correct' on Treaty matters, but want public consultation on settlements involving public lands and waters.United
A new entrant to the recreation stakes. Have a well-developed Treaty policy founded on Liberal principles of reason, knowledge and justice, rather than political correctness. Has an acceptable outdoor recreation policy. Other policies variable.
.
Christian Heritage
Has grappled with Treaty issues. Sympathetic to outdoor aspirations, but has not developed detailed policy.Alliance
Has just about written itself off as a credible advocate for public recreation. Lowest ranking on Treaty issues with a major shift towards a confused Mäori 'sovereignty'-'partnership' view. Constitutional proposals dangerous to democracy.National
Appears to have no real interest in the welfare of the outdoors or its users. Will be judged by performance in Government-broken promises and privatisation actions despite denials.ACT
Treaty policy a high profile challenge to the National-Labour approach. But other unpublicised policies really bad news for the public outdoors.NZ First
Can't be bothered stating what they would do in Government. Stands to be tried by the electorate.
We have rated each party in each key policy area on a scale of 0 to 5[0.5] Gravely flawed
[1] Seriously flawed
[2] Poor
[3] Acceptable
[4] Very good
[5] Outstanding
| Roads | Treaty | DoC | Queen's Chain | High Country | Recreation | Totals | |
| Labour | 4 | 1 | 4 | 3.5 | 2.5 | 4 | 19.0 |
| Greens | 3 | 2 | 3.5 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 18.5 |
| United | 2 | 4 | 3 | 2.5 | 1 | 3.5 | 16.0 |
| Christian Heritage |
2.5 | 2.5 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2.5 | 12.5 |
| Alliance | 2.5 | 0.5 | 1.5 | 3 | 2.5 | 2 | 12.0 |
| National | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 7.5 |
| ACT | 0.5 | 3 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 6.5 |
| NZ First | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6.0 |
[each party's score out of a possible of 30]
We ranked parties' policies according to their 'access friendliness'. This was a weighted appraisal, which was influenced by-
- how closely the policies coincide with PANZ's objectives (the protection/enhancement of access through public ownership and management of recreational resources);
- their specificity or ambiguity;
- contradictory policies, or actions;
- the absence of policies in important areas;
- PANZ's research.
In other words we do not believe any party's claims or 'policies', good or bad, at face value. We look at their total actions and words, then assess these against how closely they coincide with PANZ's objectives. In the absence of express policies we looked at all their relevant news media statements, and other material available to us. Naturally the incumbent Government will be judged more by their actions than their words, as they must be.
The question of credibility of party positions is central to our evaluation. There are some inconsistencies between answers to our questionnaire, and actual policies or intent (not unknown among politicians!). The most glaring example is National's answers to us on road reform. They claim that under the 'reforms' that they have already drafted legislation, that everyone's access rights will remain unchanged, roads won't be privatised, and that unformed roads will be retained. Having waded through 1000 pages of their detailed proposals we found repeated, glaring contradictions to these claims, to the extent that we have accused the Government, without challenge, of lying about it's position. See our detailed analysis of Govt's plans. We therefore conclude that most of their answers cannot be believed and they received 11 X's against them and only 1 tick, with a comparative ranking of 0.5 or "gravely flawed".
In instances where parties failed to provide us with policies and no other indicators of a position were available, we consistently scored them as "seriously flawed" on that key policy area. We could have not scored them at all, however their non-disclosure is a cause of great concern that warrants censure.
The process we followed was-
1. List all relevant issues about each particular key policy area that either we or the parties raised.
2. Score each party with a tick or X, and half ticks and X's, against each issue, relative to our objectives (weighting by half ticks and X's was done to reflect the importance of that issue relative to other related issues).
3. Tally up the ticks and X's for each party on each key policy area.
4. Do a final comparative ranking of parties in each key policy area, with the scoring above used as a guide only. Again, the relative importance of each issue (in relation to PANZ's objectives) was the determinant in us ranking each party on each key policy area. This was either as "gravely flawed" [0.5], "seriously flawed" [1], "poor" [2.], "acceptable" [3], or "very good" [4]. No party ranked as "outstanding" [5].
5. Provide the full polices available to us, alongside our ranking, so that readers can make up their own minds.
We found that steps 1 to 4 required close examination and re-examination
of policy, and other policy indicators, and a more objective outcome
that might have occurred by a less structured approach.
Our approach differs from that
used in 'Vote for the Environment", in that they apparently
did a simple numerical tally of a large number of answers to a
questionnaire, assuming equal importance to all questions. Clearly
some issues are of overarching importance relative to others.
We therefore preferred a 'weighted' approach and believe this
provides our supporters with more reliable guidance. The other
difference of approach is that we provided the full policies to
enable readers to make up their own minds.
Ticks and Crosses Scoring
| Roads | Treaty / Constitution | DoC / public lands | Queen's Chain | High Country | Recreation | |
| Labour | 10 ticks/ 0.5 X |
1 X * | 12.5 ticks/ 1 X |
3.5 | 3 ticks/ 3 X |
6 ticks |
| Greens | 7.5 ticks/ 0.5 X | 3 ticks/ 2.5 X |
9.5 ticks/ 2 X |
3 ticks | 6 ticks | 3 ticks |
| United | 1 tick/ 0.5 X |
14.5 ticks/ 2 X |
3 ticks | 1 tick | nil | 5 ticks |
| Christian Heritage |
4 ticks | 5 ticks | 2 ticks | 1 tick | nil | 2 ticks |
| Alliance | 4 ticks/ 2 X |
7 X | 3 ticks/ 1 X |
2 ticks | 2 ticks | 1 tick |
| National | 1 tick/ 11 X |
5 ticks/ 10 X ** |
1.5 ticks | 2 X ** | 1 tick** | nil |
| ACT | 9 X | 9 ticks/ 1 X |
5 X | nil | 2 X | nil |
| NZ First | nil | nil | nil | nil | nil | nil |
* Labour, while answering the rest of the questionnaire, failed to answer on the Treaty and its constitutional intentions. We find this inexcusable given their likelihood of forming the next Government. From their voting record (in particular their appalling performance on the Ngai Tahu Settlement Bill) and other statements, there is a strong prospect of them, in co-operation with the Alliance, instigating major constitutional changes without seeking an electoral mandate.
** Actions as Government
have contradicted their policies or espoused 'intent'.
See: 'Public Access' No. 12 (pdf document) 508 k
For access to full Vote for the Environment Charter and responses click here
At the end of August 1999 the four major environmental groups released their fourth Vote for the Environment Charter for the coming election. The groups involved are the Environment and Conservation Organisations (ECO), Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, Federated Mountain Clubs and Greenpeace.
At the end of September the groups wrote to eight political parties with a questionnaire based on the Vote for the Environment Charter. The 172 question questionnaire was sent to: the ACT, the Alliance, the Greens, Labour, National, NZ First, Mauri Pacific and United. These parties were selected on basis of presence in parliament and polling at the end of September.
Responses:
Questionnaires were
completed by the Alliance, the Greens, Labour, National, NZ First
and United. Where the responses where qualified this has been
indicated in the analysis.
OVERALL RESULTS
Overall ratings of the
parties based on their responses to the VFE Charter questionnaire
and announced policy is:
Overall percentage support for charter: Greens (95%), Alliance
(92%), Labour (79%), NZ First (67%), United (44%), National (28%),
ACT (15%).
Percentage support for key commitments: Greens and Alliance (89%),
Labour (44%), NZ First (33%), United (33%), National (11%), ACT
(0%).
These results have been tabulated. Of the 20 subject headings, 2 related directly to PANZ's interests. These were--
|
Alliance |
Labour |
Greens |
NZ First |
United |
National |
ACT |
|||||||||||||||
| Responses |
yes |
no | und | yes | no | und | yes | no | und | yes | no | und | yes | no | und | yes | no | und | yes | no | und |
| Public access / recreation |
2 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
| Treaty of Waitangi |
8 |
1 |
1 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
9 |
1 |
0 |
8 |
0 |
2 |
7 |
0 |
3 |
8 |
1 |
1 |
9 |
0 |
1 |
Actual answers to some specific questions
The public has a right to be informed and participate in public policy making. Barriers to participation should be removed.
Alliance
Labour
Greens
NZ First
National
ACT
Y
Y
Y
Y
Yq
N
Public access to the public estate should be maintained and enhanced where ecologically appropriate.
Alliance
Labour
Greens
NZ First
National
ACT
Y
Y
Y
Y
Yq
N
Resolve Treaty of Waitangi grievances by using productive Crown resources (eg SOE land and other resources) in the settlement of Treaty claims. Conservation land should only be used in special circumstances (eg urupa and notable pa sites).
Alliance
Labour
Greens
NZ First
National
ACT
Y
Y
Y
Uq
Yq
Yq
Maintain and enhance public foot access to the public conservation estate, and along the coast and waterways (including the Queen's chain) except where ecologically damaging.
Alliance
Labour
Greens
NZ First
National
ACT
Y
Y
Y
Uq
Yq
Nq
Expand New Zealand's national park, conservation park and ecological reserve system to improve the representation of lowland forest, tussock grassland and coastal environments.
Alliance
Labour
Greens
NZ First
National
ACT
Y
Y
Y
Y
Yq
N
Retain in public ownership all natural habitats currently owned by the Crown that have predominant conservation values.
Alliance
Labour
Greens
NZ First
National
ACT
Y
Y
Y
Y
Uq
N
Carry out tenure
review in the South Island High Country so that land of predominant
conservation value returns to full Crown control.
Alliance
Labour
Greens
NZ First
National
ACT
Uq
Y
Y
Yq
Yq
N
PUBLIC ACCESS/ OUTDOOR RECREATION
Retain in public ownership and control the land or waters administered by local or central Government, with predominant conservation or access values.
Alliance
Labour
Greens
NZ First
National
ACT
Y
Y
Y
Y
Yq
N
Ensure adequate funding for a system of basic huts, tracks
and other facilities, thus allowing New Zealanders to access and
enjoy their publicly owned natural lands and waters.
Alliance
Labour
Greens
NZ First
National
ACT
Y
Y
Y
Y
Yq
N
Curb the development of elaborate recreational facilities
on public conservation land eg 40 bunk huts and great walk type
tracks.
Alliance
Labour
Greens
NZ First
National
ACT
Nq
Yq
Yq
Y
N
N
TREATY OF WAITANGI
Ensure that in the settlement
of Treaty claims:
(a) the rights and interests of the environment are protected
and conservation and environmental protection is achieved
Alliance
Labour
Greens
NZ First
National
ACT
Y
Yq
Y
Y
Yq
Yq
and (b) the Government adequately consults with the people of New Zealand.
Alliance
Labour
Greens
NZ First
National
ACT
Y
Y
Y
Y
Yq
Yq
Resolve Treaty of Waitangi grievances by using productive Crown resources (eg SOE land and other resources) in the settlement of Treaty claims.
Alliance
Labour
Greens
NZ First
National
ACT
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Yq
These resources should not be disposed of to other interests if
they may be required for a settlement. Conservation land should
only be used in special circumstances (eg urupa and notable
pa sites).
Alliance
Labour
Greens
NZ First
National
ACT
Y
Y
Y
Y
Uq
Yq
Settlement instruments such as topuni, deeds of recognition and
naming which were used in the Tainui and Ngai Tahu settlements
could be used. [Note: PANZ is opposed to 'Topuni'
and having "particular regard" to Maori views over
conservation lands]
Alliance
Labour
Greens
NZ First
National
ACT
Y
Y
Y
Y
Yq
Yq
Recognise the importance to
Maori of some native plant and animal materials by:
(a) promoting the conservation and restoration of native species
of particular significance to Maori, such as eel, pingao, flax
and totara.
Alliance
Labour
Greens
NZ First
National
ACT
Y
Y
Y
Y
Yq
Ud
(b) and to allow for customary
use subject to:
i. No taking of live wildlife protected under the Wildlife
Act or Marine Mammals Protection Act or in contravention of other
conservation legislation;
Alliance
Labour
Greens
NZ First
National
ACT
Ud
Y
Y
Y
Yq
Yq
(ii) No felling of live trees on conservation land;
Alliance
Labour
Greens
NZ First
National
ACT
Nq
Yq
Nq
Uq
Nq
Yq
(iii) That any harvest is sustainable and has minimal environmental impact;
Alliance
Labour
Greens
NZ First
National
ACT
Y
Y
Y
Ud
Y
Yq
(iv) Establishment of banks of cultural materials (eg feathers and wood) for use when required.
Alliance
Labour
Greens
NZ First
National
ACT
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Yq
The Charter also included the following positions, but it is unknown if these were put to the parties for response--