This page last modified 18 September 1998
Back to news release directory
Directory
Three national recreation and
conservation organisations today asked political parties to reject
Government's Crown Pastoral Lands Bill when it reappears in Parliament
shortly.
The Bill proposes major changes to the law governing pastoral
leases in the South Island high country.
The groups believe the Bill will allow exclusive tourism and fishing
ventures to become established, with the public shut out unless
they can afford to pay for access. Instead they have called for
public reserves to be set aside and free access provided in exchange
for allowing freehold title over the better farm land. This is
happening now under the existing law and the groups don't see
any necessity to change the Land Act as the Bill intends.
Public Access New Zealand, Federated Mountain Clubs, and the Forest
and Bird Protection Society are concerned that despite recent
hearings of submissions from all sides of the debate, redrafting
of the Bill has been captured by private property advocates.
PANZ spokesman Bruce Mason is alarmed that Government has invited
an extreme right wing group to capture the democratic process.
"The High Country Trustees are a secret society that is not
representative of the majority of runholder views, let alone different
interests that should have a direct say on the content of the
legislation", Mr. Mason said.
Government MP Warren Cooper revealed last week that the primary
production committee chair Eric Roy has been "working closely"
with John Williamson and John Miller of the runholder group, High
Country Trustees.
PANZ is concerned that the Trustees want freehold over all pastoral
leasehold lands. "The only provisions for public access they
advocate are privately owned parks and insecure covenants and
easements over freehold, with conditions of use completely on
the new land owners' terms. There would not be guaranteed rights
of public access free of demands for payment for entry or other
charges. In effect publicly owned resources like fish and game
would become privatised and only available to the privileged and
rich," Mr. Mason said.
Despite the inference from their name, the Trustees are not registered
as a Trust, or as an Incorporated Society. "It is appalling
that Government has aligned themselves so closely with them, while
choosing to ignore other properly constituted bodies with an active
interest in the high country," Mr. Mason said.
It appears that Government's primary concern is to dispense privileges
to a few of its traditional supporters and to push through the
changes before the next election. The Government admits that it
would have great difficulty in doing so under a more representative
MMP Parliament.
PANZ believes that in view of the Trustees' close involvement
with redrafting the Bill, the legislation is now hopelessly discredited.
"We do not have any confidence that the reported-back version
of the Bill will adequately address widespread public concerns
over its direction and content."
The recreation and conservation groups have agreed on a list of
20 essential changes to the Bill and have distributed these to
political parties. The groups have agreed that unless all of these
important changes are made the Bill should be dumped.
"Government has stopped listening to public concerns. It
has a narrow ideological agenda which does not match that of most
other parties in Parliament. MPs should distance themselves from
this shameless act of privatisation and signal their intention
to vote against further passage of the Bill, Mr. Mason concluded.
4 April 1995
In response to repeated claims
from runholders and the government that the public has nothing
to fear from freeholding of high country pastoral leases, Public
Access New Zealand today released proposals that Government has
discussed with farmer and outdoors groups.
There are 2.5 million hectares or 20 percent of the South Island
held under pastoral lease, much of which has outstanding conservation
and recreational values.
PANZ, the Forest and Bird Protection Society, Federated Mountain
Clubs, New Zealand Fish and Game Council, and the Deerstalkers
Association have united against the Government's proposals to
amend the Land Act.
PANZ spokesman Bruce Mason said that there have been major points
of contention between the groups and the government over what
was in its proposals. PANZ has previously called on Lands Minister
Denis Marshall to release his 'Crown Pastoral Lands: Proposals
to Amend the Land Act 1948', but he has been reluctant to do so.
In view of mounting public unease as to Government's intentions,
and the need for well-informed public debate, PANZ has made the
24 page document publicly available.
Features of the Minister's proposals that concern the groups are--
The groups consider that there is no need to change the Land Act
to assist the existing successful land tenure review process.
This involves the exchange of interests between the Crown and
lessees, resulting in the best farm land being freeholded, in
exchange for public reserves and assured public access being provided.
Despite the opposition of all major outdoors' groups to Government's
plans, PANZ is apprehensive that Government will rush legislation
into Parliament this week before it goes into recess for two months.
The Minister is on record that he wishes to change the law before
MMP elections are held.
"Freeholding anything with 'commercial value' is entirely
consistent with Government's plans for leasing of the Queen's
Chain for commercial activities. Both proposals are equally objectionable.
It is not too late for Government to respect overwhelming public
wishes that this not happen", Mr Mason concluded.
22 March 1995
Public Access New Zealand rejects
accusations by Federated Farmers' high country committee that
PANZ is exploiting prejudices and fears over Maori ownership of
South Island high country land (FF news release 21/3/95).
PANZ spokesman Bruce Mason of Dunedin said today that the group
was staggered and disgusted by the accusations. The Farmers' comments
were in response to a PANZ petition against using the Greenstone,
Elfin Bay and Routeburn Stations on the shores of Lake Wakatipu
for claims' settlement with Ngai Tahu.
The petition has been presented to Parliament and referred to
a select committee for consideration. The petition is not racially
motivated and is consistent with the Waitangi Tribunal's finding
that the land was not wrongfully taken from the tribe.
The petition asks the Government to add the land to the conservation
estate instead of handing it to the tribe. It urges Government
to use other assets, especially Landcorp farms, to settle proven
grievances. The aims of the petition matches Ngai Tahu's own statement
of claim to the Tribunal that a settlement should use lands that
are representative of the land lost in both character and geographic
distribution. PANZ believes the mountainous Lake Wakatipu Stations
couldn't be more dissimilar and distant from the lands the Crown
denied the tribe.
The Tribunal found that most lands denied to Ngai Tahu were in
the lowlands of Canterbury, Otago, and Southland. These regions
contain a number of Landcorp farms that are ideally suited for
settlement use. PANZ wants a just settlement that doesn't create
injustices for other New Zealanders. There are immensely important
conservation and recreation values on the stations that all New
Zealanders, irrespective of race or privileged position, should
have opportunity to experience and enjoy.
High country runholders in general stand to make enormous gains
from Ngai Tahu gaining freehold ownership over the former pastoral
leaseholds. Firstly, if Ngai Tahu gains freehold title over mountain
lands with opportunities for exclusive hunting, fishing and other
tourism use this will immediately set a precedent for the freeholding
of all other pastoral leasehold land in the South island. That
is the Farmers' published agenda.
Secondly, Federated Farmers know that if Ngai Tahu ask the Government
to buy out other pastoral leases, that the runholders will be
paid greatly in excess of market value. Individual runholders
will be laughing all the way to the bank and land values in general
will be inflated to the benefit of other lessees.
PANZ believes that Federated Farmers' accusations of racist motives
by PANZ is little more than a mask for runholders' freeholding
ambitions in the high country.
In regard to claims that existing public rights of access over
the Wakatipu stations will be protected if Ngai Tahu gains freehold
title, there are no legal rights of access over the former leasehold.
"They are going to guarantee our existing rights which are
no rights at all".
17 March 1995
Revelations by the Labour Party
that the Government has already prepared drafting instructions
for an amended Land Act make a complete sham of consultations
by the Minister of Lands with recreation and conservation groups.
For several months Lands Minister Denis Marshall has been in discussions
with non-government organisations over the content of proposed
law changes that would allow easier freeholding of Crown pastoral
leases in the South Island high country.
PANZ spokesman Bruce Mason of Dunedin says that Government is
proposing more "flexible" rules that would allow the
freeholding of high country Crown lands when runholders and unspecified
'third parties' perceive "commercial values" to be present.
There are 2.5 million hectares, or 20% of the South Island, held
under pastoral lease. In PANZ's view the majority of these lands
contain conservation, landscape and recreation values which should
be retained in public ownership.
PANZ spokesman, Bruce Mason of Dunedin, said that on March 7,
the morning after Mr Marshall had been in consultation with PANZ
and other groups over "proposals" to amend the Land
Act, he let it slip that drafting instructions for law changes
had already been prepared.
"Instructions to law draftsmen should be the final stage,
after all policy issues have been resolved. Mr Marshall consistently
told us, and other groups, that what he was raising with us were
proposals only. He has totally misled us. The consultations were
meaningless. His prior determination of the content of a law change
explains why he did nothing to change successive proposals he
put before us, despite our strong exception to their content".
"This fiasco gives us no confidence in the Minister's public
assurances that public ownership and access will be provided,
or in his ability to deliver such".
PANZ also repeats a call for the Minister to release his 'Crown
Pastoral Lands: Proposals to Amend the Land Act 1948', dated February
1995. Mr Marshall has refused to publicly release them, claiming
the document to be "private" and "only a draft".
"The document can hardly be regarded as 'private' when all
the main antagonists, including PANZ have them", Mr Mason
said. The Minister claims that it is 'totally spurious' for PANZ
to state that there is a gulf between what he is stating publicly
and what he officially proposed. "In such a matter of major
public interest it is only fair that the public should have better
information on which to judge the merits of Mr Marshall's 'reforms'
".
15 March 1995
Minister of Lands and Conservation
Denis Marshall's assurances that public ownership and access to
South Island high country is assured under proposed changes to
the Land Act are not credible, according to Public Access New
Zealand.
PANZ spokesman Bruce Mason of Dunedin says that Mr Marshall is
conducting a misinformation campaign by way of press release.
"There is a gulf between what the Minister is announcing
and what his policy proposals say".
Government is proposing more "flexible" rules that would
allow the freeholding of high country Crown lands where runholders
and other speculators perceive "commercial values" to
be present.
The majority of the 2.5 million hectares, or 20% of the South
Island, is held under pastoral lease. There are outstanding conservation,
landscape and recreation values present. PANZ believes the majority
should be retained in Crown ownership and only the best farming
land freeholded as an inducement to runholders to give up their
leases.
Bruce Mason says that Mr Marshall's accusation that outdoors groups
are misleading the public is not supported by his policy proposals
for changing the Land Act.
Mr Marshall has consulted major stakeholders, including PANZ,
over proposed changes to the Land Act to allow more "flexible"
freeholding. However PANZ has found no guarantees in the Minister's
policy documents that any land will be retained in public ownership,
let alone one million hectares as he claims. Neither are there
any guarantees that public access will be provided.
"In the interests of informed debate we challenge Mr Marshall
to release his 'Crown Pastoral Lands: Proposals to Amend the Land
Act 1948', dated February 1995, so that the public can judge who
is misleading who".
"This is the last great slice of unprotected Crown lands
in New Zealand. The high country is part of the national psyche.
There is too much at stake for important public issues to be debated
on the basis of incomplete information".
8 March 1995
Federated Mountain Clubs of New Zealand
New Zealand Fish & Game Council
Public Access New Zealand
Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society
Four major national recreation
and conservation organisations today warned Government that it
should not proceed with amendments to the Land Act allowing the
freeholding of South Island natural areas including mountains,
tussock grasslands, wetlands, recreation areas, and forests.
The Forest and Bird Protection Society, Federated Mountain Clubs,
New Zealand Fish and Game Council, and Public Access New Zealand,
have been consulted by Lands and Conservation Minister Denis Marshall
over proposals to amend the Land Act. The Government is proposing
to phase out pastoral leases, which cover 2.45 million hectares
of the South Island, by negotiation with individual lessees.
The proposals will allow lessees to obtain freehold title provided
the public conservation and recreational interest is 'safeguarded'.
This is assumed to be through the creation of public lands however
the only specific 'safeguard' proposed in discussion papers is
for covenants over freehold title. The groups have expressed grave
reservations over the adequacy and enforeability of covenants
but these have not been addressed by Government.
The groups' spokesman, Bruce Mason of Dunedin, said that the danger
in the proposals was that the government was intending to open
up all types of high country land to freeholding, including mountains,
and would not make any committment to public ownership over areas
with predominent conservation and recreation values.
If the proposals proceed, anything with so-called 'commercial
value' may be freeholded. This could include commercial hunting,
fishing, sightseeing, and recreational activities in general.
"These would be exclusive uses. The public would be shut
out, unless they were invited or able to pay. Otherwise they would
be trespassers liable to criminal prosecution", Mr Mason
said.
Mr Mason said that under current law pastoral lessees can only
obtain freehold title over the best grazing land --that which
is capable of pasture improvement and diversification. Currently
freeholding can only occur after a public 'reclassification' process.
Areas that are severely degraded or containing conservation and
recreation values is returned to the Crown in exchange for issuing
freehold over farmable areas. Several deals have been successfully
negotiated recently whereby farm land is freeholded and public
reserves created with public access provided. This is providing
'wins' for all parties.
"The absence of freeholding rights over land only suitable
for light grazing has been deliberate Government policy for many
decades. This is in view of the lands' fragility and the high
public interest in protecting remaining conservation and recreation
values". There are also large areas in the leases that are
not grazed. There is huge potential for public parks and reserves
and secure public recreational opportunities. The groups see scope
for tussockland conservation parks to correct the lack of protection
and create opportunities for public appreciation of native grasslands
and scenic landscapes.
The groups believe that the current tenure review process is working
well and changes to the law are unnecessary. The only glitch is
the lack of resources Government is putting into processing all
the applications for tenure review. Only a small fraction of the
80 properties wanting tenure review is being dealt with because
of Government restrictions on funding.
"We are dismayed that the Minister has failed to address
many of our concerns and has also not established a need for legislative
change to the tenure review process. "The only beneficiaries
appear to be a relatively few runholders who will receive a massive
increase in rights, and foreign and other investors able to negotiate
in secret for the ownership of huge slices of mountain country".
The groups believe that Government is in danger of major misjudgement
of public feeling on the issue. This is the last major carve-up
of Crown lands in New Zealand and is as important as the Crown
land allocation process in the mid 1980s leading to the enlargement
of the conservation estate. That carve-up went badly awry until
explicit criteria were adopted to ensure conservation lands were
not commercialised. Mr Marshall risks blundering into a political
maelstrom by repeating past mistakes.
18 August 1994
A review of Government proposals
for private management of recreation and conservation lands has
concluded that the shortcomings are so severe that they cannot
be taken seriously as a substitute for public ownership as parks
and reserves.
National lobby group Public Access New Zealand today released
a study of proposals by Government that are supposed to protect
recreation and conservation values if South Island high country
pastoral leases are freeholded. Almost 3 million hectares of Crown
lands are currently affected by a review of the Land Act.
PANZ spokesman and researcher, Bruce Mason of Dunedin said that
"Government is implying private management can do as well,
if not better, in protecting the public interest than public ownership".
Proponents of private ownership argue that the prime issue is
one of 'access' and 'management' rather than ownership of the
land.
PANZ reviewed the adequacy of several proposed mechanisms if Crown
lands are freeholded, including covenants, management agreements,
protected private land agreements, and district plan rules. PANZ
found them 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 involvement or objection.
"There is no accountability to the public for the actions
of a landowner, or for public officials responsible for upholding
the terms of an agreement". "We even found a case where
there was a confidentiality clause preventing public disclosure
of the terms of an agreement", Mr Mason said.
It is assumed by the Government that it will be 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.
Government can be liable for paying rates, weed and wild animal
control, wildfire suppression, fencing, 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. It would
be more economical, and democratic, for the Crown to continue
to manage conservation and recreation land itself", Mr Mason
believes.
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.
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, Mr Mason said.
"Government should get on with providing a substantial body
of public reserves in the high country with guarantied public
access, rather than continue with the pretence of providing for
public needs under private ownership ", Mr Mason concluded.
17 July 1994
Federated Mountain Clubs
New Zealand Fish & Game Council
Public Access New Zealand
Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society
The leaders of four national
organisations today expressed dismay at the Department of Conservation's
latest vision for the South Island high country.
Approximately 3 million hectares of the South Island is Crown
land grazed under pastoral leases. The future of these leases,
and the public interest in these mountain lands, is currently
subject to review, with a new Land Act proposed late this year.
DOC recently released a draft discussion document on 'Public Interest
Goals for the South Island High Country'. The document proposes
in future, once 'public interest' values such as nature conservation
and recreation are identified, that these values be managed by
private owners under freehold title. There are no commitments
in the document to retention of public ownership even on highly
rated natural or recreational lands.
The four organisations describe as "astounding" that
Government's prime agency responsible for the protection of nature
and public recreation is abandoning advocacy for public land ownership.
The groups believe that public ownership and management is the
most effective means of ensuring that the land is protected and
the public have rights of access. The non-government organisations,
Federated Mountain Clubs, New Zealand Fish & Game Council,
Public Access New Zealand, and the Royal Forest & Bird Protection
Society are estimated to represent at least 300,000 people.
Spokesman for Public Access New Zealand, Bruce Mason of Dunedin,
says "the DOC document, and recent statements by officials,
lead us to believe that the Minister of Lands and Conservation,
Denis Marshall, has signalled an intention to remove the current
prohibition on freeholding from pastoral leases. The Minister
needs to clearly state where the government stands on this key
issue"."Proposals for protecting important conservation
and recreation values by way of covenants on freehold title, as
the Department's head office is proposing, are a totally inadequate
and unacceptable substitute to public ownership and control, Mr
Mason said.
Covenants lack security. There is no obligation to register conservation
covenants against a freehold title. If they are registered the
Courts can modify or extinguish them at any time on request from
the land owner and the Crown. All that is needed is agreement
between the parties. There is no requirement for public notification
or objection. "We have long ago lost faith in Governments
or officials acting in the public interest when out of the gaze
or scrutiny of the public", Mr Mason said.
"What is needed is partition of the high country through
negotiated exchange of property rights between pastoral lessees
and the Crown. This must be based on the runholders first establishing
the suitability for farming of the land they seek to freehold.
There must be continued statutory recognition that pastoral lessees
do not have a right to freehold. Where they want that right they
must give up other rights and lands in return", Mr Mason
said.
The groups believe that adoption of the approach now proposed
by DOC would overturn the present well-founded presumption that
these lands, because of their fragility, are not available for
private ownership.
"We fail to comprehend how DOC, in the presence of compelling
evidence of serious land degradation under private pastoral occupation,
can justifiably entrust the care of remaining natural values to
the present pastoral users".
"Under DOC's vision for the future the recreational public
would become no more than beggars asking, and probably paying,
for access to go and enjoy a privately managed outdoors",
Mr Mason concluded.
28 April 1993
PANZ spokesperson Bruce Mason
said that these are very desirable additions that provide a model
for treatment of all other higher altitude lands on the Greenstone,
Elfin Bay, and Routeburn Stations currently held by Government.
The reserve extensions will add the 6700 foot Tooth Peak plus
beech forests to the reserve.
"We have to differ from earlier comment by Federated Mountain
Clubs' representative Mike Floate that the additions are only
of "marginal recreational value," Mr. Mason said. The
mountain is the most prominent peak south of the lower Greenstone
Valley, providing a spectacular view point. Inspection last week
also revealed that a lower altitude promontory will provide an
easily accessible viewpoint of the Greenstone and Caples Valleys
and lake. This will provide opportunities for day walks from the
road-end, being within the capabilities of most family groups.
"It would be most unfortunate if the authorities got the
idea from Mr. Floate's comments that these and comparable mountain
lands are unworthy of retention in public ownership," Mr.
Mason said. "The Government has to get the message that these
stations have outstanding recreation and conservation values.
In addition to the high country, the valley floors, in particular
in the Greenstone and Caples, provide the main public thoroughfares
and fisheries of international significance.
"Public access and protection of these resources can only
be assured through continued public ownership of them," Mr.
Mason concluded.