This is in response to a posting by Geoff Fischer concerning the
possible sale of New Zealand's largest plantation forest. The forest is now
owned by the NZ government and managed by a Government owned Corporation.
It may be that the Government of NZ has decide to sell the forest as it has
done for all its other plantation holdings. Some people in New Zealand will
not like that and will query the process for a number of reasons. Some will
object to the disposal of Government assets believing that the Government
should retain control of an asset created "by the people". Others will
object to the compromising of ownership when the land is under dispute.
Much Government land in NZ is being claimed by descendants of the original
population (the Maoris) who claim (correctly in many cases) the their land
was taken by improper means.
I believe that Geoff Fischer's posting is factually incorrect in a
number of instances. His description of the NZ constitution is wrong. By
act of the British parliament in 1931 the "Dominion" of New Zealand is self
governing. There is a "Govenor-General", nominally the Queen's
representative, but this is a New Zealand citizen and His/Her role is to
convene the NZ parliament according to NZ law (and disband parliament for
elections and sign a formal Royal assent to acts of parliament). The
British Crown takes no real part in the governing of NZ and it is wrong to
infer that it does.
There have been armed conflicts in the past over land ownership in
New Zealand, they ended just over one hundred years ago.
Disputes over land ownership still exist but today are resolved by
a lengthy consultative process which includes a special "Tribunal" called
the Waitangi Tribunal which has the power to travel to Maori communities to
hear evidence and which has been instrumental in returning to Maori people
many valuable assets (like coal fields).
Past sales of Government owned plantation forest have sold the
"Cutting Rights" i.e. the rights to the manage the forest inluding the
right to cut it down but not the right to own the land. Companies who
bought the forests pay rent on the land. To safeguard the rights of both
the forest owners and potential claimants for the land the leases on the
land have minumum terms of 35 years (one rotation in NZ) extended by one
year each year. If land claimants are sucessful the lease would not be
extended and the forest company would have a minimum of one rotation to
harvest what it has created. This procedure would almost certainly be used
for future sales.
I no longer live in New Zealand and have no opinion (that I care to
express) on whether the sale of Government owned plantation is a good or
bad thing. I wish to inform you however that the situation is not as
described in Geoff Fischer's posting.
Ryde James
___________________________________________________________________________
Ryde James | Forestry/Science
Tel: (61+6)249-4330 | Australian National University
Fax: (61+6)249-0746 | Canberra, ACT 0200
|
___________________________________________________________________________
email: Ryde.james@anu.edu.au
___________________________________________________________________________
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0