This page last modified 2 November 1999
Public Access No.
8, September 1996
ISSN 1172-3203
For the first time in New Zealand's
electoral history, voters on polling day, October 12, will have
a real choice of party policies to suit their political inclinations
and recreational needs. In an assessment of party policies, PANZ
found Labour to be well ahead in 'access friendliness', with ACT
the least 'friendly'.
PANZ looked at six key policy areas, being the value placed
on public lands, the role of Government, the Treaty
of Waitangi and land claims, the 'Queen's Chain', the
high country, and recreation and access in general.
We ranked responding parties' policies according to their 'access
friendliness'. This was a weighted appraisal which was influenced
by--
Three parties requested to supply policies did not respond. These
were the Christian Coalition, Ethnic Minority Party, and Green
Society. United NZ replied, but with no relevant policies.
PANZ is not aligned to any political party. We are not backward in being critical of any party's policies and actions, as past Governments will attest!
How the parties rank
Labour is a quantum leap ahead of any other party, scoring 25 out of a possible of 30 in 'access friendliness'. Mid-field are NZ First and the Alliance at 15.5 and 13.5 respectively. Well back in the field are the Progressive Greens at 10, with the governing National Party scoring poorly at 8. ACT barely rates in 'access friendliness', at 5.5. Not assessed was United, which has had a mixed record as a Government coalition partner. Their MPs voted with Government for leases over marginal strips, but played a pivotal role in blocking further passage of the Crown Pastoral Land Bill.
There is sufficient commonality between Labour, NZ First and the Alliance that a governing coalition between them should be able to make major advances for public spaces and recreation. Conversely, going by their record and policies, a coalition of National and ACT would likely spell disaster for public lands, and for equality of access and benefit from (current) public resources. The choice is yours!
Labour
Has a comprehensive programme which addresses most of the pressing issues. Success will depend on manner of implementation. Electorate hasn't forgotten actions of last Labour government. Will need to remain on best behaviour.
NZ First
Sentiments okay. Some ambiguity in policies. Needs further development and experience. Proposal to merge DOC with Ministry for Environment counter-productive.
The Alliance
Disappointing performance considering its constituent parties. Has lost the plot through a narrow focus on 'ecology', and its reinterpretation of the Treaty. Appears to view public lands merely as a 'land bank' for Maori--has a different attitude to other State assets. Constitutional, administrative, and 'educational' proposals dangerous to democracy. Will probably require post-election split-up of this coalition before 'The Alliance' will become more responsive to community needs.
Progressive Greens
Their free-market approach to the environment and lack of disclosure of their intent is cause for concern.
National
Appears to have no real interest in the welfare of the outdoors or its users. Will be judged by performance--broken promises, and privatisation actions despite their denials.
ACT
Bad news. Would appear to have no qualms about flogging off any state asset; these are viewed as "liabilities". Big business and private sector would most likely be put in control of 'public' lands. 'Responsible individuals' with the most means will gain the most benefit.
Most of the relevant policies are reproduced below for you to decide their merits.
We have rated each party in each key policy area on a scale of 1 to 5-[1] Seriously flawed
[2] Poor
[3] Acceptable
[4] Very good
[5] Outstanding
Public lands Govt. Treaty claims Queen's Chain High country Recreation Totals Labour 4 4.5 3.5 4.5 4.5 4 25.0 NZ First 3.5 2 2 2.5 3 2.5 15.5 Alliance 1.5 3 1 3 2.5 2.5 13.5 Prog. Greens 2 2 1.5 2.5 2 --- 10.0 National 2 2 2 1 1 --- 8.0 ACT 1 1 2.5 --- 1 --- 5.5 [each party's score out of a possible of 30]
ACT [1]
Supports the integration of environmental issues with the market
economy, maintaining that only a nation of "responsible individuals"
can ensure the security of the environment. 'Personal responsibility'
is to be nurtured at every level and in all things.
National [2]
"The government has worked to integrate environment and conservation
goals and economic objectives along with the desire that the public
can openly enjoy the benefits of our environment and conservation
estates."
"Attractions like the Abel Tasman National Park are priceless
commercial assets, but they must be protected".
Progressive Greens [2]
Are totally opposed to the privatisation of natural waterways
and the coastline. Position on public lands unknown.
Labour [4]
Will extend and establish additional National Parks.
Will establish a network of high country tussockland parks and
reserves.
Will upgrade stewardship and conservation land, where appropriate,
to higher protective status.
Will promote protection of wild river systems.
Will ensure that the transport network does not significantly
encroach on protected areas etc.
Alliance [1.5]
Recognises the shared responsibility of Maori and Pakeha for managing
natural resources under the Treaty.
The Alliance supports the "principles of Tino Rangatiratanga,
Kaitiakitanga and Kawanatanga. Iwi will be assisted to exercise
their rights of partnership under the Treaty of Waitangi".
Water resources will be kept in public ownership.
NZ First [3.5]
Committed to extending the conservation estate, with further national
and conservation parks.
Recognises the importance NZers place on our Conservation Estate,
its protection, ownership and rights of free access.
Will pursue protection for important natural land areas, for their
ecological, scientific, recreational and scenic values.
ACT [1]
Government must provide "a supportive legal framework"
...associated environmental costs should be borne by the user.
The performance of the Department of Conservation is of concern
to ACT. Its performance is claimed to be hampered by multiple
and conflicting management objectives. However ACT also advocates
that management of recreational facilities and tracks should be
contracted to the tourist sector.
While acknowledging underspending by Government on the environment,
ACT claims that DOC is subject to mismanagement and not lack of
funds.
The Conservation Act will be amended to require a 'net conservation
benefit' approach to the management of the public conservation
estate.
ACT will establish a Conservation Foundation to set priorities
and allocate funds for conservation programmes, and, specify conservation
outcomes and monitor performance.
Public funding would not be channelled exclusively through government
departments and agencies. DOC would become a servicing agency.
Conservation organisations would be eligible for funds on a contestable
basis.
Opposed to the levying of visitors to pay for facilities.
National [2]
Will fund DOC to carry out priorities of weed and pest control,
threatened species, and to maintain its extensive network of tracks
and facilities which are being used by an increasing number of
visitors.
In May 1996 the Government announced a $110 million 'Green Package'.
This was claimed to give Department of Conservation an extra $68
million over the next 3 years, taking is total government funding
to $169 million in 1998/99.
Visitors services/facilities on conservation lands will receive
a $30 million upgrade over the next three years.
Progressive Greens [2]
Position on ownership and management of public conservation estate
unknown, however PGs propose a Conservation Trust (to replace
DOC?). Its functions, composition, and public and political accountability,
if any, has not been disclosed.
Opposed to the levying of visitors to pay for facilities.
The PGs state that they strongly support conservation, outdoors
and public access NGOs and will continue to seek their advice.
Labour [4.5]
Believes strongly in maintaining DOC as an integrated department
of state. "It is essential for conservation that policy and
operational functions be combined within the one department".
DOC must be properly funded and efficiently run. Labour will commit
an additional $68 million ($76.5 million GST inclusive) to conservation
funding over its first three Budgets, as part of a phased programme
of increases over five years.
Welcomes private donations and corporate support...however...
support or corporate sponsorship should be a supplement, not a
substitute, for government funding. It should be used for clearly
identifiable activities of finite duration, such as specific research
projects or capital expenditure, rather than ongoing management
tasks.
Will expand the Forest Heritage Fund into a Natural Heritage Fund
with authority and money to buy for the conservation estate from
willing landowners (or protect by other means) wetlands, tussock
grassland, natural coastal areas and other habitats, as well as
native forest. Labour will raise its annual budget from $4 million
to $8 million.
Labour will enlarge DOC's role in advising the public on conservation
issues.
Alliance [3]
The Department of Conservation has been seriously underfunded
ever since it was established. Its basic scientific data is not
being maintained, highly skilled staff are being lost, endangered
species are approaching extinction and facilities for visitors
are crumbling.
The Alliance will increase DOC funding by $50 million a year.
A visitor levy, added to the departure tax for non-residents,
will provide $20 million of this for upgrading facilities. An
additional $50 million a year will be available to DOC and regional
councils for pest and weed control.
NZ First [2]
Will increase funding for DOC by $60 million over the next 5 years.
Will merge DOC with the Ministry for the Environment to allow
for better co-ordination.
ACT [2.5]
Agrees that productive Crown resources (e.g., SOE land) should
be used before conservation land to settle Treaty grievances.
Conservation land should only be used in special circumstances.
Undecided on use of Elfin Bay-Greenstone Valley Crown lands.
National [2]
Government's 'fiscal envelope' policy is that conservation areas
"will not be generally available". Policy was applied
in Tainui settlement, however extensive areas now proposed in
Ngai Tahu deal, contrary to findings of Waitangi Tribunal.
"The return of land with conservation value would only occur
if it enhanced the conservation quality and after proper public
consultation".
The Government's view on land seizures and calls for Maori "sovereignty"--
Through Article 1 of the Treaty of Waitangi, Maori ceded their
sovereignty to the British Crown in return for citizenship rights
and protection of certain resources. Prime Minister Bolger outlined
the Government's position recently: "The democratic processes
of a unitary state in which Parliament exercises national sovereignty
will continue to determine our approach".
Maori could exercise greater self-management with the consent
of Parliament; co-manage resources with the sanctioning of the
state, or new and better ways could be found to enable Maori to
have their voice heard and heeded when Government is forming policies
affecting Maori. The Crown Law Office, in consultation with the
Police and Justice departments, has prepared a paper setting out
guidelines for the Crown's responses In situations where Crown
land is unlawfully occupied by private individuals or groups.
The paper's guidelines are also applicable to occupations on public
land.
Progressive Greens [1.5]
Undecided whether productive Crown resources (e.g., SOE land)
should be used before conservation land to settle Treaty grievances.
Disagree that conservation lands should only be used in special
circumstances.
Labour [3.5]
Will treat all claims on their individual merits. Will ensure
that before any decisions are made involving the conservation
estate, or other publicly-owned natural areas or natural resources,
there is wide and thorough consultation with Maori and the wider
community. Major concern will be to ensure maintenance of legal
protection.
Agrees that productive Crown resources (e.g., SOE land) should
be used before conservation land to settle Treaty grievances.
Conservation land should only be used in special circumstances.
It is expected that the transfer of title to conservation lands
will generally occur only for sites of such historical, cultural
or spiritual significance to Maori (e.g., pa sites of special
significance, wahi tapu, or urupa) that they are an essential
part of a settlement. However, where land over which there is
a valid claim is not returned, the Crown should provide fair compensation
from other Crown assets.
Will involve Maori in conservation management, through consultation
at the appropriate levels, continued representation on statutory
advisory boards, and participation in practical conservation management
projects.
Alliance [1]
One of 12 Policy Principles (1995)--
"To recognise the Treaty of Waitangi as New Zealand's founding
document, to honour and implement its provisions."
"A Nation in Partnership" (July 1996)--
The Treaty of Waitangi
Aim: "To establish a constitution for Aotearoa/N. Z. based
on the Treaty of Waitangi."
Senior public servants will be required to participate in Treaty
of Waitangi training and will be measured on their performance
for achieving stated outcomes for Maori.
A national council representing Maori and Crown interests will
be responsible for providing leadership for a 10 year public education
programme about the Treaty of Waitangi as a living document.
Jeanette Fitzsimmons (Alliance Co-Deputy Leader) believes there
is a way to use conservation estate land in Treaty settlements
without compromising the ecological value of the land.
"I think we have to draw a distinction between protecting
ecological values and environmental values and the question of
ownership. I mean, not all environmental values are in the DOC
estate, not everything in the DOC estate has high environmental
value and DOC isn't necessarily the only organisation that can
protect environmental values so we start from the bottom line
that we will seek to resolve Treaty grievances without compromising
environmental values -- and how we do that is a question of negotiation
in each case".
Will seek to resolve Treaty grievances without compromising environmental
protection. Where conservation lands regarded as having major
intrinsic cultural or environmental value, an Alliance government
would seek the mutual consent of claimants for direct negotiations
of an early and fair resolution. A Treaty of Waitangi select committee
would be established by Parliament to provide for third parties
to obtain access to appropriate information; present information
on ecological values of lands claimed; and to participate in discussion
of the types of management that would safeguard those values.
Undecided whether productive Crown resources (e.g., SOE land)
should be used before conservation land to settle Treaty grievances.
Undecided whether conservation lands should only be used in special
circumstances.
Undecided on use of Elfin Bay-Greenstone Valley Crown lands.
NZ First [2]
Settling claims should not lead to a situation, out of keeping
with the spirit of the Treaty, whereby the settlement of one grievance
caused another. NZ First opposed to the use of conservation land.
Conservation lands belong to all NZers and must remain so.
Undecided whether productive Crown resources (e.g., SOE land)
should be used before conservation land to settle Treaty grievances.
Undecided whether conservation lands should only be used in special
circumstances.
Undecided on use of Elfin Bay-Greenstone Valley Crown lands.
Will ensure that in the settlement of claims the rights and interests
of the environment are protected and conservation and environment
are recognised.
Will give recognition to the special relationship of tangata whenua
through deeds of recognition, naming and conservation board membership.
ACT
No known position.
National [1]
The public will enjoy more secure access to the 'Queens Chain'
under new legislation than previously. These areas cannot be sold
off or privatised and will always remain in Crown ownership.
Further changes were made through the Conservation Amendment Act
to provide greater protection for the marginal strips, giving
even more protection than in National Parks. Leases, licences
and permits will be brought under the same strict process the
Department of Conservation uses on the rest of the Conservation
estate. This is a tightening up of current law and consistency
of criteria.
People who occupy existing legal structures will have their tenure
converted from perpetual right of use to a limited term lease
- generally no more than 30 years. After this expires, existing
activities will probably be phased out.
"The intent of the reforms is to remove inconsistencies (in
the Conservation Act that) reduce the ability of the Department
to respond efficiently to (concession) applicants and generate
revenue for the Crown." (Denis Marshall in 1993 Cabinet minute).
Progressive Greens [2.5]
Will work to improve public access to the outdoors, with emphasis
on pedestrian access to water ways and conservation areas.
Aim is an accelerated programme for national coverage of the Queens
Chain.
Will initiate a review by the Parliamentary Commissioner of the
application of the effectiveness of Public Access provisions RMA
in policy statements and plans, and its application.
Labour [4.5]
For waterways in particular, consider such access our birthright,
by way of the "Queen's Chain". The Queen's Chain comprises
a number of legal entities, including formed and unformed public
roads, marginal strips, esplanade reserves and strips, and conservation
land adjacent to waterways.
However, the Queen's Chain currently provides a legal right of
public access to only about 70 per cent of our coast and major
waterways. Problems of public access persist because of gaps in
the Queen's Chain.
Will commission a comprehensive review into extending public access
to public resources, and, in particular, completing the Queen's
Chain to include those places where, due to accidents of history,
no such formal legal access presently exists. The review would:
Investigate consolidating all legislation covering public rights
of access to the coast, rivers, lakes and backcountry into a single
law. The review would look at drawing up, within a consolidated
law, a code of public rights and responsibilities in respect of
recreational access, which would apply throughout New Zealand.
Such a code should reflect New Zealanders' values and aspirations,
which are the product of our unique cultural and historic heritage;
Explore the option, at least for waterways, of a "right to
roam" presumption. That would give all New Zealanders a prima
facie right to walk up or along the side of any major waterway
in New Zealand, as well as along the coast. Thus the 30% of our
waterways without the Queen's Chain would be deemed, ordinarily,
to be accessible to members of the public, without the need for
land ownership changes.
The success of such an approach would lie in the details of its
development and the process of its implementation. It could not
extend, as of right, to cover dogs and guns or to include all
intensely developed urban areas. It would need to involve the
farming community from the outset.
Ensure that the current ban on the sale of recreational freshwater
sportsfishing and gamebird hunting rights is adequately enshrined
in law and cannot be circumvented by the sale of access rights.
Amend the Conservation Act to prohibit any new leases or exclusive
licences of marginal strips, except where such arrangements replace
existing ongoing lawful occupations. Any other new leases or exclusive
licences of marginal strips would require special legislation.
Alliance [3]
Public access to conservation lands, coast, rivers and lakes will
be guaranteed by maintaining the Queen's Chain wherever it exists
and creating it where land is subdivided or undergoes a change
of use. The sale or leasing of it to private interests will be
prohibited except where existing uses cannot be relocated.
NZ First [2.5]
Will ensure public access to Queen's Chain land.
ACT [1]
Support the Crown Pastoral Land Bill and oppose it being abandoned.
Do not support 'significant indigenous vegetation' areas being
transferred to DOC.
Propose freeholding greater amounts of the high country.
Disagree with adequate (Govt.) funds and resources being available
for tenure reviews.
National [1]
Reform the Land Act and the tenure review system through the Crown
Pastoral Lands Bill to protect conservation values and provide
sustainable management of the South Island high country pastoral
lands.
Progressive Greens [2]
Support the Crown Pastoral Land Bill and oppose it being abandoned,
however this policy appears to have changed to one of reviewing
the need for the Crown Pastoral Land Bill in the light of on-going
successful tenure reviews.
Agree that land with 'predominate indigenous vegetation and recreation
values' should go to DOC and adequate funds be made available
for tenure reviews, however disagree that only modified, developed
land should be freeholded.
Believe that changes to the Land Act to include sustainability
provisions may need to be introduced if Councils fail to implement
the land sustainability provisions of the RMA.
Labour [4.5]
Believes the future of the high country is a key conservation
issue. A more sustainable land management regime is urgently required.
The public interest in the nature conservation, landscape and
recreational values of the area must be protected.
Labour will:
Continue rationalising high country leases in order to promote
ecologically sustainable land management. Labour will require
clear criteria for deciding what land should be freeholded during
a tenure review and what land should become part of the conservation
estate. Land with predominant nature conservation and landscape
values should become part of the conservation estate. Only modified,
developed land capable of long-term sustainable productive use
should be freeholded.
Investigate the options for the future management and restoration
of land that is so degraded that it is unsuitable at present either
to become part of the conservation estate, or to be freeholded
for agricultural use.
Fund adequately the tenure review process.
Ensure that the law properly recognises and protects native plants
and animals and conservation values in the management of the high
country.
Achieve secure and convenient recreational access to the high
country.
Create conservation parks in suitable areas of the high country,
for example, in the Torlesse, Remarkables, and Kaikoura Ranges.
Apply strict criteria to the sale to foreigners of high country
and other rural land. Purchasers who make a commitment to live
in New Zealand and make productive use of the land for their own
livelihoods will be welcomed. Otherwise, strict criteria will
have to be met to establish that any sales benefit New Zealand's
economy and society.
Alliance [2.5]
Goals:
1. To ensure that land of high conservation value is fully protected.
4. To ensure protection and improvement of recreational access
rights.
6. To maintain these lands in NZ public ownership.
There is a need for tenure review in order to protect land of
high ecological value, enhance recreational access and allow productive
land uses other than pastoralism where these are more sustainable.
However freeholding will not be one of the options.
The Alliance does not support the Crown Pastoral Lands Bill.
In place of the present tenure review process an Alliance government
will undertake a voluntary process of negotiation with lessees
to review their lease conditions. The object will be to retire
lands of high ecological value and resume those leases, in return
for allowing a wider range of sustainable land uses elsewhere,
with security of tenure provided the land is managed sustainably.
The Land Act will be amended to provide for this.
The principle of exchanging the right to graze fragile lands for
the right to a wider range of economic activities on land where
this is appropriate will be maintained, and where the economic
gains and losses to the leaseholder are not equal monetary compensation
will be part of the settlement, as in fact it is under the present
process.
In any tenure review the Alliance will ensure there are adequate
mechanisms to safeguard the rights of Maori claimants.
Special leases will be used on a case by case basis to control
land which requires special management to be farmed sustainably,
or where there are conflicts between natural and productive values.
They will be purpose-written for the land in question.
All proposed changes to lease conditions will be made public.
Land to pass to DOC in tenure review will include all presently
designated reserves, Protected Natural Areas (PNAs), and Recommended
Areas for Protection (RAPs); all sites containing native forest;
all sites of special scientific interest; mountain peaks, snowfields
and scree slopes; and a comprehensive system of reserves of tussock
lands, landscapes, wetlands, and rare and endangered species.
The additional funding for DOC provided in the Alliance alternative
budget will enable it to develop specific criteria for these areas;
to identify sites of importance, and to manage this enlarged estate.
The Protected Natural Areas programme will be extended to all
pastoral leases. The Alliance's additional funding for DOC will
make this extra work possible.
The Queen's Chain will be protected wherever it exists.
Public access rights will be created along waterways where they
do not presently exist, as part of the tenure review process.
As new types of lease are negotiated they will provide for public
foot access to land of conservation and recreational importance.
Safeguards against abuse of these rights will be negotiated.
The Alliance will amend the Land Act 1948 to require the Commissioner
of Crown Lands to take conservation values into account when considering
applications by lessees for consents. This will remove the one
valid reason for the Crown Pastoral Lands Bill.
Tussock burning has contributed to nutrient loss and soil degradation
in the high country. Consequently burning will not be permitted
on pastoral leases except on lands without conservation value
and as part of an oversowing and topdressing plan to restore pasture
to the burned area. Where burning adjoins fragile or conservation
lands bonds will be required against the possibility that the
burn extends further than planned.
The Alliance wishes to encourage further investigation into innovative
changes in land use e.g., eco-tourism. Development of such ideas
will be assisted by the Economic Development Fund.
New lease agreements, e.g., for forestry, horticulture or tourism,
will incorporate a "sustainable management plan" developed
and submitted by the lessee according to guidelines to be developed
by the Ministry for the Environment. It will specify proposals
for land uses; the frequency and distribution of monitoring of
soil and water quality and vegetation cover where this is necessary;
pest control measures: and grazing limits on fragile soils. The
management plan will be submitted to the regional council for
comment, and these comments will be available at the review negotiating
table. Renewal of leases will depend on reasonable compliance
with the plan.
NZ First [3]
Will ensure protection for natural values, and maximum public
access on Crown lease high country farmlands, while working with
farmers to ensure environmentally and economically appropriate
use of lease land.
Is committed to the process of separating mountains and other
land of conservation value from sustainable farm land in the high
country leasehold properties. This is necessary to establish undisputed
public ownership and access to the huge areas of mountains and
land of high conservation value which are at present tied up in
privately controlled perpetual leases.
On pastoral leases, NZ First will ban the burning of tussock,
indigenous shrublands, wetlands and any area recommended for protection
under DOC's PNA Programme.
Will abandon the Crown Pastoral Land Bill.
ACT-National-Progressive
Greens
No known policies.
Labour [4]
The "great outdoors" ethic should be fostered. It is
not a commodity to be bought or sold.
It is particularly important that tourism pressures do not devalue
the very attractions people come to see. It is also crucial that
commercial pressures not undermine the outdoor recreational experiences
that New Zealanders have a right to enjoy.
Labour will ensure that DOC's visitor policy is consistent with
DOC's paramount focus on conservation, required by the Conservation
Act 1987: "To the extent that the use of any natural or historic
resource for recreation or tourism is not inconsistent with its
conservation, to foster the use of natural and historic resources
for recreation, and to allow their use for tourism." (section
6(e))
Will protect the quality of outdoor recreational experiences for
New Zealanders.
Will maintain free public foot access to the conservation estate.
Will keep hut, campsite and other user charges at reasonable levels,
so as not to make the use of either the frontcountry or the backcountry
prohibitively expensive for New Zealanders.
Will maintain facilities adequately. In particular, the network
of backcountry huts and tracks must not be allowed to decay.
Will seek to minimise conflicts between alternative recreational
activities on conservation areas, and keep the environmental impacts
of any recreational uses as low as possible.
Will ensure that the granting of DOC concessions is not driven
by revenue-generation at the expense of conservation and recreational
values.
Will adopt a tourism strategy which focuses on high value rather
than high volume foreign tourism. The New Zealand Tourism Board's
marketing strategy, and visitor arrivals and spending targets
will be reviewed to ensure that they do not have a harmful impact
on tourism, the conservation estate, and the outdoor recreational
opportunities of New Zealanders.
There is an emerging trend of private landowners charging people
to cross their land in order to gain access to a neighbouring
public resource...It is not acceptable for longstanding traditional
free access practices to be eroded in this way.
Labour will require any landowner making commercial gain by offering
privileged access across private land to a public resource to
offer that access to the public in general.
Will introduce a statutory duty on District Councils under the
Local Government Act to protect responsible exercise by the public
of their rights to use formed and unformed public roads.
Will clarify the responsibilities of landowners under the Health
and Safety in Employment Act 1992, so as to encourage them to
allow access to recreational users.
Will encourage the early completion of Te Araroa ("the long
pathway") from North Cape to Bluff.
Alliance [2.5]
Traditional public access will be maintained and where appropriate
enhanced over Crown and SOE lands.
Local employment projects which contribute to building the national
walkway Te Araroa will be eligible for Economic Development Fund
money.
NZ First [2.5]
Public access to the public estate should be maintained and enhanced.