Our National Parks are special places, set aside, as the National Parks Act says, "for the purpose of preserving in perpetuity as national parks, for their intrinsic worth and for the benefit, use, and enjoyment of the public, areas of New Zealand that contain scenery of such distinctive quality, ecological systems, or natural features so beautiful, unique, or scientifically important that their preservation is in the national interest".
They come with a set of rules.
There's an Act of Parliament, a set of general policies published by the New Zealand Conservation Authority, and a management plan for each park.
But I'm starting to wonder why we bother having national park management plans, and why individuals and groups, such as Federated Mountain Clubs and Forest and Bird, put so much time and effort into participating in the process that leads to the finished plan.
The reason for this pessimistic line of thought is the constant flow of concession applications for activities that are clearly, on any reasonable reading of the plan, not allowed; and the repeated approval in principle of these activities by Department of Conservation decision-makers.
Three examples come to mind: the tunnel beneath the Routeburn track; aerially assisted trophy-hunting in the Olivine wilderness area (airborne seek-and-destroy missions in an area explicitly set aside for no aerial access other than emergencies or Doc management activities) and an increase in guided walkers on the Routeburn Track.
All are in Mt Aspiring National Park.
Each is, at the time of writing, awaiting the outcome of a submission and hearing process.
None of them should have got to that point.
Any plain reading of the management plan makes it clear these activities aren't allowed.
It seems to me the department is misdirecting itself on the tests that need to be considered. There's a convention that statutory planning documents should not fetter the ultimate discretion of the minister (who, in practical terms, almost always delegates the decision to a Doc official). For that reason, plans rarely contain an outright prohibition on matters legally required to be decided by the minister. Rather, they use terms such as "should not".
But the general policies on national parks, and, in most cases, the plans themselves, make it quite clear the terms should only be departed from in "exceptional circumstances".
I don't see anything exceptional about any of the proposals I've mentioned to warrant the clear intention of the plan being overridden.
In these cases, the decision-maker approved the concession, subject to public notification, submissions and a hearing. There is provision for concessions to be granted on a non-notified basis, but these are usually where the activity is compliant and unlikely to be of public interest.
In each of the above cases, the report makes no attempt to describe anything about the proposed activity that makes it "exceptional" in a way that warrants a radical departure from the plan.
Perhaps of more concern is that in each case the report focuses on effects, and concludes they would be acceptable, using terms such as "not more than minor".
However, if it's not an allowed activity, the fact it would have no effect on ecosystems or other users doesn't matter. It should not be considered unless the "exceptional" test is met.
In each of these three cases, the applicants had (and, I believe, took) the opportunity to contribute to the process that led to the new management plan.
Despite that, Doc staff did not recommend their views be accepted, and nor did the Conservation Board, the Conservation Authority or the minister, each of whom has to sign off the plan.
Having lost that battle, these applicants are trying to have another bite at the apple, and some Doc staff seem to be bending over backwards to allow this.
There is a process for seeking a change to management plans.
Concessionaires who can't live with a management plan are able to initiate that process.
The integrity of our management planning process needs to be defended, by park users and by Doc staff. The department's staff who worked so hard on getting a really good plan that took into account a wide range of community views must despair at these repeated attempts to bastardise their work.
Once the plan is in place, the public shouldn't have to keep fighting rearguard actions. The plan is supposed to provide certainty, and it's time for the department to say no to activities the plan doesn't allow.
• David Barnes lives in Dunedin.
