Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill.

💬 SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

I move, That the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill be now read a second time.

Reform of the regulatory regime applying to Crown pastoral land is indeed timely. In recent years, there has been increasing public concern about the management of Crown pastoral land by Toitū Te Whenua Land Information New Zealand, particularly in relation to the loss of biodiversity and landscapes values on current and former Crown pastoral land over time. A review carried out by Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) in 2018 attributed much of this concern to unclear system outcomes, a lack of transparency and accountability, and limited understanding about the cumulative impacts of the commissioner’s decision making over time. There have also been concerns about the process of tenure review, which has resulted in much former Crown pastoral land being free-holded and some of it then being subject to more intensive farming—so concerns from a number of perspectives.

The Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill ends the tenure review process and sets clear outcomes for the Crown pastoral land regulatory system for the future. The bill requires decision makers to seek to maintain or enhance inherent values across the Crown pastoral estate for present and future generations—inherent values that are the ecological, landscape, cultural heritage, and scientific values of the land—while providing for ongoing pastoral farming. The bill sets out how LINZ’s administration of Crown pastoral land will seek to achieve these outcomes by, firstly, providing direction to LINZ and the Commissioner of Crown Lands on their roles and responsibilities as lessor and administrator of Crown pastoral land; secondly, explicitly recognising the relationship between the Crown and its Treaty partner and providing for this relationship; and thirdly, introducing measures to increase transparency, clarify accountability, and provide more public involvement.

The bill underpins the Government’s review that ongoing, sustainable, and responsible pastoral farming is the best way for this land to be managed. I recognise the passion with which leaseholders conduct their stewardship of these iconic properties. I also understand how valued the high country is to iwi and to all New Zealanders, and this is reflected in the Government’s decision to end tenure review and maintain the land as Crown pastoral leases for future generations.

The process of tenure review has run its course. Since the process commenced in 1998, many leaseholders who have wanted to have gone through the process. For those parties to whom a substantive proposal has been put, the process will continue. The remaining leaseholders will continue to operate their properties with perpetual right of renewal. The bill is intended to enshrine best practice and streamline some day-to-day farming activities. It amends the existing regulatory system under which leaseholders are already required to obtain landowner consent for many activities by classifying activities as permitted, discretionary, or prohibited. Certain low-impact farming activities will not require consents. Higher-impact activities will require consent from the Commissioner of Crown Lands under an improved process. Some activities, however, that have major impacts on the values of the high country will not be allowed.

Under the bill, LINZ will have a wider range of powers to address situations where leaseholders do not comply with their lease obligations. In particular, there are more proportionate enforcement tools that don’t require LINZ to take the more extreme step of court action, which is the only enforcement option available at present. These powers will not impact anyone doing the right thing, but they will ensure bottom lines are maintained and that there are appropriate mechanisms to address poor practice. For most leaseholders, the bill will not change the way they farm, because they already follow best practice to minimise the impact on the environment and manage pests and weeds, and, in many cases, that’s been an intergenerational effort. Leaseholders may at times still require consent from both LINZ and their local council under the Resource Management Act (RMA) just as they do now. It’s an important distinction to make, because the RMA applies to all land and is about environmental management, whereas the Crown Pastoral Land Act is about a leaseholder-landowner relationship.

The high level of interest in the future of this iconic land was evident in the 3,200 submissions received on the February 2019 discussion document leading up to this bill, and the 161 submissions received by the select committee. The Environment Committee considered the bill and heard submissions over the last few months. I have to thank them. The range of changes to the bill had been agreed by the majority of the committee, taking into account the feedback from leaseholders, from iwi, from interest groups, and the wider public. These changes include providing more appropriate recognition of the Crown’s obligations to its Treaty partner and mana whenua interests, and improving the clarity of the decision making and other processes set out in the bill. The changes also add some important safeguards for high country leaseholders, including providing for, firstly, greater use of farm plans for high country stations; secondly, more explicit provision for mitigation activities to be carried out in an emergency situation; and broader provision for commercial recreation permits.

Another change will enable the Commissioner of Crown Lands to consider the economic benefits associated with a proposed farming activity in cases where the viability of the lease is at risk. A further change was agreed to, which was intended to require public access to be considered when a lease is transferred. My primary concern is to ensure that leaseholders don’t unreasonably deny a reasonable request for access across a lease from time to time. I have had some feedback that the current clause as proposed has gone a little too far, and I am asking officials to prepare an amendment that will be tabled as a Supplementary Order Paper ahead of the committee of the whole House. The committee also agreed to provide for a smoother transition in the implementation of the bill, by providing more time to properly implement the legislation. This will mean that the repeal of tenure provisions will come into force the day after Royal assent, while the remainder of the provisions in the bill, which relate to amendments to the regulatory regime, will come into force six months after that.

LINZ will remain responsible for administering the 1.2 million hectares of Crown pastoral land. LINZ has recently taken a more hands-on approach, encouraged by the Minister, I have to say, including significantly increasing visits to pastoral leases to maintain a strong and effective connection with leaseholders. We need to know what is going on and the leaseholders need to know that we care. I expect LINZ will continue to work hard to build close and constructive working relationships with leaseholders, with iwi, and with other stakeholders. This will be an important part of implementing the proposed changes in the bill. These spectacular South Island properties are special places for all New Zealanders. This bill recognises the place of pastoral farming as a legitimate use of the land while protecting the importance of the unique values of our high country to New Zealand and New Zealanders.

I appreciate the time and effort put in by everyone who gave feedback on the discussion document and the bill. I want to specifically acknowledge all those who have made public submissions on this bill, and the work of the Environment Committee in considering these submissions and making recommendations on amendments to the bill. Thank you for your efforts and your commitment. I know that the Environment Committee made on-ground visits to high country lease properties. They took on board the wisdom and the guidance and the views of many people, of all those stakeholders, and I think the advice that came back through, and amendments to the bill, and advice to myself directly as the Minister, have made this legislation a far better piece of legislation that will be enduring and considers the interests of all stakeholders now and into the future. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I commend the bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

This is a bill that is an attempt to be a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist, to a problem that the Government has utterly failed to convince not only the leaseholders exists but the Parliament of New Zealand surely cannot be convinced by the Minister for Land Information’s speech just a few minutes ago.

Now, it’s important that we go back a little bit in history to understand the genesis of this piece of legislation. It was actually introduced into the 52nd Parliament by the then Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) Minister, the Hon Eugenie Sage, a Green Party Minister, who introduced it to the House, and then, of course, not long after the bill was introduced and referred to the House in July of 2020, there was a general election and the makeup of this Government that is currently in office changed significantly. The introducing Minister lost her ministerial warrant, but she was rewarded with the chairmanship of the Environment Committee, and now she has, sitting in that role, overseen the process to bring us to where we are today. Now, I accept that she was not in the chair during the hearing of submissions, but that was a token gesture to help placate what could only be seen as an ideologically driven philosophical approach to these 170-something high country pastoral farming families who are the victims of this unnecessary, unconvincing, and, frankly, insulting piece of legislation.

We heard, as we travelled around the countryside, submitters from far and wide. Many of the leaseholders came to speak to the select committee during our hearings in Wellington, in Queenstown, and in Christchurch, and they were amongst some of the most heartfelt submissions that I’ve heard in my time in Parliament. These were representatives of families who had farmed sensibly, pragmatically, with conservation and environmental values at their heart for several generations, and they were distraught, they were hurt, they were confused, and they were unconvinced by the need or the desire for why this Government would want to treat them so harshly, so poorly, and so insultingly.

Actually, no argument has been put forward by the Minister, by the Labour Government backbenchers who sat on the select committee, mostly mute, during the submissions, unable to address the concerns and issues raised by the leaseholders in any sensible way as to what was the motivation for this piece of legislation, other than one of envy and one of despising their way of life, their way of history, and their contribution to conservation and the environment in the high country. Frankly, it was an embarrassing and appalling display of mute silence from Government members who sat on the select committee.

We operate in this little democracy of ours here in New Zealand a unicameral system. We don’t have a federal system, we don’t have an Upper House, we don’t have a Senate. We, in our own little way, have developed what we would hope would be a select committee process that provides the scrutiny and the analysis and the detailed, careful scrutiny of legislation. Well, submitter after submitter came and presented to the select committee, and none of their points that they raised in trying to convince the Government that they were farming well, that they were conserving land that would otherwise be the victim of uncontrolled pests, weeds, and wilding pines and the like—none of those arguments seemed to be in any way resonating with Government members.

So I come back to my original point: this seems to be a bill that is a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. High country farmers, the leaseholders, can feel rightly upset and angry with the moves that this Government is making, because, at the heart of this piece of legislation, it undermines the generations of goodwill that have been established between the Crown and the leaseholders. It undermines the good work and the faith that they have invested, not only in terms of their emotion, their hard work, their blood, sweat, and toil but also millions, tens of millions, of dollars of improvement, enhancement, and careful, prudent management of the high country leases. I felt very, very sorry for those submitters who came and, in many cases, were emotional, understandably emotional, about the way that they were going to be treated under this piece of legislation, because at its core, it changes the relationship that they have entered into.

As one submitter said, it is, effectively, a treaty. These are people that entered into a treaty with the Crown. Does it sound familiar? They entered into a treaty with the Crown, and now the Crown is arbitrarily taking away those treaty rights that they entered into in good faith and changing them, changing them to be put in the place of quasi-criminals. An infringement regime will be put in place that means that someone will drive up the driveway or wherever it is to the high country pastoral lease homestead and issue them with a legal document telling them that they have been bad and evil and wrong in some way.

What used to happen was that there used to be a relationship of trust, good faith, and understanding between LINZ and the leaseholders. That’s all gone, and that’s, I think, a great sadness and a great pity. I think it’s a shame that something akin to 1.2 million hectares of our national landscape, something close to 5 percent of New Zealand’s total land area, that has been administered, managed, and carefully, prudently cared for by the 170-something high country leaseholders—that that undermining of those relationships, going back several generations in some cases, should be cast asunder so lightly and so carefree-ly by this Labour Government on the basis of ideology, nothing else; on the basis of ideology and envy. Well, I don’t think that’s good enough. I think it’s very sad. I think it’s a real shame, and I think that in future, a re-elected National-led Government is going to have to put to rights this piece of legislation. It’s just another piece of legislation of what is becoming a very long list of pieces of legislation that are going to have to be put to rights, but this is one that will need to be addressed.

The infringement regime is particularly offensive—particularly offensive—to the leaseholders. It’s a regime that is utterly and totally unnecessary and hasn’t been proven. It erodes at its very core the element of trust, respect, and goodwill that has existed to date and now that’s gone—cast aside, cast asunder, all for the benefit of an ideological, philosophical approach that simply doesn’t like the fact that there are pastoral leases in the high country and that, actually, they have been doing a very good job.

I want to acknowledge the very good work of the member the Hon Jacqui Dean, the member for Waitaki, who has been a strident, passionate advocate for the leaseholders. She has done an outstanding job, in my view, representing them not only in this Parliament, on the select committee, but actually collecting their views, their opinions, and their heartfelt messages of concern and frustration with this current Labour Government. I think that she’s done a very good job, and so has Nicola Grigg. These are hard-working, local, rural MPs with the interests of their constituents and the environment at their heart, and they can be proud of the work that they’ve done on behalf of the high country pastoral leaseholders. They have advocated strongly and will continue to do so through the course of this bill as it goes eventually to the committee of the whole House, where I’m interested to know that the Minister is going to introduce at least one Supplementary Order Paper, and maybe that’s good. So we’ll wait with semi-bated breath to see what that might be.

Maybe there is a glimmer of hope. Maybe there is a small glimmer of hope that some tiny resonance of common sense and logic has found its way through to the Beehive office of the Minister, and maybe we can hold out just a small glimmer of hope that a degree of logic and common sense will be applied, even if it is at the eleventh hour. We oppose this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill. It’s a great pleasure to rise to speak on this bill that both updates the legislation to allow for a new and improved consenting regime and gets rid of tenure review. I am lucky enough to live in the beautiful Dunedin and spend a lot of my time in Otago and Central Otago, as do my children, so this environment is a place where I’ve grown up and studied in and where my children spend a lot of time as well. So it’s a very important place and it’s good to be standing here in this House and talking about the South Island. Five percent of the country is high country land so that means it’s about 10 percent of the South Island. In any comments of the iconic nature of this, I’m going to be thinking of Otago but I acknowledge other members here will be thinking about their parts of Te Wai Pounamu.

Now, we had a lot of submissions from people about that iconic environment. So we heard from the Merino Company about the importance of being able to market to the world our sustainable farming practices in this area and how important that is to a lot of our iconic merino products. We heard from Ngāi Tahu about how important those land forms are to them. I note that the current legislation that we have that we are going to be replacing—or amending, rather—doesn’t deal with any Treaty issues, any mana whenua issues, so the bill updates that, and the changes that we made in select committee improved upon what was introduced.

Of course, the farmers who submitted, obviously they also care a great deal about this magnificent environment, as do other people who submitted: different environmental groups, different recreational groups—widespread acknowledgment of the beauty and importance of these places. As the Minister mentioned, we were lucky as a select committee to go and visit two of those farms. So we went to Branch Creek Station, just next to Cardrona ski field and Minaret Station on Lake Wānaka—both very beautiful places, and thank you to the leaseholders of those stations for enabling the select committee to come and ask some very detailed questions and to see how those places operated. I think that really helped inform our decision making, particularly in regard to new Schedule 1AB. We also travelled around the South Island, as the Hon Scott Simpson just mentioned. We went to both Queenstown and Christchurch to hear submissions. And, as he also mentioned, Eugenie Sage was not in the chair for hearing the submissions and I was privileged to be in that position where my recollection is that I heard from all members of the committee, and everyone from both sides was very engaged.

So what does this Act do? It starts now with outcomes in its purpose and a key mechanism of the Act is the idea of inherent values. So in the purpose section, new section 1A set out in clause 5, now we are to maintain or enhance inherent values and they are defined—and we spent a lot of time in select committee working on that provision. There were many submissions on it and there’s been some amendments from the select committee. We were also working on the consenting regime. We’ve heard from the Minister that there are now permitted, discretionary, and prohibited activities and where you find the detail of what these activities are is in new Schedule 1AB. It might not be the first place you would look if you’re looking at this bill, but that’s where they are and you’ll see, if you look at that, that there were a lot of changes made by the select committee. And a lot of that I would attribute to the time spent on those farms and engaging with all the different farmers that we spoke to in the submission process.

Another change that the select committee made was around the provision for farm plans and regulations for those. Farm plans are a hot topic at the moment. They are a reasonably new thing and people have different ideas of what farm plans might be at the moment. We heard that Beef + Lamb have some farm plans, but those aren’t always going to be appropriate for the high country. We know, of course, with changes in the Resource Management Act that there’s a need for farm plans to do with water. Because this is something that’s not quite settled at the moment, the changes to the bill are that there’s some time for regulations to be made about what will be in those farm plans and that they’re optional. There was very good support for this by the farming submitters in terms of that it should enable farmers, when they have got a range of activities that they need to consent for, that they can bundle them together and work through the issues with Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) all at once and in an efficient and useful way. We also heard about the importance of LINZ and leaseholders working together, and we’ve just heard the Minister say how important that is. And I note just last week at the Environmental Defence Society conference that two high country farmers both called Kate were there and with LINZ as well, speaking about the importance of this legislation.

The other thing that bill does is to get rid of tenure review. And, again, for people who are new to the bill, it’s good to then just look at clause 9, which says, “Part 2 repealed—Repeal Part 2.” It’s quite simple. That part commences the day after the bill gets Royal assent, whereas the provisions relating to things like the regulations, they commence in six months’ time. I’m interested, as the Hon Scott Simpson said, in the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister has said he’ll bring to the next stage in the House.

So, as we’ve heard already, we had a lot of really impassioned submissions from people who very much care about the environment. And I’d like to pause for a second to recall Jess, who, as I remember, was aged nine, and gave a very powerful submission to us about the importance of her home farm environment, where she is home schooled, and how much she cares about the environment generally. Unlike the previous speaker, I think that the select committee members all were very interested in this and made very good contributions and I’d like to think the clerks for their really constructive process in particularly organising those field trips. It’s an unusual thing for a select committee to do. So, on that note, and accepting that there are different views, I thank the House for its time and commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is—I wouldn’t say a pleasure, but I am speaking on the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill. I’d like to begin by actually acknowledging the people in my electorate who are on Crown pastoral lease properties who, at the moment, up in the Awatere, are actually stuck. So the road to the Awatere from the heavy rain has been closed from slips, and those slips may take weeks or longer to clear, and with the snow that we’ve had recently, they can no longer get out via Hanmer Springs. They’re stuck in there at the moment, but they will be watching, perhaps not live, but they will either be recording it, because they’ll probably be out in the snow raking and doing things like that, or they’ll watch it online later. So they will be watching. They have a pretty good idea where this has gone and is going, but they’re very interested in it.

Like the previous speakers, and, in fact, the previous speaker Rachel Brooking, I would like to acknowledge the effort that the clerk of the committee went to to arrange that trip. It was quite a lot of work to do. Rebecca, who’s now left the committee, did a fantastic job, and I think it was pretty frustrating, not that she ever let us know that, but she had one go at it, and then it all fell through and she had to go back and do it all again. So I’d like to acknowledge that. The select committee’s loss, I think, is the Cabinet Office’s gain.

But that said, the bill itself—I don’t agree with it. I don’t like it. I think it’s been very well explored by my colleague the Hon Scott Simpson, but I’d like to put my personal view on it from the experience of going to Branch Creek Station, as we did as a committee down at Cardrona in the Cardrona Valley, and, I’m sorry, the lady’s name and their daughters that we met, their names escape me at the moment, but what an impassioned presentation we got from those two ladies. We were right adjacent to the Cardrona ski field, where we were looking at that property, and what, I think, members of the public and the other members of the House have to understand is the differences we had starkly pointed out to us and observed. At Branch Creek Station, if they stop farming it, it reverts to bracken and will become a fire risk, a massive—

💬 Nicola Grigg: Wilding pines, rabbits, deer.

Yeah, wilding pines, all of those things. In contrast Minaret Station, which we went to later in the day, if they stop farming that, it reverts to fern—goes straight back to native. So I think there’s a view, particularly from some of the submitters, against the bill that the farming practices are adversely affecting iconic high country. I would argue, actually, the reverse—they are preserving it—and in Branch Creep Station, it was very evident from their management how they were controlling that bracken. That family are putting a heck of a lot of work into that. It’s a tough grind. They’re up for it, they’re not looking for sympathy, but they put their heart and soul into that property, and you can see, and it was really something to behold the passion from both of those ladies about the land itself, not just the farm and not their personal financial reward they get out of the property. That wasn’t it; it was their connection to the land, their connection to that environment, and how they were working as hard as they could to preserve that and, what’s more, to preserve that way of life. That I think speaks volumes to the passion of those people.

As I said, we then drove up to “The Neck”, which is between Lake Hāwea and Lake Wānaka, and we were met by Jonathan Wallis from Minaret Station, who transported us across the lake to Minaret. Minaret is completely cut off—it’s landlocked. There is a road there and there are vehicles, but they only operate on the property. The only way in or out is by boat or by air. So we saw a completely different environment: higher rainfall and an almost 100 percent deer farm, and large parts of the higher part of the property shut off. But the lower part—and some of it irrigated—where the fawns are weened, those paddocks start to get fern coming up through the grass, the sown pastures, just before they start to graze it off, because that’s what happens. It would completely be overtaken by fern if they stop farming it—so, completely different from the other property. It will revert to native if they stop farming, and I thought that was a very stark—and I know all of the members of the committee were quite taken by that day and the contrast between the two properties. Jonathan and his passion for rural New Zealand, the land, and they were also raising their lamb, feeding them on chicory and so on—Headwaters is the brand that they’re selling it under. I thought that was very interesting for us all, because, of course, you were there, Madam Speaker, but it was a fascinating day. And I thought, when we all got off and we had a long boat trip back into Wānaka and then a drive back to Queenstown, I don’t think I struck anyone. Everyone was very taken by it. We all had a very similar experience. It’s just a pity we see the bill in a quite different light. But I’ll leave that there and you can work that out yourself.

Further to that, I took a drive up through the Awatere Valley after that to go and have another look at something completely different, which is in the Awatere Valley pastoral leases and how they are going to be impacted by this bill, and I was told I wasn’t allowed to take my four-wheel drive car, I had to take a ute, and I took a four-wheel drive ute for a legitimate use. We drove up the valley and what really became obvious in the Molesworth property next door to Muller Station and the way that they are being managed is the wilding pine issue, and this is where we have a problem. So the Department Of Conservation manages a large part of that upper valley, and we’ve got a significant wilding pine issue. Grazing merino wethers on those blocks that are exposed to the wilding pines—when those small little seedlings coming through, the merino wethers will eat that—they’ll eat that; cattle won’t. So they’ll eat that, they control them, and any that get away, that are missed by the stock—because once they get a little bit too big, they won’t eat it—they come in with a helicopter and spot-spray them. It’s such a vast area to cover; it’s the only way they can deal with it.

So we saw private enterprise pastoral lease farmers managing and doing a fantastic job of managing noxious weeds, and that’s what a wilding pine is, it’s a noxious weed. I can tell you, Madam Speaker—I know you’ve seen it for yourself—I could not believe, once we got close to Hanmer Springs, the absolute area overtaken by wilding pines was unbelievable, and it is on its way. It’s heading up—we could see on the next ridge over, trees just getting to the top of it. Once they get to the top, that seed rain will go a long way in the wind. They’re not quite there yet; they will get there in the next year or so, and they won’t stop till they get to Kaikōura. It is an environmental disaster. That is why I think this bill is so short-sighted. Leave the farmers to continue to do it.

What we’re imposing on them with this regime of rules is pernicious. If central planning worked, the Soviet empire would not have had a massive drop in agricultural production when the communists took over, and that’s exactly what happened. I’m not saying this is communist, but I’m drawing a parallel. It’s very close to it. Central planning does not work, and it’s absolutely the case, and that is what will happen. We’ll have all this rules regime, there’ll be reporting to some bureaucrat somewhere in Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) about how you’re going to be farming your property, and they’ll say, “Oh, no, no, no, you can’t do that.” It may well be the best practice for that particular property, and each one is different, like Branch Creek Station and like Minaret Station. Trying to impose what Minaret do on Branch Creek would not work, just as it wouldn’t the other way around.

We also went to the Lakes Station in Canterbury and Lake Taylor—quite different again. More akin to, I think, Branch Creek than the other properties that we went to, but, again, a different form of management is needed on that property, and I just don’t think LINZ will get that. I do not think they will get the nuances in between managing those different environments. It is a beautiful part of New Zealand, it is something that is engrained in our culture, and we all identify with it. Some of us have never been there; many of us have. I condemn this to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak in support of the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill, and, in doing so, I’ll just make the point that the Environment Committee, which I am a member of, decided at the start of this new term of the Parliament to reinstate this particular bill. It has been interesting, as a new member of this House, to be part of a process where submissions were still called for through to the hearings and through to second reading. So I just thought I’d indicate that.

Like the speakers that have spoken before me, I also want to acknowledge the submitters that took the time to submit and those, also, that took the extra effort to speak to the select committee. We did hear from submitters in person here in Wellington but also in Christchurch and in Queenstown. I agree with Stuart Smith, the previous speaker, in that, yes, we had an opportunity as a select committee to visit the high country—parts, actually, Madam Speaker, of your own electorate in Queenstown—and, yes, Mr Smith and I, along with another colleague, shared a vehicle in terms of the trip, and it was a wonderful opportunity to see firsthand a wonderful part of the country. However, all things considered, where we’ve landed is that this bill is the way forward. It is a stunning part of the country that, actually, all New Zealanders should be able to have access to experience.

I want to acknowledge the hospitality from the High Country Accord and also the people from Land Information New Zealand, their advisers, and the committee staff, who made sure that, logistically, things were able to move smoothly. Can I also acknowledge the deputy chair, Rachel Brooking, who chaired those hearings, and also the chair, the Hon Eugenie Sage, who, actually, I think, is able to contribute to the work of the Environment Committee, and I want to acknowledge the role that she’s continued to play there.

There are a few things that I do want to just cover in my contribution to the House this afternoon. I was going to talk a little bit about public access considerations. And it was one thing, when we were on site in the high country, talking about the opportunity for members of the public, recreational users, to have free access to that part of Aotearoa New Zealand; however, I note that the Minister has indicated that he has asked officials, as part of the committee of the whole House process, to come back with some options around that. So I’ll wait until that particular point.

But I do want to just indicate that what we did hear, as a committee, from interested parties was the importance of iwi representation and involvement in the process. I mean, there are a number of additions to sections in the bill, largely in new sections 22B and 22D that will allow for continued opportunities for iwi representation alongside lessee and leaseholder representatives, as well, to participate in the consultation process around the framework in the former new section and the strategic intentions document in the latter. So that’s good. But there is also an opportunity—an obligation, I guess—for those documents to be published, and that aligns itself with, in the committee report, on the second page there, the bill seeking to “provide stronger and clearer accountability and transparency in the department’s administration of Crown pastoral land, with more public involvement.” So that is a fantastic step—this bill—and a change that has been introduced, and that flows through to new sections 100N and 100O. I do think it is part of the Crown’s responsibility to give effect to the principle of Te Tiriti, and so, in the bill, you will see that that has been captured as well.

There is, no doubt, a desire for transparency. Additions that have been made through the select committee process also ensure that that transparency by way of the commissioner and the decisions that he or she may make is publicly available as well.

My colleague Rachel Brooking has already touched on farm plans, and I know that, through the select committee, we did hear about farm plans and we heard about the journeys, I guess, that some submitters had embarked upon, that they continue to be a work in progress, that they are a tool, I guess, that is accepted by submitters and those within the industry. But the suggestion that they would form part of the primary legislation is actually not ideally placed; the better place for them is in the regulation so that there is some flux and flow and that they continue to be part of that wider tool kit within the legislative framework.

I want to just also touch on the new emergency provisions, because this was something that the select committee turned its mind to. In situations where a lessee or leaseholder, an occupier, may be required to undertake some emergency works in terms of clearing vegetation by a way of burning or, perhaps, disturbance of soil, that instead of requiring them to go and obtain a consent through the commissioner, that they could simply get on and do that work but not abrogate the responsibility to still achieve consent to do that, albeit retrospectively. I think that is actually a fair balance between allowing this work to be undertaken and also the responsibility on occupiers or lessees to none the less ensure that there is consent achieved.

The final point that I want to touch on is around the infringement process, because we had a lot of discussion around this. Sure, the Commissioner of Crown Lands still has an opportunity to take any alleged breaches by occupiers or lessees through to the District Court, but this new introduction of an infringement process, I think, actually is a sensible way forward because it introduces a new section 100GA, and I note from the National Party view in the select committee report that there was a suggestion that, actually, there should be a conversation first and that perhaps other options should be identified before an infringement is issued. What is proposed in the bill as it currently stands is no different to how other infringements would actually be issued. I don’t see the distinction between the two. So I am supportive of the new reference to the infringement process, noting that the commissioner still has an opportunity to directly go to the District Court if he or she chooses.

I want to acknowledge the work of the select committee, and I am delighted to commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Thank you. I’m very pleased to stand and speak in support of the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill. It was indeed a privilege to introduce this bill as Minister for Land Information last term and then to serve on the select committee while it considered the submissions on the bill. The fact that there is a 15-page, quite detailed report explaining the differences between the bill as introduced and the bill as being reported back to the House, I think, highlights the huge work of submitters in providing the committee with some very substantial submissions, the work of Land Information New Zealand officials, the select committee secretariat, and also Parliamentary Counsel. So, like others, I would like to acknowledge all of that and also repeat the thanks that colleagues have given to the High Country Accord for organising the visit with the secretariat on Branch Creek Station and Minaret. And, I think, Stuart Smith’s comments at some length on that visit highlight the benefits when select committees actually get out into the field and hear from submitters in their own place on their own ground, and just the real practical insights that that gave us.

I would also like to acknowledge all of the leaseholders who made submissions and described their leases, their history on them, whether they’d been in the family, just some of the issues that they deal with, and the challenges that they deal with day to day. That gave us a really good background context for considering the legislation. But I do reject the statements by the Hon Scott Simpson that there was an ideological basis for this bill.

National’s concern is with the protection of property rights. One of the reasons for the bill was the quite significant public concern that the Crown interest, because the Crown is the owner of these 2.5 million hectares of South Island high country, the lack of protection of the Crown interest in the high country, and the quite extensive regulatory review that Land Information New Zealand did, highlighting problems with the existing statutory regime, the fact that it was perceived as largely process driven, that it didn’t have clear outcomes, the major concerns about tenure review, and the fact that the Crown interest was not being protected there—were part of the reasons for the bill.

We heard from Dr Bill Lee of Manaaki Whenua in support of Forest & Bird, and it was just he highlighted particularly that wider public interest in high country lands on pastoral leases; the mosaic of vegetation; the significance of the species, because they’re often quite distinctive species like the Brachaspis robustus, the grasshopper; the huge ecosystem-services values that the high country provides to downstream users in terms of harvesting water, for example; and the use that folk downstream make of that. So protecting these upper catchment areas, ensuring that inherent values are sustained, benefits all of us, both in terms of carbon capture, source stability, and that harvesting of water. So the discretionary consent regime, which the bill significantly changes and which the select committee is suggesting be improved further, is a critical part of safeguarding inherent values, the Crown’s interest, and the public interest in the sustainable management of this land while providing for a secure long-term future for pastoral farming.

There were some submitters and some in this House who have argued that we just leave it all to the leaseholders, that there hasn’t been any evidence of degradation in the high country, and, I think, Federated Farmers argued that. I would remind members of the evidence that was presented by Dr Lee and others that even in the Mackenzie Basin alone, 68,000 hectares of indigenous vegetation, over 22 percent of the floor of the basin, was completely changed, destroying the indigenous character of that, between 1990 and 2017. Dr Lee had some very compelling maps just showing the major change with very bright-green areas that had highlighted that conversion. So, again, some clarity around inherent values, how they are to be managed, how the discretionary consent process is to be managed are at the heart of this bill in order to ensure that those values are sustained long term.

The bill also ends tenure review. And the public concern about that was that large areas of land which had been free-holded through tenure review were being intensively developed, and the loss, again, of that landscape, character and indigenous vegetation. Dr Ann Brower in her submission highlighted that, in net terms, the Crown had paid across some $57 million as at 2017, while disposing of more land, some 436,000 hectares being free-holded with 371,842 hectares becoming conservation land. So more land being free-holded, yet, in net terms, the Crown paid out net $57 million to leaseholders. That inequity and the fact that the Crown was not getting a good outcome through the tenure review process is again another reason for ending it.

As one former pastoral lessee who had been through tenure review—Dr Gerry McSweeney—noted leaseholders had had 20 years to decide whether they wanted to go through tenure review. It is now time that it ends. And as Dr McSweeney also highlighted, just the increasing diversification in the high country now earning more from mānuka honey on that property near Arthur’s Pass than from annual calf sales.

Natural landscapes and nature are really the defining feature of the high country and how those lands are managed. So, with the changes in this bill, I think it will significantly improve that, along with the fact that Land Information New Zealand is no longer working through third-party organisations, consultants; it is much more actively involved in working with leaseholders.

Now, Stuart Smith talked about the wilding conifer problem. That cannot just be left to leaseholders. Certainly, in their leases they have a responsibility to keep leases free of pests and weeds. But it has been the Crown in a partnership which has invested over $100 million over four years in tackling the weed tree, the wilding conifer threat. Some of that money, quite a chunk of it, is being invested on pastoral lease land, and that is supported by leaseholders. So that is what this bill is also about.

Points made by others that I’d just also like to underline: a much better commitment to the Treaty partnership and giving effect to Treaty principles in the bill, and the select committee strengthened that; the infringement offences, which did cause some concern amongst the leaseholding community, are a standard feature of most legislation. It is an ability to go in—rather than with a neutron bomb of going to the High Court implementing proceedings—with a fines procedure where there may have been an activity like burning, cultivation undertaken without the requisite discretionary consent under the Act.

Similarly, just with concerns around things like offsetting, some submitters wanted this. This is not part of this bill because of that overall concern to actually ensure that we sustain the inherent values of pastoral lease lands and we have a better regime which ensures that pastoral farming can continue, but that those inherent values are much more to the fore in decisions about what sort of activities should take place, given that the pastoral lease provides for a right of pasturage and quiet enjoyment, but not of cultivation, burning, and destruction of biodiversity. Thank you, Madam Speaker, I support the bill.

With apologies to the member, this debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 24 August.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 4.55 p.m.