The Ombudsman's opinion on the Department of Conservation decision to allow an increase in numbers of overnight guided walkers on the Routeburn Track is a breath of fresh air, which should have much wider implications than just the specific case.
Prof Ron Paterson does not beat about the forest.
He says the decision ''drives a horse and cart through'' the Mt Aspiring National Park Plan and Doc's explanation for granting the concession based on ''exceptional circumstances'' is ''nonsense on stilts''.
Prof Paterson also says he has significant reservations about the legality of the decision.
He agrees with complainant Chas Tanner, of Dunedin, that the decision makes a ''mockery'' of the process of public consultation (there were hundreds of submissions) in the development of the plan and undermines public participation.
This is music to the ears of conservation interests who have been frustrated by Doc's willingness to ignore such plans.
Generating more commercial income and pleasing political masters seems to have become the order of the day.
The rules had been as clear as a mountain top on a sunny day. In June 2011, the New Zealand Conservation Authority approved the new Mount Aspiring National Park Management Plan which set the total daily number of overnight walkers (guided and independent, but excluding independent campers) entering the Routeburn Track.
The effect of this was a limit of 24 overnight guided walkers and guides. But by February 2013 the concessionaire, Routeburn Walks Ltd, was granted the right to increase that number to 40.
It was, to quote Prof Paterson again,
''totally unreasonable for the department to make a decision that flew in the face of the limits set in the newly promulgated Mt Aspiring plan''.
He noted the plan said the Routeburn area was identified in the plan as ''predominantly ... a place to experience peace and quiet and enjoyment of natural mountain, forest and river environments''.
Now, however, the Routeburn - while lacking the remoteness of the Milford Track it is New Zealand's most spectacular Great Walk for scenery - is busy.
Hikers are likely through the middle of the day to have to stand aside many times for individuals and groups coming the other way.
What will be important is how Doc responds.
The Ombudsman's opinions carry considerable weight and Prof Paterson has recommended Doc reviews its processes for handling applications for concessions in national parks.
While there may remain scope for the Minister of Conservation to have the right to make ultimate decisions, as Prof Paterson said, this does not extend to granting a concession that is inconsistent with the relevant strategy or plan.
The question of the effect on other big issues is an interesting one.
Federated Mountain Clubs president Robin McNeill said his organisation for 27 years has been telling Doc its plans are binding and ''in essence, the Ombudsman confirms that public participatory democracy trumps bureaucratic whim''.
Mr McNeill says a huge amount of money and effort would have been saved if Doc had followed the correct view.
Would, for example, the Routeburn Tunnel proposal have gone far at all if that had been followed?
Mr McNeill has also says he believes most Doc staff will actually welcome the opinion because it settles a long-running issue of contention.
All involved want and need the strong guidance to be found in good management plans. And those plans need to be respected.
The response of the Minister of Conservation, Maggie Barry, is unsatisfactory.
This has been called an operational matter for Doc to comment on.
The whole point, however, is much wider than just the details of one decision.
It was about the status of Doc's plans and their relevance to Doc. Obviously, this is far more than just operational. It will require serious work from Doc, and the minister will have to be involved.
If the plans have little specific effect, then what is the point of all the public participation and all the work from Doc staff and others? Are they worth more than the paper they are written on? Why not just apply the relevant statutes?
Doc has been found to have made a ''mockery'' of the Mt Aspiring plan. That is a most significant matter for both Doc and the minister.
