Land ownership bound up in Lewis Pass dispute

Press, 3 October 1979, Page 19

Land ownership bound up in Lewis Pass dispute

Bv

OLIVER RIDDELL

Who owns the land? The answer to this key question may help resolve the debate now ranging over the future status of large stretches of mountain, farm, and forest land in the Lewis Pass region. The debate is bedevilled by the conflicting demands being made for the future of land of different status. Most of the Crown land is vested in either the Department of Lands and Survey or the Forest Service. Any change to the status of this land has to be made by the Ministry of Works and Devlopment — for historic reasons which no-one has bothered to alter. But some of the land being discussed is farmed, on long-term lease from the Crown, and some is privately-owned freehold. Both Government departments have issued reports on the area. Lands and Survey reported on behalf of the National Parks Authority and has made a number of recommendations. The Forest tervice issued a statement 'utlining its proposals. These two documents •onflict in many respects, mt the main dispute is :hat the Forest Service wishes to log some of the areas under its control while the Lands and Survey Department wants them reserved. Both departments have the same Minister (Mr V.

S. Young) and unless he or the Government is prepared to overrule one or other department, both will presumably continue to exercise control over their land as they see fit. This would effectively stymie any chance of a National Park embracing the land of both. It is not surprising' that Mr Young is under inceasing pressure from supporters of a National Park to overrule the Forest Service proposals. But West Coast interests will be

equally keen to see that logs are taken out. This is not a comfortable position for Mr Young. His two departments are obliged by their empowering legisaltion to adopt the attitudes they do. They are in potential conflict over the use of many tracts of land. But it is not pleasant for Mr Young to have to rule in favour of one or other of his departments when he is obliged to have hourly dealings with both on a host of subjects. The piecemeal approach to the question is open to criticism too. Little plots of land and forest are being considered, divorced from a wider view of the merits of the region of whether the little plots can be linked to form a worthwhile whole. Even the two depart-

merits seem confused. The Forest Forest has the impression that its plan for a Lewis Park forest park is only being delayed until submissions on the Lands and Survey Department report are received and evaluated. On the other hand, Mr Young has denied that Forest Service plans have pre-empted other options for the area and has reasured doubters that ail options would be considered before final decisions were made. Forest Service intentions must be clouded until it knows what the prospects are for a beech-based export industry. While wanting to keep its options open, it cannot say for sure that beech logs from all possible logging areas will be needed. This need will

arise only if there is an outlet for chipwood associated with the recovery of beech sawlogs. Even if precise questions can be formulated about its intentions for the timber of this or that part of the region, the Forest Service may not be able to give precise answers. There are a number of involved and contentious issues before the public, involving native fauna and flora. their protection, utilisation, and future status. Lewis Pass takes it place with Whirinaki, Pureora. South Okarito, and Paparoa Range, as one of the most involved and most contentious issues. About the only aspect of the problem over which there seems to be no doubt is the physical beauty of the region.