Little advanced on high country ownership

Ray Macleod reviews Who Owns the High Country?, a book by Ann Brower about land tenure review in New Zealand.

Who Owns the High Country?
Ann Brower
Craig Potton Publishing, pbk, $29.99

Having read Dr Ann Brower's book Who Owns the High Country I am none the wiser.

My sense of anticipation when I received my copy was aroused, fuelled by the debate the writer generated over the subject of the outcomes of tenure review or, as she refers to it, land reform.

How did I react on reading the book? The questions I found myself asking were whether the book was truly a revelation and whether Dr Brower had achieved a balanced and robust analysis of the facts available.

From the Lincoln University website, Dr Brower observes that interest groups which have opposed her work so far will have their own views on her book.

She states that as an academic her allegiance is to scholarship, theory and the letter of the law, not to interest groups.

Fair enough.

So I felt compelled to examine the book on the basis of Dr Brower's loyalty to her allegiances and her use of the facts, rather than take a position on whether I supported or opposed her views.

Make no mistake, this book is about interest groups. In the author's mind there are two such groups.

There is a pro-conservation group, supported, if one reads the book's acknowledgment, by a group of anonymous reviewers, foreign academic dignitaries and a handful of named locals from universities, Landcare Research and the Department of Conservation.

On the other side there is, well, everyone else but most notably politicians, bureaucrats, valuers, contractors, the high country farming community and anyone who has assisted them.

The use of language appears emotive and divisive.

For example, in Chapter 7 - Using Truth to Confront Power, she states; "It is natural for individuals to advocate for their own self-interest, financial or otherwise.

It is less natural for governments to accommodate such greed."

Neither self-interest nor greed are complimentary terms and are revealing words to use in what is claimed to be an academic and balanced work.

Surely individuals are allowed to advocate for their wellbeing and welfare without being labelled self-interested and greedy?Dr Brower criticises the authors of an independent report from Victoria University, commissioned by the High Country Accord, on the basis that the economists involved cited no theory, no statute and no case law.

She also accuses them of using the wrong numbers, although sourced from her own report to Fulbright.

Then Dr Brower is also light on New Zealand case law to support her views. She can't have it both ways. This brings us to the use of the facts.

Dr Brower consistently refers to dollars per hectare as the basis for her analysis. Farm sales and purchases tend to be calculated on stock units. Why? Investors seldom buy solely on hectares or the number of bedrooms in hotels.

The decisions are made on carrying capacity or occupancy rates - the productive value of the asset.

Is an empty 500-bed hotel worth more or less than a permanently full one of 250 beds?She dismisses the residual effects on farms of the value of complementary grazing regimes or easements or covenants.

Is her use of hectares as a measure, to use her words, driven by self- interest? I ask: Is Dr Brower aware of the reality of the market place and is her use of the facts carefully scripted to provide an appropriate outcome? Dr Brower refers to Dingleburn Station at Lake Hawea and its development potential.

She paints the picture of idyllic views comparable to Wanaka or Wakatipu, which is true, and the fact that the owners have applied for resource consent to subdivide, also true.

But, two things. Location-wise the development potential is limited.

Secondly, the subdivision consent was turned down well before this book was published and she would have known that.

Her reference to Shirlmar Station under the heading The Setting leads you to believe it is sited on a lake front instead of the landlocked Lindis Pass.

You may get that past an audience not familiar with the area, but it must ring hollow and misleading to the informed.

A reference to a Landcare Research paper on biodiversity is interesting reading.

The language and some of the thinking and terms used are hauntingly familiar from reading the book. For example, in the chapter entitled Hiding The Truth In Plain Sight, Dr Brower notes "The Government and interest groups frequently count their wins and ignore their losses."

Interestingly, two of the authors of this Landcare report, Sue Walker from Landcare Research and Theo Stephens from Doc, are especially thanked by Dr Brower in the acknowledgement.

Intriguingly, this paper fails to account for the possibility that the farming industry is more environmentally aware and that there are no longer subsidies in place to fund the development of marginal farming land.

These considerations are so fundamental as to make this paper of limited value. To use it as the author has done is unfortunate.

A look at a Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry paper entitled the Environmental Consequences of Removing Agricultural Subsidies would have been useful and introduced balance.

Does this book engage the reader with its clear, concise and clinical academic approach? Well, no. Is it so convincing I was horrified by its revelations? Well, again no, but yes, I was horrified.

Horrified because I felt the revelations were contrived and self-serving.

The question remains. Why?

Ray Macleod is a director and general manager of Landward Management, a specialist Dunedin land management company in the rural sector which also provides valuation, compensation assessment, arbitration and mediation services.