On this topic, check out the Te Urewera–Tūhoe Bill, particularly parts 5 to 7.
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2013/0146/6.0/whole.html
Key points (most important for public access at the end):
* Te Urewera is being removed from the National Parks system, but it's not being handed direct to Tuhoe for ownership. Instead, it's being re-created as its own legal entity (like a company or a society) which "owns itself", instead of being owned by the crown.
* It'll actually be governed by a board which is being established, to be made up of representatives from Tūhoe and the broader public.
* Parts 5 to 7 of the Bill are intended to replace the National Parks Act, as far a governance is concerned.
* The Board sets 10 year management plans and annual priorities, grants permits and concessions, prescribes land use, etc.
* The Board can make bylaws under a framework similar to bylaws made elsewhere.
* The Board is subject to the Official Information Act. (So you can request information held by it, and it's required to provide it.)
* The Minister of Conservation is retaining a role where there's a national interest.
For public access:
Part 5 section 111(c) indicates that the intent of the law is to "provide for Te Urewera as a place for public use and enjoyment, for recreation, learning, and spiritual reflection, and as an inspiration for all."
Various other clauses are in there to be weighed against public access are similar to the National Parks Act, like protecting flora and fauna, but they've also been adjusted to include emphasis on things like the connection between Tūhoe and Te Urewera and other matters, but the gist of the intent of the Bill to retain public access by default seems to be the same.
Section 112(2) then goes on to say "all persons performing functions and exercising powers under Parts 5 to 7 must act so that the public has freedom of entry and access to Te Urewera, subject to any conditions and restrictions that may be necessary to achieve the purpose of Parts 5 to 7 or for public safety."
so whats the difference going to be with the iwi running it?
i wonder how much in the way of commercial operations they'll be able to run in the park,
i read somewhere some of the current commercial operators are worried their services will get replaced by maori run operations...
abel tasman is a place where the local iwi have a massive commercial presence even by the standard of the amount of commercial operations in the park.
aparently they are refered to as "the empire"
not sure , i think they were handed some companies under treaty terms, the biggest guided canoe companies are run by them, i think they run the biggest water taxi service as well..
there are reasonable no's of people who go through parts of the urewera in summer especially around waikeremoana with camping grounds there.
for the size of the park there isnt a massive amount of commercial activity at the moment... or even a massive amount of tramping tracks either,
i wonder if you'll get guided overnight walking tracks and huts that get established there in the future along with who knows what other developments...
some Iwi run operations are very good some not so. It depends a lot on how they run there. The South Island run operations are all well run and turn a good profit for there owners so all are happy or at least as happy as they ever were. UIn the North island though things seem a little different. In the 2 locations I can think of seems that Iwi just licence out the whole lot to a franchise operator who is only interested in there specialty and forget the rest.
The 2 places in question are East Taupo Lands and Mount Tarawera. In both cases the Iwi say see our licensee and they will sort something out and the licensee says Yeah sure join one of our wondrously expensive tours otherwise bad luck. Its quite possibly the Iwi either dont know this is even happening or that they are tied into a contract that seemed a good idea at the time and now they are stuck with it.
A week before they signed over access a trip to Mount Tarawera with a 4wd and 4 people cost $53. a week later it was by tour company only at $120 each person. It only takes an hour return to drive up the road. It wouldnt surprise me if the Iwi only see 20 bucks of that money so they are worse off as well.
Not sure exactly about the set up in the north, but I know if your talking sth island your talking Ngai Tahu. These guys own some impressive operations, take shotover jet for example (its global) they also own all of central queenstown!! So to compare the Nth to Sth island tribes in NZ your not talking apples to apples. To sum it up, Ngai Tahu received the very first settlement from the crown (back in the 80s) and they did well with it. Now I believe other tribes have received more than double the payout and now have little to show for it...
A lot of Ngai Tahu's wealth has come from capital gain from properties they've been given. However I have a lot of time for the way they're going about things. I get the impression they hire talent and nepotism has no place in their organisation. As long as the profits remain in our country rather than going to Australia or the US, the Iwi-based corporations are a beautiful thing.
i think ngai tahu were behind the routeburn tunnel and the greenstone valley gondola
They had an interest in the earlier gondola proposal but that has nothing to do with the current one. Current one is just business. At least with an Iwi run set-up you have an expectation that environmental harm is thoroughly thought about before it happens. They understand the value of nature.
the routeburn tunnel wasnt well thought out environmentally, it was debateable it could ever be completed and it would have left a massive amount of tailings next to the hollyford river in a flood prone location....
whats environmentally friendly about the eyesore of a gondola running up a tramping valley? just undermines the infrastructure doc has put in, how many people will still want to tramp up the valley gazed on from above by lazy tourists
We look at the beauty of a place. They look at the health of a place. Neither of us look at the whole picture. Ive seen some stunningly beautiful places where the water would dissolve your cup if you tried to get a drink. Ive seen some eyesores that still have drinkable water and birdlife etc.
I cant comment on the tunnel as I dont know if it was Iwi pushing it or just a few influential people. It might even of been last years April fools joke. The gondola though would of worked and met physical environmental rules even if there was no way it could be athsetic.
Dont get me wrong I am glad none of these things have gone ahead Im just saying that an Iwi run organisation is more likely to consider properly the environment than a purely dollar driven commercial one.
those proposals are chasing dollars , thats what its about... thats what the iwi are chasing
