This page last modified 17 September 1999
Queen's
Chain
PANZ Monograph Number 3
ISBN 0-9583363-3-4
Leader New Labour
Party
MP for Sydenham
1990
"The Conservation Law Reform Bill is the first step towards
New Zealanders
becoming second-class citizens in their own country."
8 November 1989
Dunedin Star Midweek
JIM ANDERTON: "...Another example of Government's obsession
with corporate profitability and its insensitivity to the needs
of ordinary people was its intention to repeal the Queen's Chain
legislation in the Land Act and the Conservation Act 1987, and
allow land adjoining waterways to be effectively privatised."
"New Labour is committed to opposing the Conservation Law
Reform Bill. Free access to rivers, lakes and beaches for all
New Zealanders goes back to a Royal Decree by Queen Victoria in
1840. The NLP see no reason whatsoever why this birthright should
be disposed of merely so that SOE's can make an easy dollar."
"The Conservation Law Reform Bill is the first step towards
New Zealanders becoming second-class citizens in their own country.
The proposal to allow Ministers to totally dispose of marginal
strips could easily be used to close off the most attractive beaches
and sought-after fishing spots in favour of those able to pay
for the privilege of using these areas. A very real danger of
any 'Ministerial Discretion' clause is that it is an open invitation
for corruption to enter dealings between government and business."
8 March 1990
Second Reading
Conservation Law Reform Bill
(Hansard, Vol 505 pages 517-18)
Mr ANDERTON: "The Minister of Conservation was eloquent about
the importance of any concern people might have about the Queen's
chain and its preservation. The Minister of Fisheries said that
there was no such thing, and the member for Lyttleton assured
us that the Queen's chain would be safe. In November last year
the Prime Minister had no such confusion or doubt. He said that
the Government had no intention of restricting the public's right
of access to the Queen's chain. He said that he wanted to assure
everybody that the Queen's chain is secure, the Government will
not take it away, it is an important part of New Zealand's history,
we want it, we will have it, and we will keep it. Those seem to
be certain words but, as many members and the public know, the
Government's words are not to be taken at face value."
"The Queen's chain is part of the country's heritage. For
the information of members of the public who may be listening,
there is a variety of categories of Queen's chain in descending
order of frequency: section 58 strips under the Land Act; road
reserves under the Local Government Act; reserves under the Local
Government Act; and, of course, marginal strips under the Conservation
Act. The Government has to explain in the second reading debate
and the Committee stage why, under the Conservation Law Reform
Bill, it is turning all section 58 strips into marginal strips
and, furthermore, under section 24A is allowing itself to opt
out of establishing marginal strips in the future when any lands
of the Crown are sold or leased."
"That has obvious implications for the Government's massive
asset sale programme. That is why the Bill deals with that matter.
It is not out of any great concern for the conservation of the
strips; it is because of the asset sale programme of the Government.
The State Services Commission report and Cabinet minutes on that
matter confirm that, and the Minister who was interjecting should
go back and read them, and find out the reason for the legislation.
Pressure to introduce the Bill came from the State-owned enterprises--Electricorp,
Landcorp, and so on."
"That is why the Government is allowing, under this Bill,
the appointment of adjoining landowners or some other "more
suitable person" as private managers of marginal strips.
Managers will, for the first time, be able legally to make improvements
and build other assets on marginal strip land. Improvements may
include buildings, shore facilities, fences, crops, pasture, trees,
and even soil fertility under section 24G. How on earth will access
of the public to its heritage through marginal strips be improved
by building shore facilities, fences, crops, and so on?"
"The Bill also provides for the closure of public access
by the Minister of Conservation on the request of a private manager
when any operation proposed on the strip will significantly affect
public safety or when closure is necessary in any case to protect
any asset. There are no restraints, limitations, or time-limits
on the exercise of the power, which unnecessarily expands the
existing powers held by the police and the fire authorities, which
can act in that regard without the provisions of the Bill. I put
three questions to the Government, in particular to the Prime
Minister. First, why does the Bill provide powers of closure to
public access to the Queen's chain, especially those strips created
under the Land Act to which the public has enjoyed right of access
for more than a century, when the Prime Minister said on 28 November
that he had no intention of restricting the public's right of
access to the Queen's chain? He said that he had no intention
of restricting public access, yet the Bill before the House does
exactly that."
"The second question I want the Government to answer is:
as the Prime Minister said in his press release of 28 November
that the Government wants the Queen's chain, why has the Government
acted in such an inconsistent manner as to wisely delete provisions
from the Bill for the revocation and disposal of marginal strips,
then introduce a new section--the proposed section 24A(a)--allowing
the Minister of Conservation to declare any lands of the Crown
to be exempt from any requirement to establish marginal strips?"
"The third question that the Minister and the Government
have to answer is: if, as the Minister stated in his press release
of 28 November, it is the Government's intention to "strengthen
protection of the Queen's chain", not the reverse, why does
the Bill provide for the appointment of private managers over
marginal strips--which are already deemed to be specifically protected
areas under the Conservation Act 1987--with powers to build structures
and create other private assets and then request closure of the
strips to the public in order to protect such assets? How do those
provisions honour the Prime Minister's commitment to preserve
public access to marginal strips absolutely?"
"In respect for your ruling I shall be mercifully brief and
conclude, but I have to say that the public and the House have
no reason to trust the Government or its legislation. Promises
mean absolutely nothing to the Government, let alone legislation,
and this Bill means a big step backwards in terms of public access
to the people's own heritage, for which they will not thank the
Government, which, mercifully, has only 7 months left in office."
5 April 1990
Third Reading
Conservation Law Reform Bill
(Hansard, Vol 506, pages 1380-82)
Mr ANDERTON: "I hate to break up the cosy, two-party club
on the Conservation Law Reform Bill--a Bill that I believe is
in effect a sell-out of New Zealand's heritage in the form of
the Queen's chain."
Dr Peter Simpson: "Rubbish!"
Mr ANDERTON: "We will see what that member answers after
we have gone through one or two matters that are facts, rather
than the fantasies that I have heard him talk about this afternoon.
Last Friday in the House the member for Waikato [Minister] said
by way of interjection: "Public safety means a lot of things."
As the Bill allows public access to the Queen's chain to be denied
in the interests of public safety, that statement has some rather
sinister implications, given the Government's track record in
keeping its promises."
"That concern is highlighted even more starkly when one considers
the original establishment of the Queen's chain on 5 December
1840. Queen Victoria's instructions to Governor Hobson, dated
5 December 1840, in clause 43, read in part: "That you do
not on any account or on any pretence whatsoever grant, convey,
or demise to any person any of the land so specified, nor permit
or suffer any such lands to be occupied by any private person
for any private purpose". That was the original intention
of the Queen's chain. That instruction has meant in practice for
150 years--and it is ironic that the Bill is being passed in our
sesquicentennial year, 1990--that no private interests have been
allowed to be created on section 58 strips--that is under the
Land Act--or the Queen's chain, as it is commonly known."
"The Bill allows the ability for the Minister, or marginal
strip managers appointed by the Minster, to close public access
to the Queen's chain for the first time. Managers of marginal
strips will now be able to develop improvements on the strips
and be able to request closures of those same Queen's chain strips.
How does that enhance or guarantee public access to the people's
own land and heritage in the shape of rivers, lakes, forests,
and the sea? The Government would have us believe that nothing
is changing, but the change is fundamental.*1 Last Friday, 30
March, the member for Clutha asked the Minister of Conservation
whether he could obtain an assurance from the Minister that he
had no intention of changing the concept of the Queen's chain
as it exists at present. The Minister of Conservation said: "Absolute
assurance, the supplementary order paper makes it even stronger."
The member for Clutha then said: "I want the Minister to
stand up tonight, and let us have it on record in Hansard that
he gives an absolute assurance that the Queen's chain as we know
it at the present time in New Zealand will indeed not be changed
under this Government and therefore under this Bill." The
Minister replied: "Yep, I am very happy to assure the member
once more, as I did in the second reading--and I'll certainly
put it in the record of Hansard; I'll do it at the third reading
if that's possible--that there's no threat to the Queen's chain
in this Bill or from this Government."
"The Government would have us believe that nothing is changing, but the change is fundamental." *1
"The Government has failed to establish any need for privatising the control over public lands as the section proposes to do for marginal strips."
"However the Bill will repeal the largest single provision
for the Queen's chain in New Zealand--namely section 58 of the
Land Act 1948--allowing marginal strips to become subject to the
Conservation Act. That is what the Bill does, and the Minister
is on record as saying that there is no threat whatsoever to the
Queen's chain "as we know it at the present time". That
is the most unmitigated rubbish I have ever heard. If the Minister
is pleased to go on record in Hansard as being quoted as saying
that, history will have another view of the matter. Under the
present section 58 of the Land Act there are no powers of closure
to public access either by the Crown or any other party, and no
ability to appoint private managers over the marginal strips,
but the Bill creates that ability. The Minister has told the House
that nothing would be changed. I am glad that he is consulting
his advisers, because he needs some advise."
"The Crown's interest in the strip at present is total, with
no ability to appoint non-state agents to act on the Crown's behalf.
When the member for Lyttleton interjected that that was rubbish
I invited him to ask his Minister to explain how something that
has been changed so fundamentally could be said to be no change
at all. No one in this country who has read the present Act and
the Bill could believe that. Contrary to the Minister's statement,
there is a very clear change of the concept of the Queen's chain."
"It seems to me that this is another example of the weasel
words that I became sick and tired of when I was on the Government
side of the House, when Government members used words to say one
thing but meant exactly the opposite. [Interruption.] It has got
them going. I hope that more of them will come into the House.
They must have been stung by the comment yesterday about the lack
of their presence in the Chamber for a debate of that kind. The
overwhelming public rejection of the prospect of private control
over public land has been--"
Jack Elder: "I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The member is reading his speech, and that is not allowed under
Standing Orders."
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: "There is certainly a restriction on members
reading their speeches, but there is an equally specific restriction
on other members drawing attention to the fact that some members
may be reading their speeches."
Jack Elder: "I didn't know that."
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: "If the member did not know of it I am
glad that he does now, so that he should not raise that matter."
Mr ANDERTON: "It is not surprising that the member has been
here for nearly 6 years and he does not know even that. The Government
has failed to establish any need for privatising the control over
public lands as the section proposes to do for marginal strips.
What areas will be next for privatisation--national parks, reserves,
and other conservation areas? As people say, there will not be
much left to privatise after the Government has gone. I say to
the member for New Plymouth that not much that has not been screwed
down has not been sold already. Why should we believe that anything
else will not be sold? I do not believe it. The Government would
sell anything."
Hon. Philip Woollaston: "I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy
Speaker. It would be out of order for me to describe what the
member is doing, but at least he should be required to have some
regard to a semblance of truth in the House. He is talking about
selling and privatising marginal land strips."
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: "Order! It is not a point of order to
find that the remarks made by another member are not remarks with
which one would agree. Members have an opportunity to rebut if
they want to, and to challenge the remarks made by other members,
although the member who raised the point does not have that opportunity
because he has already spoken."
Mr ANDERTON: "I will not raise a point of order about the
suggestion that what I am saying is not the truth. All I will
say in reply is that the Government has an absolute mortgage in
historical terms on breaching promises on every single matter
that one would care to name. I can give the Minister a list that
will take longer to go through than the time I have left."
"It seems to me that the Government is using the Bill as
a cop-out to avoid establishing marginal strips before it sells
off to State-owned enterprises vast tracts of Crown land and State
forests. It will allow the Government to get the best financial
return from the sale of State-owned enterprise assets, and it
is a cynical, money-hungry move by a desperate Government. It
is a total breach of faith with the public. When the State-owned
enterprises were established in 1986 the Department of Conservation
and the respective legislation made it quite clear that marginal
strips were required to be established in all land sales. The
select committee's addition to the Bill reverses that requirement."
"It seems to me that the new section 24AA in clause 15 indicates
the Government's general intention to waive the requirement to
establish marginal strips during its massive asset sale programme.
If there is no such intention there is no need for the Bill. The
new section 24AA in clause 15 replaces existing public notification
objection procedures, and if waiving the establishment of marginal
strips is to be as rare an event as the Government would want
the public to believe there is no practical reason for creating
the powers created under the Bill."
"Government members simper around the country trying to placate
the conservation movement, saying that the Queen's chain is sacrosanct
and will not be touched. The Bill gives the lie to that statement.
It takes away fundamental rights in this country under existing
legislation, giving the absolute right of access to public lands.
The Minister's Bill repeals that legislation, and he knows it."
(Hansard, Vol 506, page 1382)
HARRY DUYNHOVEN: "The New Labour Party member for Sydenham
has been emphatic in his attempt to mislead the House. I tell
him that at present there is no public access to those strips
of land that have been set aside by that provision, because there
is no access to them. The Bill provides the access.*2 If the member,
who seems to have been suddenly converted and has a belated interest
in conservation matters, had had a genuine interest he might have
attended the select committee as an observer. Some of us spent
many hours on the Bill to find a workable solution."
(Hansard, Vol 506, page 1385)
Mr McCLAY: "I shall stop in a minute because I know that
the Minister wants time to give assurances and to answer the very
important questions raised--particularly those questions posed
this afternoon by the member for Sydenham, the former president
of the Labour Party, when he expressed the concern of many people
about the public's continued access to assets owned by the people
of New Zealand. New Zealand does not want to finish up in a position
similar to that in Europe, where one has to pay to get on to land
that the people own, anyway. I hope that the Minister will consider
the issues posed by the member for Sydenham..."
(Hansard, Vol 506, page 1386)
Hon. PHILIP WOOLLASTON: "I now touch on the matters raised
by the member for Sydenham. He had the gall to talk in the House
about cynicism and then to make a speech that was such rubbish
and was so despicable in its attempt to convey an impression that
was other than factually correct. That speech was the worst such
example I have heard in the House, and I have heard some shockers
in my time. The member for Sydenham claimed that there is at present
an absolute right of access to marginal strips, and that the Bill
removes it. I put it on the record that there is no right of public
access to marginal strips at the moment. That is one of the problems
with the Land Act. It does not guarantee the public's right of
access to marginal strips. That right exists at the pleasure of
the Department of Conservation."*2
Mr Gray: "What?"
Hon. PHILIP WOOLLASTON: "Yes, it does. The Bill makes that
right clear in law. It states the very limited times at which
access to marginal strips can be removed temporarily only for
reasons of public safety, and it can be done then only for as
long as the need exists. The member suggested that the Bill provided
a means to privatise marginal strips or to sell them off, and
he used both of those terms. That is misleading. If the member
had read the Bill he would know that no such power is provided.
He tried to parade the very limited power provided in the Bill
for not taking a marginal strip as though it were a novelty. If
he had read the existing Land Act he would know that there is
a total discretion not a take a marginal strip along a river and
that there is a total discretion for the Minister of Conservation
to reduce a marginal strip to as little as 3 metres on a lake
or on the sea coast without any objective consideration."*3
"The legislation removes that total ministerial discretion.
It states that the power can be exercised only when it can be
demonstrated that the marginal strip that would otherwise exist
has little or no value for conservation, for access, or for recreation.
The Bill improves considerably the rights of the public in relation
to marginal strips.*2 That is a fact, and the member was misleading
or mistaken--I am sure that he was genuinely mistaken--in suggesting
otherwise."
As Introduced 10 August 1989
Disposal
Ability to revoke and dispose of any existing marginal strips
if of little or no value for conservation and the provision of
public access; or protection can be effected by another means;
and the current productive value of the strip is greater than
its conservation value.
Waiver
Requirement to establish strips except on urban lands.
Reduction in Width
No power to reduce width of strips.
Closing
Managers able to temporarily close strips for operational or safety
reasons and prohibit the bringing of any animals on to strips.
Appointment of Managers
The Minister 'shall' appoint suitable persons, including adjoining
landowners on application, to be managers of marginal strips,
except around controlled lakes.
Development
The manager strip may make improvements to the strip including
the planting or harvesting of crops, or trees.
Select Committee Report 12 December 1989
Disposal
Ability to revoke and dispose of strips removed, except for land
exchange purposes.
Waiver
Exemption of urban lands removed, but power added to waive the
establishment of strips when Crown lands are sold if of little
or no value for conservation and the provision of public access
or protection can be effected by another means.
Closing
Powers of closure over strips widened. The Minister of Conservation,
on the request of a manager, may close a strip "where any
operation proposed on the strip will significantly affect public
safety or where closure is necessary in any case to protect any
asset." No time limit.
Appointment of Managers
The Minister 'may' appoint adjoining landowners, or some other
'more suitable' person, as managers.
Development
The manager of a marginal strip shall obtain the written consent
of the Minister before making any significant change to the management
regime of the strip, and before making or erecting any significant
improvements to or on the strip.
Offences
Every manager of a marginal strip commits an offence who knowingly
damages the marginal strip or causes to be damaged the strip or
any part of it; or knowingly uses the marginal strip for any purpose
contrary to the Act.
Second Reading 8 March 1990
No further changes.
House in Committee 30 March 1990
Disposal
As above.
Waiver
Waiver powers limited to banks of rivers and streams.
Reduction in Width
Minister may approve the reduction of the width of a strip along
a sea or lake shore to not less than 3 metres if satisfied that
its value in terms of the purposes will not be diminished.
Closing
Powers of Minister limited to temporary closures where any operation
proposed on the strip will significantly affect public safety
or where fire hazard conditions exist.
Appointment of Managers
The Minister may appoint either a Crown forest licence holder
or the Director-General to be manager of the strip, but shall
not appoint any other person to be the manager. Managers of strips
shall 'enable' members of the public to have access along the
strip.
Development
The holder of a forestry licence may manage and harvest exotic
plantation trees existing at the time of the grant of the licence
on any marginal strip adjoining the land to which the licence
relates and may carry out one replanting of such trees on the
strip.
Offences
As above.
Third Reading 5 April 1990:
No further changes before Royal assent.
*3 The Bill as introduced had no provisions continuing Land Act
waivers and reductions in width. Equivalent provisions were added
to the Bill after the Select Committee removed the proposed ability
to dispose of existing strips.
Public Lands Coalition commentary--
The Conservation Law Reform
Act 1990 primarily replaces Queen Chain strips created under section
58 of the Land Act 1948, deeming them 'marginal strips.'
*1 In accordance with Queen Victoria's Instructions to Governor
Hobson in 1840, section 58 strips existed for public recreation
and to remain free of any private occupation for any private purposes,
unlike other Crown lands. Section 58 provided--
*2 Explanation: The Government's claim that there was no right
of public access along S 58 strips is used as justification for
claiming that the Bill is an improvement. However legal advice
to the PLC says, in part-- "Although the direct evidence
is scarce we have little doubt that the purpose of Section 58
Strips is the preservation of public access. The best direct evidence...is
to be found in the proviso to Section 58(1). It states:
"provided that the Minister may approve the reduction in width of the strip of land to not less than 3 metres if in his opinion the reduced width will be sufficient for reasonable access to the sea, lake, river or stream."
"This proviso is clear evidence that the purpose of the Section 58 Strip reservation is the provision of reasonable access to water. The question is whose access? Since the Crown is the land owner selling or otherwise disposing of its land it is free to protect its rights of access by contract or by easement (right of way). The only satisfactory inference is that the reasonable access is being reserved for the public."
Government MP's confused the distinction between access to and
access along strips. Legal rights of access to strips may or may
not exist for particular strips, therefore it is technically correct
to say that there is no right of access to (all) strips, but wrong
to infer that this applies to the strips themselves. The Bill
does not address the matter of access to strips.
Retention of the original intent of the Queen's Chain by--