This page last modified 13 August 1999
Back to news release directory
Directory
Government's intention to enact
provisions for leasing of the Queen's Chain is in complete violation
of promises it made to the public during the last election.
Public Access New Zealand spokesman Bruce Mason was commenting
on Government's intention this week to push through Parliament
highly controversial clauses in the Conservation Amendment Bill
(No. 2) allowing leasing of marginal strips along the banks of
rivers and other waterways.
PANZ believes that if Parliament passes the objectionable provisions
it is certain that the issue will again become an election issue.
Mr. Mason said that the key feature of marginal strips is that
they are "reserved from sale or other disposition".
This prevents leasing and other forms of 'disposition'. A lease
conveys rights of exclusive occupation, meaning that the public
become trespassers despite the land being publicly owned.
The origin of the phrase "reserved from sale or other disposition"
dates back to Queen Victoria's instructions to Governor Hobson
in 1840 that "not on any account, or on any pretence whatsoever,
grant, convey, or demise to any person...nor permit or suffer
any such land to be occupied by any private person for any private
purposes".
In a legal opinion, Sir Geoffrey Palmer has confirmed that "the
fundamental purpose of marginal strips was that they were a category
of land that should forever remain free from sale or other disposition.
If the Conservation Amendment Bill (No 2) as reported back by
the Select Committee is passed by Parliament, that principle will
be breached".
Contrary to Conservation Minister Denis Marshall's assurances
(Radio NZ 2/3/96), his amendments change the law in a fundamental
way and amount to a general attack on public access up marginal
strips.
Mr. Mason said that it appears that Government has only gone out
of its way to consult conservation groups. "However this
issue is primarily about public access and recreation rather than
conservation. In June last year PANZ submitted to Mr. Marshall
a technical paper on the issue but he has not consulted us since,
despite us requesting this."
PANZ believes that all major recreation groups are opposed to
the marginal strip leasing provisions in the Bill.
The Minister's cynicism about his promises, and the intelligence
of the general public, is revealed by his statement of 29 February:
"the Government has decided to drop the controversial Clause
14 from the Bill [allowing leasing of marginal strips]...these
powers will instead be included in a new Part IIIB...".
There is not a pressing problem of squatters on marginal strips
that has forced Government into taking this course of action.
Government claims that there are many squatters and that there
are no legal mechanisms for removing them. The Minister proposes
issuing leases for terms up to 30 years, while at the same time
claiming that such occupations will be 'phased-out'. PANZ believes
that the real deficiency in the present system is a lack of political
will to tell squatters to move-on, rather than legal difficulties.
Mr. Mason said that he has been through all the evidence presented
to the select committee and found only a handful of private occupations
on marginal strips. He has also inspected most of DOC's regional
land inventories and has found only a few more cases of problem
structures on the strips.
Mr. Mason has repeatedly asked the Minister and his officials
to provide substantive evidence, and legal opinion, to justify
such a fundamental change to the law. "They have steadfastly
failed to furnish this. There isn't a problem requiring a legislative
fix."
"The whole change is founded on the illusion that there is
a major problem of private occupation, and that squatters somehow
have legal rights which cannot be dealt with under existing law.
"It has been most disappointing that one or two conservation
groups have been prepared to go along with this charade, presumably
as a trade-off for obtaining unrelated changes to the Conservation
Act that are more central to their interests. They have provided
the Minister with welcome succour for proceeding with this very
controversial legislation."
PANZ urges everyone concerned about the Bill to urgently contact
their MP.
6 April 1995
Government's failure to progress
the Conservation Amendment Bill through Parliament this week is
a welcome 'stay of execution' for the Queen's Chain', according
to Public Access New Zealand.
Marginal strips are safe, at least until the end of May, while
Parliament is in recess. PANZ will used this period to further
publicise the threat that leases pose to public access to waterways.
Public Access New Zealand spokesman Bruce Mason said that thousands
of people around the country responded to calls this week to contact
their member of Parliament. This was in reaction to the prospect
of law changes allowing exclusive private leases over marginal
strips. "This was a model demonstration of 'people power'
", according to Mr Mason.
Government has been forcibly reminded of its election promise
to drop plans for leasing the Queen's Chain. "It must now
honour that commitment".
PANZ is disappointed that the Forest and Bird Protection Society
has supported leases over marginal strips. The society sees the
proposals as "a practical compromise". However PANZ
believes that the society has unneccesarily traded off public
rights of access over marginal strips in exchange for obtaining
west coast reserves. "The society also has a trust in the
Minister that we and many others don't share".
Forest and Bird believes that there will be adequate controls
on the Minister's leasing powers. "The society may not be
aware that the Minister of Conservation has already abused such
powers at Queenstown where a commercial development has been allowed
to dominate the waterfront. On the Minister's decision, there
is now minimal provision for public access, and none for public
recreation. Satisfying both needs is required by the Conservation
Act yet the Minister's decisions do not reflect this. The Amendment
Bill proposes similar 'safeguards' or checks on Ministerial powers
to issue leases".
PANZ is very concerned that the Bill will turn the Department
of Conservation into "a pimp" for commercial development
interests. Section 17ZE (appended) allows the Minister to solicit
applications for commercial developments over the whole conservation
estate and to appoint private concessionaires to manage public
lands.
"I'm sure that if the Forest and Bird head office had more
closely examined the Bill, they would be alarmed at such an extreme
change in emphasis for the public conservation estate", Mr
Mason concluded.
ENDS
Appendix
Conservation Amendment Bill (No. 2)
"Section 17 ZE. Management activities--(1) Subject to this
Act, nothing in this Part of this Act shall affect or limit the
proper exercise by the Minister or Director-General of any power
to manage any land held or managed under this Act or any Act specified
in the First Schedule to this Act.
"(2) Without limiting any power exercisable by the Minister,
the Minister may--
"(a) Tender the right to make an application, invite applications,
or carry out other actions that may encourage specific applications:
"(b) Include in any concession provisions for the concessionaire
to carry on activities relating to the management of any conservation
area on behalf of the Minister or at any time enter into any agreement
providing for the concessionaire to carry out such activities.
4 April 1995
A statement today by the Minister
of Conservation that proposed leasing provisions over marginal
strips will remove "perpetual rights of occupation"
was described today as "barmy" by Public Access New
Zealand.
Spokesman Bruce Mason asks, "how can marginal strips with
a statutory prohibition on 'sale or other disposition' possibly
have lawful rights of private occupation, let alone perpetual
rights as Mr Marshall claims?"
The only occupiers of marginal strips are squatters, and others
who have unlawfully annexed public land. Mr Marshall should use
existing provisions in the Conservation Act to remove undesirable
private occupiers rather than fabricate reasons for their continuance,
Mr Mason said.
It says heaps about where Government's allegiances lie that they
wish to reward squatters and abusers of public land with secure
and exclusive rights under leases.
The Minister is elevating the non-existent legal status of squatters
as a means of portraying his plans for exclusive private possession
via leases as some kind of godsend for the public.
Mr Marshall's claim that the public will somehow enjoy greater
access than ever before are ludicrous. Government's plans for
leasehold rights of private occupation, with attendant trespass
rights along waterways, can only have one result--the public shut
out or forced to pay for use of their heritage, Mr Mason concluded.
2 April 1995
In rejecting the Queen's Chain
working party's recommendation to drop proposals for leases over
marginal strips, Government has broken key pre-election promises.
New Zealanders justifiably regard access to waterways as their
inalienable right. This explains the immense public feeling and
alarm when Government's plans surfaced in 1993 after the introduction
of the Conservation Amendment Bill (No 2).
Leases, with rights of exclusive possession and trespass held
by lessees, will allow the public to be barred from portions of
the Queen's Chain. Government MPs are promoting leases for commercial
occupiers and concessionaires.
A new and horrendous implication, arising from last Thursday's
report back to Parliament on the Bill, is that marginal strips
will be able to be sold, in secret, without any right of public
objection.
Public Access New Zealand spokesman, and member of the Queen's
Chain working party, Bruce Mason of Dunedin, said that the Government
intention to persist with leases is in direct breach of undertakings
to the electorate not to do so. "Government's disregard for
the founding precept behind the Queen's Chain, that this narrow
strip of public land along the edge of waterways should remain
free of private occupation, means that it is perverting the whole
concept of assured public access to waterways".
Government members of the select committee have apparently accepted
a DOC interpretation that marginal strips are not "reserved
from sale or other disposition", as stated in the Conservation
Act. To the contrary, PANZ advised the committee that any disposition
by way of sale or lease is prohibited under the Act. The DOC interpretation
will mean that thousands of kilometres of marginal strips around
New Zealand's coasts would be able to be sold off, Mr Mason believes.
Unlike other conservation areas there are no provisions in the
Conservation Act that regulate the sale of marginal strips, and
no provisions for public notification or objection to this. "This
is for a good reason, as the strips are not meant to be disposed
of. However Government's flawed interpretation, if applied, means
that there will be no bar to the sale of marginal strips".
"There is a risk that Government will push the law change
through this week when Parliament rises. Government's failure
to recognise the special status of marginal strips is a betrayal
of trust that will not be forgotten at the next election. The
only beneficiaries of the law change will be illegal squatters,
concessionaires, and property speculators".
PANZ has called on the Prime Minister to sort out what his Minister
of Conservation has failed in. "The Queen's Chain Working
Party should be re-convened over the pending two-month Parliamentary
recess to advise the PM of solutions in keeping with his election
promise not to let the Bill proceed unless public access rights
are improved".
27 October 1993
Conservation and Environment
Organisations (ECO) and Public Access New Zealand welcome Government's
acceptance of the recommendations of the working party established
by the Minister of Conservation to sort out problems with the
Conservation Amendment Bill.
Working party members Cath Wallace of ECO and Bruce Mason of PANZ
today welcomed Mr Marshall's decision to adopt the group's recommendations
to amend the Bill. Government has accepted the need to change
clauses 12 and 13 of the Bill, and decided to drop clause 14 which
proposed leases and licences over marginal strips. The supposed
"problems" that clause 14 was supposed to solve will
be instead dealt with by a select committee.
Ms Wallace and Mr Mason believe that public opinion played an
important part in today's decision.
"Mr Marshall accepted our view rather than that of his department
on the leasing provision. We concluded that the Department of
Conservation had failed to establish that there was a problem
of ports or housing or other structures existing on marginal strips
that required formalisation by way of leases etc. We were particularly
concerned about the serious implications for public access and
conservation that would arise from the exclusive occupancy that
leases and licences would create".
While we are naturally pleased that Government has now responded
positively to the working party's recommendations on the Bill,
we remain concerned that the public has not received a guarantee
that leases and licences will not reappear in 'drag' in the future.
We wish that the Government would accept the working party view
that there is no "problem" that requires a select committee
to look at. The danger is that in a few months time the department
will push again for the granting of exclusive commercial rights
over marginal strips.
Government should simply have said that the issue is now dead,
rather than leave it open to reappear in another form after the
election.
20 October 1993
The working party appointed
by Conservation Minister Denis Marshall to review controversial
clauses in the Conservation Amendment Bill reached consensus early
this week on the changes necessary to protect public access to
waterways.
On setting up of the working party Mr Marshall said that the Bill
would not proceed until everyone on the working party was satisfied
with its contents. Working party member and Public Access New
Zealand spokesperson, Mr Bruce Mason of Dunedin, announced today
that all members of the working party have agreed on the nature
of the changes that are necessary before the Bill should proceed.
The parties represented were the NZ Fish & Game Council, Royal
Forest & Bird Protection Society, Federated Mountain Clubs,
Environment and Conservation Organisations (ECO), as well as PANZ,
assisted by advice from the Department of Conservation.
The main recommendations from the working party are that--
1. Proposed powers to reduce the width of marginal strips down to 3 metres along river banks (clause 12) should proceed on the proviso that Government also create the ability to have strips wider than 20 metres to allow practical access along sea shores, lakes and rivers, and to also constrain the Minister's existing powers to waive in total marginal strips, instead to urban situations where no public benefit would be gained by their creation.
2. That clause 13 be amended so that when public reserves are vested under private control without marginal strips being laid off, as proposed by the Bill, all proposed vestings be subject to consideration by Conservation Boards who may require public consultation.
3. That clause 14 be deleted from the Bill, removing a proposed ability to issue leases and licences with trespass rights over marginal strips. The working party found that there was no evidence to show that a change to the present law is necessary and most members were unconvinced that such a radically new provision was desirable.
Mr Mason said that the stated aims of the Government, being to
improve public access to beaches, lakes and rivers, would be achieved
by the changes recommended to the Bill.
There is massive public concern about the Bill and a lot of apprehension
that the Government will delay stating its position on changes
to the Bill until after the election, Mr Mason said.
As the working party has attended to the essential matters of
the Bill, it is now time for Government to allay growing public
fears as to its true intentions. If public confidence is to be
maintained the Government must now state its acceptance of the
working party's recommendations, and a commitment to implement
them if re-elected, Mr Mason concluded.
16 July 1993
Conservation Minister Denis
Marshall's reaction to concerns over the Conservation Amendment
Bill (No 2) confirms worst fears about Government's intentions
for the Queen's Chain.
Public Access New Zealand was responding to Mr Marshall's comments
in today's Dominion that proposed changes to marginal strip access
to rivers, lakes, and the sea would enable runholders to be appointed
as managers of the strips.
"Mr Marshall is confusing his role as associate Minister
of Agriculture with his Conservation portfolio", PANZ spokesman
Bruce Mason said. "Mr Marshall is looking after his farmer
friends by the Bill's provisions to issue leases and licences
over marginal strips".
Leases and licences convey trespass rights, legally excluding
the public from using the strips without the landholders' permission.
"This will result in Clayton's Strips, owned by the public
but unable to be used by them as of right. This is in utter contradiction
to their purpose of public access free of any alienation to private
interests.
"Government is attacking the very essence of the Queen's
Chain concept that New Zealand has been justifiably proud of since
1840. It appears that Mr Marshall doesn't know what's in his own
Bill when he claims that public access rights will be improved
by the Bill", Mr Mason concluded.
PANZ, a charitable trust, has recreational and conservation support
exceeding 220,000 people from throughout New Zealand.
23 June 1993
Government has completely ignored
public wishes that the 'Queen's Chain' concept of public reserves
alongside waterways be strengthened throughout New Zealand. This
is the conclusion reached by recreational group Public Access
New Zealand after analysis of two Bills before Parliament.
PANZ spokesperson, Bruce Mason of Dunedin, said today that in
just about every respect the esplanade provisions of the Resource
Management Amendment Bill have gone from bad to worse in the hands
of the Planning and Development Select Committee. New esplanade
strips are able to be closed to the public at the complete whim
of territorial authorities and private landowners. Grounds for
exemptions to the creation of esplanade reserves will be so widened
that it is unlikely that many new reserves will be created in
the future he said. PANZ favours publicly owned esplanade reserves
rather than 'esplanade strips' that will remain in private titles.
If any new accesses are created when land is subdivided the public
will not know because the select committee has struck out proposals
for public notification of their existence and the conditions
for public use. They can also be varied or cancelled without public
notification. Mr. Mason said that the Bill originally had one
redeeming feature, a proposal for esplanade strips to automatically
shift with movements of river banks and shorelines and so maintain
practical access. This provision will now only apply within individual
properties rather than the more prevalent situation of along property
boundaries. It is apparent that Government has spent considerably
more effort devising methods of restricting or limiting public
access than enabling it, Mr. Mason said.
The Government has also introduced in the Conservation Amendment
Bill (No 2) provisions for the granting of leases over marginal
strips, the latter being the main form of public waterside access
in New Zealand. The leases will convey exclusive possession of
these public areas to private interests, being in direct violation
of the 1840 Royal Instructions that established the concept of
the Queen's Chain in New Zealand. A worse case scenario is that
thousands of kilometres of shorelines and river and lake banks
will be liable to be privatised if this becomes law. The occupiers
will have trespass rights and be able to call in the Police to
have members of the public evicted from what are supposed to be
public lands. This is scandalous and says much about Government's
commitment to private rather than public interests. PANZ is calling
for a statutory prohibition on the legal occupation of marginal
strips for private purposes.
It is inevitable that Government's attack on the Queen's Chain
will become an election issue, Mr. Mason said. PANZ estimates
that there are approximately 200,000 fresh water anglers, 500,000
sea fishers, and tens of thousands of other recreationalists that
will be adversely affected by the changes. PANZ is urging its
220,000 supporters to vigorously oppose the changes to the legislation.
9 February 1993
Government's proposed changes
to esplanade reserves take away opportunities to extend public
access throughout New Zealand and ignore the fundamental reason
for their existence. This is the conclusion reached by recreational
rights group Public Access New Zealand after detailed analysis
of the Resource Management Amendment Bill.
The proposed changes are despite a clear public wish that the
present incomplete coverage of reserves alongside waterways and
the sea (in other words the 'Queen's Chain' concept) be completed
throughout New Zealand.
PANZ spokesperson, Brian Turner of Dunedin, said today that the
whole direction of the Bill is towards dispensing with reserved
'Queen's Chains' with public rights along the margins of lakes,
rivers and sea. This Bill will result in insecure public access
privileges, or no rights at all. These privileges will be liable
to termination at any time. Considerably more effort has gone
into devising methods of restricting or prohibiting public access
than enabling it, he said.
Government intends replacing publicly owned and managed esplanade
reserves with 'esplanade strips.' These strips will be covenants
on the title to the land, the ownership of which will remain in
private hands.
On closely examining the Bill, Public Access New Zealand has found
that esplanade strips will be subject to automatic closures to
public use and liable to arbitrary closure. At the same time the
landowner and invitees will continue to enjoy access and use.
This will provide an 'open door' for exclusive hunting and fishing
on the adjoining water areas, Mr. Turner said. These areas could
become no more than private preserves rather than assets managed
for the common good. This is a major backwards step for any government
in New Zealand to contemplate.
PANZ has urged its 20,000 supporters to vigorously oppose the
plans for esplanade strips and to submit their views to the Planning
and Development Select Committee by February 19.