Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill

I move, That the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Environment Committee to consider the bill.

This bill changes the Crown Pastoral Land Act 1998 and the Land Act 1948 to end tenure review and ensure Crown pastoral land is administered in a way that maintains or enhances its ecological landscape, cultural heritage, and scientific values for present and future generations. Crown pastoral lands extend over approximately 1.2 million hectares, largely in the South Island high country, making up almost 5 percent of Aotearoa New Zealand’s total land area. Most of this land is leased by the Crown for pastoral farming in 169 pastoral leases. It encompasses some of Aotearoa’s most dramatic landscapes from the developed grassy river flats to low tussock and matagouri shrublands to scree slopes. Some leases are in big braided river valleys such as the Rākaia and the Rangitata, being farmed beneath big skies and against the backdrop of Kā Tiritiri o te Moana, the Southern Alps.

These landscapes and this land are important to New Zealanders and to the leaseholders who farm and also operate other businesses on it, especially leaseholders who live there. Crown pastoral land is important to Māori, in particular Ngāi Tahu, as the majority of Crown pastoral land lies inside their takiwā. Traditionally associated with merino farming, large high country stations now support a mix of sheep, beef, and deer farming, producing high-quality food and fibre products, while others also host commercial recreation activities such as walking and guided hunting. And it’s the wetlands, drylands, tussock lands, and beach forests on Crown pastoral land and their inherent values which are also important. They are home to distinctive native plants and wildlife: gentian, celmisia daisies, tussocks, moths, grasshoppers and other invertebrates, skinks, and birds such as harrier and kakī.

There’s been a longstanding public interest in the management of Crown pastoral land, particularly in the large-scale land-use change that resulted from tenure review. Tenure review has involved freeholding thousands of hectares of former Crown pastoral land, often without adequate recognition of its significant inherent values and once in private ownership, this land has often been developed for more intensive farming or onsold and subdivided. Other former Crown pastoral land has been restored to full Crown ownership as conservation land, resulting in the creation of new high country parks.

So in 2018, there was a review of the Crown pastoral land regulatory system, which found that the system is overly focused on operational considerations and transactions without a clear sense of the outcomes it seeks to achieve, and that it has a limited understanding of accumulative impacts of decisions by the Commissioner of Crown Lands over time. The review recommended that Government more clearly articulate the outcomes it wants from Crown pastoral land, so this bill amends the Crown Pastoral Land Act 1998 and the Land Act 1948 to introduce a new outcomes-based approach. It seeks to ensure that Land Information New Zealand, or LINZ, and the Commissioner of Crown Lands administer this land in a way that maintains and enhances its ecological landscape, cultural heritage, and scientific values for both present and future generations while providing for ongoing pastoral farming. The changes are intended to better manage and control any further development or intensification of pastoral farming and to encourage sustainable use of land for pastoral farming and activities such as commercial recreation.

The single most important change in the bill is that it ends tenure review once the bill becomes law. Then, only those applications that have received a substandard proposal from the Commissioner of Crown Lands will continue to be implemented. All other tenure review applications will cease. With the ending of tenure review and this privatisation process, we also need to change the regulatory system to deliver these improved outcomes for the Crown’s ownership interest and to support leaseholders in the stewardship of the land. So the bill makes the following changes to the way that Crown pastoral land is administered to do this. Firstly, it includes Schedule 1AB, which classifies pastoral activities based on their likely impact on the land’s inherent values. Pastoral farming activities such as controlling exotic plant pests will be classified as permitted, while other activities such as burning or clearing indigenous vegetation are classified as discretionary, and the commissioner can either decline or agree to them. Some activities, such as draining or cultivating wetlands, are proposed to be prohibited.

This schedule is intended to improve the timeliness and efficiency of the decision-making process for discretionary pastoral activities. It will enable LINZ and the commissioner to focus their resources on applications with a higher risk of impacts while allowing leaseholders to undertake activities which are part of normal farming practice and which only have very minor impacts, such as fencing within existing cultivated paddocks, without need for a consent. This schedule will be regularly reviewed in consultation with leaseholders and the broader public.

Secondly, the bill introduces a new statutory decision-making process that the Commissioner of Crown Lands must follow when making decisions on applications for discretionary pastoral activities. That process includes assessments about whether the effects are minor, whether the activity is necessary to enable a leaseholder to exercise their rights and obligations under the lease.

Thirdly, the bill provides for clearer, more transparent decision-making, stronger accountability, and more opportunity for public and leaseholder involvement. This includes new reporting obligations which strengthen the accountability on LINZ and the Commissioner of Crown Lands, requiring the publication of decisions on applications for discretionary pastoral activities and introducing new enforcement tools with the focus on promoting the achievement of the outcomes.

The bill also aims to support the Crown in its relationships with Māori under the Treaty of Waitangi. It does this by requiring the Crown to recognise and provide for the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, mahinga kai, wāhi tapu, and other taonga when considering applications for discretionary pastoral activities and when considering any protection mechanisms over Crown pastoral land. The bill also requires the Crown to consult with iwi in developing a strategic intentions document, any regulatory instruments, and the monitoring framework for Crown pastoral land.

Let me be very clear. None of the proposed changes in the bill are intended to prevent pastoral farming on Crown pastoral land. There are no changes to leaseholders’ tenure, their right to pasturage, the quiet enjoyment of leasehold properties, their rights of renewal, or their responsibilities for pest and weed control. Rather, the changes in this bill are intended to encourage leaseholders to manage the land in a way that reduces impacts or, better still, actively enhances the inherent values of the land that they lease from the Crown.

Can I acknowledge the valuable impact in the development of the bill from iwi, particularly Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, stakeholders such as the High Country Accord trust, Forest & Bird, Federated Farmers, the Environmental Defence Society, and the wider public. Their involvement has helped ensure that the changes in the bill are practical. I’m also grateful to those who took the time to submit on the public discussion document, Enduring stewardship of Crown pastoral land, which was released last year. There were some 3,248 submissions on that document and the issues that were raised in those submissions helped shape the bill.

So I look forward to the further public submissions and comment and analysis through the Environment Committee process. This Government will take a pragmatic approach to developing any improvements to the bill as it’s introduced to ensure that we have a very effective regulatory system for Crown pastoral land. The changes in the bill are significant. They’re being done to ensure that LINZ, the Commissioner of Crown Lands, leaseholders in their responsibilities for managing these important lands do that well and so the public can have confidence in our regulatory system. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. In this bill, it’s really hard to know where to start to express the outrage that I feel, at the introduction of this bill, on behalf of a very rich cultural history of a group of New Zealanders who are much maligned, and those are the high country farmers. I’m afraid that the Minister the Hon Eugenie Sage has not shucked off her former close affiliation with Forest & Bird, in that, from my point of view, the Minister would prefer to have no humans on the high country. So it should be for nature only, with no humans. I really believe that that philosophy, that ideology, which underpins much of the Minister’s work, and the sheer chip on the Minister’s shoulder at the fact that farmers—how dare farmers farm the tops; how dare farmers farm in the high country of New Zealand.

Well, I’ll tell the Minister how the farmers can do that. They do that because in 1948, or thereabouts, Crown perpetual leases were introduced. The history is worth going through, because the history didn’t just begin when the Hon Eugenie Sage was a member of Forest & Bird and then a failed councillor of Environment Canterbury, who failed in their duties at the time, and then became a member and then Minister in this unfortunate New Zealand First - Greens - Labour coalition Government.

In 1948, when perpetual leases were established, they were done with the specific aim of encouraging investment in Crown pastoral lease lands. High country farmers at the time had no tenure on their leases, and so they found it very difficult to access funding from banks to address some of the issues that they faced in farming to do with soil erosion and management off of their lease areas. In 2008, I believe, tenure review was introduced, and that is the first provision of the bill.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: 1998. Get it right.

Gosh, so good to have Eugenie Sage’s dulcet tones ringing through the House! But when National was in Government in 2008, tenure review was a process which picked up speed, and a lot of gains were made in this voluntary process. We have to remember in this House that the tenure review was a voluntary process entered voluntarily both by the leaseholder and by the Crown.

So let’s not forget the history and the contribution that high country farmers have made to agriculture in New Zealand. We all love wearing our icebreaker merino, and there are other brands which are our Italian woollen suits, and I’m sure I’ve seen one or two of those over the other side of the House. The wool from those—Raymond Huo is nodding; he is sporting one himself. How wonderful. And where does that merino come from? It comes from the high country.

So let’s make no mistake that high country farming not only has a basis of tenure in New Zealand but also brings with it a rich cultural history—and that is to be valued—and a rich cultural contribution to our economy, not only through merino but also from the wool they produce and the other diverse activities that now happen on high country farming.

So I reject that the end of tenure review is anything but a land-grab by this Government. I will back that up, and the rationale for that can be found hidden in plain sight in Schedule 2 of this bill.

💬 Hon Member: Ha, ha!

I’ll go through those schedules. That was a very nervous laugh, actually, from the Minister, who’s under a little bit of pressure at the moment, is Eugenie Sage. But in Schedule 2 of this Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill there are classifications of activities on Crown pastoral land. So the first part of this bill puts an end to tenure review. In other words, it’s a land-grab. No more—no more of this voluntary negotiation between farmers and the Crown. So that’s the first part. The second part is the part where the Crown squeezes the high country farmers out of farming by making it unsustainable.

They talk about sustainability in this bill and how farming hasn’t been sustainable. What nonsense, quite frankly—what nonsense. Try telling that to Andrew Simpson at Balmoral Station. Try telling that to a number of the high country farmers who have covenanted special areas of their land and who are doing everything they can to become very sustainable farmers because their livelihoods depend on it—it is as simple as that. They also feel a very strong stewardship towards that land.

So let’s just go to Schedule 2—Part 1 of new Schedule 1AB, permitted activities. OK. So you can dig in posts, you can lay electric fences, you can bury dead animals, you can dig rabbit warrens, and so on and so forth. That doesn’t require a consent.

However, Part 2, which is the discretionary pastoral activities, will or may require a consent from the commissioner: “(a) new or additional irrigation: (b) burning vegetation: (c) clearing … vegetation … (e) cropping”. Well, that sounds like farming to me—“cultivating”. That sounds like farming to me—“draining, or ploughing: (f) top-dressing: (g) sowing seed:”. Why does this need a concession from the commissioner? I’ll tell you why: it’s because this Minister and this Government are absolutely bent on driving out farmers from the high country on the pretext that the land is not being managed well enough.

Well, if they really were concerned about land management, they look no further than their own backyard and the weed burden that is on Department of Conservation land. Birchwood Station has just grown worse and worse over the years. Wilding pines—let’s have a conversation about that. So the Department of Conservation, under this Minister, need to look at themselves before they start casting aspersions.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: $100 million.

Oh, she’s upset—she’s upset. She’s shouting at me. Well, I will keep speaking because it’s my turn, Minister. This Minister is getting so exercised because she does not like hearing the other side. Why does she not like hearing the other side? Because she doesn’t like listening to the high country farmers. I understand she has not been to have a look for herself, and so how can that be honest engagement with the farmers?

So I’m just going to continue going through these schedules. Soil disturbance for the construction of buildings needs a consent. New fencing needs a consent. Clearing drains needs a consent. These provisions that are proposed—

💬 Andrew Bayly: That’s outrageous.

—well, they are outrageous and, regrettably, will become the law—are put in this bill for one reason and one reason alone: because the Minister and the Government do not value farming in New Zealand. They do not value high country pastoral farming. They do not recognise the value and the contribution economically, environmentally, yes, and also culturally that the high country farmers of the South Island have brought to us in New Zealand. They want all that to go. They want to squeeze them off the land so that Eugenie Sage can have her dry land park, they can have the walking track across the Mackenzie Basin, and they can have all of those things that they covet so badly.

They do not see the farming community as their allies who can make a contribution. Despite all efforts—all efforts—on behalf of farmers to make that happen, they see them as the enemy. And this bill—this terrible bill—which has the one intent of getting rid of high country farmers and all they represent, all they bring to the New Zealand economy and to New Zealand culture—they want that gone. We do not support this bill.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It will be useful, I think, to bring some facts to the debate. The South Island high country is iconic. It’s iconic New Zealand. It’s a landscape and an environment that is unique and inspiring to most of us who go down and enjoy it.

Crown pastoral leases make up almost 5 percent of New Zealand’s total land area, and I want to start by acknowledging the leaseholders who have cared for and nurtured this precious land over generations. Since 1851 leaseholders have invested time and resources into protecting and enhancing the high country and its biodiversity. This includes controlling wilding pines, gorse, broom, briar, Hieracium, along with managing rabbits, stoats, rats, and wallabies. Not perfect, but they’ve done a huge amount.

I’m pleased to have worked with the Minister for Land Information on developing aspects of this Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill. My primary focus has been to ensure the bill recognises that Crown pastoral lands supports a prosperous high country pastoral farming industry and I’m confident that this new regime proposed by the Minister will ensure that sustainable pastoral farming on Crown land will continue to thrive.

The bill will ensure that the Crown and leaseholders work together so that, firstly, pastoral farming on Crown land continues to benefit surrounding communities and the wider economy. Secondly, that low-impact, business-as-usual pastoral farming is subject to fewer restrictions from Land Information New Zealand (LINZ). Thirdly, the regime is practical and makes sense on the ground, and, lastly, that leaseholders can continue to take advantage of innovation in sustainable pastoral farming practices.

The Government has agreed to end tenure review, and I have to say that most of the lessees that I speak to now agree with that decision. The tenure review process has more lately been slow and costly to both leaseholders and the Crown and has not achieved the desired outcome. While tenure review was introduced over 20 years ago—1998—which allowed a lot of the tops to be retired, contrary to the views of the previous speaker, it was intended to see the Crown exiting its role as lessor, ultimately. However, this has not been the case, and approximately 1.2 million hectares of the Crown pastoral estate remains in Crown ownership. While tenure review has enabled the creation of new conservation parks, it’s also resulted in about 350,000 hectares of high country land moving from Crown ownership into freehold private hands. Once the land is freeholded, special values—whether ecological, cultural, or scientific—can be lost and can be compromised, as we’ve seen from time to time. But the public can be reassured that this bill will enable the land to remain in Crown ownership, with Crown and leaseholders working together in enduring stewardship towards the desired outcomes, and that’s the sustainability of the high country and its people.

I have worked with the Minister for Land Information on developing a clear outcome for pastoral land, and I am confident that we have found the right balance between protecting the land and ensuring that sustainable pastoral farming continues. The bill proposes that the key outcome for the Crown pastoral land regulatory system is “To maintain or enhance the inherent values across the Crown pastoral estate for present and future generations, while providing for ongoing pastoral farming of Crown pastoral land.” This outcomes-based approach will allow LINZ to recognise and focus on activities that are high risk to the inherent landscape, cultural and biodiversity values, while making it easier for leaseholders to undertake sensible, low-risk activities.

I think it is appropriate that the Commissioner of Crown Lands will need to consider both maintaining or enhancing inherent values and providing for ongoing pastoral farming as an integrated whole to best achieve both aspects. That is, the outcome that the bill seeks does not prioritise inherent values above pastoral farming, nor does it prioritise pastoral farming above inherent values. This outcome will encourage sustainable pastoral farming. Our domestic and overseas consumers want greater assurances that the high quality food and fibre they buy is produced in a sustainable way without wasteful use of resources or harm to our unique environments.

The bill is not intended to change the lessee’s exclusive right to pasturage and quiet enjoyment of their leaseholder properties. The proposed new system will acknowledge these rights and enable leaseholders to carry out the pastoral farming activities under their lease agreement in accordance with good husbandry of the land and other obligations. The system will also enable leaseholders to undertake other uses on the land where these uses are consistent with the overall outcomes.

I’ve also worked with the Minister to enable some greater flexibility for leaseholders to make decisions on sensible, sustainable activities without the need for a consent from the Commissioner of Crown Lands, within reason. The bill proposes that activities on Crown pastoral land are classified as permitted, discretionary, or prohibited. The addition of permitted activities, which have no more than a minor impact on the inherent values of Crown pastoral land, means leaseholders can undertake many pastoral farming activities without having to apply for a consent. Currently, leaseholders need to apply to the commissioner to undertake many business-as-usual pastoral farming activities, such as undertaking pest control or maintaining existing drains, roads, or fences. These permitted activities have low impact and are necessary for sustainable farming. This new approach will give clarity to both leaseholders and the Commissioner of Crown Lands about the activities that can occur on Crown pastoral land, rather than the commissioner being involved in every farm management decision. This change will reduce the administrative burden currently imposed on leaseholders, and I’m pleased that leaseholders will no longer have to go through a LINZ consenting process before undertaking these activities.

The bill also classifies discretionary pastoral activities, which will need to be submitted to the Commissioner of Crown Lands, who may consent or may decline. The commissioner will grant consent to discretionary activities that are necessary to enable the leaseholder to exercise their rights and obligations under the lease. Again, this provides clarity to leaseholders, the commissioner, and the public about the types of activities that can be undertaken on Crown pastoral land. Some farming activities in the high country need to be carefully managed by the Crown, such as burning or cultivating new land. It is appropriate that leaseholders go through a consenting process before undertaking these discretionary activities, and many, many high country lessees understand the need to do this. The process for considering discretionary consent applications also ensures that the ability for leaseholders to carry out pastoral farming in accordance with their lease is respected.

The introduction of this bill complements our work on action for healthy waterways, another policy package which acknowledges the long-term sustainability of our environment as being essential. Not just high country farmers but all farmers in New Zealand appreciate the importance of freshwater health, and many have done a huge amount of work to improve their practices over the last 20 years or more. Many are leading the way in restoring our waterways. The Government is delivering on its commitment to clean up our waterways with reforms that deliver environmental gains, jobs, and benefits to our economy, while recognising, of course, the impact on our rural sector.

In addition to the significant funding that we’ve committed to these programmes, I have to say that the Government has provided $1.1 billion to create 11,000 environmental jobs in regional New Zealand, doing meaningful work that will complement the initiatives and the progress that will be made through this bill. I, like many other New Zealanders, love the high country. It is, indeed, inspiring and I have to acknowledge the tenacity of the people who live in it. I have many cherished memories, and indeed plan to—over the next summer—spend a bit of time in the high country riding through and enjoying it. I know the outcomes of this bill will ensure that, for many generations to come, leaseholders can continue to sustainably farm this land and continue to make their valued contribution to the New Zealand primary sector and our economy. All New Zealanders enjoy the high country. They will have greater certainty that our unique cultural landscape and the biodiversity features in it will be protected and enduring.

There’s a whole group of people on the National side of the House tonight that would gladly grant the Minister of Agriculture’s wish. The Minister said he would like to spend the summer riding his bike through the high country. We would gladly like to take over the Government position and give him all the free time he wants to be able to do that.

So what’s really interesting tonight is I’ve actually taken speech No. 4. It’s 10 o’clock at night. We’re doing things in urgency. We’re doing urgency on a bill that describes something that’s been a long-term high country value of New Zealand, and here we are rushing it through again, at 10 o’clock at night, under this Government. I almost wish that I’d gone in the next speech, No. 6, because I’d really like to hear what Mark Patterson has got to say, because I’ve listened to Minister Eugenie Sage’s speech and I’ve listened to Minister Damien O’Connor’s speech, and I think about this Government that pretended to be coordinated for so long, and, actually, I don’t even think that Minister Sage and Minister O’Connor were talking about the same bill. So it seems to me, like, you know, Minister Sage really wants to take control over this because the Government knows best, and we’ve been hearing about this and forestry and a range of other things tonight. Then Minister O’Connor comes and says, “Look, isn’t it wonderful—the sheep and the high country and the merinos?” This is what farmers have been doing for a very long time.

This bill makes changes to ensure that Land Information New Zealand will administer Crown pastoral land “in a way that maintains or enhances the ecological, landscape, cultural, heritage, and scientific values of the land for present and future generations, while providing for ongoing pastoral farming of the land.” What does the Government think farmers have been doing all of this time? All this bill is doing is again adding more regulations, more restrictions on farmers. Under Crown ownership, this land was neglected and consequently eroded, and through permanent tenures on the land, farmers have been repairing it and tending it for generations now.

When I think about some of the quotes and slogans that I’m hearing out there now like “Let’s keep moving.”, I reckon this sounds like we should “Let’s keep moving backwards.” Right? So we’ve gone through a stage where farmers have done some fantastic stuff. Do you know the romantic view of the high country? If our visitors come here, part of that romantic view is seeing merino sheep on that country, because they know that’s the culture and the heart of New Zealand. Farmers have the heart for this; a Government does not have a heart for this sort of thing.

According to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, public concerns have focused on three issues: the loss of lower altitude ecosystems, the impact on landscapes, and public access. Now, the interesting thing for me is that we go through a whole lot of times where we talk about, you know, “Farmers are bad for this and farmers are bad for that and farmers are having an effect.” Well, I can tell you, during lockdown, when people were in their houses, you go out into the landscape and there was very little rubbish. To me, the biggest devastation—and we had to come out of lockdown and we need to because we can’t stay locked up for ever. But, actually, sometimes people are our own worst enemy. The rubbish that I’m now starting to see lying around the landscape is devastating. Sometimes we don’t get what we wish for.

In contrast, groups like the High Country Accord are worried about the following issue. The land has to be purchased at a great cost to the taxpayer. It has to be maintained, managed for weeds and pests, and such work is carried out by the farmer. But now, in light of how the Department of Conservation is struggling for funding, the fear is that this won’t be done. So many times, if you look at these significant natural areas on farms and all of the language around that, about how this has to be taken over because it has to be protected, one of the best things in this country around land protection is the QEII National Trust. There are farmers out there who are putting land in perpetuity and they’re looking after it. This whole thing is just absolutely another Government grab, as my colleague Jacqui Dean said.

Land that’s currently used for economic activities will be locked out of use for ever, in the merino industry. This is something that will be severely impacted by this move. The merino industry is the successful part of our wool industry, and if I’ve had more feedback than anything else lately, it’s what are we going to do with the wool industry? We need to pick up the wool industry and we need to get it up and running. We talk about Government procurement. We’ve heard all the promises about that in the last campaign and it never happened. It absolutely never happened. So merino is a success story. And now we’ve got a Government that is here putting a bill in place that actually has the potential to damage our merino industry, which is actually the part of the wool industry that’s extremely successful.

So, at this point, I’m going to conclude my speech by saying we absolutely oppose this bill. It’s just absolutely frustrating to think about the regulation, the red tape, the takeover, and everything that this Government’s trying to do. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I rise to offer New Zealand First’s support for this Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill. I would say at the outset that I’m offering our qualified support, through to the select committee process, and I’ll explain why.

We are strongly supportive of Part 2. We do believe in the end of tenure review, which saw the freeholding of these iconic New Zealand stations—often for relatively low or modest sums—to the Crown, which then subsequently, when freeholded, were sold off, often to the foreign, wealthy, rich, and famous who would come in and buy these iconic properties, often locking them away from access to New Zealanders, and also the ecological side of that. Often the high country was retired, and there is evidence that we have seen an increase in pests and things like wilding pines getting away when we haven’t got grazing in some of those higher pastures into the tussock country and the intensification thereof of the freeholded land, which was often around lakes and waterways. So we don’t think it was a good outcome for the taxpayer, and we don’t think it was a good outcome for the environment. So we are strongly in favour of ending the tenure review process, the Part 2 of this bill. So that is the basis for which we are supporting the bill.

Where I find myself in the unusual position of supporting some of the speeches from over the other side of the House is we have genuine concern for the first part of the bill and the potential for heavy bureaucratic overreach into stewardship of these iconic properties, which, for the most part, as much as I can tell and from the information that I’ve got and what I’ve seen, have been farmed beautifully. In fact, tourism is now one of the big income earners, and, obviously, hit just at the moment by COVID. But even more, they’re incentivised to look after these landscapes and look after these properties.

We’ve got to remember here, too, that these are leases but these are perpetual leases, back to that 1948 Act, the Land Act 1948, so they do have some rights that might be over and above someone leasing a block of land off you or I. So we have to take into account that they do have, probably, enhanced rights over a normal leasehold—these are perpetual leases.

We’re also concerned that there’s the potential for the rentals to be lifted to an unsustainable level, maybe to cover for some of the extra costs of administering some of this consenting process. We think it’s important that these properties remain profitable, because a lot of the good environmental protection that’s going on needs a profitable farmer to be able to afford to do those things.

So we New Zealand First, as I say, do have valid reasons, and with some conviction we want to see the end of tenure review. But we will be looking incredibly carefully through that select committee process, and we know the farmers will come to that process in some numbers to make their case. I know they were frustrated that they were not consulted more through the development of the bill, and that’s certainly a view that they’ve expressed strongly to me. They will get their day in front of the select committee, and many of them will come, I’m sure, from those magnificent high country stations, and we will be listening very carefully to what they have to say. So, qualified support for this bill to the select committee. Thank you.

I’ve come down to the House tonight and asked for a speaking slot on this particular legislation because of my lifetime interest in the high country of, particularly, the South Island, and my interest and involvement in legislation that has passed through this House during my time.

I say to that member who has just resumed his seat, Mark Patterson of New Zealand First, that if he wants to be involved in the select committee process, the only way he will be involved is if he makes a submission as a member of the public. Because I give that member an assurance: I’m going to spend my campaigning time telling every farmer in New Zealand that New Zealand First voted for this legislation tonight, and if they had not, this legislation would not be proceeding. It is proceeding because of New Zealand First, and it is nothing but a property-right grab by this Government. The high country, as various speakers have said tonight, is a particularly attractive part of New Zealand but a particularly difficult environment to farm in. I know the farmers that farm this country very well. They are tough. They show tenacity in an environment that is difficult both environmentally and climatically.

We did the tenure review in 1998, and I was involved in that. That legislation properly recognised the property right that each and every one of these leaseholders have, which is called a lease in perpetuity. What we see regularly from the Greens, Christchurch’s The Press with one particular reporter, and from one particular university lecturer at Lincoln University is malicious reporting on the tenure review process and the fact that it involves too much money going to some farms who have gone into tenure review. What that actually recognises is that the farmers had this strong property right called lease in perpetuity. So tenure review was a good process that went about trying to recognise the farms that had strategic land that should be remaining in agriculture and strategic land that should go back into the conservation estate. The farmers entered that process willingly if they wanted to enter into tenure review.

What that legislation in 1998 was doing was updating the Land Act 1948, which had simply grown past its use-by date, meaning the commissioner had to get permission for all sorts of things beyond simple sheep and cattle grazing. By that time, we had an industry around deer farming. If you owned one of these leases, you had to go to the commission and say, “Please, can I put some deer on my farm and put some deer fencing there?”. It was ridiculous legislation that needed updating.

But this Labour Government’s dislike of high country farmers became very obvious again in 2005 and 2006 with the then Minister Hon David Parker leading the charge to up the rents on these farms to an unsustainable level, on the basis that you pay for an amenity value. I well remember one farmer who came to me. He had a farm on the shores of Lake Benmore. His parents had owned the farm before him. They had land taken from them through this Think Big project to create Lake Benmore, and then David Parker’s scenario was that because their sheep had a view of Lake Benmore they should pay a higher rent because of it. That was the logic of the Labour Government trying to drive these farmers off this land.

We changed that legislation. We got the rent back to being what it should be on a productive value. It doesn’t surprise me at all that in the dying days of the New Zealand First - Labour - Greens Government, here they have another crack at the high country farmers; forget that they’ve got a property right called lease in perpetuity.

I won’t be in this Parliament to fight it through the select committee, but I guarantee it will get a thorough airing. If Mark Patterson wants to be involved—thank you for his valedictory speech tonight—he comes back and makes a submission. He should front up and acknowledge before that select committee that he made his mistake in encouraging New Zealand First to support this legislation tonight, because if he had stayed true to his own thoughts, he wouldn’t be supporting this legislation, and it’d be dead in the water tonight as it should be.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill is an absolute disgrace. It is hugely disappointing to see the support it’s achieved on the other side of the House. The Minister Sage, in her first contribution tonight, mentioned that nothing here is intended to impact farming. That just shows how totally disconnected this Green Party is. They have no concept of what farming entails—the activities you undertake in normal farming operations and the difficulties that those farmers face. It is a disgrace that they would suggest this bill will not impact on their ability.

Then to see the Minister of Agriculture stand up and back that up just shows how disconnected he is as well. Quite frankly, I am hugely disappointed in that. He said that farming will continue to prosper, that farming matters; they’re doing great. It’s easy to say words, but you can’t talk your way out of something you’ve acted your way into. This Government have acted their way into a position of absolute mistrust with the farming community. They have no respect for them. They don’t value their contribution to our economy, and they are out to grab that land back here and to get rid of farming out of New Zealand. It’s a disgrace. I’ve said that; I’ll keep saying it, because, quite frankly, I’m outraged that they would put forward a bill like this before this Parliament with such total disregard for our rural communities.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: Have you read the bill?

I have read the bill, Minister, and there are a couple of points that I’ll highlight for you within there. So when we look at Schedule 2—and I’m glad the Minister’s asked me about this, actually, because Schedule 2 outlines what is a permitted activity and what is a discretionary activity. A couple of the permitted activities: all earthworks—well, that’s appropriate on farming. There’s always a range of earthworks activities undertaken. All earthworks, sowing of seed, or top-dressing—those are all good, standard farming activities. Planting pasture or crops, you’re putting some fertiliser on. So earthworks, sowing of seed, or top-dressing—that’s a permitted activity, provided it’s within the existing curtilage of dwellings.

So I’m not sure how many farmers I’ve spoken to about this, but I don’t know too many farmers that top-dress their house or their garden, or that carry out extensive earthworks beside their shed. Those are the only criteria in which you can carry out those tasks. Otherwise, on the rest of the farm where you actually do those tasks, they are a discretionary activity, under this bill. It just shows the total disconnect, and to see the Minister of Agriculture stand up and say, “This is a good bill that won’t impact on farming activities.”, when any farmer is going to have to go cap in hand asking for consent to plant some pasture, to plant a crop, to disturb the soil for the construction of a small building—which, actually, they won’t need consent for now under 30 square metres. Removing of any exotic timber—there are a range of factors here that are standard farming activities that are no longer permitted under this. They will require a consent. That is totally out of touch, to try and farm by consent. It is impractical and totally unworkable.

Farmers are great stewards of the land, and this is a fundamental difference in opinion in this Parliament. We understand that farmers care for their land, because that is fundamental to them having a successful business. Without that focus on maintaining and growing your asset—i.e., the land, and, you know, crops, and whatever else—animals—you’re growing—you will not have a successful business. So to suggest that farming is destroying our countryside, as we’ve heard numerous times from the Green Party, and we’ve seen no opposition to that view from New Zealand First here tonight either, is hugely disappointing. They could have kicked this to touch right here. Yet, we are seeing a continued focus, a disregard for farming activities. Farmers across the country, but particularly down there—it’s a beautiful landscape. The majesty of the place—it’s incredible country. To suggest that farmers go out there and just pillage it is totally disrespectful to them.

💬 Hon Eugenie Sage: No one suggested that.

The Minister’s trying to say, “Oh no. We’re not doing that. Oh, we care about farmers.” Well, actually, your bill here disagrees with those comments. So to stand up and say lovely things and then try and push this through is, quite frankly, deceitful.

This, fortunately, is not being proposed for a shortened report-back, so we will see this come back before the next Parliament. As Mr Carter said, New Zealand First won’t be here to support it; it’ll get kicked to touch. We will be absolutely working with the farming community. I hope that every farmer involved down there—and, actually, farmers across the country—see this for the absolute injustice that it is, and make a submission against it. We will be fighting hard for the rights of those landowners and opposing this bill. It is simply outrageous that the Government will put this forward, and the National Party cannot support it.