People who do not live in the high country consider that they have rights in relation to it because of its iconic nature and because it remains in Crown, and therefore in some sense public, ownership. Farmers are not the only group interested in the outcome of tenure review. As the process evolved and a number of reviews were completed, environmental and recreation interests became increasingly vocal in their criticism, resulting in the formation of a lobby group called Stop Tenure Review.
From the perspective of this group, and others such as Forest and Bird, tenure review will result in the privatisation of the high country, with negative implications for conservation, recreation and landscape. They argue that too much land is being converted to freehold, land with significant natural and recreation values that should be included in the conservation estate, and that farmers are benefiting from tenure review at the expense of the New Zealand public. Eugenie Sage of Forest and Bird, for example, says the high country is being given away in ‘the biggest wave of privatisation…since Roger Douglas’. She says she fears that iconic landscapes will pass into private hands to become ‘McMansion subdivision sprawls’ (<http://www.highcountryaccord.co.nz/>). These groups note that under tenure review farmers give up their least productive land and in return receive land of much greater value, and in some cases cash settlements as well: ‘So far high country farmers have received agricultural and real estate development rights worth tens of millions of dollars from the Crown AND an average of $186,000 extra compensation per deal’ (<http://www.stoptenurereview.co.nz/>). Like the farmers, Stop Tenure Review argues that what is being lost is not just land, but ‘identity’:
Ever since European settlement, 150 years ago, the South Island high country has been owned by the Crown. But we are not concerned just about land ownership. It’s also about protecting a spiritual landscape and an environment that is an indelible part of our collective heritage. It’s more than just our land, it’s part of who we are as New Zealanders. So while the government is handing over Crown land and taxpayers’ money to a small group of high country farmers, it is also alienating our identity. (<http://www.stoptenurereview.co.nz/>)
These groups draw attention in particular to the privatisation of lakefront land: under the Mt Burke review, 35km of Wanaka shore was converted to freehold and 9km of Lake Tekapo frontage was converted to freehold under the Richmond review (<http://www.stoptenurereview.co.nz/>). The group cited cases in which land converted to freehold under tenure review was subsequently subdivided and sold by farmers for massive profits. For example, the Closeburn lessee paid $158 000 for 930ha of land on the shores of Lake Wakatipu, close to the tourist hub of Queenstown; in 2006, a 1.2ha section of Closeburn Station land was on the market for $3.9 million (White 2006:46–7). In 2006, Fulbright Scholar Anne Brower published the results of her research into tenure review in a report called Interest Groups, Vested Interests, and the Myth of Apolitical Administration: The politics of land tenure reform on the South Island of New Zealand. In this report, Brower argues that the Crown is being exploited by farmers who are making massive financial gains at the expense of the Crown and the New Zealand public.
This report, and the furious response from farmers, brought tenure review to the public’s attention. In November 2006, the magazine North and South published an article titled ‘High country hijack’. This article leads with the Brower and environmentalist perspective and suggests a conspiracy:
It’s a process whereby 10 percent of New Zealand’s most remote but most beautiful country, owned by the Crown, is being divided up, with much of it effectively given away to farmers, who until now have only leased this land. It’s called tenure review and it’s been going on for 15 years but it’s only now people seem to be understanding what’s really happening, how many iconic landscapes are under threat—and what’s already been lost. Warning. This is a complex story. It’s been made complex—or nobody involved with it has tried to make it simple—perhaps so that people like you won’t become interested in it, let alone get involved. (White 2006:42)