Fiona Mackenzie: Submission on the Department of Conservation’s Discussion Document

17th January 2025

By email to landlegislation@doc.govt.nz

Feedback on the Department of Conservation’s Discussion Document:
Modernising Conservation Land Management Nov 2024
(for a planned Conservation Amendment Bill to be passed by 2026)

https://www.doc.govt.nz/get-involved/have-your-say/all-consultations/2024-consultations/proposals-to-modernise-the-conservation-system/

By Fiona Mackenzie

Since its establishment in 1987, the Department of Conservation (DOC) has become an integral part of New Zealand’s outdoor culture. Its work in both conservation and recreation can embody the essence of what it means to be a New Zealander.

Having had both personal and professional dealings with DOC, I certainly support any efforts made to reduce and simplify its processes, financial extravagances, and political ideology. I recommend a return to the days when:

1. Practical, pro-active, on-the-ground rangers outnumbered office-bound bureaucrats.
2. Rangers were able to do whatever had to be done in the field, rather than being prevented by impractical restrictions.
3. Small, simple, sensible decisions could be made without the necessity for extensive paperwork, fees, and time.
4. Work was undertaken in consultation with and in the best interests of ALL affected New Zealanders, regardless of ancestry or identity.
5. Regional offices had a common ethos of commonsense, pro-people, conservation, and outdoor recreation, and weren’t operated as personal or tribal fiefdoms.

 

Support for Proposed Priorities

• Generate new revenue:
  This should be from overseas tourists and the existing border charge. New Zealanders already pay significant taxes while foreign visitors primarily come to our country for its landscapes and outdoor experiences.

On-site charges can be a very inefficient and avoidable way of fundraising; they create risks of intimidation and corruption by local bullies.

• Target investment:
  This needs to focus on delivering the greatest outcomes for biodiversity and recreation, while still allocating some basic resource to the more off-the-grid or less popular outdoor experiences.
• Recalibrate costs:
  DOC spends significant funding on paperwork, iwi consultation and appeasement, and expensive projects that sound lovely but achieve little (e.g. whale burials and efforts to save/return individual birds to the Southern Ocean).

Priority must be given to “investments” with the highest chance of success and delivering the greatest return. We must accept reality, the “survival of the fittest” phenomenon, and the inevitability of diversity in flora in a very connected world.

In other areas, money can be saved by leaving the remote bivvies and old huts in place for emergency shelters or allowing local hunters/trampers to maintain them.

• Fix concession processes:
  The red tape for amateur ventures or natural processes (e.g. ad hoc stormwater easements over coastal esplanades) needs to be removed or made permittable without paperwork and fees.

Making commercial concessions on conservation land easier to obtain can increase competition and choice if they’re allocated in a fair and non-discriminatory way.

Note: Many ‘Māori’ tourism businesses are structured under ‘charitable organisations’ to avoid paying tax, meaning their competitors are already at a disadvantage – something that urgently needs rectifying.

• Simplify conservation rules:
  The “Keep It Simple” philosophy works so I support DOC’s desire to simplify the ‘complex hierarchy of policies, strategies and plans empowered by statute’ (3.1).

Treating all New Zealanders equally with no favouritism/discrimination would also achieve this goal.

• Increasing flexibility for land exchanges/disposals (9.1).
  This is a sensible idea provided it avoids corruption and involves broad, transparent consultation to ensure ALL stakeholders (notably the public) have their interests fairly considered and protected.

 

Concerns and Specific Feedback

A.     Use of ‘Māori’

DOC uses the term ‘Māori’ as though anyone with a smidgeon of Māori ancestry is distinct from all other New Zealanders, and is from a homogenous group of clones, with identical needs, socio-economic status, attitudes and perspectives. That is an absurd concept when New Zealanders live, work, love and play together.

Of those Kiwis identifying as Māori, there is no organisation that represents all their viewpoints. Tribal structures don’t even accommodate a diversity of views.

B.      Working With Iwi (and Hapu), Treaty Responsibilities, ‘Partnership’ & ‘Principles’

DOC’s religious-like depiction of ‘Māori’ is discriminatory and belittling. It’s a myth that those with some Māori ancestry have more ‘ancestral responsibilities relating to land and marine spaces, including public conservation land’ (1.1 & Section 4) and therefore an implied greater entitlement to access public conservation land ‘to fulfil roles as kaitiaki (undefined), engage in cultural practices (undefined), and exercise tikanga (undefined) and other responsibilities (undefined)’.

Access to public conservation land and the coast are vitally important to any/all New Zealanders and does not depend on part of anyone’s ancestry.

The 1840 Treaty of Waitangi largely ended inter-tribal warfare and created a nation under Queen Victoria’s sovereignty. The Treaty promised New Zealanders legal equality (not discrimination) and protection of property. Our country then evolved through the decades into a full democracy with very blended peoples/ancestries. The Crown through an elected Parliament is sovereign and answerable to ALL New Zealanders.

The pervasive reference to "partnership" between the Government/DOC and Māori/iwi/hapu has no factual basis, is racist and undemocratic. This terminology and ethos have no place in the management of our public lands.

DOC states it must give effect to Treaty principles (undefined) (2.1) as required under the Conservation Act (4.1.1). Yet there are no principles in the 1840 Treaty.

Until New Zealanders have decided on whether ‘principles’ should be created and applied in the country’s constitutional future, it would be unwise for DOC to impose any random ones.

C.      Iwi Engagement
DOC’s existing systems and proposals disadvantage and discriminate against the majority of New Zealanders. This divides us and creates resentment. For example:

−        DOC gives priority to ‘targeted engagement with Iwi (and Hapu) through meetings (virtually or in place) and regional hui’ (1.1).

−        ‘The Government will continue to work with Treaty partners during and after consultation to shape the proposals appropriately’ (4.1.3).

−         ‘The Government proposes engaging with Treaty partners in ‘classes’ of activities rather than on individual applications for some activities. This could reduce the administrative burden on iwi……’ (5.2 and 6.2).

 

D.     Allocation of Concessions
I support speeding up Concession Processing, competitive allocation, and reining in the Courts when they challenge DOC’s decisions for ‘not giving effect to Treaty principles’ or for not providing ‘active protection’ (7.2).

However, DOC’s focus making it easier and cheaper for Māori-identifying operations to earn revenue on conservation land (1.2) does not deliver an equal opportunity, discrimination-free country. Frustration with DOC’s processes is certainly not restricted to those identifying as Māori.

Seeking ‘the views of Treaty partners on all applications’ (6.2) is racist, an abuse of process, and ignores commercial sensitivities while facilitating unfair competitive advantage to Māori-identifying organisations.

It is not up to businesses to ‘recognise Treaty rights and interests’ (7.1) yet DOC’s criteria for granting concessions requires this and other race-based narratives/relationships (7.1.3). This has an unsavoury tone, with hints of corruptive practices and propaganda, like paying kickbacks or incorporating religious beliefs into a concessionaire’s business. This absurdity is reinforced by DOC’s references to ‘customary practices (may use modern technology)’, and ‘promotes general awareness of tikanga’ despite there being no definition of ‘tikanga’.

Māori New Zealanders are not entitled to preferential treatment. The ideology promoting different laws, processes, and revenue-earning opportunities for New Zealanders according to part of their ancestral identity or tribal affiliation is a recipe for societal disaster and hostility. It is corruptive and destructive and will cause people to lose faith in the Government, DOC and in Māori.

E.      Treaty Settlements
While some Treaty Settlements have given local iwi co-governance of specific publicly-funded areas, or co-authorship/co-approval rights to policies and plans , it is essential that DOC incorporates audits and safeguards to ensure efficient use of taxpayer funding, and safe public access without restriction or intimidation.

DOC also states (4.1.2) its commitment to settlements under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011. As this legislation has serious flaws and is being purposefully misinterpreted by activist courts, DOC would be wise to wait for the Act to be amended.

 

F.       Flexibility for Land Exchanges and Disposals
Flexibility can make sense for conservation, recreation and essential infrastructure for the benefit of all New Zealanders. However, I object to the blatant racial discrimination in DOC’s statement that land exchanges/disposals would be appropriate ‘if iwi/hapu have ownership or investment in a development seeking a land exchange’ (9.1)

I also object to ‘iwi aspirations’ being given any preference over anyone else’s aspirations. Our claims should be assessed independently of any racial bias or discrimination.

G.     Environmentalism/Connection with the Land

It’s a myth that those with some Māori ancestry or religious beliefs are more connected to the environment than other New Zealanders. The proof is seen every day in the time and effort given freely by Kiwi volunteers to protect and enhance our beautiful country. There is certainly no evidence of environmentalism being a genetic trait.

 

H.     Proposed National Conservation Policy Statement (4.3)

I strongly oppose the race-based and undefined/unlimited conservation reform progressed under the last government and still being considered for:

−        ‘revising the purpose of the Conservation Act; centring kawa, tikanga and matauranga within the conservation system; devolving powers, management and decision-making to iwi; remunerating iwi for involvement in conservation; and enabling broader access and use of lands and waters.’

−        ‘how the concessions system expressly engages tangata whenua interest and clarifying engagement with iwi in the planning system’.

 

I.        Streamlining the Conservation Management System
I support any simplification and streamlining if criteria and processes are transparent and fair, and do not incorporate any racism or discrimination.

I object to all processes that gives iwi priority over all other New Zealanders (e.g. 5.3.2 and 5.3.5) with regard to Area Plans - in deciding ‘how they will be involved in the process at drafting, public notification and hearing, and revision steps i.e. summary of submissions sent to iwi by Director-General (DG); DG revises area plan, engaging with iwi when doing so’.

 

J.        Public Notification and Call for Submissions
Reliance on city newspapers, regional newspapers, territorial authorities, and iwi authorities to notify the public is too limited and biased. DOC will need to use a greater variety of media to reach New Zealanders about such critical issues.

 

CONCLUSION

In modernising public land management, DOC must acknowledge its responsibility to govern in the best interests of everyone − in accordance with the rule of clear and knowable law, and the maintenance of a free and democratic society.

All New Zealanders are entitled, without discrimination, to the equal protection, and the equal benefit of the law, and the equal enjoyment of our public lands.

The sooner the Government commits to serving all New Zealanders equally, the more united and prosperous our country will be.

Fiona Mackenzie’s background includes teaching, finance, project management and marketing communications. She has combined self-employment with voluntary work, and is a firm believer in the safeguards that true democracy provides.