Rulings a boost for farmers

High-country farmers hope three judicial hearings and one independent review which have all gone in their favour may finally see an end to constant criticism about their role on the land.

Those who initiated legal action or have questioned the farmers, say they were just trying to get legal clarity, while farming leaders have questioned the motives of some of the scrutiny, but said the litigation has clarified and strengthened property rights and farmer's right to farm.

In softball terms, pastoral lessees were batting 1.000, the perfect game.

Federated Farmers high-country committee chairman Donald Aubrey said the criticism of farmers reflected a general waning of respect for others in society, and a lack of appreciation of farmer's role in managing the land.

He was proud of the way farmers had stood up for themselves, such as the Soldiers Syndicate in securing grazing access to the Ida Range, but was reluctant to say lessees had been vindicated.

He said Fish and Game New Zealand management was out of step with its membership in seeking a declarity judgement over whether lessees had exclusive possession and whether the public had access rights.

Mr Aubrey said the move by Land Information New Zealand (Linz) to include a charge for amenity values in pastoral lease rents, was driven by an agenda of the previous Government.

"Introducing amenity values was a not so subtle attempt by the Government to get its way."

Last week the Otago District Land Valuation Tribunal found in favour of lessees in the methodology Linz used to set rents, which Mr Aubrey said was a clearcut ruling in favour of Minaret Station lessees, Jonathan and Annabel Wallis.

However, former lands minister David Parker, who initiated changes to the rent setting methodology on Crown Law advice, disagreed with the ruling and thinks it should be appealed.

He said in an interview that the tribunal calculated the value of Minaret at $8.820 million but the land exclusive of improvements (LEI), on which the rent was struck at $1 million.

"That means improvements that included many millions of dollars were attributed to the amenity of the land that don't attract rent," Mr Parker said in an interview. That disparity was too great.

"This represents a huge discount to proper rents, and the implications of it are that the price paid for a high-country lease will increase even further, and the only people able to afford a high-country property will be rich overseas people."

This was not an attack on property rights, he said, but a dispute between a landlord and tennant and what those property rights were.

Mr Parker said there was a wider issue in that low LEI values allowed lessees going through tenure review to capitalise that in their interest in the land at the expense of lessors.

But valuers say the net cash effect for a purchaser would be the same regardless of whether rents were high or low, with a high rent capitalised in the form of a lower land price, or treated as a mortgage.

Mr Parker said at the time of the policy change that rents could be traded-off against land management changes, but valuers have said that meant giving up property rights which would be reflected in lower land prices.

Fulbright scholar Ann Brower was surprised Fish and Game, which said it relied on her research as the basis for their case, did not appeal the declarity judgement ruling, saying the court decision relied on a case which had a minority ruling.

The Lincoln University political scientist also believed the ruling supported her view that the law saw exclusive possession for pastoral lessees as implied, not explicit.

Dr Brower said the cases had not altered her opinion lessees were gaining financially from tenure review at the expense of the Government, because freehold land was more valuable than leasehold.

This point was upheld by the land valuation tribunal hearing, she said, which found scenic amenities were publicly owned.

That ruling concluded custom and implication often dominated over "the words of the formal black letter law," and she said that usually favoured private or existing interests over the public.

Dr Brower said it was right that academics ask questions and test theories, and that was all she has been doing and the motive of Fish and Game in seeking its declarity judgement.