This page last modified 18 September 1998

Treaty of Waitangi & Maori claims
Greenstone tenure review

8 September 1996

Analysis of public submissions on

PANZ Draft Proposals
Tenure review

Greenstone, Elfin Bay & Routeburn Crown Lands

Statistics

Submissions received

North Island	93	38.1%
Otago-Southland	90	36.9%
Rest of South Island	61	25.0%
TOTAL	244	100.0%

 

 

 

Proposal 1

"Approximately 30,000 hectares be allocated to the Department of Conservation as public conservation areas and reserves"

Yes	238	97.6%
No	4	1.6%
Don't Know	2	0.8%
TOTAL	244	100.0%

 

 

 

Proposal 2

"Grazing of the new public lands be confined to a grazing licence over 100 hectares on the floor of the lower Caples Valley. Grazing to be confined to sheep. Public use at all times"

Yes	231	94.7%
No	10	4.1%
Don't Know	3	1.2%
TOTAL	244	100.0%

 

 

 

Proposal 3

"Approximately 2,250 hectares be freeholded, being confined to Lake Wakatipu lower faces, terraces and the floor of the Dart Valley. Marginal strips to be reserved along streams"

Yes	217	88.9%
No	18	7.4%
Don't Know	9	3.7%
TOTAL	244	100.0%

Synopsis of Submitters' Comments

On the government--

• The problem is that government has erred by putting Ngai Tahu ahead in the lineup for this Crown land which years ago should have been appropriately designated: Reserves, grazing, or freehold. For this preferential treatment to be maintained would create an anomaly which really can't be tolerated. This precious jewel must be available for the World wide conservation interest and not under the control/whim of any one interested minority.
• It seems inexcusable given the relatively high public use of the three former leases, as against other Central Otago leases, that the future of these lands could be determined by government, its departments and agencies, with no avenue for public input.
• Anything that this proposal can do to stop this untrustworthy National Government from denying public land and access must be in the best interest of every true New Zealander.

On the Ngai Tahu 'claim'--

• The Ngai Tahu land claim over the Central Otago uplands was not upheld by the Waitangi Tribunal. Hence there is no special case to allow allocation of pastoral lease land to Ngai Tahu as compensation for other valid land grievances. As your proposal states--there is no obligation on the Crown to settle with Ngai Tahu using these lands.
• I would not like to see any of these highly valued conservation areas used as land settlement with Ngai Tahu.

On the public patrimony--

• Any course of action other than to allocate the bulk of these lands to the conservation estate would be to totally disregard the quite outstanding public interest values of these lands and their surroundings.
• Undoubtedly this is an area which should never be lost from the people of this country.
• Privatisation of such assets is a form of theft from the public.

On land use--

• Pastoral lease tenure for these lands with high conservation values is a historic anachronism.
• These properties have value for recreation and nature preservation way beyond their pastoral worth and are worthy to be included in the DOC estate for all to enjoy.

On access and recreation--

• A vital area for public recreation. One of the best areas in New Zealand for easy family access to our backcountry.
• The Caples and Greenstone rivers provide trout fishing of exceptionally high quality. This combined with superb scenery is a marvellous experience which should never be rationed on the basis of ability to pay.
• I would be very upset to see this land freeholded and closed to the public...any curtailing of the opportunities for the public to enjoy the area in its natural state would be a great loss.
• Access at all times should be available to the public at no cost.
• These places must be retained and be able to be easily accessed for the sake of the spiritual health of our people, Maori and Pakeha.

On development and commercialism--

• The biggest danger would be the establishment of hunting and fishing lodges with potential to control or prohibit public entry.
• Any attempts to put roads or mono rails through the Greenstone Valley should be firmly resisted. No tourist development. No toll gates on tracks.
• Not only are these areas threatened by privatisation, whether in Maori or other tenure, but DOC may put these treasures out of our reach by allowing further concessions for commercial gain. The Milford Track is now too expensive for many New Zealanders to enjoy. The Routeburn is going this way.

On PANZ and the proposals in general--

• The PANZ proposals looks magnificent. Don't yield a bloody thing.
• Your proposals are fair and equitable. They provide an acceptable solution between the aspirations of Ngai Tahu and the greater right of the public. They are sensible and well-researched.
• Your presentation of the conservation, recreation and public access values is impressive, and we fully support the PANZ proposals.
• Keep up the huge effort, and thank you on behalf of all the Kiwis like myself who feel so threatened on so many fronts that we can't keep up.
• I greatly commend PANZ's initiative and energy in producing the proposals. It is a great pity that the Crown is not interested in protecting the rights of its subjects, and that we have to rely on the splendid efforts of public-spirited volunteers.
  

Full Submitters' Comments

On the government--

• The problem is that government has erred by putting Ngai Tahu ahead in the lineup for this Crown land which years ago should have been appropriately designated: Reserves, grazing, freehold. For this preferential treatment to be maintained would create an anomaly which really can't be tolerated. This precious jewel must be available for the World wide conservation interest and not under the control/whim of any one interested minority.
• Once these lands are lost or destroyed they cannot be returned. The Government has a duty to protect New Zealand's heritage for all its citizens, now and in the future.
• PANZ is to be congratulated for being proactive in developing this tenure review, in the light of the government's failure to act in accordance with its own procedural guidelines and produce a tenure review for the three former pastoral leases. It seems inexcusable given the relatively high public use of the three former leases, as against other Central otago leases, that the future of these lands could, or would have been determined by government departments/ agencies with no avenue for public input. We thank you for this opportunity, and trust you are preparing a summary of submissions that will soon reach the hands of the relevant decision makers.
• Anything that this proposal can do to stop this untrustworthy National Government from denying public land and access must be in the best interest of every true New Zealander.

On the Ngai Tahu 'claim'--

• There is no basis in Waitangi Tribunal's findings to support the use of the Greenstone area for settlement of 'so-called' grievances that have been disallowed. The Tribunal found that the Crown had lawfully purchased these lands.
• The Waitangi Tribunal has declared Ngai Tahu have no legitimate claim over the above areas. Under no circumstances would the use of these areas as partial settlement of Ngai Tahu claims be acceptable.
• It is of interest to note that the Ngai Tahu land claim over the Central Otago uplands was not upheld by the Waitangi Tribunal. Hence there is no special case to allow allocation of pastoral lease land to the Ngai Tahu as compensation for valid land grievances. As your proposal states-there is no obligation on the Crown to settle with Ngai Tahu using these lands.
• Lack of Maori placenames does not necessarily mean lack of former association.
• So called 'cultural sites' or Maori ovens are merely the killing fields and graveyards of creatures long dead...eaten to extinction! Indigenous flora and fauna have 'land rights' , too.
• That any conservation areas and reserves not be used to settle Treaty claims.
• I would not like to see any of these highly valued conservation areas used as land settlement with Ngai Tahu.

On the public patrimony--

• All (the high country) remains the rightful property of all New Zealanders and that under no circumstances whatever are they ever to be given sold bartered or transferred to any individual, group of individuals, whatever may be their ethnic group...New Zealand of the future will be increasingly a nation of different ethnic cultures.
• FMC is convinced that to take any course of action other than to allocate the bulk of these lands to the conservation estate...would be to totally disregard the quite outstanding public interest values of these lands and their surroundings.
• As much as possible...should be retained in its natural state for the enjoyment of all people.
• The population of NZ is increasing at an unimaginable rate, and all crown lands will be under pressure for use. Please retain all conservation areas and create reserves as large as is possible.
• This area has nationally significant conservation and recreation values which must be recognised and protected, as public land.
• Undoubtedly this is an area which should never be lost from the people of this country and the minimum of commercialism be permitted.
• Greenstone Valley floor enclave that should not be privatised.
• Public conservation areas and reserves must be preserved and increased if possible for future generations of New Zealanders' recreational activities.
• Protect this area for all NZ people to enjoy and keep.
• Outstanding recreational assets should be retained in public ownership. Privatisation of such assets is a form of theft from the public.
• New Zealand's greatest asset is its (relatively) pristine environment. The area reserved for administration is a critical element in this so I support the inclusion of any lands with conservation values in the DOC estate.
• Public conservation lands should be held in trust for all New Zealanders.

On land use--

• F&B: The pastoral lease tenure for lands with high conservation values adjacent to the Mount Aspiring national park is a historic anachronism. These lands are deserving of National Park status for all the reasons your document outlines.
• These properties have (value) for recreation and nature preservation way beyond their pastoral worth and are worthy to be included in the DOC estate for all to enjoy.
• Mararoa catchment critical for water quality of Mavora lakes.
• Concerned that removal of 'grazing' doesn't mean removal of deer.
• Farmer: concerned about farming of unstable land.
• With the state of farming economics these days it might be better if the leases were offered an equivalent economic unit somewhere else and these lands left to revert to their natural state.
• Farming (should be) confined to the fertile valley area.
• If land cannot be economically farmed then it should revert to natural state and be protected for all to enjoy. The land is too precious to give to any one sector of the community

On protection--

• Features of geological significance should be noted and perhaps listed for future reference and protection.
• National park status: Mavora lakes, upper Mararoa deserves this.

On access and recreation--

• Access is a natural right given to all New Zealanders. All interested people should be able to continue to have this right (fishing, tramping).
• A vital area for public recreation.
• Access better than walkways needed for firearm users.
• Access for all (including lawful arms users) needs to be arranged by a better device than walkways because of the need for firearms for permitted hunters.
• Access is of vital importance.
• Access at all times should be available to the public at no cost.
• We have frequented this beautiful part of NZ...be left in its wilderness state for perpetuity, not to be compromised by human constructions, that public access and use be also left in perpetuity.
• Free access must remain for all public at all times.
• Free right of all New Zealanders to enjoy
• I feel that I should have freedom of access to the lakes, mountains and streams that I love and which till this date have entrusted the management of same to the current government (whose tenure has been ensured by those, who like me, have voted them in).
• I would be very upset to see this land freeholded and closed to the public...any curtailing of the opportunities for the public to enjoy the area in its natural state would be a great loss.
• Important that public access to backcountry streams be maintained and extended and that there be no loss of access when land is freeholded.
• One of the best areas in NZ for easy family access to our backcountry and an introduction to walking/tramping/botanising in remote NZ. it is very important that the areas noted above are kept in public ownership with free access.
• Public access along the lake (shore) needs to be assured.
• Public access is a very important issue, especially in such areas as Lake Wakatipu.
• Many Aucklanders' first South island backcountry experiences have been in the easy valleys of the Greenstone and Dart/Rees. We believe that it is essential to retain and protect these areas in public ownership unrestrained by unsuitable farming uses and commercial developments (eg roads).
• The Greenstone and Caples valleys are very important for recreation. The Mararoa is an increasingly important tramping route.
• Need to accommodate horse access.
• All walkways and marginal strips should be clearly defined.
• When not overexploited the Caples and Greenstone rivers provide trout fishing of exceptionally high quality. This combined with superb scenery is a marvellous experience which should never be rationed on the basis of ability to pay.

On development and commercialism--

• Biggest (danger) would be the establishment of hunting and fishing lodges with potential to control or prohibit public entry.
• That no exclusive hunting, fishing or tramping rights be given to any commercial enterprises.
• Any attempts to put roads or mono rails...through the Greenstone Valley...should be firmly resisted.
• The area is unique and important to the financial and amenity values of the Lakes district: New Zealand's premier tourist resort.
• With the development that is going on at Queenstown, and now Glenorchy, Queenstown will be a city and unless strenuous efforts are made now to retain and regain these lands in perpetuity they will be lost to the average citizens to developers and the edge of our wilderness areas will be further eroded and irretrievably lost. These places must be retained and be able to be easily accessed for the sake of the spiritual health of our people Maori and pakeha.
• No tourist development.
• Increase concession charges to private operators. No 'recreation' lodges. No toll gates on tracks.
• Opposes DOC 'Great Walk' status, commercial operations, helicopters.
• The environment before dollars and exploitation.
• We also feel some anxiety that not only are these areas threatened by privatisation whether in Maori or other tenure, but that DOC may put these treasures out of our reach by allowing further concessions for commercial gain. The Milford Track is now too expensive for many New Zealanders to enjoy. The Routeburn is going this way. As New Zealanders we should be able to freely enjoy our heritage and to benefit from the renew of spirit that these areas inspire.

On PANZ and the proposals in general--

• Provides acceptable solution between aspirations of Ngai Tahu and the greater right of the public.
• Proposals are sound...
• Agree with the main points of your carefully drafted submission. You are fully supported.
• An excellent submission-congratulations. Keep up the good work.
• Entirely appropriate and meaningful (proposals) in interests of general public.
• Excellent scheme.
• Forest and Bird is impressed with your presentation of the conservation, recreation and public access values, and fully support the PANZ proposals.
• Federated Mountain Clubs fully supports the tenure review proposals.
• I believe the above proposals are very fair...I want to see that the area remains for public use and control.
• I fully support the (PANZ) submission.
• I hope you win.
• I support all your endeavours.
• I would like to compliment you all on the effort put into these submissions. If we accomplish what you have proposed, it will be a good win for us all.
• It is my belief that these proposals best serve and protect the public interest and access these areas of high value and recreational opportunities.
• Keep up the good work in promoting public access and conservation in New Zealand.
• Keep up the huge effort, and thank you on behalf of all the Kiwis like myself who feel so threatened on so many fronts that we can't keep up.
• We fully support your well researched and presented draft proposals. Seems to be a reasonable compromise.
• Sounds good.
• Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your proposal. I congratulate your initiative.
• The PANZ monograph 9 (the proposals) looks magnificent. Don't yield a bloody thing.
• They all seem like very sound and sensible proposals to me.
• This is an excellent opportunity to protect an area of great conservation value. The above proposals would help bring this about.
• This is an excellent proposal.
• This is a sensible and well-researched proposal.
• This proposal has been well researched, and is logically presented.
• Very impressed by the draft proposal.
• We fully agree with the proposals.
• You are so right! All New Zealanders must be able to enjoy our country.
• Your proposal appears to offer a reasonable result for all concerned and ensures optimum public access.
• Your proposals are fair and equitable.
• Thanks for the considerable work in preparing the tenure review.
• May I take the opportunity to thank you guys for all the time and effort and dedication with which you serve us PANZ members.
• I agree with PANZ's proposals and I greatly commend PANZ's initiative and energy in producing them. It is a great pity that the Crown is not interested in protecting the rights of its subjects, and that we have to rely on the splendid efforts of public-spirited volunteers.

Specific Comments on Proposal 1

"Approximately 30,000 hectares to allocated to the Department of Conservation as public conservation areas and reserves".

Comments in support of transferring 30,000 hectares to DOC--

• We would not support in anyway recreational/conservation value portions of (lands subject to tenure review) passing into private hands, thereby allowing large areas of high natural value to pass from the people of this country, into hands which could if so predisposed, restrict access to fee paying clientele, or even to no-one at all.
• Do not use (this area) for Treaty claims.
• An important conservation/recreation area.
• All New Zealanders should be able to enjoy its unique beauty.
• Essential that these areas be preserved and available for all to enjoy.
• High landscape values. Better protected under DOC.
• Should be left in natural state and managed by DOC.
• Stock access easements may be necessary.
• Strongly support.Would prefer "approximately" 30,000 ha defined as "minimum".
• Strongly support allocation to DOC. It is really important to preserve areas unsuitable for grazing.
• Strongly support the retention (of the above areas) as public conservation areas and reserves.
• The land has a significance and importance to a wide range of New Zealanders.
• The land has too high a value to be held in private hands. Public use is a continuing right that must be retained.
• This is a golden opportunity to protect the red tussocks of Mararoa and Greenstone...short tussock grasslands and wetlands are also very important here and definitely worth presuming at this opportunity.
• We particularly value the rich diversity of vegetation found, for instance, on the boggy saddle at the head of the Caples-Greenstone.
• We strongly support the allocation of the Greenstone valley floor and the Mararoa valley to DOC. These areas remain relatively natural with extensive low altitude tussock grasslands and wetlands, which have nationally important conservation values.
• Recreational Hunting Area:
• Support for transfer to DOC conditional on RHA remaining and no national park being formed.
• The Wakatipu RHA needs preserving. If the land goes to DOC it should be on the understanding that the white tail deer are managed under a 'management plan'.
• Would like to see RHA preserved.
• National Park status?:
• Hope that area will be incorporated into the adjoining National Parks.
• Would like to see Greenstone valley as part of the national park.
• Should be included in adjoining national park
• Should be national park
• (Your proposals) are the minimum holding requirements. Aim should be national park status.
• I don't mind the Government turning the Caples and Greenstone into national park as long as the hunting (provisions) remain the same.

Comments in opposition to transferring 30,000 hectares to DOC--

• I think the conservation estate should be preserved as it is for future New Zealanders. The Government is looking for excuses to sell Crown land to overseas investors [submitter appears confused about proposals which are not about selling land, but about publicly reserving it.]
• DOC cannot look after what it has now.
• Should be protected by a National Water Conservation Order--otherwise area will be subject to the commercial greed of the market forces.

Specific Comments on Proposal 2

"Grazing of the new public lands be confined to a grazing licence over 100 hectares on the floor of the lower Caples Valley. Grazing to be confined to sheep. Public use at all times".

Comments in support of PANZ's lower Caples sheep grazing proposal--

• Yes, as long as wild deer have same right to graze.
• Yes, but concerned about access restrictions during lambing.
• Grazing must be excluded from bush fringe.
• Only sheep be allowed. Essential that there be unrestricted public access to grazing area. If licences not taken up or used within one year should be permanently discontinued.
• Right for lessor to cancel or modify conditions if over-grazing.
• To keep the land producing and keep weeds and grasses in check.
• Allocation of land for grazing licences and freeholding based on merits of applicants in relation to sustainable land use and public usage of adjoining conservation lands.
• Would support sheep grazing provided riparian margins and forests are protected from grazing...suspect not achievable without ruining natural character of valley.

Comments in opposition to PANZ's lower Caples sheep grazing proposal--

• We question...the granting of grazing licences over proposed conservation estate in the lower Caples Valley. Given the history of problems with such licences in other areas... Insufficient policing of such licences has led to overgrazing...and severe depletion of the natural 'protected' beech forests. We note also that access to grazing licence area would have to be via the conservation estate downstream (or by air!). One only needs to look at the forest in such areas as Maitland Stream behind the Ohau Range to see how damaging stock 'passing through' forest can be.
• Grazing not compatible with the DOC estate. It degrades the lower Caples Valley.
• Grazing of 100 ha is not of much real value for farming.
• Grazing of stock (and the piles of shit associated with this) are totally incompatible with tourist/tramper tracks and the "wilderness experience". Greenstone and Caples tracks are being destroyed by stock
• Presence of stock does nothing to enhance appreciation of these areas. Has experienced bogs and shit on tracks. Public benefit from allowing reversion to a natural state much greater than from farming.
• The low conservation value of this area does not provide reason enough to exclude its protection...This significant landscape should be protected in its entirety. Presence of stock hugely detracts from wilderness experience and general enjoyment. It is easier to ignore the exotic grasses than the blatant foreign objects-stock...with the exclusion of stock the lower Caples valley would slowly revert to a sequence of naturalness. Grazing of the Caples would also necessitate the movement of stock through conservation land...pugged muddy trails
• Would prefer to see grazing phased out of Caples valley; may be an acceptable short-term option.
• There are plenty of places in NZ where you can see sheep...the valley would be better left to revert...as a frost flat vegetation likely to be low stature. This would maintain sense of spaciousness and enable wandering at will.
• Any grazing will affect fishing (values).

Other comments about grazing:

• Cattle are completely unsuited to a fragile valley floor ecosystem such as the Caples. Free and unconditional access to this area must be retained.
• Cattle are very destructive to land near water and cause significant pollution. Sheep have far less impact.
• Cattle grazing quite inappropriate.
• Mararoa an inappropriate place for cattle.
• Prefer no grazing; area should be for recreational uses. I would hate to come back (from Australia) to see 'trespassers will be prosecuted' signs.
• Presence of cattle, causing damage to bush margins, and riparian vegetation, and pugging of walking tracks has long being a concern Forest and Bird and the many trampers who use the valley floors. In our view it is imperative that the cattle are removed.
• Stock, especially cattle, should be removed from valleys--foul waterways, eat tussock, detract from wilderness experience.

Specific Comments on Proposal 3

"Approximately 2,250 hectares be freeholded, being confined to Lake Wakatipu lower faces, terraces and the floor of the Dart Valley. Marginal strips to be reserved along streams".

Comments in support of PANZ freeholding proposals--

• We support the use of non-conservation value land contained within the former lease, to settle Ngai Tahu claims, where there can be a net conservation gain for (everyone), at the time the tenure reviews are carried out.
• (Confine freeholding) to lower terraces and Dart valley floor.
• Freehold should be confined to easier country.
• If the area of grazing is reduced, I am unsure if freeholding some areas is the best option.
• Important to freehold only those areas suitable for grazing.
• It is absolutely essential that only the lower altitude areas are allowed to be freeholded.
• Need to maintain landscape values from forestry, haybarns etc, roading.
• On provision of marginal strips:
  • Definition of streams needs widest possible definition (for marginal strips).
  • Marginal strips and public access to publicly owned land must be preserved at all costs.
  • Marginal strips: make sure this requirement is water-tight.
  • Marginal strips needed along lake front.
  • Marginal strips needed on lake shore Elfin Bay Station?
  • Need to ensure marginal strips along lake shores.
  • Marginal strips vital.
  • Preservation of marginal strips most important.
  • Provided grazing is restricted to protect fishing.
  • Provided marginal strips created first.
  • Strongly support marginal strips.
  • (support) as long as public access along the lake (Wakatipu) is assured.
  • Vital for marginal strips.
• On access across freehold--
  • (Need) provision for access strips to conservation lands, and marginal strips along all waterways before any freeholding.
  • Freeholding subject to walkway access where desirable.
  • Agreement should be negotiated for public access over freehold.
  • It is imperative that the freedom to go to these places is protected at any cost.
  • Freeholding subject to walkway access where desirable.
  • Agreement should be negotiated for public access over freehold.

Comments in opposition to PANZ freeholding proposals--

• Dart Valley is every bit as spectacular and enjoyed by trampers as the Greenstone...scenic value of the lake edge is high and would be enhanced by retainment as conservation area.
• Natural visual impact could be destroyed.
• All land that is Crown land or conservation land should remain 'status quo'.
• It is essential that the lake faces are kept from the hands of game farm operators.
• Oppose because farmers would still deny access.
• Leasing rather than freehold would be my preference.
• Oppose because no benefits to the public in 'selling of the marginal strips of land'.
• Opposed to privatisation of native ecosystems and land with environmental values.
• Grazing licence should be extended to cover this area, rather than freehold, to maximise public access.
• There are enough hassles now with fishing access in Dart etc.
• Why sell it?
• Strongly disagree with freeholding all the 2250 ha. Reserves over representative sites needed, including more fertile land.
  

---

Public Access New Zealand, P.O.Box 17, Dunedin, New Zealand

---