Policies:

Our Action Programme below is listed under each of the Council’s four Constitution objects -

1. A Strong Outdoor Recreational User Voice   
2. Land and Water Protection and Wise Management
3. Public Ownership and Management       
4. Public Access

These policies were first developed in 1999. Some have now been achieved, and significant progress made or resolutions achieved with others. New policies have been added.

CORANZ Charter

New Zealand Outdoor Recreation Charter 2002

© Copyright CORANZ 2002

We welcome policies being quoted provided the source is acknowledged.

 Index:

Introduction:

Almost all New Zealanders have enjoyed the outdoors at some time in their lives. Walking for pleasure, salt and freshwater fishing, tramping, yachting, surfing and mountain biking are among the twenty most popular recreational and sporting activities in the country. It has been estimated that more than a million New Zealanders have an active outdoor recreational interest. Most New Zealanders greatly value the right to enjoy outdoor recreation, as part of our quality of life. Outdoor recreation is a major component of our national heritage.

This Charter has been compiled by the Council of Outdoor Recreation Associations (CORANZ) after wide consultation. It is an action list of government policy and legislative changes considered necessary to recognise and support the important and widespread role that outdoor recreation plays in New Zealand life.

We hope this Charter will be discussed widely, and positively considered by all political parties. We ask that parties adopt these proposals into their election programmes, and action them should they become or support the next Government, or in their policies, in Parliamentary and public debate.

Council of Outdoor Recreation Associations

The Council was formed to promote the common interests of outdoor recreation participants at the national level. This was because of concern among many outdoor users that, although the outdoors and recreation are very important components of the New Zealand psyche, this has  not been reflected by political and official decision making, or national sports/recreation administrators in recent years.

Our member associations include -

The Council advocates for the common interests of the million or more New Zealanders who fish, shoot, tramp, ski, canoe, climb, walk, mountainbike, botanise, photograph and  relax in New Zealand’s great outdoors.

The combined membership of our member bodies is some 18,000 with a wider support base of approximately 200,000 individuals. The latter are represented by CORANZ member groups’ constituent organisations who have pledged support for these objects.

Our Action Programme below is listed under each of the four Council Constitution objects –

1.    A Strong Outdoor Recreational User Voice  

2.    Land and Water Protection and Wise Management

3.    Public Ownership and Management        

4.    Public Access

These policies were developed in 1999. Some have now been achieved, and significant progress made or resolutions achieved with others. Where part or all of a policy has been achieved, or circumstances have changed, a note updating to 2002 is made below. New agreed policies have also been added.

CORANZ Object 1- Strong Outdoor Recreational User Voice 

“To promote the welfare and strength of its member associations and outdoor recreation generally.”

1.1 Fair Funding for Outdoor Recreation from “Sport and Recreation New Zealand”

National recreation associations raise money directly from their members. But they need a fair share of public funding compared to sporting groups, to be able to adequately represent the interests of their outdoor recreation public.  Unlike sports groups, public access to our natural resource - natural lands and waters, fisheries and game, and advocacy for our interests, in the face of competition from non recreational interests, are fundamental to adequate protection of and recognition of public outdoor recreation.

There are almost no public funds provided for the major outdoor recreation associations in New Zealand. The late unlamented Hillary Commission, in spite of being named after our most famous outdoor recreationist, Sir Edmund, was unsupportive of the national outdoor recreation associations. Its byline “Sport on the Move” highlighted its narrow sports focus.

It granted a miniscule amount, less than $100,000 per year, for all national outdoor recreation associations combined. This is less than 0.5% of its $35 million annual budget. This compares with its $470,000 for rugby. Professional and competitive sport has scooped the funding pool, to the detriment of outdoor recreation.

Instead we strongly support the recommendations of the Government’s 2001Graham Task Force on Recreation and Sport, “Getting Set for an Active Nation”. This saw outdoor recreation and sport as of equal national significance. It proposed a new Crown entity, “Sport and Recreation New Zealand” with both outdoor recreational and sport divisions, of equal importance. This is an important start for strengthening Outdoor Recreation, which we welcome. We are working with the Board of Sport and Recreation New Zealand to ensure outdoor recreation gets adequate policies and support. But Sport and Recreation New Zealand still has no outdoor recreational person on its Board.

Policies

1.1.1 Ensure Sport and Recreation New Zealand delivers adequate and fair funding  and support for Volunteer Outdoor Recreation : Ensure the recommendations of the 2000 Task Force on Sport, Fitness and Leisure to have three divisions: Sport, Active Recreation and Policy & Services are carried through. The Board of Sport and Recreation New Zealand must have policies to ensure active recreation gets adequate policies and financial support to fund amateur outdoor recreation associations and sports.  We seek an annual allocation of $4 million for volunteer outdoor recreation national bodies. There should be direct nomination of Outdoor Recreational representatives to Sport and Recreation New Zealand.

1.1.2 Provide Financial support to protect the Outdoor Recreation Resource: As part of its annual grants, require Sport and Recreation New Zealand to fund recreation Non Government Organisation (NGO) for advocacy to protect and enhance the outdoor recreation resource and opportunities, as one of it’s key funding areas. For example, financial support for advocacy for public access, or Associations seeking Water Protection orders for wild and scenic rivers. This will be a key funding area, beside Sport and Recreation New Zealand’s funding of membership promotion, skills and training/coaching promotion. There should be no funding of professional sport or tourist activities.

Note: Usually the involved Recreation Association has to fight for the resource solely from its own resources, while non-member individuals get the benefit. This public benefit to the wider outdoor recreation community is a major reason for public funding.

Progress to 2002: Setting up the Task Force, and replacing the Hillary Commission by Sport and Recreation New Zealand, with a strong mandate to support active recreation.

1.2 Fair Funding - Other Sources

Though gambling turnover has expanded by three times in the last ten years (Casinos, Poker machines etc) the proportion of money going to Lotteries Grants or back into the community from the new owners, has reduced, because of privatisation of gambling. Much of this is now done independently by clubs, pubs charities and community trusts, in an ad hoc way. Some of it seems to be a rebate to user groups for their patronage of pokies, or bars etc.

Policies

1.2.1 Provide More Gambling Taxes for Community Activities : We propose that all non Lotteries Commission commercial gambling be taxed at the same average rate as the contribution given by Lotteries Commission activities. These taxes would go to the Lotteries Grants Board for community grants, including Outdoor Recreation.

Progress to 2002: Government is reviewing gambling. Decisions have yet to be made.

1.2.2 Gain Funds from Vote Health : We seek a direct contribution from government health vote towards healthy lifestyles including outdoor recreation.

Progress to 2002: Improving the health of the nation was one of the goals of the Task Force on Sport, Fitness and Leisure. Significant additional government funding is recommended.

1.3 Management of Recreational Firearms Use

The ability to use firearms for recreational purposes is a long-standing and important right for New Zealanders. Together with this right, goes an obligation to use firearms responsibly and lawfully without danger or threat to others.

We support laws that encourage the responsible use and ownership of firearms while at the same time discouraging the criminal and irresponsible use of firearms. We note that systems for the registration of sporting firearms are expensive, unwieldy and ineffective.  Such systems target law-abiding citizens and have little effect on the criminal misuse of firearms.

Policies

1.3.1 Support Current Recreational Firearms User Registration: We support the current laws, which are based on requiring individuals to satisfy the Police that they are 'fit and proper' to possess and use firearms ie we support the licencing of individuals as firearms' owners.

1.3.2 Maintain Sensible Firearms Storage Laws: We support the present legal requirements for the secure storage of firearms when they are neither in use nor under the immediate control of a firearm license holder.  We believe such laws enhance the safety of children and other members of the public.  To be effective such laws should be easy to understand and not impose unnecessary costs on license holders.

Progress to 2002: Govt is still sitting on the Arms Amendment Bill, despite recommendations from the select committee.

1.4 Greater Leisure Time for Recreation:

Leisure time for recreation has been severely restricted over the last fifteen years, with people in employment working longer hours and shifts. This cuts down on recreational time. It also increases unemployment, and puts more pollution and other exploitation pressure on our environment. Some countries eg France, Germany have already moved successfully to a 35 hour week.

Current practices of an unlimited working week, and shift work at weekends greatly reduce the opportunity for many citizens to enjoy outdoor recreation, because for those employed, work takes up a significantly greater amount of their available time. New Zealand’s 40 hour week legislation, still celebrated at Labour Day, highlights an important citizen right. Similar legislation to reduce working hours, and spread work, is needed today.

Policies

1.4.1 Legislate for a Shorter Working Week: Advocate for legislation supporting more leisure time eg 35 hour working week.

CORANZ Object 2 - Protection and Wise Management

“To promote the protection and wise management of outdoor recreation resources, and related natural environments, for the protection of intrinsic values, and for the benefit of recreational users, now and in the future.”

2.1 Department of Conservation (DOC) Administered Areas

The Department of Conservation is underfunded and with distorted priorities, for both its outdoor recreation and nature protection tasks. It is a constant struggle to persuade DOC to honour its legislative responsibilities to “foster recreation” and to “allow” rather than  “promote” tourism. This includes protecting areas of natural quiet. There is also conflict with use of poisons eg brodificoum, 1080, that kill important recreational animals as a bycatch, as well as native birds. Alternative methods exist and should be used more.

Policies

2.1.1 Ensure Adequate Hut and Track Funding : Ensure adequate government funding for the present basic system of front country and back country huts, tracks, routes and other facilities, so allowing New Zealanders to access and enjoy their publicly owned natural lands and waters. Some $30 million allocated to DOC in the 1996 “Green” budget, for 1996-99, for deferred maintenance on structures, has now been made permanent. The 1995 DOC Visitor Strategy still talks disparagingly about removing many back country huts and tracks, and urgently needs revision.

Progress to 2002: Good for huts, unclear for tracks. An additional $16 million over the 3 years 2001-04 was allocated to Conservation in the 2001 budget, for conservation huts and toilets. $6 million of this is to carry out deferred maintenance on huts and bring them up to standard. Another $5 million is for replacement of 30 huts – both in the back country and front country.

The funding is a great start, but needs to be made permanent at an appropriate level.

2.1.2 Increase DOC Funding for maintaining Tramping Tracks and Routes: There is a backlog of maintenance here from past neglect, in contrast to Great Walks and benched paths. DOC needs to maintain the back country track network for tramping and other access. There is a significant backlog of maintenance.

The Back Country still is a low DOC priority.  This must change. Costs of maintaining tramping tracks and routes are generally low. In contrast, maintenance on benched tracks eg Great Walks, Front Country short walks, roads and tourist facilities generally is expensive. Repair costs especially after flood damage is high.

2.1.3 Create User Says in Facilities Provision: Ensure DOC-User Groups liaison meetings to plan, fund and maintain back-country huts, tracks etc.

Progress to 2002: With a much larger DOC budget, DOC seems to be moving further away from user says in facilities provision ie the usual bureaucratic response that DOC knows best, with only token consultation, and few changes made as a result. A DOC-user workshop on hut design was held in June 2001and another is due in March 2002. Little progress.

2.1.4 Change DOC’s Name to Department of Conservation and Recreation (DOC&R): This would create staff and public awareness of the Department’s dual roles. Create a Recreation Directorate to carry out DOC’s recreational role, and liase with user groups.

Progress to 2002: None. Recreation is still the Cinderella to tourism and nature protection.

2.1.5 Foster Recreation, Allow Tourism: Seek party commitments that preference will be given to public recreational needs ahead of the demands of the tourism industry. This is required by the Conservation Act, but this is largely ignored by the Minister and breached by DOC, who draw no distinctions between recreation and tourism. It is also breached in the 1995 DOC Visitor Strategy, which is in reality a Tourism visitor strategy. . Some Biodiversity funding is being used for blanket aerial poisoning of deer and other big game animals, with no recognition of their recreational value, or fostering recreational hunting.

Progress to 2002: None. National/DOC’s 1995 Visitor Strategy which argues for taxpayer funding primarily for tourist activities – (Front Country, Great Walks), while proposing greatly reduced back country huts and tracks, has not been amended. DOC is keen to remove many back-country huts and tracks, in spite of stable use, and spillover from foreign tourists.

2.1.6 Retain the Department: Retain the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DOC&R) as the Crown's primary public recreation and conservation wildlands manager. But remove the ill defined Section 4 from the Conservation Act, to ensure DOC&R remains a public servant, rather than a servant of exclusively Maori/Iwi interests.

Progress to 2002: No further privatisation. DOC is still the sole manager. But conflicts between DOC’s conservation role and Section 4 of the Conservation Act, (“This Act will be administered and interpreted to give effect to the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”) lead it to act like an Iwi promotion agency, taking significant funds from recreation and conservation. A new DOC Maori policy, “Kaupapa Maori Strategic Policy Initiatives” deals with policies about Section 4, (8 goals), Customary Use, Waahi Tapu policy guidelines, and a Conservation “partnership toolkit” that includes devolution of decision making to Maori, and written and unwritten partnerships(P 8-9). This is DOC capitulation to iwi demands for control. There is no historical or legislative justification for Crown-Iwi partnerships.

2.1.7 Establish Areas of Natural Quiet on the Public Conservation Estate: Planes, helicopters, jet boats, skidoos, jet skis and other mechanised access vehicles create noise and intrusion on many conservation areas. This is a serious and growing conflict. At present, no policies exist to have minimum aircraft flying heights. The CAA can and has agreed to height restrictions over conservation areas eg. Farewell Spit, Okarito Lagoon, Taiaroa Head. Management Plans need to specify areas of natural quiet – free from overflight noise - when there are significant numbers of people seeking a natural experience. eg DOC seek CAA restrictions on overflight between the surface and 8000 feet asl along corridor of Milford Track, cf existing restriction on overflight during avalanche conditions along Milford Road, and for Kapiti Island.  Seek CAA rules requiring effective noise reduction exhaust mufflers on all small aircraft.

2.1.8 Terminate cattle grazing on public conservation land and adjoining Crown land: Major detrimental impact on water and forest margins eg Ahuriri valley, Huxley and Hopkins Valleys (a special area for mistletoe), Cattle Flat, Dart Valley (Mt Aspiring National Park), Arawhata Valley.

2.2 Improving and Protecting Water Quality:

Prime freshwater fishing areas throughout New Zealand, eg the lower Waimakariri River, trout streams in Canterbury, the West Coast, Southland, Hawkes Bay, are being ruined by farm, urban and industrial effluent. Eutrification and weed infestation are resulting in water standards dropping alarmingly.

Additionally, the Wild and Scenic Rivers protection legislation, introduced in 1980, has languished and become bogged down. Legal river protection (NWCOs) is now a very expensive process, beyond the reach of most recreational groups. Many outstanding wild and scenic rivers are not protected, and as a result the original intent of the NWCOs is largely being negated.

In the absence of an Environmental Protection Agency, a National Environmental Standard is essential.

Policies:

Progress to 2002: Fish & Game NZ started a campaign in 2001, to have dirty dairying addressed in areas where dairying and conversions are in full swing eg Canterbury, Southland, Waikato. There is also concern that the pasture irrigation requirements of many dairy conversions cannot be met without destroying summer flows in many rivers and streams in eastern New Zealand eg Ragitata River. Many Canterbury rivers are already dry in summer. Federated Farmers have responded with a robust campaign to shoot the F&G messenger. Meridian Energy is pushing ahead with plans to divert much of the flow of the lower Waitaki for power generation and farm irrigation (Project Aqua). A Waikato group of Fonterra, Waikato Regional Council, MfE has been set up to discuss the dirty dairying issue. More pressure from river recreational users is badly needed.

2.2.2 Gain Water Conservation Orders for Unprotected Outstanding Rivers: Many outstanding recreational and scenic rivers in New Zealand eg the Clarence, Mohaka, Rangitata are not protected from damming, adverse industrial development or abstraction. We ask political parties to support National Water Conservation Orders by providing funding to recreational groups to protect these rivers, including the Clarence, Rangitata, Hurunui,  Mohaka Rivers.

Progress to 2002: National WCO for the Rangitata River proposed by F&G, and in the process of being heard. The cost of this process, which involves research as well as legal fees is becoming prohibitive eg $300,000 on the Rangitata to date.

2.3 Enhance Public Participation in the Resource Management Act (RMA)

Only 5% of RMA resource consents are publicly notified. A RMA Amendment Bill is progressing through Parliament that will:

·       reduce public participation in RMA hearings under the pretext of “efficiency”.

·       generally weaken the protective features of the Act

Recreational and other genuine public interest groups face an uphill battle to have their viewpoints as stakeholders allowed and adequately represented at hearings and Appeals.

Progress to 2002: Labour’s rewrite of National’s 1998 RMA Amendment Bill is still before Parliament. It still weakens the Act by proposing cost cutting measures, including reducing public participation, and needing to appeal to the High Court.

Policies

2.3.1 Oppose Weakening RMA Public Participation Opportunities: Oppose proposals that disenfranchise the public, or compromise the consent process by making it contestable.

2.3.2 Oppose Weakening the RMA, Part 2, or giving Compensation for Lost Opportunity: Part 2 states what most New Zealanders want, by protecting sustainability, our natural and cultural heritage, and access to it, as matters of national importance. We strongly oppose any moves to allow compensation for lost opportunity

2.3.3 Reduce Possible Costs of Public Interest Group Participation: Get Sandra Lee’s 1998 RMA Costs Amendment Bill made law. This Bill, now sponsored by Alliance MP Kevin Campbell, gives public interest community groups protection against award of Costs. This Bill still hasn’t got past it’s second reading.

2.3.4 Provide a Recreational/Environmental Defence Fund: Support a public Defence Fund to allow communities of interest, including those advocating for outdoor recreation and amenity values, to have some funds for research and advocacy to protect themselves against adverse developments.

Progress to 2002: Partly achieved. The Green Party gained public funds available from the MfE from Budget 2000 on, to assist environment and community groups participate more effectively in RMA processes. The Fund helps prepare, mediate and/or present RMA cases to the Environment Court, where the matter is of environmental public interest and focuses on environmental protection or enhancement, or gains in administration of environmental legislation. These are primarily funds to legal and other consultants/experts. Funding is limited to $20,000/case. See MfE at www.mfe.govt.nz This is a start to public funds for defence of public outdoor amenity values.

2.4 Supporting Big Game Recreational Hunting

Big game hunting, the hunting of deer, thar, chamois etc, has been part of New Zealand’s cultural recreational heritage for almost 100 years. It should be recognised as such, and adequately managed, while agreeing that game management on public land means harvesting adequate numbers to achieve compatibility with natural values. Big game numbers are usually low on conservation lands, and at levels where they create minor damage. Possums and other pests should be specifically targeted in poisoning campaigns, and aerial spreading of 1080 phased out except in difficult country.

Policies

2.4.1 Seek Management by a Statutory User Body: Seek the management of recreational hunters of New Zealand’s naturalised big game animals by an independent statutory body, which would be elected from the ranks of recreational hunters. Its task will be to encourage and direct recreational hunters to be the first and effective means of maintaining current low impact levels for big game animals. Target densities for big game animals would be set by DOC as would priority areas.

Progress to 2002: Minister Sandra Lee and DOC scuttled the proposed “Deer Plan” with the “DOC Policy Statement on Deer Control” in February 2001. Sandra Lee called this “ - a starting point for working with the many people with an interest in deer – “. The policy removes restrictions on recreational hunting, including in time, permits.“ For DOC, protection of native species is the only consideration. The policy does not affect wild deer on private or Maori land (where presumably protection of native species is not important). DOC will not set up areas to be managed for recreational hunting, and is abolishing issuing hunting permits altogether. . DOC will “seek to maintain effective working relationships” with recreational hunters. DOC has done nothing to this end.

The Policy does not list areas where deer will be controlled. This contrasts with possums, goats, rats, stoats etc which are a much greater threat. So big game is not usually a major threat. Commercial grazing permits for domestic cattle on conservation lands do much more damage.

2.4.2 Use of 1080 and other pest control methods on the Conservation Estate: We ask -

• That a full public enquiry be held into the use of 1080 and its current application efficiency
• That 1080's aerial use be strongly restricted and confined to use in remote areas and only when circumstances assessed by full independent scientific study, justify its use
• Make much greater use of ground hunting and alternative techniques/poisons to aerial broadcast 1080. Where 1080 is used, and big game are at low densities, big game bycatch should be minimised, eg make baits unattractive to big game, use possum specific traps etc
• A payment incentive scheme be devised to encourage hunting of possums
• That a full feasibility study be carried out to assess the viability of commercial exploitation of possums both for meat and fur

2.5 Environmental and Biosecurity Watchdogs

The Nature Conservation Council was set up during the Save Manapouri Campaign, to provide government with public environmental advice. It provided an environmental conscience against the development-at-any-cost ethos. But it was eliminated by the fourth Labour government and not replaced by National. This independent citizen watchdog role is now badly needed. It is not provided by either the Ministry for the Environment or the Parliamentary Commissioner, neither of whom are answerable to the public. Also needed is an independent Biosecurity Council, with it’s own secretariat, independent of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

Policies

2.5.1 Establish an Independent Environmental Protection Council: Set up a strong politically independent Environmental Protection Council, reporting to Parliament, to advocate for the environment. It would be similar to the Nature Conservation Council of the 1970s, with the power to delay development until full Parliamentary scrutiny of the project is carried out. The Council could be stand alone, or attached to the Ministry for the Environment, or the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.

2.5.2 Establish an independent Biosecurity Council, with it’s own independent Secretariat: This would have a majority of appointees from interested sectors of the community. MAF’s views of biosecurity are at variance with environmental protection, and warped by world trade considerations.

CORANZ Object  3: Public Ownership and Management

“To advocate the continuation in public ownership, and government responsibility for management, of all currently publicly owned outdoor recreation resources, and for the addition of further such resources to public ownership and management as the Council believes wise or appropriate. This includes working for a strong recreational user voice in the management of those resources.”

3.1 Public Ownership of Natural Lands in the South Island High Country

Seventeen percent of the South Island is in Crown owned High Country pastoral leases. These rainshadow lands make up some of the most spectacular mountain and river landscapes and recreational areas in New Zealand.

Unlike other parts of New Zealand, they have very few public reserves. So their recreational and natural values are not readily available to the public nor managed for public recreation or conservation. Voluntary tenure review of these 350 leases is proceeding under the new Crown Pastoral Land Act. The intention is that land with primarily natural values should be surrendered to the public conservation estate, together with public access to it. In return, only sustainable farm land should be freeholded. It will require vigilance to ensure that the intent of this Act is honoured.

Lease rentals at miniscule rates of 2% of residual value, are still highly subsidised. This is a taxpayer subsidy ftocontinue the present sometimes unsustainable pastoralism. Action is needed to encourage the phasing out of these paternalistic tenures.

Increasingly foreigners, who usually cannot lease mountainlands in their own countries, are purchasing pastoral leases in New Zealand, and using them as private parks, sometimes charging for access eg Glenhope.

Policies

3.1.1 Surrender Pastoral Lease Conservation Land: Ensure public reservation of lands of natural value for public recreation, with secure public access rights to such lands, as a result of tenure review of Crown pastoral leases and licences.

Progress to 2002: Slow. Only a few tenure reviews have been completed under the new Act, though 100 lessees are in the programme.

3.1.2 Speed Tenure Review : Have LINZ administration of process and contracting to private agents reviewed to improve effectiveness of process and consistency with Crown Pastoral Land Act objects.

3.1.3 Oppose Private Pastoral Parks : Oppose proposals that, create private parks, or freeholding of lands important for outdoor recreation.

3.1.4 Oppose Further Commercial Recreation Rights: Withhold granting further commercial recreation rights over leases until tenure review agreements are reached with individual lessees. Repeal provision for issuing recreation permits under the Land Act.

3.1.5 Remove Government Pastoral Lease Subsidies: Introduce market rentals for all pastoral leases and licences from 2005.

3.1.6 Make all Information on Pastoral Lease Tenure Review available to bona fide recreational groups for free: At present LINZ’s policy is unclear. Govt should recognise the ‘public good’ function of conservation-recreation NGO input into tenure review programme.

3.2 Public Ownership - Public Conservation Estate

The Department of Conservation was set up to unify management over New Zealand’s publicly owned natural lands and waters - held in trust under the National Parks, Reserves and Conservation Acts as the Public Conservation Estate. It is important in this age of privatisation, to retain these lands and waters in public ownership and management, for protection and the public good. This is for broad recreation and nature protection goals, for the whole community. This also requires fair citizen and stakeholder group involvement in management and policy decisions.

This also applies to regional parks (Auckland, Wellington), and parks or reserves owned or controlled by local authorities, including water supply areas and town belts.

Policies

3.2.1 Retain and Expand the Public Conservation Estate in full Crown Ownership and Control:  Retain land currently reserved under the Conservation, Reserves, and National Parks Acts in full Crown ownership, held and administered under these Acts by the Department of Conservation and forest and park land administered by local authorities, for the benefit of present and future New Zealanders. Expand holdings of natural/wild land and parkland where appropriate. Similarly, retain public lands held for reserve under the Local Government Act.

Progress to 2002: 130,000 ha of Timberlands West Coast wildland forest added in 2002. Rakiura (Stewart Island) became New Zealand’s 14th National Park in March 2002.

3.2.2 Deter Sale of the Public Conservation Estate and Parks: Discontinue the issuing of certificates of title for DOC lands, as titles simplify future land sales. The Crown does not need ‘titles’ to establish ownership. Instead record these lands in a Crown land register.

3.2.3 Review all Crown lands held by LINZ, to identify and transfer lands that should go to the public conservation estate: During the 1987 Crown Land Carve-up between DOC and State Owned Enterprises, disputed land was parked in LINZ. This land should be reviewed, with public consultation, and appropriate land transferred to DOC.

3.3 Public Ownership - Rivers, Lakes, Fresh Water

The public ownership and stewardship of river and lake beds, and freshwater is under increasing threat from agriculture and electricity user groups. The roles and rights of recreational users to fresh water must be protected and enhanced in its protection and management. The threat of foreign sale of essential community services eg water supply and the impact of WTO Rules on recreation is also of concern.

Policies

3.3.1 Retain Public Ownership and Control of Fresh Water, and Oppose Trading in Water: Retain the ownership and administration of all water within New Zealand in public hands. Public ownership and management of water is to include the beds and margins of waterways. Make it illegal to sell or trade shares in publicly owned water, or in the rights to use such water ie tradeable water rights.

3.3.2 Retain Public Ownership of River and Lake Beds: Seek statutory retention of Crown ownership of existing Crown-owned river and lake beds.

3.3.3 Oppose Foreign Ownership of Essential Community Services, WTO Rules against Recreation and the Environment, and GATS: Community and national essential services must not be available to be owned or controlled by foreign firms, eg through WTO General Agreement on Trade and Services (GATS) or World Bank agreements, as they are then largely beyond of local communities to control, and are able to blackmail the community. Such services include foreign ownership and control of water supply, water reticulation, water disposal, roading, energy transmission, Kyoto credits, pollution assessment and enforcement etc

3.3.4 Prohibit Stock from Public and other Waterways: Stock cause major damage to habitats and water quality in streams and rivers. This shall be acknowledged and stopped eg by fences, as part of a national standard for regional water quality, in regional plans managing the beds of lakes and rivers, enforced by regional councils, and by other means.

Progress to 2002: Fish & Game NZ ran a Dirty Dairying campaign in 2001-02, to highlight the major threat of polluted waterways and pressure on water resources (irrigation) posed by dairying and dairy conversions. Regional councils need to markedly improve their defence of water quality. A national water standard would greatly assist this.

3.3.5 Protect against Damming and Abstraction of Waterways and Overuse of Aquifers: Give greater recognition to the public values of natural waterways eg public rivers and their natural, wilderness or recreational values. These values should be fully weighed against proposals to build a dam or modify the flow, or take water from an aquifer.

3.3.6 Encourage Riparian and Estuarine Enhancement, Remove Willows: Government supported national and regional programmes should be established to encourage and support the provision of vegetation buffers along water margins, with compensation where appropriate. Replace willows with other vegetation and make use of soft and natural vegetation to retain productive freshwater and estuarine ecosystems eg to support whitebait, trout, mullet, eels and other freshwater and estuarine fish species. This requires greater research based knowledge.

3.3 7 Allow Public Interest Prosecution of Authorities: Create a mechanism where, when local/regional water management authorities fail to enforce or litigate approved legal water standards, or consent conditions, recreational bodies can insist on compliance.

3.3.8 Require Crown Monitoring for Health, Fish Disease: The Crown has an obligation to monitor and manage both public health and recreational fisheries disease risks in public water-ways. The Crown shall make the results of such monitoring and management publicly available. Regional councils already monitor for swimming and amenity values.

3.4 Public Management - Freshwater Sports Fisheries

The management of the habitats and resources supporting freshwater sports fisheries, and those fisheries themselves, are under increasing threat from commercial and secular interests. Despite eight years of RMA education, and in some cases litigation, figures on the non-compliance to regional water quality plans show no improvement. New threats to existing sports fisheries, and the habitat and ecosystems that sustain them, continue to emerge, frequently driven by the desire to commercialise such fisheries.

Policies

3.4.1 Prohibit Imports or Liberation of Harmful Species: Prohibit the importation or liberation of any species, for either commercial or recreational reasons, which may threaten New Zealand freshwater sports fish, their habitat and environment (including diploid grass carp).

Progress to 2002: DOC have started a campaign against noxious fish eg Koi carp, gambusia.  

3.4.2 Make Release of Genetically Modified Fish a Criminal Offence: Make it a criminal offence, to either deliberately or accidentally liberate or release into natural waterways, any salmonid that has been genetically modified from the original genome by any means other than by natural selection.

3.4.3 Prohibit Import of Raw Salmon or Sale of Trout and Charr: Declare all species of trout and charr as "recreational sportsfish only" and make it illegal to sell their flesh within New Zealand, regardless of where that flesh originated. Ban the importation of any uncooked, unprocessed salmon flesh. Ie urgently pass the Burton private members Bill.

Progress to 2002: The present temporary moratorium was rolled over to 7 Nov 2004. Labour’s Burton Bill hasn’t progressed.

3.4.4 Retain User Control of F&G Councils: Fish and Game Councils should remain licence holder elected/appointed, (ie the sport remain user controlled) with no Government or Maori appointees

3.4.5 Prohibit Commercial Trout or Charr Farming: Strictly prohibit the commercial farming of any trout or charr species, including Oncorhymcus mykiss (rainbow trout).

3.4.6 Retain Equal Recreational Fishing Access Rights for all New Zealanders: The rights of all New Zealanders to participate in New Zealand's sports fisheries shall be equal under all laws and regulations governing such fisheries.

3.4.7 Make Natural Salmon Non Commercial: There is concern at purposeful “accidental” salmon bycatch by trawlers off the Canterbury coast. Any salmonid found in a natural waterway, or ocean within New Zealand's fishery zone, shall be deemed to be a recreational sports fish, and shall be subject only to such laws, regulations and management practices that are enacted by recognised recreational fisheries or conservation authorities.

3.5 Public Ownership and Management - Recreational Sea Fisheries and the Coasts

The Government has privatised the right to fish commercially, through allocation of tradeable commercial sea and estuarine fish quota for many species. Many new species will be added in the next 3 years incl eels, kingfish, kina, octopus, skate, kahawai. There are pressures to privatise and limit both recreational and Maori fishing rights in the same way ie by a fixed quota. New Zealand’s sea fishery is a national public resource whose public entitlement and management should not be privatised. Equally Maori claims and aquaculture speculative demands threaten privatisation of coastal foreshore and space.

The rights of the public and Maori to fish for food and recreation are essential common law rights. Sustaining and managing our sea fishery and its diversity adequately are important community obligations that all New Zealanders have a responsiblity for eg under the Convention on Biological Diversity. The sea fishery is being overexploited and not being managed adequately. For example there are environmentally damaging practices by commercial fishers, poaching eg paua, and overfishing of some species.

Policies

3.5.1 Retain Public Ownership of the Sea, Foreshores, and the Sea Bed: Retain these resources in public ownership. Oppose commercial/private and Maori claims of ownership and control. If necessary pass legislation overriding any Court determinations to the contrary.

Progress to 2002: A two year moratorium has been placed on aquaculture developments (from Dec 2001), to allow appropriate zoning.

3.5.2 Recognise and Protect the Public Recreational Sea Fishery: Require equitable management of sea fisheries, by the Government for all New Zealanders, not only the commercial sector. Give full recognition to and protection of the public’s right to the recreational sea fishery. (ie Moyle Report 1987). This right must not be limited by arbitrary recreational quota setting.

Progress to 2002: MFish’s Soundings consultation with recreational users was a sham. The Government agreed there would be no licence for recreational sea fishing – recognition that it is a public right. New recreational fishing group Option 4 focused on ensuring a legal right for recreational sea fishing. This was clouded by uncertainty about whether defining the right would limit the current common law right. Recreational Sea fishers also must have an effective voice in national and local policy and management, to ensure they are not marginalized, as fish stocks shrink from MFish mismanagement and from poaching.

3.5.3 Provide Adequate Funding for Recreational Sea Fishery Advocacy by Recreational Sea Fishers: Provide adequate funding for recreational sea fishers viewpoint and negotiating interests, to allow them to advocate to protect their resource eg through the New Zealand  Recreational Fishing Council. This includes assurance of independent research for recreational fishers.

Progress to 2002: None. Miniscule funds, less even than those for nature protection interests, for travel, are available from Mfish. Mfish sees its role as the commercial fishing industry’s advocate. The purpose of the Fisheries Act is to provide for the utilisation of fish while ensuring sustainability. MFish’s recreational responsibilities appear minimal, and appear to relate to consultation when changing the total allowable catch for a species, and taking the recreational catch into account. There appears no requirement to maintain the recreational sea fishery, apart from sustainability of the full fishery.

3.5.4 Provide Legislative Backing for Recreational Fishing Zones : Provide Legislative backing for recreational fishing zones. Establish such zones eg Hauraki Gulf, Marlborough Sounds.

3.5.5 Fisheries Management Inquiry: Propose a full independent public enquiry into the competence of fisheries management - given that boom and bust exploitation has been going on since the 1960s with Bluff oysters, Chatham Island crayfish, orange roughy, kahawai, hoki etc in 2002. It seems no lessons are learned.

3.6 Settlement of Maori Treaty Claims

New Zealanders have been overwhelmed by escalating claims from Maori for ownership and control over all manner of public resources. Such claims are inferred to be based on breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi, or nefarious 'Principles of the Treaty'. Increasingly it is becoming apparent that many claims and grievances are figments of imagination or wilful invention, having no lawful basis whatsoever. Claim WAI 262 to all the nation’s flora and fauna is a prime example of such an approach.

A prevailing climate of political correctness, news media compliance and censure on anyone who dares to question such claims, including the legitimacy of government's 'settlements', is met by defensive accusations of racism. The fact that it is racist to uncritically accept 'claims' for no other reason that they come from Maori, seems to have escaped the accusers. In such a climate the Maori grievance industry has been encouraged to go out of control. This has been greatly assisted by Government's unprincipled use of public resources as evidenced by the Ngai Tahu settlement, which is now being used as a model for other settlements.

Contrary to the last Government’s policy, and apparently adopted by the present Government, claimants have been given ownership or a prevailing influence over substantial areas of national parks and conservation areas, eg Topuni, effectively disenfranchising the vast majority of the population from having an effective voice over the management and future of these lands. In many cases such arrangements run contrary to the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal. It seems that political expediency and opportunism is the driving force. The Treaty appears to be little more than a convenient ploy for the alienation and privatisation of public assets.

Giving Maori whatever they want is having the opposite effect to that intended by Government, which was the rapid and permanent cessation of claims. There are ever-expanding demands extending variously to separate 'sovereignty' or joint 'partnership' or 'co-management' with the Crown. Appeasement has failed.

So too has due process with the Waitangi Tribunal increasingly acting as a propagandist or public 'educator', and advocate for iwi, rather than as an impartial court of inquiry. By making recommendations to Government contrary to its own findings, and the absence of normal rules of evidence and cross-examination, it has destroyed essential public confidence in it. Neither are appointees neutral in their position, but are all appointed on the recommendation of the Minister

of Maori Affairs. For the Crown to regain public trust, a winding in of the scope of possible claims is urgently required, as is the re-establishment of fair and disinterested inquiry and procedure. Checks are also necessary on the excesses of Government. The following policies are designed to this end.

Policies

3.6.1 Require Independent Public Legal Proof of Claims : Disband the Waitangi Tribunal and require public hearing of Maori grievances against the Crown before the High Court constituted as a Court or Commission  of Inquiry, involving full judicial rules for evidence and cross examination. Any member of the public or body other than the claimants and the Crown to have standing to be heard and to present evidence, to obtain legal aid where appropriate, and to cross examine. The Court of Inquiry to have power of recommendation to the Crown for settlement of proven grievances only.

Progress to 2002: Waitangi Tribunal’s funding is being constrained, with their ability to report on claims being slowed down. Government prefers to negotiate directly. Maori are pushing for Tribunal’s rulings to be binding on Government.

3.6.2 No Government-Claimant Negotiation before Confirmation of a Treaty Breach by an Independent Public Inquiry: Require all claims to be independently heard through the inquiry process described in 3.6.1. There to be no direct negotiations between the Crown and claimants without prior findings and recommendations from the Court of Inquiry.

3.6.3 Remove the "Principles" of the Treaty from Legislation: Removal of requirements on public bodies in legislation to have regard or give effect to 'the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi'. The "principles" are mainly untested interpretations of the Waitangi Tribunal and Government officials, that in some instances have little or no connection with the Treaty or the Courts' determinations; eg the "principle" of "partnership" - nowhere in the Treaty does the word "partnership" appear. Sir Douglas Graham has confirmed that no 'principle of 'equal' partnership' and attendant assumptions of Maori sovereignty, dual governance or co-management exists. Legal obligations should be confined to honouring the provisions of the Treaty, with a reciprocal obligation on Maori.

Progress to 2002: Backwards. The Conservation Authority and DOC are trying to entrench the “principles” even more into DOC behaviour. Every decision by DOC now needs a Section 4 assessment.

3.6.4 Require that Public Conservation Lands are not readily available for Claim Settlements: Require that in Treaty settlements, public conservation lands and assets are not usually used, in any form including ‘co-management’. Where they are, they should be confined to small discrete parcels for well-founded reasons, as in Government's 1994 Policy for the Settlement of Treaty Claims.

Progress to 2002: Unclear. Government confirmed it had no intention of rescinding it’s illegal gift of Mt Hikurangi to the local iwi. Treaty Claim settlements continue to use conservation lands. But areas used have been limited.

3.6.5 Remove Vesting of public lands with Maori via the Maori Land Court: Remove ability for direct vesting of public lands with Maori via the Maori Land Court (eg no more Mt Hikurangis).

Progress to 2002: See 3.6.6. Undertaking by the Crown in settlement with Public Access New Zealand/Hugh Barr to limited consultation with conservation boards, or possibly public consultation, in any new cases analogous to Mt Hikurangi. (Conservation Park land)

Progress to 2002: A Judicial Review of government’s 1990 “Gifting” of Mt Hikurangi conservation park land to Ngati Porou was taken to the High Court by Public Access New Zealand and Dr Hugh Barr. It resulted in an out-of-court agreement with the Minister of Conservation that there would be limited consultation, and Conservation Act criteria would be used in any future similar action. The public access agreement was clarified and improved in favour of the public, and an annual report on public access issues and complaints will be provided by the Department of Conservation.

3.6.7 Remove Public Roads from the jurisdiction of the Maori Land Court: Remove the ability of the Maori Land Court to deal with public road matters. ie. no more Papuni Road cases, where the Court of Appeal has conclusively demonstrated the Maori Land Court's incompetence in such matters.

3.6.8 Require an Open System of Treaty Claim Public Consultation: Require an open process for Public consultation on Treaty Claims settlement. Once government has considered recommendations from the courts, (and the Waitangi Tribunal as long as it exists), require a public consultation process on proposals for settlement involving public lands, waters or their management, with government to have particular regard to the legislative purposes of such lands/waters.

3.6.9 Confirm all New Zealanders Inheritance and Responsibility for Native Species: Confirm that New Zealand’s native plant and animal species are the common inheritance and responsibility of all New Zealanders, with the government charged with their management and survival, for the benefit of all current and future New Zealanders. (This would limit the expense and acrimony of the WAI 262 Claim.)

3.6.10 Confirm that water in rivers, lakes and the sea cannot be privately owned: Take statutory or other actions necessary to prevent private ownership or “possession” as recommended by the Waitangi Tribunal for the Whanganui River.

3.6.11 Oppose “Topuni” and Co-management : Oppose creation of 'Topuni' or similar racially based concepts overlaying national parks and conservation lands, or any systems of parallel or 'co -management' involving private interests.

3.6.12 Seek Constructive Change to the  Ngai Tahu Settlement :

·       Remove Ngai Tahu “co-management” rights over the public conservation estate, over and above the rights of other New Zealanders eg protocols, Codfish Island etc

·       Remove requirement for authorities to have 'particular regard' to Ngai Tahu 'values'

·       Reduce the number of direct Ngai Tahu appointees on South Island conservation boards to at most one

·       Remove the abiity to freehold nohoanga and surrounding areas

·       Remove Ngai Tahu’s right of first refusal over surplus conservation lands. Such areas are usually required for offer to adjoining owners as part of land exchanges arising from road realignments or to achieve more practical boundaries.

Progress to 2002: None. The Aoraki/Mt Cook National Park draft management plan shows DOC as primarily a servant of Ngai Tahu.

3.7 Recreational Representation on Conservation Boards

Having informed outdoor users playing a role in Outdoor Recreation management is important for recreational advocacy. Under the present government, representatives of outdoor recreational groups have not been appointed to conservation boards in adequate numbers. As well the size of conservation boards has been reduced, making adequate public representation for recreation even more unlikely.

Policies

3.7.1 Require Adequate Outdoor Recreation Representation on Boards and the Authority: Require the New Zealand Conservation Authority and Conservation Boards to have adequate ie at least three, outdoor recreation representatives on them. Boards should be representative of the users of the public conservation estate in their area rather than just local citizens.

3.7.2 Appoint Ten Public Conservation Board Members: Set the minimum size for a Conservation Board as ten publicly appointed members, as distinct from appointments from tribes.

3.7.3 Return to Concurrent 3 Year Terms for all Board Members: Remove the 1998 change that rotated one third of Boards every year. This constant change inhibits a Board’s ability to function effectively.

3.7.4 Don’t Select Boards on Racial Grounds: Maori Board members resolved (1998) that half of all board members should be Maori, in spite of only 15% of New Zealanders claiming even the slightest Maori ancestry.

3.7.5 Require Recreational Representation on the Hauraki Gulf Forum: Require three recreational representatives on the Hauraki Gulf Maritime Park Forum.

CORANZ Object 4: Improve Public Access

“To work to retain free, egalitarian public access to and use of publicly managed lands, waters, and other resources, subject to wilderness protection and user conflict reduction considerations.”

4.1 Public Roads

New Zealand's public roads provide the essential framework for our property-owning society to function. Roads consist of strips of land generally 20 metres wide that are vested in the ownership of district councils but subject to  centuries-old common law. This law establishes rights of unhindered passage for everyone. Roads also provide rights of 'frontage' to private and public properties. Without assured legal access, properties become landlocked and valueless. Half the Queen's Chain consists of public roads and all public lands and waters are dependent on them for access. Roads are of primary importance for everyday life, both urban and rural. Everyone uses them and there are no alternatives.

Freedom of passage is essential for a democratic society to function, for without this, citizens have no means of exercising their right of freedom of movement as provided under the Bill of Rights Act. The proposed road 'reforms' of the previous National government attacked these basic human rights.

The previous National Government proposed a commercial model for managing roads that depends on direct user pays. This envisages electronic surveillance of users by overhead gantries or satellites, and direct tolling and billing of vehicle owners. This was to replace the existing mix of indirect taxes, levies and rates. National envisaged that eventually all roads, not just congested motorways or new roads, will become toll roads. Passage would be allowed only to those who pay.

The current Government has announced plans to allow limited motorway toll roads as a means of funding.  However there are continual industry and bureaucratic pressures for direct ‘user pays’ electronic road charges, especially for charging on peak urban roads. While issues relating to public freedom of movement and access remain unaddressed, there is need for continual vigilance by citizen groups.

Currently whether a road is formed or unformed has no bearing on its legal status or public rights of use.  Tens of thousands of kilometres of unformed roads, giving public access to the countryside, water bodies and coasts, account for approximately half the roading network, but will now be deemed to be 'non-operative'. Through redefinition of the meaning of 'road' they will become prime targets for disposal.

A widespread existing problem is the unlawful obstruction of unformed roads by adjoining landowners. Whilst district councils have sufficient powers to deal with this they rarely have the will to do so. This is the biggest single problem currently faced by users of these roads, outside the road “Reforms”. We propose a solution successfully applied in the United Kingdom.

Policies

4.1.1 Retain Roads as Publicly Owned and Controlled Essential Public Infrastructure: Recognise roads as essential public infrastructure serving individual freedom, community and property access needs, and not just the interests of the transport sector. Retain state and local authority road ownership and management.

4.1.2 Reject the Corporate Roading Model: Reject commercial, profit-driven management of public roads, but enhance public management as an essential community service through a variety of indirect taxes, levies, rates and by better targeting high road wear heavy transport.

Progress to 2002: Labour are not progressing this roading privatisation model.

4.1.3 Confine Road Tolling: Prohibit road tolls over public roads. Confine tolling to designated motorways, provided convenient alternative public roads are available for vehicle and other road users. (The option of tolls over private roads eg skifield roads, remains).

4.1.4 Retain the National Road Network: Retain the national urban and rural road network, including formed and unformed roads, subject to all existing road closing procedures and 'frontage' criteria.

4.1.5 Protect Public Rights of Passage: Enact a statutory duty on district councils to assert and protect public rights of passage. Reject the extinguishment or modification of common law rights of passage and property frontage. Resist any attempt to codify or define in statute what those public rights are.

4.1.6 Ensure Property Frontage to Public Roads : Re-enact the primacy of retaining (other) "adequate public road access to lands and waters in the vicinity of a road", as a requirement for the Environment Court to decline a decision to close or 'stop' a road. (Repeal of such a key protection has been sneaked through by amending the Local Government Act (Clause 6, 10th Schedule) via the Resource Management Act. Loss of the central access purpose of roads would be completed by further Government-intended removal of any statutory requirement for providing or maintaining property 'frontage' to roads. Such moves pervert the primary reason for the existence of roads and greatly assist their future closure and disposal).

4.2 Public Access to Public Lands, Waters and Game

Public lands, waters and game are held by various Crown agencies under a duty of trust to all New Zealanders. It is not these agencies’ estate, but public estate, that must be managed for various purposes set out in legislation. Public recreation and enjoyment is the principal purpose for some categories of public land, and an inseparable if secondary purpose for most other areas with a preservation or conservation requirement.

In the latter cases public recreation is generally to be fostered while maintaining natural values. However this is often misinterpreted by administering officials as a pretext for unwarranted restrictions on public use. With the exception of nature reserves and sanctuaries, free and ready accessibility and enjoyment of these places must be maintained to satisfy public needs and to maintain public sympathy for important conservation and recreation goals. Public access and enjoyment of the outdoors is very much part of New Zealand’s national consciousness. Some specific law changes are needed to remind administering agencies of this.

Policies

4.2.1 Enact Public Access as a  Matter of National Importance in the RMA and other statutes: Enact the preservation and enhancement of public access to public lands and waters as a matter of national importance in relevant statutes (RMA, National Parks, Conservation Acts etc)

4.2.2 No Entry Charges : Prohibit public entry charges to public lands (except as already allowed for some recreation reserves). S 17 Conservation Act and S 4 National Parks Act guarantees access is normally free of charge.

4.2.3 Prefer Public Roads, Create Bridle Paths: Retain and create public roads (formed or unformed) as the preferred - because they have guaranteed rights - access provision to public areas. Promote the creation of bridle path and pedestrian tracks through limited dedication as public roads in instances where use by motor vehicles is undesirable.  This would shadow developments in England and Wales for public paths, based on the same common law.

Progress to 2002: DOC promotes easements over private land rather than creating or utilising public roads. Easements have proved insecure, with no citizen remedies available for breach of their terms. Notable breaches have occurred recently on Mt Hikurangi and the Pisa Range, where DOC proved unwilling to enforce public rights of access in the face of obstructive landholders.

4.2.4 Ensure Public Involved in Altering Nature Protection and Access Covenants/ Easements: Create a statutory obligation on Crown or local government agencies for a public notification and objection process before any modification or extinguishment of public access easements or covenants they are party to, and require that they must have particular regard to the purposes of the areas being accessed.

4.2.5 Compliance with Access Easements: Create a statutory right for any citizen to sue any easementing or covenanting authority for non-compliance with the terms of easements by them or affected landowners.

4.2.6 No Charging for Fishing or Hunting Access: Make it an offence for a landowner to charge for the right to fish or hunt, or walking access thereto. ie. retain Section 23 of the Wildlife Act prohibiting charging for access to fisheries or gamebird hunting, and extend it to wild/feral big game and sea fishing.

Progress to 2002: Maori or their agents, often charge to shoot deer on Maori land (eg Kaimanawa Maori blocks). Ownership of wild deer now appears to lie with the land occupier, because of New Zealand’s stringent trespass laws, even though S 57 of the Wildlife Act says it is with the Crown.

4.2.7 Only Fish and Game NZ should licence Fishing Guides: It is an offence (see S 23 Wildlife Act) to charge for fishing access. Fish and Game, rather than DOC, should be the only agency licencing fishing guides, to ensure the fees go back to fish management. It would also clarify with private landowners, that any fees paid a user charge that went back into fishery management.

4.2.8 Restrict Foreign Ownership of Land: Stop sales of lands proposed for foreign ownership, if that land has significant recreational or amenity values.

Progress to 2002: The Overseas Investment Commission (OIC) is now required to consider whether Overseas sales bring “substantial and identifiable” benefits. But not adequate. Commission approval is only required for sale of land over 5 ha, worth more than $10M, or more than 0.2 ha and neighbouring the coastline foreshore, or specified reserves. Also offer must be made to New Zealanders for at least 20 working days, before being sold overseas.

4.2.9 Publicise Public Access to Crown Forests: Require LINZ to make concise information and maps on public access to Crown Forests available on pamphlets, onsite notices, and websites. Crown Forest access rights were created for exotic forests then owned by the Crown, at the time of sale of cutting rights, by the Crown Forest Assets Act 1991. They allow foot access without a firearm during daylight hours, and vehicle access along some specified roads, except when there is a fire or safety risk. Land Information NZ records and administers the Act.

4.3 The Queen's Chain

The Queen's Chain consists of publicly owned strips of land along the banks of rivers and lakes, and above the high water mark of the sea. It consists of public roads, marginal strips, esplanade and other reserves. Approximately 70 per cent of major waterways and the coast have a 'Queen's Chain' in one form or another along them. This is a unique and internationally envied provision highly valued by generations of New Zealanders. It is widely considered part of our birthright. However it is capable of further improvement to ensure that public access is available to all major waterbodies. Also limitations and privatisation measures introduced by successive Governments need to be overturned.

Policies

4.3.1 Identify and Complete the Queen’s Chain: Actively investigate the means for making readily publicly available the location of the Queen’s Chain. This is the first step completing the Queen's Chain along all of New Zealand's sea shore, and along the banks of all major rivers and lakes. The first step would be to show the locations of all Queen’s Chains on the 1: 50,000 national mapping database, maintained by the Crown, and have it added to all NZMS 260 series maps from now on.

Maps could also be shown on the Internet, to make the information readily available immediately, as public information. Information on the Queen’s Chain and legal roads, used to be shown on the Cadastral Map series, so the information is readily available.

Another initiative is a programme to swap areas of Queen’s Chain isolated by river bank changes, eg oxbows, for new movable marginal strips on the new bank of the river/lake/stream. Also, show forests and forest roads, with public access under the Crown Forests Assets Act.

Progress to 2002: Labour’s 1999 Election policy was to “develop a strategy for the extension of the Queen's Chain to ensure New Zealanders have improved access to our waterways and coastline” So far little has happened.

4.3.2 Allow Closure only by Emergency Agencies: Change relevant legislation (Conservation, Resource Management, Local Government Acts) restricting powers of closure to emergency agencies (police, civil defence, fire services) for public order and public safety reasons only.

4.3.3 Restore Public Access as Primary Purpose of Marginal Strips : Restore public access and recreation as the primary purposes for marginal strips and esplanade reserves.

4.3.4 No Private Managers: Repeal provisions for private managers (S 24H Conservation Act) over marginal strips (proven to be unnecessary but is a highly dangerous provision).

Progress to 2002: No repeal. Some managers appointed.

4.3.5 Make all Marginal Strips Movable: Amend the Conservation Act to make all marginal strips movable (currently only newly created marginal strips are movable).

4.3.6 No Leasing Marginal Strips: Remove provisions for leases and occupation licences over marginal strips.

4.3.7 Review RMA Esplanade Reserve Compensation: Review compensation, waiver, and the less-than-4-hectare subdivision requirement for esplanade reserves under the RMA.

4.3.8 Review RMA Access: Review appropriateness of esplanade strip and access strip provisions, and repeal restrictions on public access under the 10th Schedule to the RMA.

Ends