On TV tonight the South Island received a great accolade from the British people, being voted fourth most desirable place in the world to be visited before you die. But I don't think New Zealanders entirely deserve this. I am a British immigrant, and the one thing that distresses me about living here above all others is the continued vandalism New Zealanders inflict on their own country by the uncontrolled and mindless subdivision of many of your most beautiful areas. Your paper reported just this last Saturday on the multimillion dollar sale of land bordering Lake Wakatipu, and every week sees adverts all over New Zealand for pristine coastal, lakeside and high country subdivision. I find it beyond belief that New Zealanders value so little the beauty of your own landscape, and you continue to treat it with the same rapaciousness that your forbears did. Don't you learn anything? For goodness sake, and for the sake of your descendants, it is urgent you get some really biting controls on this appalling Remuera-isation of these so-called "Heritage Areas" , before it is a completely lost cause.

I was delighted to hear that, at last, some effort is being made to deal with the problem of overseas ownership of some of New Zealand's most valuable and "iconic" land. As an immigrant to New Zealand from the UK about 20 years ago, I continue to wonder and gnash my teeth with overwhelming frustration as to how New Zealanders continue to treat, or rather, mistreat their land. I wrote a letter to the Dominion recently about this matter, and have written to the Herald at times in the past, going back to about 18 years ago.

There are several issues wrapped into one here and, as usual, commentators and I'm afraid most politicians, don't seem to be able to connect them.

1) Overseas ownership of New Zealand land is destructive. It artificially raises prices because land values in New Zealand are but a small fraction of similar land overseas. This means that it is difficult for New Zealand nationals to compete with overseas buyers. In addition if the government or a local authority wished to purchase land for reserve, then this is making this almost impossible. To have in place a policy which makes New Zealanders ownership more difficult than it need be is patently absurd. I just cannot understand how any government with the interests of all New Zealanders at heart, supposedly, would actually put in place or allow policies that make New Zealanders second class citizens in their own land. To think that some of your most valuable islands in your most beautiful areas are in overseas ownership is ridiculous, and is an illustration of how, in some ways, New Zealanders just don't appreciate or value their own irreplaceable assets. Now I know this is a bit unfair, as the National Parks and reserves of New Zealand are wonderful, and wouldn't exist without the foresight of previous generations of New Zealanders. But this is not a one-off process, and foresight shouldn't just exist in our predecessors. The pressure on the beaches, lakes and high country is more recent, but is increasing almost exponentially.

2) Purchase of land by overseas interests is not necessarily destructive of the land itself, it depends on the foreigner, some are very good guardians of their purchase, and after all when it comes to destructive use of land by speculative subdivision, then New Zealanders can give most foreigners some lessons. However it does distort the market, and makes speculative gains bigger than they otherwise would be, to be repatriated overseas, thus making our balance of payments deficit bigger, and making us poorer. Restricting land sales to foreign overseas interests is not anti-investment, and will not in any way restrict proper investment in industry or farming. If money is required for farming or investment in tourism etc., then this must be done in co-operation/ partnership with a New Zealand interest. One should consider introducing a 50 years lease for such investments.

3) This isn't just some moaning pom writing, over the last 10-15 years or longer many thinking New Zealanders have been concerned by the same trends, articles regularly appear in the Listener or our daily papers about these concerns. The Forest and Bird society of which I am a member has also been lobbying for many years. But nothing seems to change, in fact the problem is getting worse.

4) Overseas ownership is just a part of the problem, it isn't in fact the major problem. The lack of protection from subdivision and development by anyone is just woefully inadequate. As mentioned in my letter to the Dominion, every week sees adverts for some of the most beautiful seaside, lakeside and high country land, large areas of it, with the promise of subdivision and development being part of the sale. I find it quite incomprehensible that there seems to be no protection on this land, that people are making enormous profits from speculation, whilst destroying the true and lasting values (visual, access, amenity, spiritual) of these properties. They are trading my children's' birthright for cash, they shouldn't be allowed to. As I say, New Zealanders are past masters at destroying land, and that pioneer rapaciousness still seems to be part of the New Zealand psyche. Again this is a bit unkind to many equally concerned New Zealanders, but it is certainly an indication at the very least of collective carelessness.

5) At the same time as commercial pressures on these resources is uncontrolled, we have very high levels of immigration putting great pressure on these resources, particularly those within striking distance of the metropolitan areas. The sprawling growth of Auckland is getting out of hand, the infrastructure not able to support the rapidly increasing population. High immigration levels do have to be considered in the matter of pressure on all our resources.

6) Rural subdivisions seems to be the major way these areas are subdivided. This is actually the worst way one could develop land. I am not antidevelopment per se, but the ad hoc development of suburban sprawl is positively inimical to good development standards. The problem is that the residential area sprawls over the whole area of the land, access for the public is usually severely restricted, ie it is a way for very wealthy people to each have their own private mini-estate. For instance the recent subdivision on the shores of Lake Wanaka. This is HORRIBLE!. In addition the pressure for further subdivision of these so called "rural subdivision" areas is inexorable. If some development around Wanaka was considered desirable, then it should be done this way