Others have a different view.
At present, two separate tourist transport projects linking the Wakatipu and Milford Sound, bypassing Te Anau, are in the news. Resistance to these tunnel and monorail proposals has been loud, passionate and personal. As part of the public consultation process, there have been 1235 public submissions on the tunnel - mostly in opposition - and 288 opposing the monorail. As might be expected, opposition shows little sign of letting up. The alternatives being considered are as bold and ambitious as they are expensive.
Milford Dart Ltd is proposing a $150 million, 11.3km single-lane bus tunnel through the Humboldt and Ailsa Ranges to link the Routeburn and Hollyford roads. It says the tunnel will cut the return travel time between Queenstown and Milford Sound from nine hours to four.
Riverstone Holdings proposes a $150 million, 108km, two-hour journey from Queenstown to Te Anau Downs in three stages: a 20km catamaran crossing of Lake Wakatipu, a 45km all-terrain vehicle trip from Mt Nicholas to Kiwi Burn, then a 43km journey by monorail to Milford Road. Various submitters to the projects have spoken of Fiordland National Park being turned into a theme park, and of the schemes themselves threatening conservation values, being a personal desecration, and even an act of violent rape and pillage. Others have accused the Department of Conservation of betraying the public by indicating to both operators that, in principle, it will grant concessions.
The submissions raise two matters. The most obvious is the passion - particularly of residents in the Wakatipu, Glenorchy and Te Anau, and also throughout the country and around the world - people now have for such pristine conservation land. But the proposals should also prompt some wider thinking about the role of national parks, how they should be managed and what should be permitted. Conservation land has to be managed, and how cash-strapped departments such as Doc fund that management, whether direct from the taxpayer or through income from concessions for example, is an issue that deserves careful consideration and public debate.
There can be no doubt Fiordland and Mt Aspiring National Parks are breathtaking in their grandeur. Fiordland, for instance, has been given World Heritage status by Unesco. Ironically, it is that international profile and reputation that helps draw visitors to the region, and is why the two developers want to supposedly enhance visitor enjoyment by replacing a nine-hour return road bus trip with a more wilderness-type experience.
The special nature of Fiordland and Mt Aspiring is precisely why cool heads must preside over decision-making on these two projects, an approach required elsewhere as well when New Zealand's conservation land is at stake. The final decision in these instances is to be made by Doc's general manager of operations, who has been delegated authority by the Minister of Conservation. It legally cannot be made without consideration of public submissions, and rightly so. While the heat and emotion displayed may be understandable, such sentiments should not overshadow due process. Rational debate is important. So too is considered thinking.
Many submitters want the projects simply to disappear. Some have called for the Minister of Conservation to immediately veto the projects. But imagine the outcry if due process was not followed and the minister was to override the process and grant consent for one or both of the proposals. The projects, therefore, must be promoted and considered within the parameters of relevant law, such as the Resource Management Act, and community consideration. And it is imperative that they be properly and carefully considered.
