Pastoral leases reclassified

Press, 21 October 1983, Page 18

Pastoral leases reclassified

Parliamentary reporter Some 228 Crown pastoral leases have been reclassified as farm land since 1972, according to the Minister of Lands, Mr Elworthy.

He was replying to a series of questions in Parliament by Sir Basil Arthur (Lab., Timaru).

While the initiative for reclassification lay with the Land Settlement Board, 130 of those reclassified had been done so at the request of the lessees. There had been 4,101,567 ha of Crown pastoral leasehold land at June 30, 1972, Mr Elworthy said. Since then, 36 per cent (1,443,804 ha had been reclassified and freeholded. Of land considered for reclassification, he said 1 per cent had been excluded because of recreational values, 2 per cent because of conservation values, and 20 per cent because of water and soil conservation values.

Information on particular pastoral lease renewals could be sought under the Official Information Act, 1982. As well, the Land settlement Board’s highcountry policy provided that, when it was considered this warranted, public submissions on specific proposals might be called.

Administrative mechanisms for implementing the decisions announced recently on future policies for the reclassification of Crown pastoral leasehold land was still to be determined, Mr Elworthy said. In formulating these mechanisms, the board would be considering how public involvement might appropriately be achieved. He said 55 lessees had adopted run plans which involved the retirement of some land for water and soil conservation purposes. There were 13 more such plans under negotiation. Such retired land

comprised more than 70 per cent of total Crown leasehold land. But less than 20 per cent had actually been surrendered from leases or stayed under the lessee’s control. In 13 cases recreational access had been provided on to retired land, Mr Elworthy said. It had not been the general practice to ask for formal reports when investigating reclassification proposals. Instead, scientific resource management personnel in the Lands and Survey Department had been involved when required, with consultation with other agencies when needed. Because of the special circumstances applying in seven cases, six reports had been sought from the Wildlife Service and one from the Botany Division of the D.S.I.R.

All these reports had been implements in full, he said.