Farmers fear injustice

Press, 9 December 1988, Page 9

Farmers fear injustice

Any disruption to the title of Crown pastoral leases would create an injustice against South Island farmers, the Federation of Farmers submitted yesterday. A legal adviser for the federation, Mr Ewan Chapman, was making the submission on a topic which has become a source of long-standing debate for high country farmers. The Ngai Tahu tribe had advised the Waitangi Tribunal that all people using Crown land should be aware that the tribe may seek a tribunal recommendation regarding that land. “Outside the tribunal the restoration of Crown pastoral leases to Ngai Tahu have also been identified as the economic remedy for the satisfaction of breaches in the treaty. “Evidence will show that lessees see themselves as husbanding a significant national resource.” It would also demonstrate that pastoral lessees had understood Ngai Tahu grievances relating to land.

lessees part company with Ngai Tahu when pastoral leases which have already been alienated from Crown ownership are sought to satisfy this claim.

“In their minds land which remains absolutely within the Crown’s estate, if used, would avoid the possibility of creating further injustices by upsetting third party contracts.”

The Ngai Tahu case had been obscured by conflicting remarks made by the tribe within and outside the hearings. Mr Chapman presented the tribunal with a catalogue of quotations to prove the discrepancies. He provided the tribunal with a historical account of the creation and development of pastoral leasehold land leases.

Pastoral licences were originally granted over land not required by the Canterbury Association and the New Zealand Company in settling land purchases. The passing of the Land Act 1948 and creation of leases remedied

problems relating to the security of tenure under licences.

Lessees were granted exclusive rights to pasturage for terms of 33 years. The leases were perpetually renewable and the Crown fixed new rentals before the leases expired.

Rentals were also revised at 11year intervals.

“The leases are a contract between two parties — the Crown and lessee.

“The conditions required for the fulfilment of the contract are no less onerous on the Crown than they are on the lessee.”

The leases cost more to administrators than was derived from the total rental income.

The leases were managed on a basis relating to erosion and water control obligations.

A further factor in the high cost of administration related to their geographical spread between Marlborough and Southland. Lessees were continually required to liaise with their lessor.