This page last modified 17 September 1998
Back to high country directory
May 1994. 'Public Access', No. 4
Lands Minister Denis Marshall
has released a discussion paper on issues and options for changing
the tenure of Crown pastoral land in the South Island high country.
This coincides with a separate review of the Rabbit and Land Management
Programme.
There are approximately 350 pastoral leases and licences covering
2.8 million hectares of high country which is equivalent to 10
per cent of New Zealand's land area. As a consequence of 150 years
of burning and grazing it is widely believed that remaining 'unimproved'
tussock grasslands are at the point of ecological collapse, and
along with it the fine wool industry.
The extremely diverse landscapes along the eastern side of the
Southern Alps, from inland Marlborough to northern Southland,
are increasingly recognised as the last major unprotected part
of New Zealand's natural heritage. It also has great potential
for public recreation. However under pastoral leasehold tenure
the occupiers hold trespass rights and the right to bar public
use. Many lessees are seeking to diversify into tourism ventures,
with a direct potential to exclude all who cannot, or do not wish
to, pay for their recreation (see Public Access Nos. 1 and 2 for
more background to this issue).
Most conservation and recreation groups, including PANZ, support
negotiated exchanges of property rights between lessees and the
Crown to create public lands on areas of high natural and recreation
value, and rights of access to them, with, as a quid pro quo,
freehold offered over the better farm land. We also believe that
special leases should be created over the extensive "in-between
lands" (e.g., see Molesworth) where there are over-lapping
conservation and grazing values.
Tenure changes have been occurring at a slow rate, with a handful
of deals in the last few months producing welcome results. There
are eighty lessees wishing to instigate land tenure reviews. However
the Commissioner of Crown Lands has only sufficient funds to pay
for the processing of only a few of these. The profits the Government
is making from freeholding is disappearing into the Consolidated
Fund and is unavailable for processing more deals. However Mr.
Marshall does not see "redirecting funds as necessarily the
answer" (ODT 8/4/94).
Six options for the future of pastoral leases are outlined in
The Tenure of Crown pastoral Land-issues and options:
1. Total resumption of all leases to the Crown estate. This is dismissed as an extreme option.
2. The status quo-the retention of the current pastoral leasehold arrangement, or similar.
3. Freeholding of only that pastoral leasehold which is demonstrably suitable for sustained commercial production or use, with the balance being assigned to the Conservation estate (or protected in some other way) i.e., a 2-way split.
4. Freeholding as in 3 above, with the balance either assigned as a special lease or to the Conservation estate. This is another 2-way split that is falsely portrayed as "essentially the three-way process" currently being applied on a limited scale.
5. Freeholding of all pastoral lease land, except areas of high conservation or public recreation value which would be assigned to the Conservation estate (or protected in some other way).
6. Freeholding of all pastoral leasehold.
PANZ believes that an amended option 4 best fits the diverse character
of the land and conservation and public needs. The "either-or's"
must be amended to "and" plus provision made for secure
access through freeholded lands.
PANZ has communicated with Mr. Marshall concerns over the adequacy
of the document and the skewing of options based on pre-determined
preferences to privatise as much Crown land as possible. There
is a misplaced reliance on the Resource Management Act (RMA) to
ensure "sustainable management" but with little or no
consideration of public recreation needs (see Public Access No.
2 for a discussion of the inadequacy of the RMA).
Mr. Marshall has instigated a public consultation process on tenure
review with the intention of amending the Land Act. "It is
fair to say over time the pendulum of power is swinging more towards
the non-agricultural stakeholders...the advent of MMP...will only
enhance those trends..." (Hon. Denis Marshall, The New Zealand
Farmer, March 9, 1994). Federated farmers high country section
chairman Bob Brown agreed with Mr. Marshall that ideally the tenure
question should be settled before the next election under MMP
(The New Zealand Farmer, March 9, 1994).
There have been mixed reactions from the high country farming
community to the proposals. While some runholders wish to retain
pastoral leases, the Otago Federated Farmers high country section
unanimously approved option six for freeholding of all pastoral-lease
land despite this option being dismissed by the Commissioner of
Crown Lands as an extreme one which would bring widespread public
opposition. The section is also opposed to deals that lead to
ecological sustainability (Otago Daily Times, May 6, 1994).
May 1994. 'Public Access', No. 4
PANZ is putting considerable
effort into consultation with officials and submission-making
on high country tenure reviews. Our representations, with one
notable exception, have had a significant influence on the shape
of the finally approved deals.
While our advocacy frustrates some runholder ambitions for freehold
title over lands unsuitable for such, most of the outcomes are
proving sensible and acceptable from both pastoral and conservation-recreation
perspectives. These will result in enhanced land use opportunities
for the most productive lands and major gains for nature conservation
and public recreation. These are the kinds of models we believe
should result from review of the Land Act. Much more could be
achieved within the framework of the existing Act, given greater
funding and commitment from Government.
Approved or well-advanced land exchanges include-
Mt Difficulty (Cromwell area)
400 ha has been surrendered to become conservation areas with public access provided and 1500 ha is retained as pastoral lease. Another 120 ha is being freeholded. PANZ is concerned that the majority has been retained as pastoral lease.
Closeburn (Queenstown area)
1800 ha above Moke and Dispute Lakes will be reserved, in return for freeholding of 1100ha.
Cairnmuir (Cromwell area)
2355 hectares, consisting of the steep faces above Lake Dunstan, will become a special lease with provision for public access. 4300 hectares will be freeholded. A 3492 ha block on the Old Woman Range will become public land.
Halwyn (Lawrence area)
3687 hectares are to be freeholded. 3600 ha of tussock grasslands on the Lammerlaw Range will be reserved. 160 ha of beech forest in Bowlers Creek beside State Highway 8 to become reserve.
Blackstone Hill (St. Bathans area)
Freeholding of 2552 ha, being the homestead block and near Falls Dam. 3197 ha on the Hawkdun Range is to be reserved with a public access easement to it.
Bendigo (Cromwell area)
1920 ha on the tops of the Dunstan Mountains to become special lease with rights of foot access at all times. 1372 of kanuka and historic gold mining relics to become reserve. 7992 ha to be freeholded.
Michael Peak (Mt St. Bathans)
It appears that earlier plans to offer freehold over 1500 ha of Class VII land have been dropped after objections by PANZ.
Waiorau (Pisa Range near Wanaka)
This has been the scene of most debate. Our submissions have resulted in improvements on the original proposals with one major exception. PANZ lodged objections to proposed freeholding of over a thousand hectares of mid-altitude Class VII tussock grassland on the basis that it would be ultra vires the Land Act, with inadequate protection for the high natural values of the area. Part of the area concerned is used for a commercial cross country skiing venture.
Earlier legal opinion obtained by PANZ, that such areas could not be legally reclassified from 'pastoral' to 'farm land' as a precursor to freeholding, were accepted by the Commissioner of Crown Lands. However it now appears that he has disregarded our opinion by partly reclassifying the area as 'farm land' and the balance as 'commercial'. Freehold title has been offered over both classifications. Potentially there are major adverse implications for other high country lands. The Commissioner's decision fits in with runholder pressures and government leanings towards privatisation of any pastoral leasehold with potential for commercial use, irrespective of its suitability for farming use.
The Commissioner has also approved 4000 ha of the tops of the Pisa range going to DOC. Public foot access will be provided up a legal road to the southern end of the new public lands (a right that already existed), and on payment of "a reasonable fee", vehicle access will be available along the ski area road to get to the northern end of the new public area.
PANZ believes that only good farm land should be available for freeholding. The rest should remain in Crown ownership, either under special Crown lease or under DOC's control.Clarence Reserve (Seaward Kaikoura Range)
A tenure exchange involving this huge pastoral holding was interrupted by sale of the property. Negotiations are proceeding that may result in 41,000 ha becoming reserve, with a special Crown lease over 11,000 ha adjoining the Clarence River, in return for freeholding of 700 ha on the eastern side of the range. Public access will be provided through the freehold and unrestricted foot access over most farm tracks through the special lease. DOC will be able to establish three public camping sites beside the river within the leasehold. Marginal strips will be provided.
May 1994. 'Public Access', No. 4
New Zealand's largest farm,
the 180,000 hectare Molesworth Station, now has a management plan
to guide its use for pastoral farming, protection of the environment,
and public use. This area of high country, situated in inland
Marlborough, has been Crown land farmed by the Government since
it was abandoned by pastoral lessees in the 1930s and 1940s The
preface to the plan states that the rehabilitation of the land
over the last 50 years, from four desolate runs-laid to virtual
waste by a combination of fire, grazing and rabbits-represents
one of New Zealand's major conservation and farming achievements.
In 1987, at the time of the establishment of DOC and state-owned
enterprises, Government decided to retain public ownership of
Molesworth because of its range of overlapping production, conservation,
and recreation values. It is now leased to Landcorp under a non-freeholdable
15 year special lease. The plan and lease is over-seen by a 'Steering
Committee' set up to advise the Minister of Lands.
Like much of the rest of the South Island high country, Molesworth
is subject to continuing problems of rabbits, and the spread of
invasive hieracium weed species.
25 areas totalling over 50,000 hectares, or 30 per cent of the
station, has been identified as Recommended Areas for Protection
(RAPs) by DOC. However the expansive nature of the area, basins,
mountains, rivers, and natural features have much wider appeal
to the public than the RAPs alone.
The principle goals and objectives for the management of Molesworth
over the next 5 years include-
Protection
Farming
Recreation
Recreation and access issues are-
The management plan is a significant improvement on earlier drafts
which gave priority to pastoral farming, at the expense of all
else. PANZ believes that all alpine areas of the station could
have been separated out from grazed areas and reserved as public
lands, rather than have a leasehold issued over them.
The plan highlights the reality that for much of the station there
are overlapping production, nature conservation, and recreation
values that are not so easily separated. This demonstrates that
there is a place for new leaseholds over those parts of the South
Island high country with a mix of values.
Contrary to the leanings of the New Right and The Treasury, in
most high country situations a simple two-way split between public
'conservation' land and private land does not always reflect realities
on the ground. We prefer the option of three-way splits-public
land, special leaseholds, and freehold in place of pastoral leases-although
all three categories may be unnecessary on every property.
We believe that at the end of the first 15 year term of the Molesworth
lease that the property go through a categorisation assessment
to determine a more confined leasehold and additions to public
lands. In the interim DOC and Landcorp are negotiating in secret
the future tenure of RAPs. We believe, for reasons set out in
Public Access No. 2, that covenants provide inadequate protection
and may not provide for public use. We believe that all the identified
RAPs should be taken out of the lease and reserved for nature
conservation and appropriate public use.
What you can do
Write to Hon. Denis Marshall, Minister of Lands, Parliament Buildings,
Wellington (no postage required) and ask for all through-roads
on Molesworth Station to be made public roads.
13 July 1994
Bruce Mason, Public
Access New Zealand Inc
Invermay Conference Centre, Mosgiel
Wednesday 13 July 1994
The current review has been
sparked by a resurgence of rabbits, the spread of hieracium, high
costs of pest control, and loss in production. The Government
has decided that it wants out of financial liability for pests.
We perceive that many runholders either feel trapped, or uncertain
in their futures. This is caused by declining returns from a declining
resource base, and increasing pest control costs.
There is a realisation that there is a crisis afoot in the pastoral
high country-a perception that pastoral use of extensive areas
is unlikely to be sustainable, and that change away from a sole
use of pastoralism is necessary. That perception has been picked
up by Government who appears committed either to long-term goals
of sustainable land use or to getting out of yet another area
of government by off-loading its responsibilities on to "the
community".
Lest we forget, this is not the first occasion that a crisis of
land degradation has received public recognition. There is a recurring
cycle of degradation spanning at least the last 150 years. The
last crisis was in the 1930s and 1940s, which resulted in the
Crown passing a new Land Act plus soil conservation legislation.
The Crown also accepted land management and rehabilitation responsibilities
for some of the most degraded and unprofitable lands. The cases
of Eyre Creek, Cainard, and Molesworth are there for anyone to
see.
What has changed since the 1940s has been scientific understanding
as to the nature of land degradation. Whereas previously soil
loss through erosion was seen as the primary and possible only
cause for concern, today decline in soil condition,
in addition to soil loss, is perceived to be the overriding
cause of degradation.
From my understanding of the screeds of official and learned reports
on the last crisis, in the past there was no less concern for
the land or less willingness for decisive remedies. There was
however a differing understanding as to the nature of the problem,
and consequently the remedies needed.
Since passage of the current Land Act in 1948, and the introduction
of a new pastoral tenure, there is plenty of documentary and anecdotal
evidence of improvement in land condition as indicated by enhanced
vegetative cover. It is interesting to note that the Martin report
hasn't discounted the importance of preventing soil erosion. The
report notes a high potential for wind erosion where there is
bare ground.
I do not for a moment believe claims that the Land Act and pastoral
leases have been a failure in preventing land degradation. The
evidence is that they have been partially successful. An
unfair criticism is that pastoral leases have failed to ensure
"sustainability". The simple truth is that they were
not designed to achieve "sustainability"-the concept
was probably unknown back in 1948 and certainly wasn't the buzz
word of that decade!
Where pastoral leases have 'failed' is that the high country has
been locked into a monoculture of pastoral use and the leasehold
instruments have proved inadequate to accommodate new and rapidly
growing community aspirations for nature conservation and recreation.
That is not to say that leases are inherently incapable of achieving
new or differing ends.
Rather than overturn all the accumulated experience of the past
in favour of a grand new experiment dependent on market forces,
under the oversight of a resource management Act with unknown
meaning and consequences, it would be more prudent to redefine
rather than relinquish the Crown's interest over the 80 percent
that is believed to be at risk. This needs to be in the light
of current scientific understanding as well as community aspirations
for conservation and recreation. The Crown should only consider
disposing of its interest over the 20% that is believed not to
be at risk.
This generation does not have a monopoly on knowledge or understanding
of the processes at play, just as the last generation clearly
did not. A lesson that can be drawn from our history is that there
are no sure-fire 'final solutions' for fragile mountain environments.
Future generations would better judge us if we took an evolutionary
rather than revolutionary approach.
I believe that it is time for principled pragmatism in the high
country. This should be based on mutual recognition of the respective
property interests of the Crown and lessees, and on new understandings
as to the nature and cause of land degradation. There must also
be recognition that in the 1990s there are much wider community
aspirations for the high country than existed previously.
I think that it is necessary for the main interest groups to be
explicit in what they are trying to achieve and why. The results
of such an approach can be beneficial for everyone. For instance
PANZ is generally heartened by the negotiated tenure reviews that
are taking place in Otago and Marlborough. Obviously the deals
must have been acceptable to the runholders concerned for them
to proceed.
The deals struck so far contradict the notion that there
is difficulty in defining the public interest.
As Hamish Ensor [former Chairman Federated Farmers' High Country
Committee] acutely observed at the first meeting with the Minister
of Lands in Dunedin on 18 May on this subject, difficulties in
the way of reform of the high country exist more in theory than
in practice.
PANZ is looking for practical solutions in the high country and
would welcome discussions with other interest groups to that end.
November 1994. 'Public Access', No. 5
Public submissions have made public access the number one issue arising from Government's review of pastoral leases under the Land Act--
'High country access wanted'
'Timaru Herald', November 8, 1994
"Public access to the South
Island high country was the most frequently mentioned issue in
the submissions to Government on proposed pastoral lease tenure
reform and conservation goals," said Lands Minister, Denis
Marshall in releasing the report on the analysis of submissions.
"Many environmental and recreation groups want to see stronger
public access and as a minimum, they wished to see secure public
foot access to areas of significant, natural character and to
water margins."
"A trial of 575 valid submissions were made, 448 by the due
date of August 15 and 127 were late submissions. As a sign of
good faith, late submissions were accepted up to September 6 and
they have been given equal weight with those received by August
15. The submissions have been professionally analysed by consulting
group Connel Wagner and are now available for public scrutiny,"
Mr. Marshall said.
"The submissions were based on three public discussion documents
released earlier this year. They are: The South Island High Country
Review (commonly known as the Martin Committee's report); The
Tenure of Crown Pastoral Leases: the Issues and Options (produced
by the Commissioner of Crown Lands); and a Draft Discussion Document:
Public Interest Goals for the South Island High Country (produced
by the Department of Conservation).
Of the tenure options put forward, the key farming groups favoured
options maximising freeholding of pastoral lease tenure. The major
conservation and recreation groups are strongly in favour of as
much of the lease as possible being retained under Crown ownership
in the conservation estate.
A significant number of individual
submissions favoured the status quo, arguing that the Crown should
retain ownership of all pastoral leases to protect the public
interest.
"While a wide variety of views were expressed, there was
substantial agreement that tenure reform should be voluntary and
done by negotiation, and the Government has always made it clear
that there will be no element of compulsion in its proposed tenure
reform package."
"The submissions have been of great benefit to the Government
in deciding on the best options for progressing tenure reform
as part of the broader policy of promoting sustainability in the
high country," Mr. Marshall said.
November 1994. 'Public Access', No. 5
In June (1994) the third paper
entitled 'Public interest goals for the South Island high country'
was released to selected interests but was not publicly notified.
The paper was prepared by DOC at the request of the Minister,
and released by his office.
PANZ believes that the Minister has prejudiced the outcome of
the Land Act review by his acceptance, prior to public submissions
closing, of the working party on sustainable land management's
recommendation that 'public interest' goals need to be identified
in the high country--with everything else made available for freeholding.
What started as a promising, well-considered review, has quickly
degenerated into a ideologically driven advancement of private
property rights. An early clue as to why there is a sudden rush
to amend the Act is provided by Mr. Marshall's reported comment
to the New Zealand Farmer (March 9, 1994) that non-agricultural
stakeholders interests would be enhanced with the advent of MMP.
The content of the 'public interest goals' paper has caused us
to reverse our support for review of the Land Act. We do not see
any necessity for legislative change for the purpose of tenure
review. This is occurring successfully under the present Act.
In our view all that is needed are relatively minor amendments
to the Land Act to--
We are completely opposed to any enhancement of pastoral lessees'
property rights such as removal of the current prohibition on
freeholding. Reclassification from 'pastoral' to 'farm land',
as provided for under the existing Act, should remain the only
way of obtaining freehold title. We completely reject the approach
that it be a matter of open-ended negotiation which determines
land ownership. The whole approach is fatally flawed for protection
of the public interest and must be dropped.
In our view the working party on sustainable land management was
not competent to come to the conclusion that there is difficulty
in identifying public interest goals in the high country and that
this must be done as a precursor to offering freehold over everything
else. The Minister's acceptance of their recommendation, and extending
that to proposals for freeholding of identified public interest
values, before public consultation has been completed, makes a
mockery of the consultation process.
We have conveyed to Mr. Marshall our assurance of continuing and
strenuous opposition to Government's privatisation plans.
Mr. Marshall has accused NGOs of "continual misrepresentation"
(Radio NZ 9/8/94) while failing to respond to our detailed concerns.
Likewise Bill Mansfield, Director-General of Conservation has
accused PANZ of "serious misrepresentation" of DOC's
intentions and has questioned our honesty.
Insight into the official position is revealed by an address by
DOC's director of estate protection, to Federated Farmers in June
this year. John Holloway said that "we [DOC] certainly do
not consider it necessary for the department to obtain full control
of all areas of conservation interest in the high country. There
are areas which can be as effectively managed if held in private
ownership with appropriate mechanisms to recognise the public
interest. Increasingly conservation is not just a matter of Crown
ownership and control of certain specific lands but also a matter
of joint community based effort across all lands".
In the department's submission on the high country review there
is antagonism to prescriptive criteria for determining which land
is retained in public ownership. Any criteria are perceived as
removing "flexibility" and the ability to "compromise".
This is 'official-speak' for wheeling and dealing without any
rules or assurance that the public interest will be adequately
protected.
"The department does not believe that any criteria for determining which land requires protection by retention in Crown ownership...should be prescriptive."
Apparently the department has already forgotten that it acquired
huge areas of conservation and recreation land by the application
of prescriptive criteria during the 'Great Land Carve-up' of 1986-87
between DOC and SOEs. This included 600,000 hectares that were
mis-allocated to SOEs and clawed back into public ownership by
the application of presciptive criteria.
We replied to Mr. Mansfield that we would welcome a well-researched
paper from the department on the adequacy of private ownership
mechanisms for protecting the public interest versus that provided
by public ownership. Such a paper should have been the prerequisite
to preparation and release of the 'public interest goals' paper.
November 1994. 'Public Access', No. 5
In the absence of such a paper from DOC (a well-researched paper from the department on the adequacy of private ownership mechanisms for protecting the public interest versus that provided by public ownership), in August PANZ released a review of proposals for private management of recreation and conservation lands in the South Island high country.
The review concluded that the shortcomings of Government's proposals
are so severe that they cannot be taken seriously as a substitute
for continuing public ownership.
PANZ reviewed the adequacy of several 'protective' mechanisms
if Crown lands are freeholded, including covenants, management
agreements, protected private land agreements, and district plan
rules. An analysis of relevant legislation found the mechanisms
seriously lacking compared to the security, accountability, and
public remedies afforded by public ownership under the Reserves,
National Parks, and Conservation Acts. Examination of the law
showed a lack of security, with covenants able to be modified
or extinguished at any time without any requirements for public
notification or objection.
A practical consideration is a lack of accountability to the public
for the actions of a landowner, or for public officials responsible
for upholding the terms of an agreement. A case was unearthed
where there is a confidentiality clause preventing public disclosure
of the terms of an agreement between DOC and a runholder.
It is assumed by the Government that it will save money if the
land is under private control. However costs to the Government
may be the same or higher than if held under public ownership.
Under the terms of some existing agreements Government is liable
for paying rates, weed and wild animal control, for wildfire suppression,
fencing, and providing technical assistance and public services.
In addition the Government will need to monitor compliance with
the terms of the agreements. This will be a substantial burden
if Government is serious about such agreements. It will also forgo
revenue from commercial activities on the land.
These costs can be regarded as subsidies to the private sector
for management of a privately-owned outdoors. PANZ believes that
it would be more economical, and democratic, for the Crown to
continue to manage conservation and recreation land itself.
The biggest bugbear with the Government's proposals is a well
demonstrated lack of political will to enforce the terms of covenants
when breached by private landowners (for example Mt. Hikurangi
on the East Cape).
However because covenants are legally enforceable on the Crown
they are likely to become number one priority for the Department
of Conservation. This will draw scarce funds away from management
of public lands, causing reduced public services and protection.
Paralleling what is happening in other areas of state services,
the resultant public dissatisfaction with DOC's performance could
then be used by Government as justification for privatisation
of the public estate.
PANZ believes that Government should get on with providing a substantial
body of public reserves in the high country with guaranteed public
access, rather than continue with the pretence of providing for
public needs under private ownership.
Private management of the public interest?:
Freehold with covenants etc., vs public ownership of the South
Island high country. A review of 'protective' mechanisms for nature
conservation, public recreation and access over private land,
compared to public ownership and control. 12 pages. ISSN 0-9583363-6-9.
Available from Public Access New Zealand Inc., for $3.50 incl.
postage.
November 1994. 'Public Access', No. 5
The Minister's appointed adviser,
the New Zealand Conservation Authority, is convinced of the need
for retention in Crown ownership of lands of (highest) conservation
and recreation value. The Authority submitted to the Minister
that only minor adjustment to the Land Act is necessary to encourage
the property-by-property tenure reviews already under way. The
Authority recommended "an amended Act to reinforce the purpose
of the Resource Management Act in promoting sustainable management
where land remains under leasehold tenure. The recognition of
nature conservation, landscape and heritage values need to recognised
in some form in the Act's objectives. The new Act could include
"conservation" among its purposes by adopting the definition
used in section 2 of the Conservation Act, which include the protection
of natural and historic resources and opportunities for their
recreational enjoyment."
In relation to the sustainability working party's claimed need
for goals for identifying 'public interest goals', the Authority
pointed out that it had published such criteria for conservation
in the high country in 1992. The Authority also noted that "the
Crown's interest is also clearly identified in the Reserves Act,
National Parks Act, and Conservation Act, as well as in international
agreements such as the Convention on Biodiversity".
PANZ believes that Government should place greater weight on the
Authority's views than that of the 'Martin' committee or departmental
advisors.
It appears that a Land Bill will not be introduced to Parliament
before the end of February 1995. Meanwhile several land tenure
reviews are underway in Marlborough and Otago. It is hoped there
will also be action in Canterbury in the near future. PANZ is
putting considerable effort into liaising with officials, other
NGOs, and undertaking field inspections and writing submissions.
The overall success of the existing "inflexible" tenure
review process confronts the officially promoted alternative of
private ownership of the outdoors.