Estimates Debate — Vote Lands

Vote Lands is a very important vote for the farming community, and especially for the farming community of the South Island. Increasingly, concern is being expressed right throughout the South Island over tenure review. An appropriation of $56.83 million is being set aside for tenure review, yet the process has virtually stalled. A few high-profile properties have gone through the process, but by far and away the majority have not, and they will not, despite what the Minister for Land Information says. The whole issue is really about the clearances of the South Island high country, something that is akin to the clearances of Scotland that took place back in the 1790s right through to the 1840s and 1850s. In such cases, landlords decided they had a more appropriate use for the highlands of Scotland, and they cleared the peasants from the land. That is no different from what this Government is doing right now.

Many of us from that area thought the process could be quite reasonable—a bit like the Resource Management Act. It had some real benefits and some real promise. In fact, the reality is that the whole process has been captured by the green lobby, the recreational lobby, and the conservation lobby, and it is designed purely to turn so much of the South Island high country into a recreational park. Members of the Committee, and ladies and gentlemen listening to the debate, should have a guess who that is for. We all know that New Zealand’s leading tramper is the Prime Minister, and she does not want to have to ask—

💬 Rodney Hide: Are you calling the Prime Minister a tramp?

I am certainly calling her a tramper. The Prime Minister and her coterie of friends do not want to have to ask permission of farmers or runholders—it does not really matter which—to enter their properties and enjoy the great vistas and everything else that goes along with that particular experience. There can be no question about that.

But I say that the money being spent is not the Department of Conservation’s money or the Minister’s money; it is the taxpayers’ money, and it is being spent in an entirely inappropriate way. We have witnessed, in relatively recent times, $10 million being paid for just one property—Birchwood Station in the Ahuriri. That has, effectively, driven up the market. For any New Zealander who wants to buy land anywhere in New Zealand at, typically, about $600 a stock unit—it may be $500, it may be $700, but it is around that figure—it has driven up the value of those sorts of properties to $1,200 a stock unit. It has effectively doubled the price to the average New Zealander.

So who can purchase this land? Probably, now, only the wealthy foreigner who comes in. Even those people do not understand that they are in for a double whammy, because the Overseas Investment Commission is now going to whack those individuals who have a pastoral lease. When they enter the tenure review process, the commission will tell them that if they want to buy freehold land in this country, they must go through the process again. That is completely and utterly wrong, and I ask the Minister what he will do about it.

The other question I ask the Minister is whether he intends, through his department, to purchase 10 more properties with that $56 million - odd, and if so, where the money will come from for the nuts and bolts—for the other properties that the Department of Conservation wants to ensure go into the conservation estate, but that he will not purchase outright. Where will the money actually come from? I ask the Minister to break down that $56 million and tell us.

That speech was totally without context, and I just want to give a bit of context to it. There are 304 leasehold properties in the high country, which cover 2 million square hectares of Kiwi land. It is leasehold estate, not freehold estate. In 1998 the then National Government, with the support of the ACT party—of which that member was a member—passed the Crown Pastoral Land Act. It set a consensus-related negotiation process that either party could walk away from—and they do. We have papers coming through the Cabinet process now. We have a whole negotiation and consultation process for the high-country farmers. They are fully informed as to how we are bringing certainty and definition to this process.

The member raised the issue of the Overseas Investment Commission. Dr Michael Cullen has just recently released this Government’s review of the Overseas Investment Commission. We are, out of the 40 OECD countries, one of the fifth most regulated countries with regard to foreign direct investment in our land. We acknowledge the high-country estate as being of significant value, not just to high-country farmers but also to every Kiwi. It is iconic. It is of the utmost, highest cultural, social, and political value to Kiwis, and New Zealanders want it retained in the public estate.

I conclude by acknowledging the work that the Government is conducting in the high country, with consultation. We do understand that generations of families have worked the area. We do understand their strong commitment, to the extent of our even acknowledging that they have a cultural attachment to the high country. The ACT party, when it comes to Māori-related issues, does not want to hear anything about cultural attachment, but we as a Government of the people of all communities even acknowledge that high-country farmers do have a spiritual and cultural attachment to that estate. When the boot is on the other foot the ACT party challenges Māori having the same right.

I also wanted to make one other point very carefully and clearly to Mr Gerry Eckhoff. This Government provides certainty and definition. This Government provides clear decision-making. That member abstained on voting for the leadership of his own party. He could not make up his own mind, and what did he get? He got “Shrek Jnr” for leader.

That answers the questions raised by that honourable member and I would like to conclude there.

Vote agreed to.

Vote Statistics agreed to.

Vote Youth Development agreed to.

Vote Conservation