This page last modified 17 June 2001
Back to high country directory
On 15 May 2001, five national non-government organisations agreed to form a coalition with the following goals -
This was the culmination of 3 days discussions at Cass in the Canterbury high country. All the groups are very concerned at the lack of progress in tenure review over the last 3 years, and recognise that a joint approach to high country issues would create political clout and better fulfilment of each group's interests. This coalition has risen from the ashes of the Public Lands Coalition which fell apart in the early 1990's. The goals are almost identical, however the HCC has five member groups rather than the PLC's three.
The HCC members are the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, PANZ, Federated Mountain Clubs (FMC), Council of Outdoor Recreation Associations (CORANZ), and NZ Federation of Freshwater Anglers.
One of the first HCC actions was to meet Matt Robson, the Minister of Land Information, with a long list of grievances over the performance of Land Information New Zealand (LINZ).
c/- PANZ R D 1 Omakau 9182 Central Otago Phone & Fax 64-3-447 3554
5 June 2001
Hon Matt Robson
Minister of Land Information
Parliament Buildings
Wellington
Dear Mr Robson
Pastoral Lease Administration and Tenure Review Progress
Thank you for agreeing to meet representatives of our Coalition.
The High Country Coalition (HCC) is a new grouping of NGOs with an active interest in the Crown pastoral lands of the South Island high country.
Our coalition builds upon the former Public Lands Coalition (PLC), which had a high-profile involvement in high country affairs throughout the 1980s and early 1990s. Two of the former PLC member organisations, the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society and Federated Mountain Clubs are members of the HCC, and are joined by Public Access New Zealand, the Council of Outdoor Recreation Associations, and the NZ Federation of Freshwater Anglers. Collectively we have a huge body of knowledge and experience of high country matters to draw upon.
We have come together so as to better advance the public benefits of tenure review and to scrutinise the administration of Crown lands and pastoral leasehold lands in particular.
Our respective organisations have been most concerned since the passage of the Crown Pastoral Land Act 1998 at the hiatus in Crown land administration and the lack of progress in tenure review. This has contrasted markedly with major advance pre the passage of the Act. We believe that the present serious difficulties reflect administrative and structural problems that must be addressed by Government intervention. The most pressing of these difficulties are summarised below. We wish to elaborate on these matters when we meet you on 14 June.
LINZ now effectively a land
disposal SOE, not
a Crown land manager
We perceive this to be the central problem, from which many
other difficulties arise.
Previous governments' policies for LINZ were based on assumptions that there was no longer need for Crown lands per se and consequently no longer a need for a department of state to administer these, except for a transitional period of disposal or reallocation to other agencies or SOEs.
We perceive that senior staff within LINZ, in particular the CCL, no longer see themselves as politically accountable. It appears to us that realising land disposal targets is the priority ahead of dealing with administrative actions required under the Land Act and Crown Pastoral Land Act. We see need to re-establish a public interest approach to the administration of Crown lands.
Secrecy
The CCL is not revealing
his tenure review programme. Within LINZ there is a profound failure
to answer correspondence and to respond to official information
requests. This is not just our groups' experience. It is the experience
of everyone we know who has to have dealings with the department.
This contrasts markedly with pre the CPLA when goodwill through
regular consultation with major stakeholders was actively promoted.
This engendered support from both lessees and NGOs and resulted
in win-win solutions in tenure review.
Further, with the advent of Landonline and the shutting of LINZ offices, there is growing difficulty in obtaining relevant title and survey information. The staff whom are accessible at public counters, invariably are "new to the system" and usually state that they are unfamiliar with the parts being searched, and therefore unable to assist public inquires. The new system has an erratic and flawed user interface and often does not allow access to the information it should do. It's design is frustrating public access to essential public records and appears to be primarily driven by an SOE-type imperative to generate revenue. This situation can only worsen with all public offices of LINZ planned for closure, with future availability requiring purchase of access from private providers. All these factors combine towards unavailability of information, and a lack of accountability for LINZ for its Crown land administration.
Loss of momentum, and tenure
review contractors
We see the primary problem
to be with LINZ, rather than with DOC or the main contractor Knight
Frank. Only one new proposal has been advertised since passage
of the CPL Act. The consequence will be a lack of tangible achievements
on the ground prior to the next election.
The appointment of further contractors, in addition to Knight Frank, has compounded the problems. We believe that LINZ's choice of new contractors was done solely to reduce costs, without consideration of relevant expertise and experience. Inevitably this will be reflected in the quality of tenure review proposals from hereon.
Conflicts of interest should have been taken into account in the appointment of contractors. For instance Agriculture NZ is a farm adviser that is a Wrightson company. They could be advising runholder clients at the same time as acting for the Crown in negotiations for tenure review. There are also legal firms implementing tenure reviews while acting for runholder clients. Such arrangements seriously undermine the credibility of Crown land administration and public confidence in that administration.
Crown Equity
We are concerned that
the Crown's financial interest in Crown pastoral lands has been
almost halved as a result of a decision by the Land Valuation
Tribunal in 1999 on the Emmerson case. Consequently there will
be less Crown interest to trade with during tenure review. Unless
Government provides extra funding the outcomes for public conservation
and recreation will be adversely affected.
We wonder, because of the wide implications of this case, why the Crown did not pursue an appeal to the High Court. We request that the Crown take the initiative and look for opportunities to restore the Crown's financial interest in pastoral lands. The Emmerson case will inevitably result in conservative valuations of LEIs throughout the high country, adversely affecting both the Crowns' rental income and tenure review outcomes.
We look forward to enlarging on these issues on 14 June.
Yours faithfully
Bruce Mason
Co-Spokesman, Public Access New Zealand Inc
On behalf of High Country Coalition.
High Country Coalition: further matters for consideration of
Minister of Land Information [tabled with Minister 14/6/01]
SOPs need review
Huge effort has gone
into production of Standard Operating Procedures for tenure review,
however these are of doubtful practical assistance, and inapplicable
in some cases. Literally hundreds of bureaucratic hurdles have
been created to replace the previous 32-step tenure review process.
The CCL has instigated this monster in an apparent effort to shield himself from judicial review. However SOPs will be of little consequence to the Courts, as the SOPs provide no guidance as to how the CPLA should be interpreted. The official vision is constrained by multitudinous administrative detail, which appears to be seen as an end in itself, rather than outcomes on the ground. This is reflected by major inconsistencies between tenure review proposals e.g. Dome Hills vs. Glen Nevis.
We recommend a dramatic simplification of the process.
The main necessity for SOPs is to provide direction to a large number of contractors. If there were an experienced, competent department of state that was implementing the process there would be less need for such bureaucratic millstones, and consequent lack of progress.
Granting of recreation permits
We are very concerned at the unrestrained issuing of commercial
recreation permits over pastoral lands. These are discretionary
consents from the CCL, however there appears to be no discretion
exercised. All manner of commercial uses, quite divorced from
pastoral farming, are being granted. Potential public recreational
interests are being precluded by these private initiatives.
These are creating lands "capable of economic use" that previously would not have qualified for freeholding. This is subverting tenure review outcomes. We believe that commercial recreation ventures are being developed to frustrate the prospect of public lands being created from tenure review. There is increasing tourism exploitation of pastoral leases by overseas owners. There is need to put hurdles in the way of developments that are clearly not pastoral.
We seek government policy not to grant commercial recreation permits or special leases prior to tenure review. The Crown is not gaining benefit from discretionary consents for commercial recreation. Values belonging to the nation are being alienated in favour of present lessees.
Covenants
The issue of freeholding
with covenants verses public reserves was thrashed out at length
during debate over the CPL Bill.
Consequently the CLP Act created a clear directive that, to enable the protection of the significant inherent values, preference is to be given to the restoration of full Crown ownership and control, rather than creating 'protective mechanisms' including covenants.
However the first substantive proposal under the new Act flouts this principle. On Glen Nevis 1150 hectares of high mountain lands are proposed for freeholding with a covenant allowing grazing. This will be a continuation of a glorified pastoral lease, with grazing spilling over an unfenced boundary on to an adjoining conservation area.
If this is the benchmark for decisions to come out of the CCL's office then the whole process is destined to stall in Court. This will have political repercussions to the Labour and Alliance parties as they both have strong policies for the creating of extensive public reserves and parks as a result of pastoral lease tenure review.
The Commissioner has discretion to withdraw from poor deals. We suggest that Government needs to impress upon him the need for close regard to the provisions of the Act. Otherwise there is little prospect of real progress being made with tenure reviews generally.
We are also concerned that the QE II National Trust is continuing to negotiate whole property and other covenants over pastoral leases that would subvert the intentions of the CPL Act. These covenants for instance do not provide for public recreational access as of right. The Trust is competing for funds with the Nature Heritage Trust to pay compensation to landholders. These funds that would be better used for property purchases and adding to the conservation estate.
Desirability of key whole property purchases
In a significant number of situations it has become apparent that
'exchange of land' type negotiations on individual properties
cannot result in the best outcomes for either lessees or the Crown.
This is because the natural inherent values are so extensive that
there is little 'economic' farmland to trade with. The best outcome
would be a negotiated whole property purchase. There are several
properties that DOC, and we have in mind for this.
There are other situations where complete buy-outs of lessee interest would enable successful tenure reviews on adjoining properties. The Crown purchase of Camberleigh on the Rock and Pillar Range in Otago is an example. This permitted incorporation of farmable land into Glencreag and assurance of the latter's farming viability. In return a large portion of this property was surrendered to the Crown to become conservation area along with part of Camberleigh. This is a good precedent, which should be applied elsewhere.
We are concerned however those decisions to instigate purchases are not necessarily prioritised. This can result in non-strategic purchases, such as Leatham. This inevitably reduces the limited funds available when really strategic properties come onto the market. We ask that you consult the Nature Heritage Fund or us before instigating whole property purchases. There is need for purchase criteria to be established. We would appreciate opportunity to assist in this.
Other discretionary consents
monitoring and enforcement
Part I of the CPLA creates
elaborate mechanisms for administering pastoral leases, quite
independent of tenure reviews. The Crown reserves a large number
of discretions for allowing or refusing increased stocking limitations,
burning, earth disturbance, drainage of wetlands, etc.
However since the demise of the Land Settlement Board the whole process has become very secretive. There appears to be minimal or no monitoring of pastoral lease conditions, let along policing.
Marginal strip creation and
recording
There are major doubts
whether LINZ is requiring the laying off of marginal strips on
lease renewal, as required by law. Additionally, the department's
methods of recording strips on titles and plans mean that, where
they exist, it is uncertain of their extent. The absence of an
unambiguous public record of marginal strips means that in many
situations they may as well not exist. This is because the public
cannot locate them to use them. The sole rationale for marginal
strips is public benefit, not administrative convenience. We have
suggestions that could overcome these difficulties and would assist
Government policy to improve the Queen's Chain.
[Unpublished letter to] the
Editor
Rural News
Owen Jenning's arguments (ACT, May 3) for the continuation of burning and grazing of tussock grassland fly in the face of 150 years of degradation and most scientific opinion. For example the "desertification" of Central Otago has been described as one of the worst cases in the world.
Jennings describes grasslands that are unburnt regularly as a "tinderbox". I have observed the relatively few tussock grasslands in Central Otago that have been unburnt, and ungrazed, for several years. They have an increasingly close canopy with decreasing bare ground and increasing damp litter. Soils are usually moist. Two areas I looked at were damp during the recent 'droughts'. They didn't appear to be "tinderboxes" waiting to erupt and consume all around them. A far greater risk lay beyond the boundary fence.
Tussock at higher altitude, where most public reserves are, appears to be successful in retaining moisture, unlike lower farmed grasslands, which are sparser in cover, receive less precipitation and are drought prone. While there is undoubtably a risk of accidental fire originating on reserves, this has proved to be far less than on farmed grasslands, as recent fires attest. Protected tussock grasslands, if burnt infrequently in the absence of grazing, recover rapidly. A couple of years after a fire the untrained eye would not detect much difference.
Both Alexandra fires were on farmed grasslands, and unlike public reserves in the region, a significant area was heavily infested with woody weeds which greatly contributed to the severity of the fires. Jennings falsely implies that it is public reserves that are badly infested.
No fires started from within DOC reserves. The main threat to such reserves has always been from adjoining farmland, where historically approximately 80 per cent of accidental fires are caused by occupiers or their contractors.
The Alexandra experience indicates that no amount of grazing and 'fuel reduction' would prevent fires. Even the sparsest pasture with no tussock will carry fire. It appears that grazing creates a fire risk. Reported statements from a helicopter pilot fighting the Alexandra fires were that burning sheep dung started spot fires wherever the wind propelled them.
Mr Jenning's anti public lands prejudice may help create a constituency for ACT among some rural voters but, in real terms, will do nothing for conservation or the farming community.
Bruce Mason
Public Access New Zealand
Public Access No. 11. April 1999
Otago Daily Times, March 12, 1999
Farmers need to improve their image, according to PPCS and Ravensdown chairman Jim Pringle.
Mr Pringle was addressing the high country field day in Omarama last week and explaining the skills farmers needed to influence people in authority. He said farmers sometimes had an uphill battle fighting their causes because their approach was wrong. While farmers understood what was practical and logical, they had to get through to the people they were dealing with.
No matter how impractical authority representatives appeared, farmers should not start off "kicking them in the shins".
It was more important to come to a meeting well-informed and hear the person out before responding.
Positive aspects put forward by other parties should be acknowledged, he said.
The farmer was more likely to gain concessions with a reasonable approach.
Mr Pringle said he had a property with a river and a paper road. Hundreds of people used the "road" for fishing, swimming, picnicking and walking.
It was important to remember 90% of the public were a joy to know.
"We need these people and we should leave them with a good image of farmers," he said.
Public Access No. 11. April 1999
Hon David Carter, Associate Minister for Food, Fibre, Biosecurity and Border Control
Omarama, March 4, 1999
"...I have been aware for some time of the rumblings over last year's Crown Pastoral Land Act...
...The Crown Pastoral Land Act is now 8 months old and entrenched policy. It is time we all, Government, environmentalists and farmers, moved on from the bickering that has marked the debate over the future of High Country farming.
The Act you now have before you is the best possible compromise that could have been reached between the various interest groups involved in the High Country's future.
Not only does it safeguard your interests, it has provided you with a platform for the reform of the 2.5 million hectares of Crown pastoral land tenure in the South Island.
The new Act is an enormous improvement on the old system, and has opened the way for farming and conservation interests to both be listened to.
That's no mean feat when you are talking about an area as special and as unique as our South Island High Country, an area which all New Zealanders feel they have an ownership of, but which you have special empathy with....
...Whether you like it or not, the environmental lobby has acquired an increasingly vocal voice. The environmental lobby in this country has moved from being a fringe element to being a concern to many, in fact most, New Zealanders. You, and I, can no longer afford to ignore or dismiss the representations of the conservation lobby....
The new Crown Pastoral Land Act reflects this cultural change by requiring the Commissioner of Crown Lands to take into account the desirability of protecting the inherent values of our High Country land. The Government wants to own and protect areas of significant inherent value, and this is something that is now demanded by many New Zealanders.
In the Government's eyes, the Crown Pastoral Land Act is the best possible compromise between the expectations of environmentalists and farmers, that could have been reached....
...The Act has facilitated the ability to allow for tenure reviews of high country leasehold land, and the freeholding of parts of current leasehold properties...
...Many farmers I know felt vulnerable under the old act; the new Crown Pastoral Land Act has given you the opportunity to create some certainty in your future....
...I'd encourage you to be happy with the deal and to make it work...."