3. NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) Link to this
to the Minister for Land Information
Does he agree that the Government’s South Island high country tenure review process has seen land rich in threatened plant species being privatised?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) Link to this
Tenure review has delivered important gains for conservation, public access, and diversified use of the high country. But the Government is concerned about how well it protects some important natural values over the long term. That is why, in future, tenure review will not proceed if highly significant landscape, lakeside, biodiversity, or other values are unlikely to be protected satisfactorily.
Can the Minister confirm that fewer than 10 percent of New Zealand’s wetlands remain, and is he confident that the Government will secure enough valley floor tussock lands, scrublands, and wetlands through the renewed process to support indigenous biodiversity in the long term?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
I cannot confirm the member’s figures from the notes that I have, but, of course, I will take him at his word. Already, 112 threatened plant species and 104 at-risk plant species have been protected by the return of the South Island high country to full Crown ownership following tenure review. So some good progress has been made, but I accept that we can do better, and we will.
Hon David CarterWill the Minister guarantee to the House today that if such land is to be taken over by the Department of Conservation, it will do a better job of preserving the high country environment than that achieved by the farming communities and families over the last 100 years?
Dr Ashraf Choudhary Link to this
Is tenure review a voluntary process, and does it apply to the Crown, lessees, or both?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
Tenure review has always been a voluntary process both for lessees and the Crown. The Crown now intends to exercise its discretion not to participate in tenure review in some cases.
Which of the following is true—is it the Minister’s statement in June that “Tenure review has delivered important gains for … the protection of distinctive and rare ecosystems.” or the conclusion of Landcare Research and Department of Conservation scientists that tenure review has caused “a net increase in the risk of biodiversity loss”?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
I have not seen the second statement previously. From the information that I have been given, the first statement is certainly true.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Does the Minister take the view that private ownership can look after the flora and fauna and threatened species of this country, or does he take the communist view that all land should be nationalised, and therefore the flora, the fauna, and—in the end—humanity are threatened?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
I think it is fair to say that having a balance between private and public ownership is the proper way of getting proper protection for flora and fauna, and that is what is happening as a result of tenure review. I do not support the National Party approach of privatising national parks, nor do I support the communist approach that some people might have of the nationalisation of all private land.
Does the Minister have confidence in the new processes that he alluded to for selecting places with significant biodiversity values, when evidence now suggests that Department of Conservation managers regularly override the advice of scientists working in the field as to which sites have significant value, and that many sites identified as having significant values do not end up being recommended for protection as a result of that?
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
In acting or answering for the responsible Minister, I have not had a briefing on the quality of the Department of Conservation processes, and therefore I think it would be inappropriate to answer that question in any detail.