I am not a xenophobe, nor am I an economic nationalist. I
abhor those who try to turn back the clock and shut out any form of foreign
intervention in our economy. After all, from its earliest colonial and even
pre-colonial days New Zealand has been built on trade and engagements with the
world around it. Our isolation and size have demanded it.
But, at the same time, that economic pragmatism has been
accompanied by an essential sense of allowing people to have access to
opportunity, based around a commitment to egalitarianism as a defining national
characteristic. So it was that the Liberals of the late nineteenth century
placed so much emphasis on land and tenure reform, including breaking up the
large high country estates. Even today, the issue of tenure reform of high
country leases is an important one, with there still being a very live debate
about the best way to ensure fairness and equity.
It is against that background that the issue of American
media star Matt Lauer and access to Conservation Estate land through the Hunter
Valley station which he leases is so galling. The issue is not about whether Mr
Lauer should have been allowed to lease the 6,500 hectare station, even though
his visits there seem to have been infrequent so far, but, rather, what the
conditions of public access through the station to the public lands beyond
were, and how they were to be provided for and enforced. Mr Lauer's public
unwillingness to date to concede such rights shows a fundamental
misunderstanding of the New Zealand psyche when it comes to such issues.
In this he is, unfortunately, not unusual. Sadly, there seem
to be a number of foreign investors - usually American - who discover
"this great little country of ours" and seek to secure a portion of
it for themselves, at the exclusion of the rest of us, who might entertain some vague notions of birthright. Mr
Lauer's apparent insensitivity to local feeling sits alongside the arrogance of
his countryman Peter Thiel who felt himself sufficiently qualified to seek New
Zealand citizenship, having spent just 12 days in the country. And there have
been others over the years who have thought unsuccessfully that a large bank
balance could buy them a bolthole in this country.
Now, I do not have any issue with Mr Lauer or anyone
else, New Zealander or from wherever for that matter, seeking to lease or
acquire property in New Zealand, provided they satisfy the conditions of the
Overseas Investment Act, and are a fit and proper person. Section 17 (2) (d)
and (e) of that Act, a product of the last Labour-led government, is quite
explicit about protecting rights of public access over land. It makes it clear
there has to be, "adequate mechanisms in place for providing, protecting
or improving walking access over the relevant land or a relevant part of that
land by the public or any section of the public." It is not an optional
extra to be applied at the discretion of the landowner or leaseholder, but a
specific legal requirement. It harks back to the great tradition of unfettered
access to the public estate and the outdoors which has been so much a part of
our way of life, and which we have a right to expect to be honoured. It is most
certainly not for the Mr Lauers of this world to honour or ignore as they see
fit.
The issue then becomes one of enforcement and the
sanctions to be applied when obvious breaches occur. It appears that is where
New Zealand authorities have been somewhat lax over the years, allowing the
impression that landowners and leaseholders can basically get away with it if
they are stubborn enough. Mr Lauer's case is not the first of its type, nor, given
current settings, is it likely to be the last. And, all the while, New
Zealanders' resentment will grow, first against the specific case, and then
more generally against the whole concept of foreign investment and development.
There are now the inevitable calls to strengthen the
current legislation. Blame is being heaped on Ministers past for letting things
get out of hand. With respect, this misses the point. The Lauers of this world
conclude they can get away with it, not because of the weakenss of our law, but
because of the fact we, like them, pay lip service to its enforcement.
While that continues, situations like this will also
continue to raise the public ire, and be exploited. The best thing the
government could do right now is to stop the blame game and focus instead on
making the worthy sentiments of the law work.
No comments:
Post a Comment