This page last modified 17 September 1999
Tenure Reviews
PANZ
Crown Pastoral Land Bill submission
[as introduced
April 6, 1995 ]
Hon. Denis Marshall
ANALYSIS
Title
1. Short Title
2. Interpretation
PART I
PASTORAL LEASES AND OCCUPATION LICENCES
Pastoral Leases
3. Tenure
4. Term
5. Special provisions relating to calculation of rent payable
for first 11 years of first renewal of pastoral lease granted
before 1 December 1979
6. Special provisions relating to calculation of rent payable
for first 11 years of first renewal of pastoral lease granted
after 30 November 1979
7. Calculation of rent payable under pastoral leases after first
11 years
8. Renewals
9. Belated exchange of pastoral leases for renewable leases
Occupation Licences
10. Commissioner may grant occupation
licences
11. Procedure on expiry of occupation licences for long terms
Pastoral Land Generally
12. Burning of vegetation
13. Activities involving disturbance to soil
14. Discretionary actions
15. Breaches of statutory or contractual provisions
16. Boundary disputes
17. Boundary adjustments
18. Travelling stock
Application of Land Act 1948
19. Application of Land Act
1948
PART II
TENURE REVIEWS
Principles
20. Objects of Part II
21. Matters to be taken into account by Commissioner
22. Objects to be applied globally
Undertaking of tenure reviews
23. Undertaking of tenure reviews
24. Preliminary proposals may be put to holders
25. Commissioner to give notice of preliminary proposals
26. Substantive proposals may be put to holders
27. Commissioner to consider submissions
28. Acceptances
29. Actions
30. Implementation of proposal not to be subdivision
31. Land management covenants
PART III
CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS
32. Consequential amendments
33. Consequential repeals
PART IV
SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENT TO LAND ACT 1948
34. Part to be read with Land
Act 1948
35. Easements, etc.
Schedules
A BILL INTITULED
An Act to provide for the administration
of Crown pastoral land
BE IT ENACTED by the Parliament of New Zealand as follows:
1. Short Title-This Act may be cited as the Crown Pastoral Land
Act 1995.
2. Interpretation-(1) In Parts I to Ill of this Act, unless the
context otherwise requires,-
"The former Act" means the Land Act 1948: "Its
commencement", in relation to a pastoral lease or an occupation
licence, means-
(a) The day on which it was granted, if the land to which it relates
was not held under other lease or licence on that day:
(b) The day on which the other lease or licence was determined,
if that land was held under other lease or licence on the day
on which it was granted:
"Grass" includes clover and lucerne:
"The holder", in relation to a reviewable instrument,
means the lessee or licensee under the instrument:
"Inherent values", in relation to any land, means-
(a) Its natural resources (within the meaning of the Conservation
Act 1987); and
(b) Its recreational, cultural, and historical values:
"The land", in relation to a reviewable instrument,
means all the land held under the instrument:
"Occupation licence" means licence granted under section
66AA of the former Act or section 10 (l) of this Act:
"Pastoral lease" means lease granted under section 66
(1) of the former Act:
"Protective mechanism" means-
(a) Easement or
(b) Covenant under section 22 of the Queen Elizabeth the Second
National Trust Act 1966, section 77 of the Reserves Act 1977,
or section 27 of the Conservation Act 1987, or section 31 of this
Act:
"Removable improvement", in relation to an occupation
licence, means building, enclosure, fencing, or other improvement
on the land (other than an improvement effected by the doing of
anything specified in section 13(2) of this Act) erected, made,
or paid for by the licensee:
"Reviewable instrument" means instrument (other than
an instrument over land that has been vested in a State enterprise
under the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986) that is-
(a) A pastoral lease; or
(b) A lease under section 67 of the former Act; or
(c) An occupation licence:
"Reviewable land" means land held under a reviewable
instrument on the commencement of this Act:
"Sustainable management" has the meaning given to that
term by section 5 (2) of the Resource Management Act 1991:
(2) Except as provided in subsection (l) of this section, in Parts
I to III of this Act terms defined in section 2 of the former
Act have the meanings given to them by that section.
PART I
PASTORAL LEASES AND OCCUPATION LICENCES
Pastoral Leases
3. Tenure-A pastoral lease gives
the holder
(a) The exclusive right of pasturage over the land:
(b) A perpetual right of renewal for terms of 33 years:
(c) No right to the soil:
(d) No right to acquire the fee simple of any of the land.
Cf. 1948, No. 64, s. 66 (2)
4. Term-The term of a pastoral lease expires on the expiration
of 33 years from the 1st day of January or July (whichever is
the sooner) next following its commencement.
Cf. 1948, No. 64, s. 66 (4)
5. Special provisions relating to calculation of rent payable
for first 11 years of first renewal of pastoral lease granted
before 1 December 1979-To the extent only that the land held under
a pastoral lease granted before the 1st day of December 1979 is
pastoral land,-
(a) The yearly rent payable in respect of any of the period comprising
the first 11 years of its first renewal shall continue to be calculated
as if the reference in Part VIII of the former Act to the proportion
of 4 1/2 percent is a reference to the proportion of 1 1/2 percent;
but
(b) The holder continues not to be entitled to any rebate in respect
of the payment of any amount of rent falling due during that period.
Cf.1948, No. 64, ss. 66 (7), (8)
6. Special provisions relating to calculation of rent payable
for first 11 years of pastoral lease granted after 30 November
1979-To the extent only that the land held under a pastoral lease
granted after the 30th day of November 1979 is pastoral land,-
(a).The yearly rent payable under it for the period between-
(i) Its commencement; and
(ii) The expiration of 11 years from the 1st day of January or
July (whichever is the sooner) next following its commencement,-
shall continue to be 2 1/4 percent of the land's rental value,
as determined by the Board (or, as the ease requires, the Commissioner)
at the time the lease was granted; but
(b) That rental value shall continue not to include any potential
value the land may have-
(i) For subdivision for building purposes; or
(ii) For commercial or industrial use.
Cf.1948, No. 64, s. 66 (5), (7)
7. Calculation of rent payable under pastoral leases after first
11 years-Subject to section 5 of this Act, to the extent only
that the land held under it is pastoral land, the yearly rent
payable under a pastoral lease for every period of 11 years after
the expiration of 11 years from the 1st day of January or July
(whichever is the sooner) next following its commencement shall
continue to be calculated as for the renewal of a renewable lease;
but as if the reference in Part VIII of the former Act to the
proportion of 4 1/2 percent is a reference to the proportion of
2 1/4 percent.
Cf. 1948, No. 64, s. 66 (7)
8. Renewals-for the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared
that where-
(a) At the time a pastoral lease expired, the Commissioner and
the holder were negotiating as to the rent to be paid under a
renewal of the lease; and
(b) A rent is later agreed,-
the Commissioner may grant a renewal of the lease; which shall
in that case take effect from the expiry, as if the lease had
not expired.
9. Belated exchange of pastoral leases for renewable leases-(1)
Subject to subsection (2) of this section, where-
(a) Before the commencement of Parts I to III of this Act, any
land comprised in a pastoral lease was vested in a State enterprise
under the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 and
(b) Before it was vested,-
(i) All the land comprised in that lease had been reclassified
as farm land; and
(ii) The Land Settlement Board, the Department of Lands, or the
Commissioner had agreed to issue a renewable lease to the holder
under section 126A of
the former Act, in exchange for the pastoral lease: and
(iii) No renewable lease had in fact been issued; and
(c) Since it was vested the holder has (or successive holders
have) been paying rent as if the land was held on renewable lease,-
the Commissioner may under the former Act, with the consent of
the State enterprise concerned, grant a renewable lease to the
holder (or the holder's successor) to the same extent, and in
the same manner, as if the land had not been vested and section
126A was still in force.
(2) Where a renewable lease is granted under subsection (1) of
this section,-
(a) It shall be deemed to have been granted under section 126A
of the former Act immediately before the land comprised in it
was vested in the State enterprise concerned; and
(b) The former Act shall be deemed to have applied, and shall
continue to apply, to it accordingly; and
(c) Every transfer of or other dealing with or action affecting
the pastoral lease in exchange for which it has been granted occurring
after the agreement to grant a reviewable [renewable] lease in
exchange for it shall be deemed to have had effect as a transfer
of or other dealing with or action affecting it.
(3) The granting of a renewable lease under subsection (l) of
this section is a disposition for the purposes of section 24 of
the Conservation Act 1987.
Occupation Licences
10. Commissioner may grant occupation
licences-(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) of this section,
the Commissioner may from time to time grant licences to occupy
pastoral land.
(2) The Commissioner may, as the Commissioner thinks fit, grant
an occupation licence subject to-
(a) The payment of any rent:
(b) Any restrictions on the numbers and kinds of stock to be carried
on the land to which it relates.
(3) An occupation licence gives the licensee the exclusive right
of pasturage over the land to which it relates; but-
(a) No right of renewal:
(b) No right to the soil:
(c) No right to acquire the fee simple of the land.
(4) The term of an occupation licence-.
(a) Commences on the commencement of the licence; and
(b) Expires on the expiration of the period (in the case of a
licence granted after the commencement of this Act, not exceeding
21 years) specified in it after the 1st day of January or July
(whichever is the sooner) next following the commencement of the
licence.
Cf. 1948, No. 64, s. 66AA
11. Procedure on expiry of occupation licences for long terms-(1)
Not later than 1 year before the expiry of an occupation licence
for a term of.5 years or more (or within such later time as may
be practicable), the Commissioner shall determine whether the
land should be let again on occupation licence, or on lease or
licence under the former Act.
(2) If the Commissioner determines that the land should not be
let again, -
(a) The Commissioner may also determine that any specified removable
improvements should not be removed from the land; and in that
case the licensee,-
(i) Shall not remove, or cause to be removed, from the land any
removable improvement specified: but
(ii) Is entitled to compensation for all the specified removable
improvements that remain on the land when the licence expires:
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (a) of this subsection, the
licensee-
(i) Shall, on or before the expiry of the licence (or within any
further time the Commissioner allows), remove all removable improvements
from the land; and
(ii) Is not entitled to any compensation for any of those improvements:
(c) The licensee is not in any circumstances entitled to any compensation
for any building, fencing, or other improvement on the land that
is not a removable improvement.
(3) If the Commissioner determines that the land should be let
again, the Commissioner shall-
(a) As soon as is practicable after doing so, cause to be made
a valuation of all the removable improvements on the land, and
all improvements on the land effected by-
(i) Ploughing any portion and sowing it in grass; or
(ii) Clearing any portion by felling bush or scrub, and sowing
it in grass; or
(iii) Surface sowing any portion in grass,with the Commissioner's
prior written consent; and
(b) Offer the land for acquisition on lease or licence under the
former Act;-
and sections 149(2), 149(3), and 150 of that Act, with all necessary
modifications shall apply to the land and the right of the licensee
to be paid compensation for those improvements.
Cf. 1948, No. 64, s. 109
Pastoral Land Generally
12. Burning of vegetation-(1)
A lessee or licensee of pastoral land shall not burn any vegetation
on the land (whether felled or not), or cause or permit any such
vegetation to be burned,-
(a) Without the Commissioner's prior written consent; or
(b) Otherwise than in accordance with any condition, direction,
or restriction subject to which the Commissioner gave prior written
consent.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, the Commissioner
may for the purposes of this section enter into any agreement
under section 14(2) of the Forest and Rural Fires Act 1977.
(3) In this section, "vegetation" does not include timber.
Cf. 1948, No. 64, s. 106
13. Activities involving disturbance to soil-(l) A lessee or licensee
of pastoral land shall not-
(a) Without the Commissioner's prior written consent under subsection
(3) of this section; or
(b) Otherwise than in accordance with any condition, direction,
or restriction subject to which the Commissioner gave such consent,-
do any of the things specified in subsection (2) of this section.
(2) The things referred to in subsection (1) of this section are,
in relation to the pastoral land concerned,-
(a) Afforest, crop, cultivate, or plough any portion:
(b) Clear any bush or scrub:
(c) Sow any portion in grass:
(d) Undertake any other activity involving or causing disturbance
to the soil.
(3) The Commissioner may, unconditionally or subject to any conditions
the Commissioner thinks necessary, authorise a lessee or licensee
of pastoral land to-
(a) Cultivate any portion of the land for the purpose of growing
winter feed for stock depastured (or to be depastured) on the
land:
(b) Crop any portion of the land sufficient for the use of-
(i) The lessee or licensee; or
(ii) Any family, employee, or officer of the lessee or Licensee
or
(iii) Any family or employee of any officer of the lessee or licensee;
or
(c) Plough any portion of the land and sow it in grass:
(d) Clear any portion of the land by felling and burning bush
or scrub, and sow it in grass:
(d) Surface sow any portion of the land in grass: (e) Cultivate
any portion of the land for the purpose of growing crops for sale:
(f) Afforest any portion of the land for the purpose of growing
timber for sale; and undertake any clearing of bush or scrub necessary
for the purpose:
(g) Undertake on the land any other activity involving or causing
disturbance to the soil that is necessary or desirable to enable
or facilitate the carrying out of-
(i) The activity of pastoral farming; or
(ii) Any other activity for the time being authorised under any
of paragraphs (a) to (f) of this subsection.
(4) Unless the Commissioner determines (or has determined) otherwise,
every consent under subsection (1) of this section (or section
108 of the former Act) shall be deemed to have been given subject
to the condition that the lessee or licensee concerned shall,
on the termination of the lease or licence concerned, leave the
whole of any portion of the land concerned that has been ploughed
or cultivated properly laid down in good permanent grasses to
the Commissioner's satisfaction.
(5) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section limits or affects
the Crown Minerals Act 1991.
Cf. 1948, No. 64, s. 108
14. Discretionary actions-(l) In-
(a) Determining whether to act under any of sections 60 (1) or
100 of the former Act, or section 10 of this Act, in relation
to any reviewable land; or
(b) Exercising any discretion under section 60(3) of the former
Act or section 10 of this Act, in relation to any reviewable land,-
the Commissioner shall have regard to the desirability of ensuring
(so far as is practicable) the protection of the inherent values
of the land.
(2) In-
(a) Determining whether to act under section 66A (1) of the former
Act in relation to any reviewable land; or
(b) Exercising any discretion under section 66A of the former
Act, or section 12 or section 13 of this Act, in relation to any
reviewable land,-
the Commissioner shall have regard to the desirability of ensuring
(so far as is practicable) the protection of the
values (other than recreation values) of the land.
15. Breaches of statutory or contractual provisions-(l) In subsection
(2) of this section, "breach", in relation to a reviewable
instrument, means an action (or failure or refusal to act) by
the holder that is-
(a) In contravention of section 100 of the former Act, or section
12(1) or section 13(1) of this Act, (in its application to the
land held under the instrument); or
(b) In contravention of any provision of or covenant contained
in the instrument.
(2) If satisfied that the holder of a reviewable instrument has
committed a breach, a District Court may, on the application of
the Commissioner,-
(a) Order the holder-
(i) To take actions (specified by the Court) to remedy the breach:
or
(ii) In default of taking those actions, to pay to the Commissioner
exemplary damages (not exceeding $50,000) for the breach; or
(b) If, and only if, it is impossible, impracticable, or otherwise
inappropriate to remedy the breach, (without declaring the instrument
forfeit) order the holder to pay to the Commissioner exemplary
damages (not exceeding $50,000) for the breach; or
(c) Declare the instrument forfeit, and order the holder to pay
to the Commissioner an amount being, as seems appropriate to the
Court,-
(i) The lower of $50,000 and likely costs to the Crown of remedying
the breach; or
(ii) Exemplary damages (not exceeding $50,000) for the breach.
(3) The provisions of section 118 of the Property Law Act 1952
are not available in respect of a forfeiture under subsection
(2) (c) of this section.
16. Boundary disputes-Every dispute between the holders of adjacent
pastoral land as to the boundary between them shall be determined
by the Commissioner or a person appointed by the Commissioner
for the purpose.
Cf. 1948, No. 64, s. 107(1)
17. Boundary adjustments-For the purpose of securing more suitable
boundaries of pastoral land held under lease or licence, the Commissioner
may, as from a specified day, exclude part of it from the lease
or licence and include it in some other lease or licence; and
in that case the Commissioner may make any adjustments in rents
payable that the Commissioner thinks just and equitable.
Cf. 1948, No. 64, s. 107(2)
18. Travelling stock-Any person travelling with cattle or sheep
that are not affected with any contagious or infectious disease
may depasture them for any period not exceeding 24
hours-
(a) Within 500 metres on either side of.any road or track commonly
used as a thoroughfare; but
(b) Not within 2 kilometres of a homestead,on any unfenced and
uncultivated pastoral land (whether let on licence or not).
Cf. 1948, No. 64, s.110
Application Land Act 1948
19. Application of Land Act
1948-Except as provided in sections 3 to 19 of this Act, the former
Act, so far as it is applicable and with all necessary modifications,-
(a) Continues to apply to every pastoral lease as if it is a lease
within the meaning of that Act; and
(b) Continues to apply to every occupation licence granted under
section 66AA of the former Act as if it is a licence within the
meaning of that Act; and
(c) Applies to every occupation licence granted under section
8 of this Act as if it is a licence within the meaning of that
Act.
PART II
TENURE REVIEWS
Principles
20. Objects of Part II-The objects
of this Part of this Act are-
(a) To promote the sustainable management of reviewable land;
and
(b) Subject to paragraph (a) of this section, to facilitate-
(i) The restoration to full Crown ownership and control of reviewable
land that has high inherent values; and
(ii) The freehold disposal of reviewable land capable of productive
use; and
(iii) The creation of appropriate public rights of access to and
enjoyment of reviewable land.
21. Matters to be taken into account by Commissioner-In acting
under this Part of this Act, the Commissioner shall (to the extent
that those matters are applicable) take into account-
(a) The objects of this Part of this Act; and
(b) The principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.
22. Objects to be applied globally-The Commissioner shall take
into account the objects of this Part of this Act in the light
of their application to all the land held under the instrument
or instruments concerned, rather than particular areas of it.
Undertaking of Tenure Reviews
23. Undertaking of tenure reviews-(1)
The Commissioner may, on the written invitation or with the written
agreement of the holder or holders, cause to be undertaken-
(a) A review of the tenure of all the land for the time being
held under any reviewable instrument; or
(b) A review of the tenure of all the land for the time being
held under 2 or more reviewable instruments under which adjacent
or neighbouring land is held.
(2) The Commissioner may at any time discontinue a review; and
shall discontinue a review if asked in writing by the holder,
or 1 of the holders, concerned.
24. Preliminary proposals may be put to holders-(1) After the
completion of a review under section 23 of this Act, the Commissioner
may in writing put to the holder or holders of any instrument
or instruments concerned a preliminary proposal to designating
the land for various areas of it) as-
(a) Land to he restored to the Crown; or
(b) Land to be restored to the Crown subject to the granting to
the holder of a lease (on terms specified in the proposal) under
section 73 of the Reserves Act 1977 or section 14 of the Conservation
Act 1987; or
(c) Land to be disposed of to the holder by freehold disposal;or
(d) Land to be disposed of to the holder by lease under section
67 of the former Act; or
(e) Other land.
(2) Subject to subsection (3) of this section, the Commissioner
may propose to designate any area of land as land to be disposed
of to the holder unconditionally, or subject to the creation of
1 or more.protective mechanisms, each relating to either or both
of the following matters:
(a) Public access to or enjoyment of the land:
(b) The sustainable management of the land.
(3) The Commissioner-
(a) Shall not propose the designation of any area of land as land
to be disposed of to the holder subject to the creation of a covenant
under section 22 of the Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust
Act 1966 without the prior written consent of the Queen Elizabeth
the Second National Trust:
(b) Shall not propose the designation of any area of land as land
to be disposed of to the holder subject to the creation of an
easement under section 8 of the New Zealand Walkways Act 1977
without the prior written consent of the Minister of Conservation:
(c) Shall not propose the designation of any area of land as land
to be disposed of to the holder subject to the creation of a covenant
under section 77 of the Reserves Act 1977 or section 27 of the
Conservation Act 1987 without the prior written consent of the
Minister of Conservation:
(d) Shall not propose the designation of any area of land as land
to be restored to the Crown subject to the granting to the holder
of a lease under section 73 of the Reserves Act 1977 or section
14 of the Conservation Act 1987 without the prior written consent
of the Minister of Conservation, who shall not give consent unless
satisfied that the area has high inherent values that will be
protected by the terms of the lease.
(4) Where the preliminary proposal relates to the land held under
2 or more reviewable instruments, it may, so far as any holder
is concerned, be unconditional, or conditional on its ultimate
acceptance by some other holder or holders.
(5) The proposal shall also specify-
(a) Any amounts of money proposed to be paid (including any amounts
proposed to be paid by way of equality of exchange) if land is
ultimately dealt with as it has been designated; and
(b) In respect of every sum specified, the point at which it will
become payable.
25. Commissioner to give notice of preliminary
proposals-(1) Where a preliminary proposal has been put under
section 24 of this Act, the Commissioner shall give notice,-
(a) Specifying the land, a day (no sooner than 40 days after the
publication of the last of the notices to be published), and an
address; and
(b) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, describing the
proposal in general terms,-
that any person or organisation may (no later than the day specified)
give or send to the Commissioner at the address specified a written
submission on the proposal.
(2) The notice shall not disclose any matter referred to in section
24(5) of this Act.
(3) The Commissioner shall cause the notice to be published-
(a) In some newspaper circulating in the area in which the land
concerned is situated; and
(b)At least once in a daily newspaper published in Christchurch;
and
(c) At least once in a daily newspaper published in Dunedin.
(4) The Commissioner shall also cause a copy of the notice to
be given to the iwi authority (within the meaning of the Resource
Management Act 1991) of the area in which the land concerned is
situated, and shall consult that authority on the proposal.
26. Substantive proposals may be put to holders-Subject to section
28 of this Act, the Commissioner may in writing put to the holder
or holders of the instrument or instruments concerned (or any
of them) a substantive proposal that is (so far as it relates
to that holder or those holders) the same as or a modified version
of a preliminary proposal previously put to that holder or those
holders.
27. Commissioner to consider submissions-The Commissioner shall
not put a substantive proposal to any holder of a reviewable instrument
without having considered-
(a) All matters raised by the iwi authority concerned during consultation;
and
(b) All written submissions relating to the preliminary proposal
concerned received by the Commissioner from any person or organisation)
on or before the day specified in the notice given under section
25 of this Act at the address specified in that notice.
28. Acceptances-(1) The holder of a reviewable instrument may,
by written notice to the Commissioner, accept or reject any proposal
put to the holder under section 26 of this Act.
(2) If the Commissioner does not receive an acceptance within
3 months of putting the proposal to any person, the person shall
be deemed to have rejected it.
(3) Where the proposal-
(a) Relates to the land held under 2 or more reviewable instruments;
and
(b) Is, so far as any holder is concerned, conditional on its
ultimate acceptance by some other holder or holders,-
its acceptance by that holder shall not take effect unless it
is also accepted by the other holder or holders concerned.
(4) If any person other than the holder of the instrument concerned
has an interest in the land, its acceptance by that holder shall
not take effect unless the notice contains that person's written
consent to the holder's acceptance.
(5) Subject to subsections (3) and (4) of this section, the acceptance
of a proposal put to the holder under section 26 of this Act shall
have effect as an irrevocable authority to and obligation on the
Commissioner to take the actions specified in section 29 of this
Act.
29. Actions-(1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section,-
(a) To the extent that an accepted substantive proposal designates
land as land to be restored to the Crown unconditionally, it shall
be deemed to be a surrender of the instrument concerned; and the
Commissioner shall deal with it accordingly under the former Act:
(b) To the extent that an accepted substantive proposal designates
land as land to be restored to the Crown subject to the holder
of a lease under section 73 of Reserves Act 1977,-
(i) On receipt by the Commissioner of a certificate from the Chief
Surveyor of the district in which the land is situated that it
has been surveyed, the land shall become vested in the Crown as
a reserve and the instrument concerned shall be deemed to have
been surrendered; and
(ii) The Minister of Conservation shall (in accordance with the
proposal) grant the holder a lease, with effect from acceptance,
under that section; but
(iii) Nothing in subsection (4) of that section shall apply to
the granting of the lease:
(c) To the extent that an accepted substantive proposal designates
land as land to be restored to the Crown subject to the granting
to the holder of a lease under section 14 of the Conservation
Act 1987-
(i) On receipt by the Commissioner of a certificate from the Chief
Surveyor of the district in which the land is situated that it
has been surveyed, the instrument concerned shall be deemed to
have been surrendered, and (subject to that Act) the land shall
be held for conservation purposes; and
(ii) The Minister of Conservation shall (in accordance with the
proposal) grant the holder a lease, with effect from acceptance,
under that section; but
(iii) Nothing in paragraph (c) or paragraph (d) of subsection
(1), or subsections (2) to (6), of that section shall apply to
the granting of the lease:
(d) To the extent that an accepted substantive proposal designates
land as other land, it shall be deemed to be a surrender of the
instrument concerned; and the Commissioner shall try to dispose
of that land under the former Act:
(e) Subject to section 24 of the Conservation Act 1987, to the
extent that an accepted substantive proposal designates land as
land to be disposed or to the holder, the Commissioner shall dispose
of that land to the holder (in accordance with the proposal) under
the former Act:
(f) In complying with paragraph (e) of this section, the Commissioner
shall act as if the reviewable instrument concerned has already
been surrendered (and the District Land Registrar shall act likewise);
but the instrument shall in fact continue in force until a certificate
of title or registered lease is issued for the land concerned,
and shall then be deemed to have been surrendered:
(g) Where an accepted substantive proposal includes the creation
of a covenant under section 22 of the Queen Elizabeth the Second
National Trust Act 1966, the Commissioner shall create the covenant
by reservation (citing that section) with the consent of but otherwise
without the involvement of the Queen Elizabeth the Second National
Trust; but it shall be deemed to have been created under that
section:
(h) Where an accepted substantive proposal includes the creation
of an easement under section 8 of the New Zealand Walkways Act
1977, the Commissioner shall create the easement (citing that
section) with the consent of but otherwise without the involvement
of the Minister of Conservation; but it shall be deemed to have
been created under that section:
(i) Where an accepted substantive proposal includes the creation
of a covenant under section 77 of the Reserves Act 1977 or section
27 of the Conservation Act 1987, the Commissioner shall create
the covenant by reservation (citing the section concerned) with
the consent of but otherwise without the involvement of the Minister
of Conservation; but it shall be deemed to have been created under
that section.
(2) Where the proposal specified the payment of any amount to
the Crown, the Commissioner shall not proceed beyond the point
specified for its payment until it has been paid.
3O. Implementation of proposal not to be subdivision-For the avoidance
of doubt, it is hereby declared that taking action under section
29 of this Act in respect of a proposal involving dealing in different
manners with different parts of the land held under a reviewable
instrument is not a subdivision of that land for the purposes
of section 218 of the Resource Management Act 1991.
31. Land management covenants-(1) Notwithstanding any enactment
or rule of law, there may be reserved over any reviewable land
disposed of under this Part of this Act a covenant in favour of
the Commissioner providing for the management of the land, and
the monitoring of activities undertaken on the land and their
effect on the land.
(2) Every covenant runs with and binds the land to which it relates;
and shall be deemed to be an interest in land for the purposes
of the Land Transfer Act 1952.
(3) The District Land Registrar of the land registration district
in which land over which a covenant has been created shall, on
application by the Commissioner, without fee take all steps, and
make all entries in the registers, necessary to give
effect to its creation.
(4) With the prior written consent of the regional or district
council in which the land concerned is situated, the Commissioner
may transfer to the council the Commissioner's interest in a Covenant.
PART III
CONSEQUENTIAL.AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS
32. Consequential amendments-The
former Act is hereby consequentially amended in the manner indicated
in the First Schedule to this Act.
33. Consequential repeals-The following enactments specified in
the Second Schedule to this Act are hereby consequentially repealed.
PART IV
SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENT TO LAND ACT 1948
34. Part to be read with Land
Act 1948-This Part of this Act shall be read together with and
deemed part of the Land Act 1948 (in this Part of this Act referred
to as the principal.Act).
35. Easements, etc -The principal Act is hereby amended by repealing
section 114, and substituting the following section:
"114. (1) In this section, 'encumbrance' includes any easement,
lien, restrictive covenant, or other interest in land.
"(2) Where a lessee or licensee of land held under lease
or licence that was subject to or had appurtenant to it any encumbrance
acquires an estate in fee simple in the land,-
"(a) The estate in fee simple shall be subject to or (as
the case may be) have appurtenant to it each encumbrance as if
it had been created in respect of that estate; and
"(b) The District Land Registrar shall, before issuing the
certificate of title for the land, take all steps, and make all
entries in the registers and on the certificate, necessary to
record the existence of each such encumbrance.
"(2) Where-
"(a)A lease or licence is surrendered, and the lessee or
licensee receives a new lease or licence in exchange; or
"(b) On the expiry of any lease or licence the lessee or
licensee is granted a renewal of it, or a new lease or licence
of the same land; or
"(c) The fee simple of land previously held under lease is
under licence (hereafter in this subsection referred to as the
substituted licence) bought by the lessee on deferred payments,-
the new lease, new licence, renewed lease, renewed licence, or
substituted licence shall be deemed to be subject to or (as the
case may be) to have appurtenant to it each encumbrance over or
appurtenant to the surrendered, expired, or former, lease or licence;
and the District Land Registrar shall record every such encumbrance
on it (if more than 1 in their order of registered
priority)."
SCHEDULES
Section 32 FIRST SCHEDULE
CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO LAND ACT 1948
Provision Amended & Amendment
Section 2
By repealing the definition of the term "pastoral occupation
licence".
Section 51
By repealing subsection (3) and substituting the following subsection:
"(3) The Commissioner may classify
again under subsection (l) of this section any land (other than
pastoral land) that has at any time been classified under that
subsection or a corresponding provision of a former Land Act,
whether or not the land is at the time let on any lease or licence."
Section 67(1)
By omitting the words "commercial or industrial land, or
pastoral land", and substituting the words "or commercial
or industrial land".
Section 33 SECOND SCHEDULE
CONSEQUENTIAL REPEALS
1948, No. 64-The Land Act 1948: Sections 51 (1) (d), 62 (b), 66,
66AA, 106 to 110, and 126A (R.S. Vol. 23, p 559.)
1972,No.73-The Land Amendment Act 1972 (R.S. Vol. 23, p. 731.)
1977,No.51-The Land Amendment Act 1977: Section 5 (R.S. Vol. 23,
p. 733.)
1979, No.57-The Land Amendment Act 1979: Sections 3 and 4 [R.S.
Vol. 23, p. 734.)
August 1995. 'Public Access', No. 6
On April 6, as the last item
on the last sitting day that Parliamentary session, Lands Minister
Denis Marshall introduced his Crown Pastoral Land Bill. The Order
Paper that day had the Conservation Amendment Bill and its controversial
marginal strip provisions set down for its second reading, however,
at the last minute, Marshall's Pastoral Land Bill was substituted
instead.
The introduction of the Bill coincided with a flurry of media
releases from the Minister's office and Federated Farmers -- all
singing the virtues of the legislation.
For many months prior to the Bill's introduction Denis Marshall
consulted PANZ and other 'stakeholders' on his proposals to amend
the Land Act. The Minister stated that he was discussing with
us 'proposals' for review of the Act as late as 11pm on March
6 in the cabinet room of the Beehive. The following morning Labour's
lands spokesman, Jim Sutton MP, informed PANZ that the Minister
had let it slip that draughting instructions for the Bill were
already prepared! So much for consultation! After that we felt
we had been wasting our time over many months of meetings with
the Minister and officials.
The Minister is on record as saying that he wants the Land Act
changed before an MMP election because non-agricultural stakeholders'
interests will be enhanced under MMP! The Bill will provide a
legislative basis for widespread and unconstrained freeholding.
The Bill amounts to a huge increase in runholders' interests without
commensurate provision for conservation and public recreation.
If passed, the Bill will be the most blatant disposition of Crown
land this century -- a cynical move by a Government desperate
to beat the onset of democracy under MMP. The Government has no
mandate from the electorate, and no consensus among the major
stakeholders in the high country, for this course of action.
The current Land Act has proved itself to be remarkably adaptable
to today's requirements. There have been several successful tenure
reviews over the last two years which have produced 'win-wins'
for everyone--good farmland freeholded allowing more secure investment
and diversification, and public reserves created with secure rights
of public access established. There are approximately 80 pastoral
lessees lined up for tenure reviews under the rules of the existing
Act (see page 7). Mr. Marshall has stated that it is necessary
to embody the present tenure review process in legislation to
give it legislative force. PANZ believes that there is no such
need, as it is successfully occurring now. There is all the 'flexibility'
and 'transparency' (Treasury-speak) in the law now that is necessary
for the process to continue.
We believe that the Bill does not do what the Minister has publicly
stated it is intended to do--quite the reverse. Its various provisions
are so badly draughted that it is beyond redemption. All the recreation
and conservation NGOs with an active interest in the Bill are
of a like mind on this point.
PANZ believes that lands of predominantly natural or recreational
character should be restored to full public ownership and control,
and assured public access provided to these. Freeholding of other
areas should only be allowed if these conditions are met.
Federated Farmers' PR machine
went into action immediately on the Bill's introduction. They
claim that the Bill will be--
The last point is the only one on which we agree. Paul Jackman,
public relations manager, has been the main front for the Farmers'
views. PANZ is disappointed at repeated misrepresentation of us,
to try to discredit us and opposition to the Bill.
A year ago PANZ offered Federated Farmers an olive branch by saying
that we would respect the contractual and legal interests of pastoral
lessees in our advocacy for reform of the Land Act, on the proviso
that the Crown and public interest were also respected. We stated
that we are looking for practical solutions in the high country
and would welcome discussions with other interest groups to that
end.
Subsequently Federated Farmers accused us of a 'secret agenda'
of nationalisation of private land. However PANZ's agenda for
the high country is public not secret. At all stages we have been
open and explicit in our objectives.
FF high country committee chair Bob Brown has also accused PANZ
of "exploiting prejudices and fears" over Maori ownership
of South Island high country land. Mr. Brown's comments were in
response to a PANZ petition against using the Greenstone, Elfin
Bay and Routeburn Stations on the shores of Lake Wakatipu for
claims settlement with Ngai Tahu, instead asking for SOE lands
to be used. PANZ rejects totally that there is any racist basis
for our position. We stand for reform of all Crown pastoral tenures
and the creation of public lands and rights of public access,
irrespective of who the lessee is.
PANZ believes that Mr. Brown's accusation is little more than
a mask for the Farmers' freeholding ambitions throughout the greater
high country.
High country runholders in general stand to make enormous gains
from Ngai Tahu gaining freehold ownership over the stations. Firstly,
if Ngai Tahu gains freehold title over mountain lands with opportunities
for exclusive hunting, fishing and other tourism use this will
immediately set a precedent for the freeholding of all other pastoral
leasehold land in the South island.
Secondly, Federated Farmers know that if Ngai Tahu ask the Government
to buy out other pastoral leases, that the runholders will be
paid greatly in excess of market value. Individual runholders
will be laughing all the way to the bank. As a consequence of
the government paying excessive prices for the three Wakatipu
properties, high country values in general have been inflated
for the benefit of other lessees selling on the open market.
Pastoral leases are as good as freehold
No. There is no right to obtain freehold title, no right to change
the use of the land, and no right to the soil. There are only
grazing rights, subject to stocking limitations, for which minimal
rents are paid. The Crown's monetary interest in these lands has
been conservatively estimated to be $100 million, which does not
include the Crown's interest in protecting conservation values
or future opportunities for public recreation.
Up to 1 million hectares will be allocated to DOC
There is no assurance in the Bill that any land will be retained
in public ownership or free from private occupation and use. An
area the equivalent of 20 or more Mount Cook National Parks could
be freeholded.
Covenants are as good as public ownership
Covenants are agreements whereby parties bind themselves to do
or not do any act. They are often registered against the title
to land. Very few such covenants provide for public access.
The central flaw with covenants is their lack of security. This
has not been addressed by Government. There is no obligation to
register conservation covenants against a freehold title. If they
are registered, the Courts can modify or extinguish them at any
time on request from the land owner and the Crown. All that is
needed is agreement between the parties. There is no requirement
for public notification or objection. We have long ago lost faith
in Governments or officials acting in the public interest when
out of the gaze or scrutiny of the public.
There is no right of public access over leasehold--so nothing
will change
Trespass rights exist over leasehold the same as freehold, however
this is a red-herring. The basis of tenure review is an exchange
of rights between the Crown and lessees. In exchange for runholders
being given consent to freehold parts of their leases (they are
currently prohibited from obtaining freehold), they have to give
up their occupation and trespass rights over other areas, thereby
creating conservation lands that the public can freely recreate
on. The Bill proposes replacing an exchange of rights with a massive
gift of the Crown's (and therefore the public's) interest to a
handful of privileged landholders.
Public access will be improved
Not necessarily, because the Bill only provides for "appropriate"
access. The only specific provision is for Walkways which can
be closed at any time at the request of a landowner, or adjoining
landowner. Hunters, firearms, horses, cycles, vehicles, and other
users are automatically barred.
The only commitment to improved public access will be the laying
off of marginal strips along the banks of rivers and lakes, however
this already happens when leases are renewed, and is happening
under the current tenure review process. It doesn't need a law
change to create the Queen's Chain. There is no commitment in
the Bill to creating public access to marginal strips.
NGOs oppose tenure review
They don't. Most non-government organisations actively support
tenure review. Over the last two years NGOs, including PANZ, have
been highly supportive of tenure reviews under the terms of the
existing Land Act.
The major factor inhibiting tenure review is the Minister's failure
to plough some of the money the government is making out of freeholding
(the runholders have to purchase the 'Crown's interest' in these
lands) back into the tenure review process. There are far more
runholders willing to participate in reviews under the existing
law than Landcorp and DOC can afford to process on behalf of the
government. We have requested that the Minister better resource
the process. He has failed to do so.
There is no provision for tenure review in the Act
Contrary to such claims, the existing Land Act provides for tenure
review. It hinges on a statutory step called 'reclassification'
which has been used by Governments for decades. It requires reclassification
from 'pastoral land' to 'farm land' before freehold can be offered.
Over half a million hectares of pastoral land has been freeholded
by this process over the last 15 years.
'Reclassification' is a discretion exercised by the Commissioner
of Crown Lands which first requires that the land be suitable
for intensive farming. This has ensured that fragile mountain
lands are retained in Crown ownership. It is generally on these
higher altitude lands that most nature conservation and recreation
values exist. The process used, involving public consultation,
is a government-approved policy.
There are major disadvantages in the Bill's proposals to codify
the process in law, because it will limit information disclosure
and public consultation, and will not be resource-orientated.
There will be no statutory base-line, as at present, or criteria
ensuring that fragile lands and those of predominantly natural
character will not be freeholded.
The practical effect of the existing classification provisions
is that lands which are only suitable for extensive grazing have
been retained in Crown ownership. It is those same areas that
retain the greatest degree of natural character and the greatest
recreational appeal.
DOC will have to buy the
lands it wants!
Officials from Denis Marshall's office and the Prime Minister's
Department, have confirmed that it is "highly likely"
that DOC will have to 'purchase' any land it wants under a new
'fiscal envelope' approach. This is an artificial, contrived barrier
that will ensure that very little land is retained in public ownership.
Any lands surrendered to the Crown, as a result of tenure review,
are Crown lands and are therefore already owned by the state.
DOC is a department of state. It is a nonsense to force DOC to
purchase what the state already owns. Such lands should continue
to be allocated at nil cost to DOC as at present, but with a portion
of the profits the Government is making out of freeholding given
to DOC to pay for land management.
If DOC had to purchase all the natural lands it should get in
the high country, this would cause it to collapse--perhaps that
is also part of Government's agenda?
Government has not demonstrated a need for legislative change,
other than for advancing an agenda for mass privatisation of the
public interest in the high country prior to the advent of MMP.
Four national organisations
have joined with PANZ in opposing the Bill. They have formed a
high country public lands campaign which is seeking the withdrawal
of the Bill and improvements, through policy changes, that improve
on the existing tenure review process and provide better protection
of natural values on pastoral leases. The groups are Forest and
Bird, Federated Mountain Clubs, NZ Deerstalkers Association, and
NZ Fish and Game Council.
FMC President Hugh Barr described the Bill as "a disaster
for back country recreation interests". Forest and Bird's
Eugenie Sage said that the Bill would "fence conservation
into a corner", by increasing the rights of farmers at the
expense of conservation. "If the Bill became law, lessees
would be able to freehold pastoral lease land capable of other
uses including tourism and forestry", she said.
In the introductory debate,
Labour's environment spokesperson Pete Hodgson told Parliament
that rationalisation of high country leases was a good thing,
but that the Bill, which seeks to facilitate that process, is
not a good thing. He questioned whether the law change was necessary,
saying that the Minister's actions had "blown" a couple
of years of trust which had been built up between runholders and
the public access and green groups.
More recently, Mr. Hodgson said that "the Bill will need
substantial amendment indeed. Unless Labour is able to effect
...amendments, we will oppose it proceeding any further"
(NZ Herald, July 27, 1995).
Labour's associate environment spokesperson Jill White has described
the Bill as "a disaster area" and said that Labour is
not prepared to support it (Radio NZ, Rural Report, July 28, 1995).
Prior to the introduction of the Bill, the Alliance's lands spokesperson
Frank Grover attacked Federated Farmers' "misinformation
campaign" where the Farmers claimed that, "in practical
terms", they already owned the land; that they were not renting
the land "in the normal sense". Mr. Grover also said
that the existing review process only needs modest additional
resources to be fully effective. "The Alliance will oppose
moves to sacrifice one of the last major assets still in public
control". Subsequent to the introduction of the Bill the
Alliance has said they will do all in their power to block the
Bill in its present form.
PANZ and the other member groups of the high country campaign
believe that for the Bill to become acceptable would require it
to be rewritten to such an extent that, in effect, it would revert
to a restatement of the existing law. Due to the large number
of changes required, it is extremely unlikely that this could
be achieved in the select committee or in the House. We believe
that opposition parties and other concerned MPs should work in
unison against further passage of the Bill.
It is understood that 400-500 submissions were made on the Bill,
many of which asked that it not proceed. The primary production
committee is currently bogged down with other legislation and
is unlikely to hear submissions on the Bill until late this year.
There is therefore time for greater public debate of the issues,
and for MPs to become better acquainted with the views of their
electorates.
ALLOWS anything "capable
of productive use" (undefined) being freeholded. This is
a huge increase in runholders' rights. Officials see 'productive
use' as synonymous with 'commercial use'.
ONLY lands with 'high inherent values' may be restored to full
Crown ownership as a result of tenure review. The Bill provides
no assurance that any lands of public interest will be retained
in public ownership, or adequately protected.
CREATES an open-ended category of "other lands" that
will allow any land to be sold or leased, rather than being allocated
to DOC or retained in some other form of Crown ownership. There
is a duty to try to dispose of such lands.
MAKES extensive provision for leasing for farming, forestry and
other purposes, including over lands with "high inherent
values". Conservation lands may be created however these
may be leased as a condition of their creation (i.e., they could
be no better than pastoral leases). Unless expressly stipulated
otherwise, leases have trespass rights. Extensive leasing would
contradict the Marshall 'reforms' --he has claimed that leases
have not been successful.
PROVIDES no assurance that public access will result from tenure
reviews. There is likely to be only constrained rights amounting
to privileges on terms dictated by land occupiers.
MAKES no provision during tenure reviews for DOC or Fish &
Game involvement, or early non-government organisation (NGO) consultation.
PROVIDES for covenants and easements to protect 'public interest
values' over freeholded land. Government has not answered grave
concerns from NGOs over the effectiveness and security of such
mechanisms and instead is placing almost total reliance on them
instead of public ownership.
RESURRECTS discredited pastoral occupation licences (POLs) in
contradiction to the stated intention of phasing out anachronistic
pastoral tenures. POLs have been used in the past to maintain
trespass rights over high alpine lands even when 'retired' from
grazing. This tenure was so abused that it has been government
policy not to grant new licences or to renew them. POLs are little
more than pastoral leases in drag.
PROVIDES no remedies to ensure that pastoral lease stock limitations
are observed. This removes the main means of preventing overgrazing
and land degradation.
22 May 1996. High Country Herald
TEMUKA - Extending the freeholding
of high country land is unnecessary and could endanger public
access, according to Central South Island Fish and Game Officer
Frank Scarf.
If passed into law, land users will be able to employ provisions
m the Crown Pastoral Land Bill to gain freehold tenure over land
for other than pastoral use. The Lands Act currently allows leaseholders
to freehold land by establishing that grazing is sustainable.
But a freehold tenure under the new bill could be for any productive
use, like skiing or tourist safaris.
Mr Scarf said that while the long process involved in gaining
freehold over land under the Lands Act did need streamlining the
Fish and Game Council supported the existing limitations under
the act. The council did not welcome the prospect of land becoming
freehold and being used for safaris.
The Crown Pastoral Land Bill allows any land deemed productive
to be turned over to freehold. That represented a considerable
extension to provisions, Mr Scarf said.
Once land users had freehold tenure of the land they could then
sit on it for years before opening the area for skiing or fishing.
Mr Scarf said access to areas in the Central South like the Ahuriri
River, and Lakes Tekapo and Ohau had to be guaranteed as they
were fisheries of national and international significance.
[Reproduced in 'Public Access', No. 7, June 1996]
10 June 1996, Otago Daily Times
The Government could lose the
support of its United coalition partner to enact its contentious
land tenure proposals for the South Island high country.
United leader Clive Matthewson hinted strongly to an environmental
forum in Dunedin yesterday that he favoured deferring the Crown
Pastoral Land Bill until after the election so unanimity could
be achieved.
Crown leasehold lands comprise 2.7 million ha of the South Island.
The Government's objective is to facilitate a free-holding process
for runholders, claiming this would provide greater diversity
of land use and better land management.It also claims that around
one million ha of leasehold land could be transferred over time
to the conservation estate.
High country farmers are divided in their attitude and strong
opposition has been expressed by conservation and recreation groups.
The Bill was introduced in Parliament more than a year ago, and
is expected to be reported back to the house shortly by the select
committee on primary production.
In acknowledging the opposing perspectives, Mr Matthewson told
yesterday's forum: "There must be a 'best' way to ensure
those very important values, fragile lands are preserved and I
find it hard to believe that agreement cannot be reached."
He said that while his statement on deferment was not yet "definite",
it was something he was talking over with the United caucus and
might well be its best position to adopt.
"I just can't believe that, at the end of the day, there
is not enough common ground. I'd like to see us try to get there
and that certainly means not pushing it through."
Deferment of the legislation was supported last night by Public
Access New Zealand spokesman Bruce Mason. He told the Otago Daily
Times he agreed with Mr Matthewson that there was not enough common
ground.
"The ambiguous way the Bill is worded has meant wildly different
interpretations as to its meaning.
"Conservation and recreation groups recently submitted to
Government a list of 20 essential changes which they believe must
be addressed.
"These matters will take time to resolve and there is little
hope of doing so within the tight legislative timetable before
the election."
Mr Mason hoped common sense would prevail and said PANZ endorsed
Mr Matthewson's view that the Bill be deferred for further consideration.
[Reproduced in 'Public Access', No. 7, June 1996]
12 March 1996
Background
The Bill
Public Access
The public needs much greater than just 'access'; NGOs are not
impressed with suggestions of freeholding everything and forgoing
public reserves with defined rights of access, for the remote
possibility of securing general access over all land through codified,
but restricted, rights sometime in the future.
Existing Land Act reviews
Tenure reviews are not grinding to halt--in fact approximately
40% (c 140) of lessees have applied in last 2+ years--several
completed and dozens more are being actively processed--most are
ordinary pastoral properties. Major gains for protection, access,
diversification (eg. Bendigo, Closeburn, Waiorau, Halwyn, Cairnmuir,
Earnscleugh, Rocklands, Remarkables, Rock & Pillars, Pisa,
Dunstans, most of Hawkduns, etc). NGO's highly supportive of tenure
review.
NGOs do not have a 'veto' power: this is entirely held by lessees
as this is a voluntary process. Process limited by inadequate
funding.
Resource Management Act an alternative to state ownership?
Joint positions
of
Federated Mountain Clubs, Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society,
Public Access New Zealand
May 1996
The following is the joint position
of FMC, F&B, and PANZ. The groups believe that unless all
these changes are effected to the Bill (and related sections of
the Land Act), the Bill should not proceed. The groups consider
that the Bill amounts to a huge increase in entitlement for the
340 pastoral lessees at the expense of the wider public interest.
Such a shift is unsupported by public opinion or the electorate,
and is unwarranted. If the Bill is proceeded with without the
following fundamental changes it is certain to become an election
issue.
The present Land Act 1948, and the tenure review process currently
under way, are working well. Rather than overturn this, the groups
believe that Government could easily enhance the tenure review
process by ensuring a relatively modest increase in funding for
the agencies concerned. Already approximately 40 per cent of pastoral
lessees have registered interest in tenure review, however, due
to resource constraints, less than half of these are being processed.
Unless government intends to change from a voluntary to a compulsory
process there is no necessity to change the law. There is much
that can be achieved now under the existing legislation and procedures.
Clause 2. Interpretation
'Inherent values'
Amendments required:
'Improvements'
Amendment required:
'Productive use'
Amendment required:
'Reviewable instrument'
Amendments required:
Clause 3. Tenure
Amendment required:
Clause 10. Commissioner may grant occupation licences
Amendment required:
Clause 11. Procedure on expiry of occupation licences for long
terms
Proposal:
Clause 12. Burning of vegetation
Amendment required:
Clause 14. Discretionary actions
Amendments required:
This clause must be greatly strengthened by--
Clause 15. Breaches of statutory or contractual provisions
Clause 20. Objects of Part II (tenure review)
Clause 22. Objects to be applied globally
Amendment required:
Clause 23. Undertaking of tenure reviews
Amendments required:
There must be express provisions added for--
Clause 24. Preliminary proposals may be put to holders
Amendments required:
Clause 25. Commissioner to give notice of preliminary proposals
Amendment required:
Clause 27. Commissioner to consider submissions
Amendment required:
Clause 28. Acceptances
Amendment required:
Clause 29. Actions
Amendment required:
Schedules
Other matters not in the Bill
Policy commitment required