The lessee of Minaret Station has hit out at what he calls confused and misleading statements about the status of a pastoral lease and the effect of recent legal action on rents and property rights which has gone in favour of farmers.
Jonathan Wallis said conservation groups had misrepresented the impact of rulings by the High Court and Otago District Land Valuation Tribunal, prompting him to speak out publicly.
"It is frustrating to see traction being gained from misinformation," he said.
The recent tribunal decision on rent-setting methodology for the Minaret Station pastoral lease land, which went in his favour, reaffirmed that rent was to be set in accordance with law, in this case the Land Act.
He said claims from Forest and Bird the taxpayer was missing out on "millions of dollars", were incorrect.
"The tribunal's decision has not reduced Minaret's rent but substantially increased it. But the increase is consistent with the law and we accept it."
It was not a case of farmers getting a windfall, with the Government missing out on rent, but the reaffirmation of the law.
Mr Wallis described the Land Act as a "prescribed process", which would result in annual rent increasing from $4900 to $20,000 for the Lake Wanaka property.
Mr Wallis appealed to the tribunal over a Land Information New Zealand (Linz) move to include a charge for amenity values which would have resulted in the rent increasing to $105,600.
Linz announced last week it would decide by Friday whether to appeal.
Mr Wallis said the Land Act determined rent would be based on land exclusive of improvements.
"The Land Act also excludes a number of elements that would otherwise be included in a capital value for open market or sale purposes and focuses on the fact that the land has been leased by the Crown to farmers to farm and for no other purpose."
Mr Wallis said Forest and Bird was also wrong to claim the tribunal ruling reduced the extent of public ownership of the high country or that public money was being handed over to private interests.
"The farmers' rights under his pastoral lease are held by him in perpetuity. The Crown's remaining interest is subject to those rights granted to farmers.
"But just like a freehold property, it is the rights and obligations we have under our leases which determine value, not the land itself."
