Exploding the Myths
1. Myth: High country lessees have perpetually renewable rights, so they own the land already.
The right to use land in a certain way is very different from owning land. And a lease which grants the rights to graze sheep and exclude trespassers is very different from freehold title. Though high country lobby groups frequently argue that high country land is 'in private hands', this is incorrect. The land itself is in public hands, just a few of the use rights are in private hands.
The biggest difference between freehold title and a pastoral lease is in the ability to subdivide. Land which may be subdivided is far more valuable than land where subdivision is prohibited. A pastoral lessee may not subdivide. A freehold title-holder may, as long as the district plan allows it. If the district plan does not allow it, the landowner may apply for an exemption. And, as the saying goes, if at first he doesn't succeed, he must but try again. District plans change, and district councils change. And it is well documented in the academic literature that more localised government agencies (be they provincial, regional, district, or states and counties overseas) are more friendly to development than central government agencies.
These leases are perpetually renewable, compensable, and exclusive. But these are all adjectives, not rights in themselves. They describe grazing rights, not ownership.
High country lobby groups also argue that pastoral leases are special and unique. This, too, is incorrect. Many governments around the world have similar arrangements in which the government owns the land, but grants permits, licenses, or leases to individuals or companies to use certain resources in or on the land. This separation of resource use from land ownership is common in Australia, the US, and elsewhere. It allows for public ownership of land, with private exploitation of the resources in or on the land (like coal, timber, grazing forage, oil, gas, gold, silver). The pastoral lease is one of many types of legal arrangements between governments and individuals which combine public ownership with private resource exploitation rights.
2. Myth: High country farmers are the guardians of the the land.
We enjoy an open high country landscape now because the Crown has owned the high country land for over 150 years. The Crown has allowed farmers to graze sheep on the land, but has placed strict controls on stock numbers, development, soil disturbance, and weed control. Land intensification and any land use other than grazing has been subject to discretionary consents. Privatising leasehold land has not been possible.
Most people will maximise personal financial gain if given the opportunity. When we give free-hold title to the lessees, add inherently weak District Plans, then add the high overseas and domestic demand for a slice of paradise ... very soon the landscape that used to be superb will turn into suburb. The 'guardians of the land' are already starting to walk away from the land richer, while the public is all the poorer. Examples around Lakes Pukaki, Wanaka and Wakatipu abound.
3. Myth: Woody weeds will invade the high country if you give it to DOC.
While the Land Act specifically requires the lessees to keep the land free of weeds the Crown has never enforced this clause. Today wilding pine are invading the high country at an ever increasing rate. The seed source is not in the high altitude lands sought by the Crown for conservation parks, it is in the low lands managed by the self-styled 'guardians of the land'.
However, the return of native wood is welcome! Native shrublands - often regarded as weeds by lessees, because they interfere with grazing - support a diversity of native plants, lizards, birds and insects. Their recovery means a return to a healthy functioning state. And they store biodiversity-friendly carbon.
4. Myth: Conservation and access covenants on private land are working better than public ownership.
It is not surprising that high country lobby groups like the 'High Country Accord' will argue for private ownership from lakeshore to mountain tops. They will advocate for that which benefits them. But full privatisation with covenants will inevitably result in the exclusion of the public from mountains, forests, lakes and rivers. It will lead to exclusive tourism ventures at the expense of public access, and to an uncontrollable degradation of conservation values through land intensification and subdivision. It will be a return to the 'landed gentry' which led thousands to flee Europe centuries ago. Our forebears did not want a repeat of this when they set up the pastoral lease system.
History has shown that covenants are not secure. If New Zealanders want reliable access to conservation land and healthy ecosystems, then the public must own both the land AND the access-ways to that land. New Zealanders must not have the wool pulled over our eyes.
5. Myth: Access is not a problem as long as you ask for permisson.
This did work for a long time, still does work with many lessees. But access is being denied for the flimsiest of reasons with disappointing frequency. Today we see traditional access-ways cut off by deer fences, even when there is not a deer in sight. It seems the fence was simply put there to keep people out. Since tourism has expanded and merino profits have declined, charging at the farm gate for access has become a desired source of income for many a lessee. A high country farmer recently tried to illegally charge for the use of a registered walkway easement. This should ring alarm bells with every New Zealander keen on the outdoors.
Our country needs walking access that is secure and certain at all times and people have to feel welcome on our land.
6. Myth: District Plans are taking care of landscape protection
At the risk of using a cliché, the High Country is iconic. The landscapes are precious to more than just those who live there. They define who we are as New Zealanders. Local councils have not yet protected the interests of the wider New Zealand public in these precious and irreplaceable places. And if we read the academic literature of economics and political science, there is no reason to expect that they will start to, as local bodies tend to favour development over conservation.
DOC has already recommended that some RMA rules restricting development should not apply to privatised former leasehold land! This should ring a warning bell for those who still place faith in District Plans.
Our landscapes are too precious to privatise: they must remain Crown land.