This page last modified 27 November 1999
On 30 September PANZ invited the following parties to respond to the questionnaire below by 22 October 1999. The requests were repeated on 21 October (late responses please to panz@es.co.nz).
The parties were also asked to supply their policies on conservation, the constitution, Crown lands, the environment, transport, outdoor recreation, and Treaty of Waitangi.
Their full policies, if such exist, will be progressively added to this web site, as soon as we lay hands on them.
Note: [square brackets] denote announced stances through press releases and other sources rather than formal 'policies'. Many parties have announced the release of relevant policies, but have not 'posted' them on their web sites, and are slow in responding to requests for copies.
Responses to our questionnaire below may rectify some of the gaps in formal party policy.
Links to party web sites
|
Party |
Conservation |
Constitution |
Crown Lands |
Environment |
Roads |
Recreation |
Treaty |
Other |
| ACT | see 'Environment' | see 'Treaty' | YES | YES | YES | |||
| Alliance | YES | YES | YES* | YES* | [YES] | YES | ||
| Christian Heritage | YES | YES | YES | |||||
| Greens | YES | [YES] | ||||||
| Labour | YES | YES | YES | [YES] | YES | |||
| Mauri Pacific | YES | |||||||
| National | [YES] | [YES] | ||||||
| NZ Equal Rights | YES | |||||||
| NZ First | ||||||||
| OneNZ | ||||||||
| South Island | ||||||||
| United NZ | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
* The Alliance supplied these to PANZ but have not (as at 26/11/99) publicly released these.
A comprehensive review of party policies is in preparation for posting on this site and for printed distribution. The latter will be to several thousand PANZ supporters and kindred organisations prior to election day 27 November (become a PANZ Supporter to receive).
See also...Automobile Association road reform questionnaire
How PANZ and 'Vote for the Environment' ranked the parties...
Party |
Response |
Date |
| ACT | ||
| Alliance | ||
| Christian Heritage | (yes) | 15/10/99 |
| Greens | YES | 22/10/99 |
| Labour | pt YES | 29/10/99 |
| Mauri Pacific | ||
| National | YES | 21/10/99 |
| NZ Equal Rights | YES | 15/10/99 |
| NZ First | ||
| OneNZ | ||
| South Island | YES | 7/10/99 |
| United NZ | pt YES | 29/10/99 |
Does your party consider?
1. That public roads are for all means of public passage and not just for motor vehicles?
2. That public ownership of public roads should be retained?
3. That public control of public roads should be retained?
4. That funding of roads should not move towards direct user-pays, i.e. tolling?
5. That common law rights should be maintained over public roads?
6. That motorways are different legal entities from public roads and therefore do not have common law rights of passage?
7. That tolls should be confined to major new motorways, bridges or tunnels until construction costs are paid off, provided alternative public roads remain available?
8. That unformed roads (being half the road network) are a large part of the Queen's Chain, and are critically important for public access to rivers, lakes, the coast, and public lands in general?
9. That unformed roads be retained in Crown or local authority ownership subject to existing road 'stopping' procedures?
10. That unlawful obstruction of unformed roads is a major problem?
If so, would you enact a legislative equivalent to that in the UK Highways Act creating a duty for district councils to assert and protect public rights of passage?
11. That the right of 'frontage' of public and private lands to roads should be retained? If so, will you oppose moves to repeal s321 Local Government Act, under the Resource Management Amendment Bill 1999, and repeal an already enacted amendment to Clause 6, 10th Schedule LGA which removed a requirement to maintain "adequate access"?
(Explanation: 'frontage' is the primary reason for public roads. Loss of existing legal requirements to maintain frontage/access will remove the main protection from road 'stopping' or permanent closure).
Does your party consider?
1. That "the Crown" represents all of the people of New Zealand?
2. That being Maori depends on descent, or ethnicity?
If "descent", does an individual's part-Maori ancestry create superior legal and civil entitlements than might arise from non-Maori origins?
3. That the Treaty of Waitangi Act should be amended so that the Crown's actions, and Maori entitlement for redress, must be assessed against the context of the full history of the early 19th Century (including the effects of tribal warfare prior to the effective establishment of Crown sovereignty)?
4. That there is, or isn't, a Treaty "partnership" between Maori and the Crown?
If "yes", does this mean that approximately 13% of the population are entitled to the ownership, control, or management of 50% or other share of public resources and political power?
5. That national parks, reserves, public conservation areas, etc. should not be readily available for settlement of Maori claims?
6. That the Department of Conservation is intended to administer public lands on behalf of all citizens, or is its role primarily to satisfy Maori aspirations ahead of wider public wishes?
7. That a formal public consultation process should be established before "the Crown" negotiates settlements involving public lands and waters?
8. That Maori "co-management", exclusive camping reserves ('nohoanga'), or 'Topuni' "overlay reserves" over national parks, etc., are justified as Treaty settlement mechanisms?
If so, to what extent do these protect the wider public interest in the management and recreational use of such areas?
9. That it is desirable to repeal provisions in the Ngai Tahu and other settlements allowing freeholding of nohoanga and surrounding public lands?
10. That it is desirable to remove any on-going rights of first refusal to surplus Crown lands after "full and final" settlements are made?
11. That the Government should not negotiate the transfer of ownership or control of public lands and waters to Maori without independent verification of claims by the Waitangi Tribunal or Courts?
12. That the Tribunal should be disbanded and replaced by the High Court acting as a commission of inquiry using normal rules of evidence and cross examination?
Explanation: The Tribunal is not well equipped to determine the truth, and not all of its findings and recommendations are valid.
13. That the sea, seabed, foreshores, and rivers are all part of "the commons" and must be retained in Crown ownership?
14. That, if the Government, you will legislate to overrule any Court determinations to the contrary?
15. That there are major differences in meaning and scope of the Treaty between its actual provisions and its "principles"?
16. That New Zealand citizens have equal rights and privileges?
17. Do the non-Treaty terms of "tangata whenua" and "indigenous" imply greater entitlements for Maori than other citizens?
What do you mean by these terms?
18. That there is little prospect of an end to Maori claims due to a growing number of non-historical 'principles' claims (e.g., radio frequencies, dog control, roading reform, dairy industry restructuring, kiwifruit marketing, etc.)?
19. That reference to "the principles" of the Treaty of Waitangi should be repealed from legislation?
Does your party consider?
1. That there should be a written constitution for New Zealand replacing existing constitutional conventions and laws?
2. If so, should this include reference to the Treaty of Waitangi or "the principles" of the Treaty?
3. If the answer to #2 is "yes", briefly what does the Treaty or its "principles" mean, and who will determine what they will mean for the purposes of a constitution?
4. That a constitution should have as its central canon equality of rights and duties for all citizens?
5. That discrimination on the grounds of race, descent, or ethnicity should be outlawed?
6. That there should be a citizen right to freedom of movement within New Zealand?
Does your party consider?
1. That national parks, conservation areas, etc. are held in trust by Government for the benefit of all New Zealanders and should not be privatised?
2. That DoC should be retained as the primary administrator and manager of Crown owned public lands?
3. That "fostering" of recreation by DoC should have a greater priority?
4. That DoC's name should be changed to Department of Conservation & Recreation (DCR) to better reflect its dual role?
5. That a Recreation Directorate should be established within DoC to provide national consistency in recreational policy and practice?
6. That sufficient Government funding be provided so that the DoC is not dependent on commercial operations and concessions to fund its conservation and recreation functions?
7. That the recent practice of issuing certificates of title for public lands be discontinued as a protection against future land sales?
8. That there should be no public entry charges to areas administered by DoC?
9. That access charges be prohibited for fresh and recreational sea fishing, recreational hunting, and walking access thereto?
Does your party consider?
1. That it should be a priority for the next Government to investigate the means of completing the Queen's Chain around the shores of all major lakes, the seacoast, and along major rivers?
2. That public access and recreation should be restored as the primary functions of marginal strips and esplanade reserves?
3. That provision for private managers over marginal strips should be repealed?
4. That all marginal strips should be made moveable with changes to rivers, etc.?
5. That provisions for private leases over marginal strips should be repealed?
6. That Land Information New Zealand should be required to record the existence of marginal strips on all relevant survey plans?
Explanation: existing notations that land "is subject to section 24 Conservation Act" does not tell the public if a strip exists, or is merely liable to be created in the future this is a major deterrent for public use of existing strips.
7. That restrictions to public access introduced in 1993 via the 10th Schedule of the Resource Management Act should be repealed?
Does your party consider?
1. That payment-for-entry, or exclusive, private parks should not become established because of freeholding of mountain lands?
2. That, in exchange for freeholding of other lands, public reserves should be created over areas of significant value for public recreation, with secure access rights provided?
3. That covenants should be confined to relatively small, isolated, non-critical natural areas because they don't provide adequate protection of conservation values or security for public access and recreation?
4. That the Crown should decline the renewal or granting of new commercial recreation ventures until tenure review on individual properties is agreed?
5. That Government funding of the tenure review process should be increased?
6. That market rentals for pastoral leases should be introduced?
Public roads
The Green Party believes strongly that roads are important public spaces, not 'corridors' or corporate assets. Roads are an integral part of both urban and rural communities, bringing local people together. Both formed and unformed roads provide important recreational access to New Zealand's myriad natural areas.
We strongly agree that public roads are for all means of public passage, not just for motor vehicles. Reclaiming roads as spaces for people, not cars, is a fundamental principle of Green transport policy.
Public control of roads must not only be retained, but that control must be exercised in the right direction. Roads must be managed with the objective of maintaining access for people, and building strong communities. There is little point in retaining public control if it is exercised at arms length by public companies, with making a profit as their key objective.
We do not support any actions which either restrict public access, jeopardise privacy or facilitate an environmentally damaging expansion of the roading network. Common law rights of passage should be maintained, electronic tolling should not be adopted as a general means of revenue gathering and tolls should not be used to build more motorways or urban links such as a second Auckland Harbour Bridge or tunnel. However there may be a role for some form of tolling as part of a congestion pricing system in major cities.
Unformed roads are an important and under-utilised means of access to natural areas, and should be maintained in public ownership. Obstruction of unformed roads is a significant problem. We would look at all the options available to ensure that practical access was maintained. We would also look to better integrate unformed roads into the DOC and local authority reserve systems, as public spaces and means of public access. The Green Party would promote public access as part of a wider strategy to encourage people to get out into the 'great outdoors.'
We are yet to explore all the issues concerning 'frontage.' Access is an important component of all property, but vehicle access may not be necessary. There are also, however, significant issues with landlocked Maori land. We would look for a solution which did not force property owners to have vehicle access if they did not want to, but would safeguard rights of public access.
The Treaty and Maori claims to public resources
The Green Party recognises that tangata whenua do have a special relationship with their rohe, and believe that there is a Treaty partnership between Maori and the Crown, representing all the people of New Zealand.
The Greens fully support the resolution of genuine historical grievances. Fair settlement of Treaty claims will provide enough resources for the iwi or hapu to sustain their economic, social and cultural development. This may include the return of land and resources currently owned by the Crown, but would not include privately owned land.
Public conservation land should not be used as a general means of settling Treaty claims. However there may be cases where the return of discrete sites of particular significance to the relevant iwi could be justified. We agree that a public consultation process should be established before the government negotiates any settlements involving public lands or waters.
The Department of Conservation must administer public lands on behalf of the public with the protection of ecological values as it's primary concern, in line with the Conservation Act.
The Greens support the use of nohanga or topuni as Treaty settlement mechanisms. There may be some restriction of wider public access to some sites, but this is acceptable in the context of unimpeded access to the vast majority of conservation land and the potential for Treaty claims to affect much larger areas under a different approach.
Full settlements should provide sufficient compensation to avoid any ongoing call on Crown resources, unless this is part of the settlement.
The Greens support the concept of shared perpetual guardianship of public resources under the Treaty of Waitangi. Issues of ownership do not arise unless there is an attempt to privatise those resources. Shared guardianship provides greater insurance against privatisation than a situation of 'Crown ownership' which has seen many public resources sold.
A written constitution for New Zealand?
The Green Party does not have a policy on the appropriateness of a written constitution for New Zealand.
Department of Conservation & the Public Estate
We strongly agree that national parks and conservation areas are held in trust by Government for the benefit of all New Zealanders and should not be privatised. DoC should be retained as the primary manager of Crown owned public lands.
There needs to be a much greater focus on fostering recreational use of conservation lands and enjoyment of nature in general. The Greens see walking and other activities in natural areas as an essential part of environmental education, building an affinity with nature and developing physically and mentally healthier people. The visitor pressure of an increase in outdoor recreation should be more evenly spread across conservation lands, including a new network of high country parks and reserves.
The essential element in developing greater recreational opportunities is greater funding to enable central and local government agencies to provide appropriate facilities and information.
We believe that the public see recreation as an integral part of conservation, so we see no need to lengthen DOC's name. We would be prepared to consider structural changes to DoC that would help facilitate recreational use of conservation lands, within its conservation mandate. However we believe that recent restructuring of the Department has been detrimental to conservation and recreation interests, and are reluctant to force further change without compelling evidence of need.
It is important that legal ownership of conservation land is clear to avoid 'poaching' of trees by loggers working on adjoining properties, but we would take all appropriate steps to guard against privatisation.
There should be no public entry charges to areas administered by DoC. Any charging for the use of facilities such as huts should be kept to minimal levels. Access to private land should be promoted but continue to be at the discretion of the owner.
The Queen's Chain
We agree that it should be a priority for the next Government to investigate means of completing the Queen's Chain around the shores of all major lakes, the seacoast, and along major rivers. Public access and conservation should be the primary functions of marginal strips and esplanade reserves.
The Green Party does not have detailed policy on marginal strips. We would expect any significant management issues with marginal strips to be resolved as part of a strategy to complete and safeguard the Queen's Chain.
South Island pastoral leases & tenure review
We agree that exclusive private parks should not become established because of freeholding of mountain lands. Where there is freeholding, public reserves should be created over areas of significant value for conservation or public recreation, with secure access rights provided.
We support the use of covenants as a means of fostering conservation and recreation on private land. However they are not the appropriate option for the protection of large areas, in the context of the South Island high country.
No long term agreements should be entered into that might compromise the protection of conservation and recreation values through tenure review.
Government funding of the tenure review process should be increased to allow the creation of a network of high country parks and reserves.
Rentals for pastoral leases
should reflect any restriction on the use of the land that compromises
financial returns. Otherwise rentals should be set at market rates.
Does your party consider?
1. That public roads are for all means of public passage and not just for motor vehicles?
National believes everyone who uses the roads, including motorists, cyclists and pedestrians, would continue to have the same access to roads that they do today.
2. That public ownership of public roads should be retained?
Under National roads would not be privatised - roads currently under public ownership would continue under public ownership.
3. That public control of public roads should be retained?
Under National communities would continue to have a say in road management.
4. That funding of roads should not move towards direct user-pays, i.e. tolling?
The way we fund and pay for roads is often untargeted and unfair. For instance, in some areas 60 percent of people's rates go to maintaining roads regardless of how much they use them. The focus of the funding changes in the Better Transport Better Roads proposals is to make the way we pay for roads more efficient and fair - not to make people pay more. Technology would probably limit tolls and congestion pricing for some years to new motorways and bridges, or to heavily congested roads.
5. That common law rights should be maintained over public roads?
No loss of rights will be lost under National's roading proposals.
6. That motorways are different legal entities from public roads and therefore do not have common law rights of passage?
National recognises that the rules and regulations that govern motorways are different from other public roads.
7. That tolls should be confined to major new motorways, bridges or tunnels until construction costs are paid off, provided alternative public roads remain available?
Under National's roading proposals public road companies would be able to introduce tolls on specific roads and facilities and to introduce congestion prices to restrain traffic demand on heavily used routes.
8. That unformed roads (being half the road network) are a large part of the Queen's Chain, and are critically important for public access to rivers, lakes, the coast, and public lands in general?
Under National's roading proposals the present network of roads would be retained.
9. That unformed roads be retained in Crown or local authority ownership subject to existing road 'stopping' procedures?
Under National's proposals unformed roads will be retained in Crown or local authority ownership.
10. That unlawful obstruction of unformed roads is a major problem? If so, would you enact a legislative equivalent to that in the UK Highways Act creating a duty for district councils to assert and protect rights of passage?
National expects access to the roading network for all New Zealanders to be maintained.
11. That the right of 'frontage' of public and private lands to roads should be retained? If so, will you oppose moves to repeal s321 Local Government Act, under the Resource Management Amendment Bill 1999, and repeal an already anacted amendment to Clause 6, 10th Schedule LGA which removed a requirement to maintain "adequate access"?
National believes in maintaining access for all to public roads. Your comments have been noted.
Does your party consider?
1. That "the Crown" represents all the people of New Zealand?
National believes that the Crown represents and has a duty to act in the best interests of all New Zealanders.
2. That being Maori depends on descent, or ethnicity?
Maori means a person of the Maori race of New Zealand, and includes any descendent of such a person. National does not believe Maori ancestry creates superior legal and civil entitlements that might arise from non-Maori origins.
3. That the Treaty of Waitangi Act should be amended so that the Crown's actions, and Maori entitlement for redress, must be assessed against the context of the full history of the early 19th Century (including the effects of tribal warfare prior to the effective establishment of Crown sovereignty)?
National does not believe the Treaty of Waitangi Act be amended so that the Crown's actions, and Maori entitlement for redress, must be assessed against the context of the full history of the early 19th Century, including the effects of tribal warfare prior to the effective establishment of Crown sovereignty.
Maori claims do not relate to the early 19th Century. The Waitangi Tribunal only investigates claims about grievances that had been caused by any action of the Crown back to 1940, [sic.] when the Treaty of Waitangi was signed.
4. That there is, or isn't, a Treaty "partnership" between Maori and the Crown?
The National Party does believe there is a Treaty partnership between Maori and the Crown. This does not mean that the Maori population are entitled to the ownership, control, or management of 50% of public resources and political power.
5. That national parks, reserves, public conservation areas, etc. should not be readily available for settlement of Maori claims?
National shares with many New Zealanders a firm commitment to the protection of New Zealand's conservation estate, and believes that this protection need not conflict with the settlement of Treaty claims affecting conservation land.
National follows key points set out by the Office of Treaty Settlements that ensure the conservation estate is not readily available for the settlement of Treaty claims and should only be considered in special circumstances. These key points are:
The conservation estate is held by the Crown on behalf of all New Zealanders. However, the Crown may have to consider competing interests in fulfilling its obligations to the public under Article 1 of the Treaty
The existing legal protection provided to the natural and historic values of the conservation estate will not be diminished, except where there are beneficial conservation effects
A change in the management of the estate will not be approved if it results in a loss of protection to the natural and historic values
Existing public access and recreation rights will not be reduced (except to protect the natural and historic values)
The existing property rights of third parties (lessees, administering bodies etc) granted under conservation legislation will continue
The potential interests of existing concessionaires in future uses, and the needs of sectoral interest (e.g., the tourism industry), will be considered.
6. That the Department of Conservation is intended to administer public lands on behalf of all citizens, or is its role primarily to satisfy Maori aspirations ahead of wider public wishes?
The Department of Conservation is intended to administer public lands on behalf of all New Zealanders, Maori and non-Maori.
7. That a formal consultation process should be established before the Crown negotiates settlements involving public lands and waters?
In negotiating with Maori to settle Treaty claims, National believes it represents the Crown and the public of New Zealand. National is aware that there is widespread interest in the development of settlements for claims that may involve returning conservation land.
National acknowledges the value of consulting with the public and special interest groups about settlements which concern the conservation estate. At present, the implementation of a Treaty settlement involving conservation land may require a public consultation process under statute of during the passing of special legislation. National will consider other consultation processes on a case-by-case basis.
8. That Maori co-management, exclusive camping reserves (nohoanga) or Topuni overlay reserves over national parks, etc., are justified as Treaty settlement mechanisms? If so, to what extent do these protect the wider public interest in the management and recreational use of such areas?
Nohoanga (camping licenses) give some Maori (i.e. members of Ngai Tahu in their settlement with the Crown) the right to occupy temporarily a campsite near a river or lake, traditionally used by Ngai Tahu members for food gathering for up to 210 days a year between August and April. The Ngai Tahu settlement included provision of 72 nohoanga. Each site is approximately I hectare in size.
National believes nohoanga are justified as Treaty settlement mechanisms. They protect the wider public interest in the management and recreational use of such areas because:
The reserves are set back from the marginal strip
The reserves do not impede public access to or along a waterway
The reserves only give permission for temporary occupation to Maori.
The wider public stand to gain from Treaty settlements that involve Maori co-management of the conservation estate. The public for the first time has access to and public use of 35,000 hectares of former pastoral leases which are entering the conservation estate and legal wander at will rights over the associated farmed flatlands as a result of the Ngai Tahu settlement provisions relating to the sale to Ngai Tahu of three high country sheep stations.
9. That it is desirable to repeal provisions in the Ngai Tahu and other settlements allowing freeholding of nohoanga and surrounding public lands?
National does not believe it is desirable to repeal provisions in any Treaty settlements that allow for nohoanga.
10. That it is desirable to remove any on-going rights of first refusal to surplus Crown lands after "full and final" settlements are made?
National does not believe that this is desirable.
11. That the Government should not negotiate the transfer of ownership or control of public lands and waters to Maori without independent verification of claims by the Waitangi Tribunal or Courts?
The Government does not often negotiate the transfer of ownership or control of public lands and waters to Maori without independent verification of claims by the Waitangi Tribunal. Sometimes the tribunal will recommend instead of the claim being heard by the Waitangi Tribunal, the claimants should settle the problem directly with the government. Members of the government will hold meetings and negotiate with the claimants to try and solve the problem.
12. That the Waitangi Tribunal should be disbanded and replaced by the High Court acting as a commission of inquiry using normal rules of evidence and cross-examination?
National does not believe the Waitangi Tribunal should be disbanded and replaced by the High Court. National feels the Tribunal has an important role in the Treaty claims process. The Tribunal ensures that claims fulfil the requirements laid out in section 6 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, listens to all the facts, and then makes recommendations (which are usually non binding) to Government.
13. That the sea, seabed, foreshores, and rivers are all part of "the commons" and must be retained in Crown ownership?
National believes the sea, seabed, foreshores and rivers should be retained in Crown ownership for all New Zealanders to enjoy.
14. That, if the Government, you will legislate to overrule any Court determinations to the contrary?
National has no plans at this stage to legislate to overrule any Court determinations to the contrary.
15. That there are major differences in the meaning and scope of the Treaty between its actual provisions and its "principles"?
[no response]
16. That New Zealand citizens have equal rights and privileges?
National believes all New Zealand citizens have equal rights and privileges.
17. Do the non-Treaty terms of "tangata whenua" and "indigenous" imply greater entitlements for Maori than other citizens? What do you mean by these terms?
The terms "tangata whenua" and "indigenous" do not imply greater entitlements for Maori than other citizens. "Indigenous" means originating in a country. Therefore you could say Maori are indigenous to New Zealand. "Tangata whenua" is a Maori with several meanings, including resident, native, inhabitant, and citizen.
18. That there is little prospect of an end to Maori claims due to a growing number of non-historical 'principles' claims (e.g., radio frequencies, dog control, kiwifruit marketing etc.)?
National, like many other people in New Zealand, would like to see Treaty of Waitangi claims settled as quickly as possible. However, people cannot be forced to negotiate or accept Treaty settlement and National has no intention of doing this. Therefore, National does not believe in setting a time limit for the lodgment and processing of Treaty of Waitangi claims.
Most Treaty claims are however known, and have already been lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal. National believes that imposing a deadline on Treaty claims would disadvantage Maori claimants because, unlike the Crown, they did not have the resources to research, prepare and mandate claims.
Several non-historical Treaty claims, such as the claim to broadcasting frequencies, have been overruled in Court.
19. That reference to "the principles" of the Treaty of Waitangi should be repealed from legislation?
National does not believe that reference to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi should be repealed from legislation.
20. A Written Constitution for New Zealand?
The National Party feels the issue of a written constitution for New Zealand goes wider than politics, and would require input from all New Zealanders. At this stage National does not consider it necessary to have a written constitution for New Zealand replacing existing constitutional conventions and laws. However, if the wider public demanded such a constitution, National would support public feeling on the issue.
National supports the freedom for people to hold their own views in a society tolerant of differences.
New Zealand is unique in its open approach to access of our mountains, beaches and rivers, and it is something we should be proud of and want to keep and pass on to future generations. Free public access is a core concept of the National Parks Act, and National is committed to that principle.
The Department of Conservation has been working on better information systems, as well as closely liaising with the visitor industry and the community.
The Department of Conservation has set out its five year business plan.
It sets out a clear direction for the department.
Spending on recreation (huts, campgrounds, tracks and other recreational facilities) under DOC has increased from $29 million in 1990 to $42 million in 1999.
You asked for National's position on the protection of the Queen's chain. The amendments to the Conservation Act which have been in operation since 1996 have led to no erosion of the protection of the Queen's chain and none was intended.
The amendments provided for leases of marginal strips to be permitted but in early 1999 there were only two such arrangements. There have also been few easements, to enable landowners to have legal access to their properties. These arrangements have not generally interfered with the rights of the public to use the marginal strips.
National's policy on Crown Pastoral Leases is to promote sustainable land management and to safeguard the conservation, historic, landscape, cultural, recreation and public access interests of the land.
Our policies aim to:
Does your party consider?
1. That public roads are for all means of public passage and not just for motor vehicles?
Yes.
2. That public ownership of public roads should be retained?
Yes.
3. That public control of public roads should be retained?
Yes. They should be managed by bodies accountable to local communities.
4. That funding of roads should not move towards direct user-pays, i.e. tolling?
Yes. Labour will not toll public roads.
5. That common law rights should be maintained over public roads?
Yes.
6. That motorways are different legal entities from public roads and therefore do not have common law rights of passage?
Yes.
7. That tolls should be confined to major new motorways, bridges or tunnels until construction costs are paid off, provided alternative public roads remain available?
Yes. Labour would consider arrangements to speed up the investment in alternative routes by allowing developers to build roads on a build, operate, toll and transfer basis. These arrangements would be on the basis that the roads would transfer back to public ownership on a contracted time scale. The condition of the roads at the time of the transfer would need to be specified. Prior to transfer, the original or alternative road in public ownership would need to be maintained to a satisfactory standard.
8. That unformed roads (being half the road network) are a large part of the Queen's Chain, and are critically important for public access to rivers, lakes, the coast, and public lands in general?
Yes.
9. That unformed roads be retained in Crown or local authority ownership subject to existing road 'stopping' procedures?
Yes.
10. That unlawful obstruction of unformed roads is a major problem?
Yes. Labour will investigate ways of ensuring that, where land has been designated for future roading, rail or airport developments, a hold can be put on the land without unfair costs being imposed on landowners.
If so, would you enact a legislative equivalent to that in the UK Highways Act creating a duty for district councils to assert and protect public rights of passage?
[no response]
11. That the right of 'frontage' of public and private lands to roads should be retained?
Yes.
If so, will you oppose moves to repeal s321 Local Government Act, under the Resource Management Amendment Bill 1999, and repeal an already enacted amendment to Clause 6, 10th Schedule LGA which removed a requirement to maintain "adequate access"?
Undecided.
[Labour unable to respond within PANZ timeframe].
[Labour unable to respond within PANZ timeframe].
Does your party consider?
1. That national parks, conservation areas, etc. are held in trust by Government for the benefit of all New Zealanders and should not be privatised?
Yes.
2. That DoC should be retained as the primary administrator and manager of Crown owned public lands?
Yes.
3. That "fostering" of recreation by DoC should have a greater priority?
Yes.
4. That DoC's name should be changed to Department of Conservation & Recreation (DCR) to better reflect its dual role?
No.
5. That a Recreation Directorate should be established within DoC to provide national consistency in recreational policy and practice?
Undecided.
6. That sufficient Government funding be provided so that the DoC is not dependent on commercial operations and concessions to fund its conservation and recreation functions?
Yes. Labour will increase DoC funding. However concessions will continue to play a role in ensuring that commercial activities are compatible with DOC's role of protecting the area.
7. That the recent practice of issuing certificates of title for public lands be discontinued as a protection against future land sales?
Yes.
8. That there should be no public entry charges to areas administered by DoC?
Qualified yes. Labour will ensure that free public access is maintained to Crown lands where it does not impede the functions of the administrative organisation.
9. That access charges be prohibited for fresh and recreational sea fishing, recreational hunting, and walking access thereto?
Qualified yes. Labour will not impose a recreational sea fishing licence as a condition of exercising the right to go fishing. Labour will ensure that New Zealanders continue to have access to the recreational fishery, and will increase free public access to our waterways. We will also protect public sports fishing and game bird hunting, and if necessary, close any loophole that permits the sale of access rights for fishing and hunting.
The Queen's Chain
Does your party consider?
1. That it should be a priority for the next Government to investigate the means of completing the Queen's Chain around the shores of all major lakes, the seacoast, and along major rivers?
Yes.
2. That public access and recreation should be restored as the primary functions of marginal strips and esplanade reserves?
Yes.
3. That provision for private managers over marginal strips should be repealed?
Undecided.
4. That all marginal strips should be made moveable with changes to rivers, etc.?
Yes, within reason to enable land use near marginal strips.
5. That provisions for private leases over marginal strips should be repealed?
Undecided.
6. That Land Information New Zealand should be required to record the existence of marginal strips on all relevant survey plans?
Yes.
7. That restrictions to public access introduced in 1993 via the 10th Schedule of the Resource Management Act should be repealed?
Labour will improve the esplanade provisions of the RMA to improve public access to our waterways and coastline. The 10th Schedule may be part of this review.
South Island pastoral leases & tenure review
Does your party consider?
1. That payment-for-entry, or exclusive, private parks should not become established because of freeholding of mountain lands?
No policy.
2. That, in exchange for freeholding of other lands, public reserves should be created over areas of significant value for public recreation, with secure access rights provided?
Yes.
3. That covenants should be confined to relatively small, isolated, non-critical natural areas because they don't provide adequate protection of conservation values or security for public access and recreation?
Yes.
4. That the Crown should decline the renewal or granting of new commercial recreation ventures until tenure review on individual properties is agreed?
No policy.
5. That Government funding of the tenure review process should be increased?
Yes.
6. That market rentals for pastoral leases should be introduced?
Labour has no plans to change lease arrangements.
United Party's Election Policies on the Treaty of Waitangi
Graham Butterworth, Spokesman. 29 October 1999
As a prelude to your questionnaire I should explain that as a liberal democratic party United is totally opposed to one group of citizens enjoying any entrenched privileges over other groups. Our Treaty Policy explicitly says that any settlement must conform to the norms of our democratic society. In our policy on outdoor recreation we have as a firm principle that access is guaranteed to all Crown lands and natural resources. We will also maintain and enhance the existing Queen's chain provision.
Reply to specific questions.
1. The Crown now represents all the people but it did not when most of the Treaty grievances arose. New Zealand did not obtain full sovereignty until the ratification of the Statute of Westminster in 1948.
2. The law has only recognised descent but in practice nobody makes an issue of descent unless they feel that ethnically they are Maori. The law has to rest on what is potentially provable, namely Maori ancestry.
3. As an historian I would agree that the 'history ' relied on by the tribunal is anachronistic and partial but this is not an easy area to litigate in. History does not consist of fact but of interpretation, the most you can say is that some interpretations are better supported by evidence than others.
4. No, the original Treaty did not propose a partnership, that was a legal fiction that the Court of Appeal created in 1987. However the Court argued for a right of consultation not a division of resources. In any democracy any division would have to rest on numerical weight.
5. See our prelude, we do not think these should be readily available for Treaty settlements.
6. The Department of Conservation's responsibility is primarily to administer the Conservation estate in the public interest. This includes giving maximum public access consistent with maintenance of the estate.
7. United considers that the present arrangements are unsatisfactory. There needs to be some opportunity for the public to express its opinion about the settlements. Certainly the situation whereby legislation is presented to Parliament to validate agreements that may not be modified in the select committee or parliamentary process is fundamentally undemocratic.
8. I think we have to wait to see how these are administered to see if the general public interest is being safeguarded.
9. See answer to 8. If these provisions are abused then they should be repealed.
10. Such a provision can so easily be built into the settlement that it seems impossible to deny. Possibly a time limit could be insisted on.
11. I understand in most of the negotiated settlements some independent evidence of the historical justification of the claims is required. Neither the Waitangi Tribunal, which espouses a very particular view of the history of our nation, and the Courts which are totally ignorant of New Zealand history are suitable. It might be possible to create an independent Historical Commission to review and validate historical testimony.
12. The Tribunal is already a very legalistic institution, I doubt if going to a full High Court procedure would do more than increase the costs and slow down still further the resolution of claims. United believes that most of these claims are rooted in genuine historical grievances and they should be settled fairly and generously.
13. In principle yes, but you must be aware that by creating ITQs, the Crown created property in the sea. The Crown has too often not appreciated the consequences of its actions.
14. If the Courts fail to work within the commonly accepted democratic framework of values then their decisions must be overruled and United would not be afraid to do so.
15. United agrees that the historic document is being lost sight of, while lawyers ingeniously extend the principles.
16. See introduction.
17. No greater entitlements. The normal definitions.
18. You are failing to understand the nature of the original 1975 legislation which was intended to give Maori the right to challenge a statute, policy or administrative practice to see if it conformed to the Treaty. The principles extension industry was not foreseen. However United believes that even some of this has been useful in setting limits to state power and setting standards that the state should observe towards its citizens. It seems to us there needs to be a review of the principles with an aim to codify them so that it is quite clear what is meant by 'principles' and prevent their endless extension. Insofar as they provide protection for all citizens in their dealings with government we would like to see other citizens being able to invoke them. Hence our view that the Treaty has to become an instrument of reconciliation not of division between New Zealand citizens.
19. See 18. We favour the creation of 'principles' being constrained.
per Graham Butterworth, Spokesman. 29 October 1999
United has no policy about a written constitution for New Zealand and I think in the existing state of our political institutions it would be hard to create one. The positive rights you suggest could be created by legislation.
Does your party consider?
1. That public roads are for all means of public passage and not just for motor vehicles?
Depends on safety and road design.
2. That public ownership of public roads should be retained?
Yes.
3. That public control of public roads should be retained?
Yes.
4. That funding of roads should not move towards direct user-pays, i.e. tolling?
Yes.
5. That common law rights should be maintained over public roads?
Yes.
6. That motorways are different legal entities from public roads and therefore do not have common law rights of passage?
No.
7. That tolls should be confined to major new motorways, bridges or tunnels until construction costs are paid off, provided alternative public roads remain available?
Road tolls should not be necessary.
8. That unformed roads (being half the road network) are a large part of the Queen's Chain, and are critically important for public access to rivers, lakes, the coast, and public lands in general?
Yes.
9. That unformed roads be retained in Crown or local authority ownership subject to existing road 'stopping' procedures?
Yes.
10. That unlawful obstruction of unformed roads is a major problem?
Not yet!
If so, would you enact a legislative equivalent to that in the UK Highways Act creating a duty for district councils to assert and protect public rights of passage?
Yes.
11. That the right of 'frontage' of public and private lands to roads should be retained?
Yes.
If so, will you oppose moves to repeal s321 Local Government Act, under the Resource Management Amendment Bill 1999, and repeal an already enacted amendment to Clause 6, 10th Schedule LGA which removed a requirement to maintain "adequate access"?
Yes.
(Explanation: 'frontage' is the primary reason for public roads. Loss of existing legal requirements to maintain frontage/access will remove the main protection from road 'stopping' or permanent closure).
Does your party consider?
1. That "the Crown" represents all of the people of New Zealand?
Yes.
2. That being Maori depends on descent, or ethnicity?
[no response]
If "descent", does an individual's part-Maori ancestry create superior legal and civil entitlements than might arise from non-Maori origins?
No.
3. That the Treaty of Waitangi Act should be amended so that the Crown's actions, and Maori entitlement for redress, must be assessed against the context of the full history of the early 19th Century (including the effects of tribal warfare prior to the effective establishment of Crown sovereignty)?
Yes.
4. That there [is, or: struck out] isn't, a Treaty "partnership" between Maori and the Crown?
If "yes", does this mean that approximately 13% of the population are entitled to the ownership, control, or management of 50% or other share of public resources and political power?
5. That national parks, reserves, public conservation areas, etc. should not be [readily: struck out] available for settlement of Maori claims?
6. That the Department of Conservation is intended to administer public lands on behalf of all citizens, [or is its role primarily to satisfy Maori aspirations ahead of wider public wishes? : struck out].
7. That a formal public consultation process should be established before "the Crown" negotiates settlements involving public lands and waters?
Yes.
8. That Maori "co-management", exclusive camping reserves ('nohoanga'), or 'Topuni' "overlay reserves" over national parks, etc., are justified as Treaty settlement mechanisms?
No.
If so, to what extent do these protect the wider public interest in the management and recreational use of such areas?
9. That it is desirable to repeal provisions in the Ngai Tahu and other settlements allowing freeholding of nohoanga and surrounding public lands?
Yes.
10. That it is desirable to remove any on-going rights of first refusal to surplus Crown lands after "full and final" settlements are made?
Yes.
11. That the Government should not negotiate the transfer of ownership or control of public lands and waters to Maori without independent verification of claims by the Waitangi Tribunal or Courts?
Yes.
12. That the Tribunal should be disbanded and replaced by the High Court acting as a commission of inquiry using normal rules of evidence and cross examination?
Yes.
Explanation: The Tribunal is not well equipped to determine the truth, and not all of its findings and recommendations are valid.
13. That the sea, seabed, foreshores, and rivers are all part of "the commons" and must be retained in Crown ownership?
Yes.
14. That, if the Government, you will legislate to overrule any Court determinations to the contrary?
Yes.
15. That there are major differences in meaning and scope of the Treaty between its actual provisions and its "principles"?
Yes.
16. That New Zealand citizens ['should' : inserted] have equal rights and privileges?
17. Do the non-Treaty terms of "tangata whenua" and "indigenous" imply greater entitlements for Maori than other citizens?
Should not.
What do you mean by these terms?
[no response]
18. That there is little prospect of an end to Maori claims due to a growing number of non-historical 'principles' claims (e.g., radio frequencies, dog control, roading reform, dairy industry restructuring, kiwifruit marketing, etc.)?
Yes.
19. That reference to "the principles" of the Treaty of Waitangi should be repealed from legislation?
Yes.
Does your party consider?
1. That there should be a written constitution for New Zealand replacing existing constitutional conventions and laws?
Yes.
2. If so, should this include reference to the Treaty of Waitangi [or "the principles" of the Treaty? : struck out].
Yes.
3. If the answer to #2 is "yes", briefly what does the Treaty or its "principles" mean, and who will determine what they will mean for the purposes of a constitution?
[no response]
4. That a constitution should have as its central canon equality of rights and duties for all citizens?
Yes.
5. That discrimination on the grounds of race, descent, or ethnicity should be outlawed?
Yes.
6. That there should be a citizen right to freedom of movement within New Zealand?
Yes.
Does your party consider?
1. That national parks, conservation areas, etc. are held in trust by Government for the benefit of all New Zealanders and should not be privatised?
Yes.
2. That DoC should be retained as the primary administrator and manager of Crown owned public lands?
Yes.
3. That "fostering" of recreation by DoC should have a greater priority?
Yes.
4. That DoC's name should be changed to Department of Conservation & Recreation (DCR) to better reflect its dual role?
Yes.
5. That a Recreation Directorate should be established within DoC to provide national consistency in recreational policy and practice?
Yes.
6. That sufficient Government funding be provided so that the DoC is not dependent on commercial operations and concessions to fund its conservation and (recreation) [ ?: added] functions?
Yes.
7. That the recent practice of issuing certificates of title for public lands be discontinued as a protection against future land sales?
[don't know]
8. That there should be no public entry charges to areas administered by DoC?
[don't know]
9. That access charges be prohibited for fresh and recreational sea fishing, recreational hunting, and walking access thereto?
Yes.
Does your party consider?
1. That it should be a priority for the next Government to investigate the means of completing the Queen's Chain around the shores of all major lakes, the seacoast, and along major rivers?
Yes.
2. That public access and recreation should be restored as the primary functions of marginal strips and esplanade reserves?
Yes.
3. That provision for private managers over marginal strips should be repealed?
[don't know]
4. That all marginal strips should be made moveable with changes to rivers, etc.?
[don't know]
5. That provisions for private leases over marginal strips should be repealed?
[don't know]
6. That Land Information New Zealand should be required to record the existence of marginal strips on all relevant survey plans?
Yes.
Explanation: existing notations that land "is subject to section 24 Conservation Act" does not tell the public if a strip exists, or is merely liable to be created in the future this is a major deterrent for public use of existing strips.
7. That restrictions to public access introduced in 1993 via the 10th Schedule of the Resource Management Act should be repealed?
[don't know]
Does your party consider?
1. That payment-for-entry, or exclusive, private parks should not become established because of freeholding of mountain lands?
[don't know]
2. That, in exchange for freeholding of other lands, public reserves should be created over areas of significant value for public recreation, with secure access rights provided?
Yes.
3. That covenants should be confined to relatively small, isolated, non-critical natural areas because they don't provide adequate protection of conservation values or security for public access and recreation?
Yes.
4. That the Crown should decline the renewal or granting of new commercial recreation ventures until tenure review on individual properties is agreed?
[don't know]
5. That Government funding of the tenure review process should be increased?
[don't know]
6. That market rentals for pastoral leases should be introduced?
[don't know]
Does your party consider?
1. That public roads are for all means of public passage and not just for motor vehicles?
Yes.
2. That public ownership of public roads should be retained?
Yes.
3. That public control of public roads should be retained?
Yes.
4. That funding of roads should not move towards direct user-pays, i.e. tolling?
Yes.
5. That common law rights should be maintained over public roads?
Yes.
6. That motorways are different legal entities from public roads and therefore do not have common law rights of passage?
Yes.
7. That tolls should be confined to major new motorways, bridges or tunnels until construction costs are paid off, provided alternative public roads remain available?
Yes.
8. That unformed roads (being half the road network) are a large part of the Queen's Chain, and are critically important for public access to rivers, lakes, the coast, and public lands in general?
Yes.
9. That unformed roads be retained in Crown or local authority ownership subject to existing road 'stopping' procedures?
Yes.
10. That unlawful obstruction of unformed roads is a major problem?
No.
If so, would you enact a legislative equivalent to that in the UK Highways Act creating a duty for district councils to assert and protect public rights of passage?
11. That the right of 'frontage' of public and private lands to roads should be retained?
Yes.
If so, will you oppose moves to repeal s321 Local Government Act, under the Resource Management Amendment Bill 1999, and repeal an already enacted amendment to Clause 6, 10th Schedule LGA which removed a requirement to maintain "adequate access"?
(Explanation: 'frontage' is the primary reason for public roads. Loss of existing legal requirements to maintain frontage/access will remove the main protection from road 'stopping' or permanent closure).
Does your party consider?
1. That "the Crown" represents all of the people of New Zealand?
Yes.
2. That being Maori depends on descent, or ethnicity?
If "descent", does an individual's part-Maori ancestry create superior legal and civil entitlements than might arise from non-Maori origins?
[no response]
3. That the Treaty of Waitangi Act should be amended so that the Crown's actions, and Maori entitlement for redress, must be assessed against the context of the full history of the early 19th Century (including the effects of tribal warfare prior to the effective establishment of Crown sovereignty)?
[no response]
4. That there is, or isn't, a Treaty "partnership" between Maori and the Crown?
If "yes", does this mean that approximately 13% of the population are entitled to the ownership, control, or management of 50% or other share of public resources and political power?
This is a loaded question! You get no answer.
5. That national parks, reserves, public conservation areas, etc. should not be readily available for settlement of Maori claims?
[no response]
6. That the Department of Conservation is intended to administer public lands on behalf of all citizens, or is its role primarily to satisfy Maori aspirations ahead of wider public wishes?
[no response]
7. That a formal public consultation process should be established before "the Crown" negotiates settlements involving public lands and waters?
[no response]
8. That Maori "co-management", exclusive camping reserves ('nohoanga'), or 'Topuni' "overlay reserves" over national parks, etc., are justified as Treaty settlement mechanisms?
If so, to what extent do these protect the wider public interest in the management and recreational use of such areas?
[no response]
9. That it is desirable to repeal provisions in the Ngai Tahu and other settlements allowing freeholding of nohoanga and surrounding public lands?
[no response]
10. That it is desirable to remove any on-going rights of first refusal to surplus Crown lands after "full and final" settlements are made?
[no response]
11. That the Government should not negotiate the transfer of ownership or control of public lands and waters to Maori without independent verification of claims by the Waitangi Tribunal or Courts?
[no response]
12. That the Tribunal should be disbanded and replaced by the High Court acting as a commission of inquiry using normal rules of evidence and cross examination?
No.
Explanation: The Tribunal is not well equipped to determine the truth, and not all of its findings and recommendations are valid.
13. That the sea, seabed, foreshores, and rivers are all part of "the commons" and must be retained in Crown ownership?
[no response]
14. That, if the Government, you will legislate to overrule any Court determinations to the contrary?
[no response]
15. That there are major differences in meaning and scope of the Treaty between its actual provisions and its "principles"?
[no response]
16. That New Zealand citizens have equal rights and privileges?
Yes.
17. Do the non-Treaty terms of "tangata whenua" and "indigenous" imply greater entitlements for Maori than other citizens?
What do you mean by these terms?
[no response]
18. That there is little prospect of an end to Maori claims due to a growing number of non-historical 'principles' claims (e.g., radio frequencies, dog control, roading reform, dairy industry restructuring, kiwifruit marketing, etc.)?
[no response]
19. That reference to "the principles" of the Treaty of Waitangi should be repealed from legislation?
No.
Does your party consider?
1. That there should be a written constitution for New Zealand replacing existing constitutional conventions and laws?
No.
2. If so, should this include reference to the Treaty of Waitangi [or "the principles" of the Treaty? : struck out].
[no response]
3. If the answer to #2 is "yes", briefly what does the Treaty or its "principles" mean, and who will determine what they will mean for the purposes of a constitution?
[no response]
4. That a constitution should have as its central canon equality of rights and duties for all citizens?
[no response]
5. That discrimination on the grounds of race, descent, or ethnicity should be outlawed?
[no response]
6. That there should be a citizen right to freedom of movement within New Zealand?
[no response]
"Your questions on Treaty and constitutional issues are so loaded as to show a bias that we are not prepared to respond one way or the other".
Does your party consider?
1. That national parks, conservation areas, etc. are held in trust by Government for the benefit of all New Zealanders and should not be privatised?
Yes.
2. That DoC should be retained as the primary administrator and manager of Crown owned public lands?
Yes.
3. That "fostering" of recreation by DoC should have a greater priority?
Yes.
4. That DoC's name should be changed to Department of Conservation & Recreation (DCR) to better reflect its dual role?
Yes.
5. That a Recreation Directorate should be established within DoC to provide national consistency in recreational policy and practice?
Yes.
6. That sufficient Government funding be provided so that the DoC is not dependent on commercial operations and concessions to fund its conservation and (recreation) [ ?: added] functions?
Yes.
7. That the recent practice of issuing certificates of title for public lands be discontinued as a protection against future land sales?
[no response]
8. That there should be no public entry charges to areas administered by DoC?
Yes.
9. That access charges be prohibited for fresh and recreational sea fishing, recreational hunting, and walking access thereto?
Yes.
Does your party consider?
1. That it should be a priority for the next Government to investigate the means of completing the Queen's Chain around the shores of all major lakes, the seacoast, and along major rivers?
Yes.
2. That public access and recreation should be restored as the primary functions of marginal strips and esplanade reserves?
Yes.
3. That provision for private managers over marginal strips should be repealed?
Yes.
4. That all marginal strips should be made moveable with changes to rivers, etc.?
Yes.
5. That provisions for private leases over marginal strips should be repealed?
Yes.
6. That Land Information New Zealand should be required to record the existence of marginal strips on all relevant survey plans?
Yes.
Explanation: existing notations that land "is subject to section 24 Conservation Act" does not tell the public if a strip exists, or is merely liable to be created in the future this is a major deterrent for public use of existing strips.
7. That restrictions to public access introduced in 1993 via the 10th Schedule of the Resource Management Act should be repealed?
[no response]
Does your party consider?
1. That payment-for-entry, or exclusive, private parks should not become established because of freeholding of mountain lands?
Yes.
2. That, in exchange for freeholding of other lands, public reserves should be created over areas of significant value for public recreation, with secure access rights provided?
Yes.
3. That covenants should be confined to relatively small, isolated, non-critical natural areas because they don't provide adequate protection of conservation values or security for public access and recreation?
Yes.
4. That the Crown should decline the renewal or granting of new commercial recreation ventures until tenure review on individual properties is agreed?
[no response]
5. That Government funding of the tenure review process should be increased?
[no response]
6. That market rentals for pastoral leases should be introduced?
[no response]