Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill

Members, we return now to the interrupted consideration of the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill. When we were last considering this bill, Part 1 was being debated. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s good to be finally back on this piece of legislation, even if it’s very poor legislation. This has been a slow, drawn-out, painful exercise for the leaseholders who maintain their responsibilities under the Crown pastoral land reform Act of 2020. They’ve been literally dragged through the high hills of the South Island on this journey of this piece of legislation, and all for nothing, because, as people who have been listening to the previous debate on this piece of legislation will know, a re-elected National-led Government is going to repeal this legislation at the first possible opportunity. We want to make that, again, very clear at this committee stage: a National-led Government will repeal this legislation at the first possible opportunity. It is poor legislation, it is bad legislation, and it is not in the best interests of New Zealand, the Crown pasture lease area, or, indeed, the families and businesses that operate those leases.

I want to turn particularly to the amended purpose in the bill. The bill talks about, at new section 1A, in clause 5, “The purpose of this Act is to provide for the administration of pastoral land in a way that seeks to achieve the following outcomes: (a) maintaining or enhancing inherent values across the Crown pastoral estate for present and future generations, while providing for ongoing pastoral farming of pastoral land”. What it doesn’t say is anything about supporting the relationship between the land, the Crown, and the leaseholders, who are stewards of this land and have been, in many cases, for generations.

The clause goes on to say that the Crown supports its relationships with Māori under Te Tiriti and enables the Crown “to get a fair return on its ownership interest in [the] pastoral land”. So, again, there is no mention of the inherent value, or enhancing the inherent value, of the existing relationship with the leaseholders, who, by dint of the lease that they have with the Crown, effectively have a treaty in their own right—a treaty in their own right—with the Crown. Doesn’t that sound a little bit familiar to those who often talk about Treaty obligations that the Crown has in other matters?

So why is it, I’d like to know from the Minister in the chair, that there is a lot of talk in new section 1A in the purpose section of this new bill about maintaining and enhancing inherent values across the Crown pastoral estate, supporting the Crown in its relationship with Māori, but zero mention of the inherent value of the relationship—let alone enhancing that relationship—with the leaseholders? I’m interested to know what the Minister’s rationale is for that, frankly, insulting omission from the purpose of this legislation.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, look at all the political pontificating in this piece of legislation. Further erosion of the trust that 150 years, Minister, of farming in the high country has created—a dash and it’s all gone. The Rt Hon Scott Simpson pointed out—oh, the Hon; I apologise. All in short order—the Hon Scott Simpson.

Inherent value. How do you, Minister, reconcile 150 years of farming, breaking in the land, the asset investment, the back-breaking work that went into reconciling and making this land profitable for rural New Zealand? This process erodes that trust. How do you reconcile that? Because this, to me and my party and the parties on the right, is an absolute disgrace—and most of the landowners that this piece of legislation seems to erode all their trust in agree with me.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just speaking to Part 1 of this bill. Last time I spoke on this, I was interrupted by the dinner break, so the Minister didn’t get an opportunity to answer my questions. So I thought, Minister, I’ll give you another shot if you don’t mind.

But the fundamental basis of my question is: how does one design a system that will cater to 1.2 million hectares of incredibly diverse environment and ecology, of extraordinary landscape, topography, weather systems? More importantly, when we drill down into that, what is the review mechanism looking like? What safeguards will we put in place to address failures of the system; failures that this legislation will inevitably turn up? How does one resolve issues within a one-size-fits-all approach?

When we think about it even more, the cumulative impact of these various different regulations that are being bestowed upon the high country farming sector, what will that cumulative impact be that will ensure we do not work against the objective of this bill? We’ve heard a number of concerns raised by leaseholders, particularly the High Country Accord, that this piece of legislation is going to add layers and layers and layers of complexity and bureaucracy, and that this will largely duplicate regulation that’s already been foreshadowed in the likes of the national policy statement (NPS) on freshwater, the NPS on indigenous biodiversity. So I would like to know from the Minister a further question: what cross-referencing has been done, or what work has been done, by officials to identify any of these double ups or crossovers? What efforts will be made to ensure that these double ups are actually alleviated to prevent further burden on these lessees?

Thank you, Madam Chair. To the Minister: this is 150 years of farming these high-country stations, and they stretch from my region of Southland all the way up to Marlborough. My colleague Stuart Smith and my colleague Nicola Grigg have high-country stations in their parts of the South Island. They vary in topography, they vary in altitude ranges, rainfall, soil type, vegetation types, and level of development. A one-size-fits-all approach in regulation will not deliver the best and most enduring of outcomes for their management.

I note here that Part 1 talks about the outcomes for decision makers, and talks about maintaining or enhancing the inherent values across the Crown pastoral estate for present and future generations while providing for ongoing pastoral farming of pastoral land. I just ask whether the Minister has taken into account submissions—for example, from young Jess Cocks, 11 years old, who lives at Mount Nicholas Station, across the Wakatipu Lake from where I live in Queenstown—

💬 Hon Member: It was a very good submission.

—and I’m hearing it was a very good, very powerful submission. This station has been in the family for over 45 years, and she talked about loving living there—many great places to explore, camp. I’m talking about the connection to the land. Sometimes she goes spraying with her dad to kill bad weeds like gorse and nodding thistles. She catches lots of possums with her brother. This helps her, she said, to look after our native birds and forest, and also gives them pocket money—so it’s a win-win.

What I’m talking about here is the connection of these families, over generations, with the land. They’ve taken something that, back in 1948, the Government tried to fix—a lot of this land was unfarmable, it was unworkable, it was overrun with rabbits, and it was overrun with noxious weeds. The Land Act 1948 created the pastoral lease—so we’re talking about some 73 years ago. That Act gave a right of freehold to farmers already leasing Crown land on permanent leases—the underlying principle being that a secure tenure at the basis of farming progress. It gave farmers confidence to invest in the property, invest throughout their lifetime, and, in fact, through generations.

Look, I’ve been to a number of stations all over the South Island. For example, I went to the Muller Station with some of my colleagues and we saw the work that they’ve done there since 1965. There’s basically not a noxious weed to be seen, they’ve made sure the deer are under control, and the possums and the rabbits are under control. Then we saw next door Molesworth Station, which is Crown owned—and wilding pines everywhere. It’s a very different approach taken by farmers when they have that sense of ownership—which they have; ownership of the improvements on the farm, which last for generations.

My question to you, Minister, is how are you going to maintain that sense of ownership for these farming families so they can continue to invest with confidence in their properties and ensure that they secure the benefits for all of us New Zealanders in these incredible places in the high country, without the Crown taking away that confidence—there’s this contractual relationship that’s been there for some 73 years with these farmers—and ensure that young Jess Cocks will have the confidence, when she grows up, to actually continue farming at the station, to continue looking after this land for her family and for all New Zealanders?

Thank you very much, and, indeed, it is a pleasure to have this bill back in the Chamber. It has been hanging around for a while. I couldn’t quite remember the last question the member asked from so long ago, but, anyway, I’ll try to go through and answer a few of the things.

A little bit of background, just at the fact that the bill’s come back in, I guess. We go back to the reality: this is Crown-owned land. There was the tragedy of the commons going way back, prior to 70 years, and, of course, the Crown realised that, actually, the land wasn’t being looked after because there wasn’t some vested interest. So they set up these Crown leases, which didn’t give ownership of the land—that remained with the Crown—but gave the lessees the right to pasturage. It didn’t give them the right to soil, but pasturage in perpetual renewal, which gave them certainty and quiet enjoyment—those were quaint kinds of things when you look back at them now. But none the less, we recognise the questions around the purpose; we recognise and respect those legal rights, and we’re not trying to take them away.

It was the National Government in 1997, actually, which set up the tenure review process, which was new. The view was that there were areas that could be freeholded, and some would go back to the Crown for conservation purposes, and, indeed, that proceeded, and most of the easy ones were done, whether there was clear delineation between high conservation values and commercial opportunities. For the last probably 10 years, it’s got really hard and really messy and really sticky, and it’s consumed huge amounts of time and effort from both the Crown, as the owner of the land, and the lessees, who have considered whether they should go through a tenure review process—half of them have gone halfway through and pulled out; it’s got really messy. So this bill tries to clarify the rights, and, in fact, many of the lease holders that I have spoken to are quite comfortable—they want to get on and have the security to farm the land. They won’t own the land because we’ll end the tenure review, and, indeed, they just want to be able to farm it and enjoy the rights and the benefits of it.

So without going into the technical details of it, there will be conditions that will be laid down through closer engagement between the Crown and the lessees—that’s what they asked of us. They want more regular visits, they want to be able to talk to the landlord—

💬 Barbara Kuriger: No, they don’t.

Yes, they do, and, indeed, the cheap politicking that we see from the other side fails to address what is an opportunity to give some certainty to those high-country lessees, and many are in the process now; some will be concluded, and others won’t. In fact, I’ve been on many, many properties myself as well, and they are all different, and we’re trying to accommodate that through the new provisions around normal farming practices just being accepted, and they can get on and do those things.

In theory, under the National Government’s legislation, because they changed it, every one of those activities required a consent—every one of them. What the commissioner did is he said, “Well, I’ll write over; I’ll delegate that, and they won’t have to apply every time they need a consent to dig a post hole or do other things.”, but it was actually in the National Government legislation. What we’re attempting to do here is to clarify what were really petty things and petty requirements into normal farm practice, and when there are some practices on-farm that might need to be considered by the landowner on behalf of all New Zealanders, then they’ll work through that process. I’ve committed to the lessees and to all the high country farmers that we’ll work through that with the proper resources and the connection that we need to have with those lease holders, and there are some things that should not occur in those sensitive areas.

So that’s what we’re putting in place. Yes, there’ll always be some controversy, but I think we’ve pretty much worked through all the issues. We had a last-minute submission from the High Country Accord asking for a few changes that they thought might add to the bill. Look, I’ve looked at them really carefully, but in the end, most of them have been covered through the process of consideration, and, at this stage, we won’t be making any changes to the legislation. I think we had a really good attempt to sit down and talk right up to the last minute to agree with both the principles, with the certain provisions and the conditions that we’ll require consents for, and ultimately, the process of engagement, and I think we got it about right.

Kia ora, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. I guess I am surprised by some of the comments coming from the National Opposition because they seem not to recognise the difference between the Crown Pastoral Land Act, the Resource Management Act, and the number of submissions that the select committee heard that the Acts have a different purpose. The Crown Pastoral Land Act is about managing the Crown pastoral estate to protect the Crown’s interests. That’s why it’s not duplication, as some members of the Opposition are suggesting, to have two regimes.

I was pleased that the Minister highlighted the considerable liaison that had gone on with leaseholders in the development of this legislation, and would remind the Opposition that there was a discussion document and public meetings which were well attended by leaseholders, and that contributed to the development of the bill. There was a regulatory impact statement that also contributed to the development of the bill, which highlighted, as National members seem to overlook, that there has been quite considerable change in the high country from burning, from overgrazing, and from cultivation that has led to the destruction and loss of inherent values.

What this regime in this bill does is modernises the Crown Pastoral Land Act regime. With the large schedule of permitted activities, as the Minister noted, it means that there won’t be a need for consent. Those activities were discussed with the High Country Accord, with the High Country Committee of Federated Farmers. They were developed in the bill with that input and there have been a number of changes made through a very thorough select committee process which sought to take on board the submissions that were made that sought to improve the purpose of the bill and to actually change some of the definitions. Those changes mean that we’ve got a robust bill, and you have this bill and a regime, which Land Information New Zealand and the Commissioner of Crown Lands have adopted, of having much more regular engagement with leaseholders, and visits and engagement on the land—that’s been affected by COVID.

But this is about a regime which continues pastoral farming on Crown pastoral lease land, seeks to protect the Crown interest in those lands, and ends tenure review because the bulk of the properties that wanted to go through tenure review have progressed through it and it’s the more difficult ones that are left now. People have had an opportunity since the mid-1990s to go through tenure review. It is time that process ended because there are a number of reports which showed that it wasn’t delivering good outcomes to the Crown, and the regime that the bill sets in place is a modern regime that protects the Crown interests, protects inherent values, but recognises and promotes a sustainable future for farming.

Thank you, Madam Chair—I think that was a very good decision. I was listening to Minister Damien O’Connor talk about his visits and discussions with high country farmers. I’d like to point out to the Minister: Molesworth Street is not Molesworth—it is a long way from Molesworth. And what I heard from him was something I think he might have heard on Molesworth Street; he would not have heard it anywhere near Molesworth Station, I can assure him of that.

I’d like to actually go back to my colleague who discussed young Jess Cocks, and she made a huge impression on Joseph Mooney; myself; you, Madam Chair; and the Hon Scott Simpson. We were all there that afternoon—did I forget anyone else? I think that was the lot of us. What a wonderful day we had there. And what it really brought home—and what I picked up from the Minister is he completely does not understand the management of these properties is completely different. The bracken will take over on the Cocks’ property, whereas we went to Minaret Station—completely different circumstances. Leaving that property alone for a short time, it regenerates right back into fern and into its native state. The fact is, most of the pastoral lease properties in New Zealand are a highly modified environment because they were burnt many years ago—by the moa hunters, I suspect—and so it changed the whole environment. We now have to manage that anyway; we can’t just let it revert. Because what we saw up the Awatere Valley on the Muller Station, the wilding pines are being managed by Merino wethers, actually, and the seedlings that aren’t controlled by the Merino wethers are able to either be sprayed by a drone or by a helicopter. Very few of them—it’s a much easier job. In contrast, when you look at the Molesworth, admittedly it’s different soil types, but in the Molesworth it has a real significant wilding pine issue because they run cattle and they can’t control it.

Unfortunately, what we’ve got here is an ideological issue that the Labour Party and the Green Party hate farmers. Particularly, they hate pastoral farmers, and these guys are right in their sights; it’s very clear. This bill is just a load of nonsense. A whole lot of stuff here about all of the consents they have to get on a high country farm to disturb soil—something that is done reluctantly because of the wind erosion and all those sorts of things. But occasionally you have to fix a fence, and that means re-routing it around a slip or something, or re-routing a track—they want those farmers to go through a consent process. It’s marvellous for bureaucracy—I think there’s 14,000 more bureaucrats in Wellington. It’s just a waste of time, a waste of energy—it’s sand in the gears of the economy. What they don’t understand is every layer of bureaucracy that they add in, it goes right across the economy and slows it down. This bill is sand in those gears.

This is meant to be about a pastoral lease protecting the Crown—and that’s all of our assets, not just the current Government of the day. The Government of the day is only merely there for a brief period to look after it in perpetuity for us. Right? That’s what it’s all about. And these people who have the lease as their proxy, effectively, looking after that land. This bill does nothing to help that; in fact, it makes it worse. You’ll get a—not you, Madam Chair, but we will get perverse outcomes from that bill. So I’d like to know from the Minister: did he actually get off Molesworth Street and on to the Molesworth?

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s good to be able to speak after the Minister, Damien O’Connor, because when we had the Minister he talked about the quaint lifestyle of hill country farmers. That’s that Molesworth Street attitude to that farming and to farmers in general. And my colleague is completely right: this is an asset land grab, taking away the power of people that have, for generations, thought they had a right in that land—and they actually do have a right in that land, because it’s a perpetual lease. It is not a lease for 100 years; it is a perpetual lease. The Labour Party are using a small group of farmers, about 100 farmers, to take away the rights to use that land. That is, effectively, what is happening here, and all the farmers in New Zealand, all asset holders in New Zealand, should be backing these people today, because this is the start of what the Labour Party wants to do. This isn’t just about those farmers there. This is taking away the rights to farm your farm. Basically, they believe that they should tell you how to farm, and what you can farm, and how to do it. This is a precursor to their agenda.

Now, the Minister has been very careful to paint this as some picture of “Look at the saviour of the Labour and Green parties. Aren’t you so lucky that we’re going to iron out any problems here?” That is completely at odds with anybody that’s in that sector. Those hill country farmers, when you go to their houses, they are, effectively, crying at the dinner table. Their life work is going out the window. Their kids will not come home and be part of the next generation of farmers that we need as a country. And it is not that these are the hard cases. This is the Department of Conservation that has made it so hard for some of these deals to be done. The reality is that if these deals could be done, they would be done by those farmers. But they found that they have been hamstrung in their negotiations.

I say to the Minister: don’t treat farmers like fools. Don’t try and come in here and mollycoddle us and tell us how great you are, trying to save us. The reality is we see through your agenda. We know what you’re doing.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will not bring the Chair into the debate.

Yes, Madam Chair. It’s not cheap politicking. It is the reality of an agenda that needs to be stopped. I want the Minister to stand up now and give a commitment to every other farmer in New Zealand that they won’t be told how to use their farm. Can he do that? I don’t think he can. He won’t tell anybody that, because he knows that’s their agenda. He looks all around the room, won’t look straight, won’t tell you the answer, because he knows that’s the agenda of the Labour Party. All farmers need to be aware of that and learn from this legislation tonight. This is the start of what Labour and the Greens want to do to our agricultural sector, and it should be stopped now.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to my colleagues on this side of the House for having described the problem with this legislation so clearly. I just want to articulate a little bit further, in relation to Part 1 of the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill, what the problem is.

What is the problem? Well, it’s an environmental problem. It’s a problem where the Government and the Minister and the Minister before him have articulated that they don’t trust the farmers who farm the Crown pastoral land under perpetual leases, whose families have lived on the land for generations, who have given up so much to live in remote rural places that people like myself from Auckland would think, “Crikey, that’s cold. How could you live there?” That very, very difficult place to farm. It’s inaccessible. Some of these places are only accessible by boat or by air. And yet these families have lived there for generations because they love the land, they love the environment, and they love New Zealand. That’s where this Government, this Minister, and the former Minister have got this totally wrong.

But I want to read to you what the aspiration is for this Crown pastoral land: “A sustainable management system for Crown Pastoral Land will be one that recognises and balances the different values this land holds for people across Aotearoa, a system that fairly and efficiently allocates costs and benefits,”—Minister—“and a dynamic system that recognises the constant evolution of the land and our relationships with it.” That wasn’t written by your officials, Minister. That was not written by any other political party, that’s not a manifesto. That, in fact, is the words of the submission from Jonathan Wallis from Minaret Station, a vision of a sustainable management system for Crown pastoral land. That is what the lessees are advocating for. In fact, what they told the committee and what we saw with our own eyes, including the chair of the committee—the Hon Eugenie Sage, a former Minister who chairs the Environment Committee—and the members of the Labour Party on the committee, and, of course, MPs from ACT and National who visited these high country farms, was there’d been a progression from that time when New Zealand was first colonised, and we can only imagine what that must have been like, over 1,000 years ago, for the people who first came to New Zealand to cast their eyes on the Southern Alps.

But for those who came more recently, in particular during the time of European settlement of the South Island and the gold rush, that is when the large-scale environmental degradation of this part of New Zealand occurred. That was when not only were areas burned in anticipation that they could be sown and then grazed, but much worse. With huge pumps, the hoses and the sluicing that occurred during the goldmining era when literally the hillsides were washed away with giant hoses and cascades of water. Now, when you go there today and you see the photographs of that time, you see the images of a devastated countryside. And in fact, that’s what every country has done to its environment in the early days of industrial exploitation, and New Zealand’s no different, Minister.

But what the farmers, the families who live on these Crown pastoral leases—in fact, who have a property right to live there in perpetuity under these Crown pastoral leases—have done is got with the new ways of farming. They’ve adopted farm management plans. They’ve taken land out of production that is steep and hard to manage. And what they have done, in fact, is restored the natural environment so that now their farming systems are complementary with this very unique environment. That is why they’ve asked the Government, they’ve asked the Minister, and they asked the Environment Committee, “Please do not proceed with this bill. It’s completely unnecessary. We already have all of the tools, all of the latest methodology to farm and operate in this unique and special place. And by the way, we have a property right, and imposing an additional set of regulations, and other people making decisions over how we do basic things like dig a ditch and put in a culvert on our land is completely unnecessary.” That’s why, Minister, ACT would repeal this law and that’s why we’re asking the Government not to proceed with it, because by the time you—[Time expired]

Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. At the start of each committee stage, you remind the committee that this is an opportunity to ask questions. Now—

OK. Thank you. I’m going to thank you for your point of order. You’ve gotten in just ahead of me, because I wish to say the following things to the committee. Part 1 of this bill has now been running for half an hour. There are a number of Supplementary Order Papers which are on the Table and that I have here. I need the committee of the whole House to start focusing on Part 1 of the bill more closely. It’s sounding more like a third reading debate—this is not what we are considering tonight; we are in the committee of the whole House stage. So I invite the members, if they wish to keep this debate lively and focused, they will do just that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I listened to the Minister’s gratuitously insulting comments about what he called “quaint, old-fashioned ideas” relating to important principles of property rights in New Zealand in relation to land tenure. Yes, a leasehold is not a freehold—that’s understood by everybody involved. But it was gratuitously insulting for the Minister to imply that the property right contained in the lease in perpetuity of these of these 170-something high country leaseholders is somehow a quaint, old concept or idea that needs modernising. That is entirely inappropriate, and I would have thought better of the Minister.

I want to continue where I left off on my last contribution in relation to the definition, now, of inherent value. So when I was last speaking on this, I made the point that the inherent value that the purpose of the bill seeks to establish makes no comment or recognition of the enhancement and inherent value of the leaseholders, yet it does call for a greater understanding and closer supporting relationship with Māori, for instance, but no mention of the leaseholders.

Well, in the definition part of the section, inherent value is actually attempted to be defined. It says that inherent value “means a value that arises from an ecological, a landscape, a cultural, a heritage, or a scientific attribute or characteristic of a natural resource that—” and then it goes on. Then, further on, it says it “relates to a historic place on or forming part of the land”, and then the absolute final insult is that in subclause (b), it says, “does not include any value that relates to or is associated with farming activity a pastoral farming activity”. So a pastoral farming activity is specifically excluded from being considered an inherent value.

Well, that’s just ideological claptrap; that is insulting; that is a slur upon the hard work of generations of high country farmers who have done so much to enhance, protect, and maintain the high country of New Zealand that is so loved and cherished by all New Zealanders. These people have done it season in and season out over generations. To specifically exclude from the definition of inherent value, pastoral farming activity is just plain wrong.

Now, it’s important that people listening to this debate understand the genesis and the history of it, because it actually started in the last Parliament when the then Land Information New Zealand Minister was shepherding this piece of legislation through the Parliament and staff started it off. It was based on ideological agendas rather more than practical application in any regard to the land or the people that make their lives and their livings and raise their families there and have done for generations.

This is a piece of Green Party ideological envy politics, actually. That’s really what it’s about, but it’s being supported by the full Labour Party caucus—65 of them. The sad thing for those 65 is that even though they will be whipped into supporting this piece of legislation, most of them will not be in this Parliament when we repeal it next. Most of them will not be here. So it must be utterly frustrating for them, because they know in their heart of hearts that to specifically exclude from a definition of inherent value in this legislation, the work and the history and the effort and the blood, sweat, and tears that amounts to pastoral farming activity is fundamentally wrong.

I want to just, in the short time—in fact, I’m going to ask the Minister why pastoral farming is excluded in their definition of inherent value, and then I’ll make a further contribution later on.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I would like to ask the Minister: how does this Part 1 of the bill recognise the contribution of the approximately 170 high country farmers and their families and the contribution that they have made to agriculture in New Zealand; their contribution to the history of high country farming; the contribution made financially, environmentally, conservationally, emotionally; the investments that they have made over several generations? How does this part of the legislation recognise the trust that was involved in a voluntary process—the tenure review? How does it give some value to the 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 carefully, and prudently cared for by these families over generations? How does it show any respect for the relationships that have been there over generations? I would note the lack of respect that was shown from the other side of the Chamber when my colleague mentioned that there were families in tears at the kitchen table and the response from the other side was scoffing. So how does this introduction show some respect for those farmers?

Thank you, Madam Chair. My colleague Penny Simmonds just talked about a lack of respect for the farmers—and the genesis of this bill is that the current Government and the previous coalition Government had no trust of the farmers. My colleague Scott Simpson talked before about the genesis of this bill where, in the last Parliament, the previous Minister got up and made a speech, and when I heard the current Minister get up and make his speech, I felt like there were two different agendas going on. The concept of the current Minister is “It’ll be all right; we’re not doing very much. We’re actually going to let these people get on and have their quiet enjoyment of their leasehold properties.” Well, let me just suggest that the Government has come in and probably actually caused a massive upheaval to the quiet enjoyment of these leasehold properties.

So I have an amendment in line with that and this is about how the process of applications is done to undertake activities on the land with the commissioner and around the commissioner’s decision. And if we go to clause 8, “Part 1 replaced”, I want to propose a new section 11(3)(b). I want to delete the proposed section 11(3)(b), which actually currently says, “may consider relevant Government policy decided by Cabinet, in particular policy that relates to national directions (such as national policy statements and national environment standards);”.

Now, the reason I want to change this is I think the words “decided by Cabinet, in particular policy” are totally unnecessary. We have generational farms down in the South Island who know far better than any member of the Cabinet. And we’ve seen what happens when Cabinet sticks their fingers into decisions. You know, we’ve seen the “Let’s get rid of the gas and burn a heap of Indonesian coal.” scenario. Cabinet’s sticking their fingers into generational and multigenerational farming, which are showcase farms. They are farms that prior to COVID had tourists coming down. They’re exemplar farms around pest control, they’re exemplar farms around weed control, and they bring people in to showcase New Zealand. If we look at a lot of photos overseas and we see the tourists coming in, the activities on these farms—nobody likes more than seeing a picture of New Zealand with wonderful merino sheep in it. It’s an absolute showcase and an absolute exemplar. So I think Cabinet should keep its nose out of these high country farms and let the farmers get on with it.

I would like my amendment—to remove the provision that’s in there and say “may consider relevant”—this is to do with the commissioner—“may consider relevant Government policy that relates to nationally applicable environmental matters” and then “(such as national policy standards and national environment standards”. These people know what they’re doing. They don’t need an overbearing Cabinet coming in, interfering with their lives, upsetting their multigenerational families, and actually taking control over something that was working perfectly—perfectly—before this actually happened. So thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to turn to new section 8 in clause 8 in Part 1, where it lays out in subsection (2)(a), “may undertake the pastoral activity, or cause it to be undertaken, if the activity is classified as a permitted pastoral activity in Part 1 of Schedule 1AB:”. Well, when I turn to new Schedule 1AB in Schedule 2, under subclause (1)(c) in particular, it says, “the invasive exotic pest plants comprise no less than 90% of vegetation cover;”.

It has other qualifications in that as well, but on that 90 percent I have a question. Does that mean that if the pastoral farmer has a few wilding pines that he’s going past and he pulls them out of the ground, he should have had a consent for that? But if they’re as thick as the hairs on a dog’s back, then he can go for it—he can do what he likes. But if there’s only one or two, which would be good practice—it would be good practice to get ahead of the problem by hitting it when it’s very early stages, and that’s what good farmers do. They do this sort of thing all the time. But to me, it looks like they’d have to get a consent. I’d really like the Minister, firstly, to clarify that particular section.

There are a number of others, like where the by-kill must not exceed 200 metres square in the hectare, or the area involved doesn’t exceed 25 hectares in any five-year period. When we’re talking about small areas, we could have quite a thick patch, but, no, we’re covering 90 percent of the area, so how do you interpret that? Are we talking 90 percent of a small area, or 90 percent of a specific paddock, 90 percent of the whole pastoral lease—it doesn’t say that there.

So perhaps the Minister could get on his feet and tell us the specifics of what that particular clause in the schedule means—that is Schedule 1AB(1)(c) in particular. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’ve got two questions arising from the Minister’s earlier comments. The first one: was he referring to the right of exclusive possession and quiet enjoyment as quaint concepts and indicating that these are no longer relevant? I mean, this will be a huge shock to property lawyers and anyone who owns property or has property rights in the entirety of New Zealand. The right of exclusive possession and the right to quiet enjoyment are crucial parts of our legal framework in terms of land.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Cornerstone of property law.

It’s a crucial part of property law. I mean, has the Minister taken any advice on that? I’d really, seriously, like to know that. I think New Zealanders would like to know that because this could undermine the right to property ownership in New Zealand.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: First they came for the high country farmers.

First they came for the high country farmers, as my colleague the Hon Scott Simpson said.

The second one is the Minister talked about high country farmers looking forward to having lots of visits. I do wonder whether he read or listened to or talked to Federated Farmers, for example, who said in their submission, the bill “fundamentally changes the nature of the relationship between the Crown as lessor, and the leaseholder. The existing contractual relationship based on trust and reciprocity, would be replaced by an approach of regulation [policing] and enforcement … [This diminishes] the future constructiveness and openness of relationships … It reduces the certainty of leases and the incentivisation to continue to invest and enhance environmental outcomes given no accompanying or reciprocal ability to address changing pastoral needs as provided for.”

I also wonder if the Minister listened to or talked to the High Country Accord, who also said “We are strongly of the view that the Bill’s proposal to change the nature of the contractual relationship between Crown and lessee to a regulatory one underpinned by offence provisions is a considerable strategic mistake and overlooks the predictable changes in lessee and LINZ official behaviour. Like it or not, a visit from LINZ will be characterised in the future as a visit from the Police. Under threat of allegations of having committed an offence under the Act, LINZ cannot expect that their visits will be welcomed. That is not to say that LINZ will be treated with anything but courtesy,”—which is what we always we get from our high country farmers—“but there will be a natural trepidation and fear that comes with any Police investigatory visit. The strength of the current relationships between lessees, LINZ and its contractors will be immediately weakened.” Those are irreconcilable with those comments, Minister, that were made earlier. Both Federated Farmers and the High Country Accord are very clearly saying that they will not be welcoming visits and repeated visits in a regulatory framework that is treating them—they are feeling as criminals.

My colleague Barbara Kuriger spoke about an incredible ambassador role that the high country farmers provide for people coming to our country. I’ve got a cut from Matangi Station who’s a station up behind the clock tower on Alexandra—Central Otago, part of my electorate. I mean, they hosted Crankworx, one of the world’s biggest mountain biking events. And, you know, and I went to the opening event, which was at the shearing shed in Matangi Station, and they’ve got these rams that their bloodlines go back about 150 years, sort of indicating how long this has been going, you know, this relationship to the land and the animals on this property. The mountain bikers from across the world, the best mountain bikers in the world, were blown away by the experience they received there. How is the Minister going to ensure that these incredible people who look after this land and provide an incredible ambassador role for our country, feel that they are not being treated as criminals and that there’s that relationship of trust that is based on a 73-year-old contractual arrangement that we currently have in place?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I’ll try and answer a few of the things. Regarding the exclusive possession, I absolutely uphold that and the bill upholds their exclusive possession.

What I referred to about quiet enjoyment, I guess, was the reality that many in their homes in central Auckland would enjoy that as well, as we would anywhere. It’s a bit of an ideal, really, in today’s world, be it of mobility and people coming in and around and on to these properties, and, of course, I respect that.

But this idea that all these high country farmers are the same is a little bit idealistic as well. Every single property is different, as is every single farmer. There are some spectacular farmers there and there are a few who haven’t always adhered to the laws and the conditions of the lease.

One of the issues that we’re trying to sort out is, I guess, all of the good work of the vast majority of those lessees is not undermined by, I guess, the failure of a few and the inability of Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) in a clear way, other than—actually, the only real threat they had was to take the lease, because there were not infringement notices, there weren’t minor offences that could be imposed if there was a minor offence carried out.

When we talk about minor consents—and there are a whole lot of things—you see, the National Party legislation of 1998 required a consent for digging postholes, required a consent for digging an offal pit, required a consent for removing tree stumps, and required a consent for the ongoing maintenance of tracks on these properties. That was National Party legislation. What we’re wanting to do here is to offer more certainty and remove. Now, what happened is a letter—a letter, just like a letter you can write to your friends and family—went out from the commissioner to say that, actually, all those minor consent issues are approved. But it was only a letter. No legal standing at all; just a letter that could be withdrawn with another letter. What we’re hoping to do is to ensure the people who will continue.

I don’t like to single out anyone, but I know Jonathan Wallis’ submission was quoted. I want to thank him for his participation through the accord and the leadership role that he’s played and making that submission. Indeed, I think that the property there will continue under a leasehold arrangement. What he seeks is some certainty. This legislation will offer him certainty, where the boundaries are will give more regular connection with LINZ, the landowner, and, I think, will allow Jonathan and his kids and grandkids, to carry on at Minaret Station and look after it in a spectacular way.

But to imply that nothing has changed over a hundred years is, again, both wrong and naïve and romantic. Many of the farmers have, mostly in a way that is in keeping with the environment, intensified and developed their properties—centre-pivot irrigation, different crops, things that are quite alien to the high country environment. Now, some have done it really well and protected the inherent values—but they are not, themselves, the inherent values of the land; they are new developments that are owned by the lessees, and we respect that. We simply want to be able to work with them to ensure that the enthusiasm of perhaps a new lessee coming in, seeing an opportunity, doesn’t push the boundaries on environmental management or doesn’t undermine the inherent values that other New Zealanders see in the high country.

So this legislation is designed to offer certainty to remove the threat that under the National Party’s legislation, a letter could’ve been sent from the commissioner to the lessee, saying, “You have to apply for a consent for every single posthole that you need.” How ridiculous. That was National Party legislation. This will mean that that never has to occur. The maintenance of tracks can be an approved and permitted activity. So we’ve moved through to “if you want to put in a centre pivot and develop an area on some of the flat area, well, you should sit down with the landowner and work through the mitigations and the intensification.”, because the landowner—

💬 Hon David Bennett: There’s no chance in hell you’re gonna let that happen.

Mr Bennett there, I think he might be the landowner of a farm somewhere, and I don’t think—

💬 Hon Member: Several.

—probably a couple of farms—he would allow a sharemilker to come on and change what happens in a drastic way on his property, without at least talking to them. That’s what we’re asking for here, that the Crown is the owner of the land, respecting all of the rights and the investment and the heritage of those good people on the land, just to say, “Let’s have a more productive and ongoing relationship.” That’s all we’re asking. I think the 167, I think it is, lessees will be able to continue with certainty, with perpetual right to renewal, with knowing where the boundaries are, and being able to sit down and talk with an agency that is better resourced, that is better engaged, and that actually wants a genuine partnership; not one of hands-off disconnection, and when something goes wrong or a lessee does something that is not in keeping with good management and most of the other lessees know it’s not in keeping with good management, there wasn’t an ability for LINZ as the guardian on behalf of us all to step in and say, “Look, that’s wrong. There should be some kind of penalty or some incentive not to do it again.” The only penalty was “We’ll take the lease from you.”, which was clearly ridiculous.

So we’re just trying to find the right balance here in a whole lot of different ways, respecting the right, not wanting to remove those rights, but making sure that there is a good balance there.

Before I take the next call, and thanks to the members who are calling, we are now 55 minutes into Part 1. There are five Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) which have been lodged for Part 1 of the bill. I am looking for targeted contributions, and members seeking the call to speak on SOPs to keep Part 1 alive.

Thank you, Madam Chair; you read my mind. I was just wanting to jump up to speak to a Supplementary Order Paper, so thank you for the opportunity.

I think the quote of the night would have to go to the Minister, in his first contribution, where he said, “We won’t be making any changes to this bill.”, which I think speaks volumes of this Government and indeed this Minister. Time and time and time again, submitters, experts in the field, leaseholders, and high country run holders who have been working in this industry and on this land for centuries have tried to persuade this Government to revisit this daft idea. And, actually, so much of this sheets back to the fact this Government has been led by the nose by the Greens on this particular bill.

Many submitters this evening have talked about the changing nature of the relationship between the Crown and the leaseholder. So I would like to turn the Minister’s mind to the amendment in my name, where we talk about Schedule 2 of the bill and the proposed new Schedule 1AB, Part 1, where we talk about activities: permitted, discretionary, prohibited. I would like to ask the Minister: considering he said he won’t be making any changes to this bill, what consultation was carried out with leaseholders as to what permitted, discretionary, and prohibited activities might look like? Because the way I read it, so much of this is already business as usual: pine control, gorse control, broom control, crack willows, grey willows, you name it. One of the speakers earlier on this side of the Chamber referred to the debacle that is going on up in the Marlborough region when one looks at the Muller Station versus St James, one very clearly well looked after, the other left in Crown hands and looks like an absolute disgrace. So to the Minister: what consultation was carried out, particularly around these activities? What consideration was given to business as usual?

The Minister also mentioned in his contribution just a short while ago that we were pushing boundaries of environmental management. So that leads me to ask the Minister my next question: what consideration has been given to legally binding farm environment plans to prevent the pushing of boundaries of environmental management? Because this has even been raised in the regulatory impact statement that the Minister or indeed the Crown should consider those recommendations to work with lessees on the likes of farm environment plans. I would like an answer to that, Minister, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In light of the explanation that the Minister, the Hon Damien O’Connor, just has given around a letter that he thought was a bit weak in terms of whether people could dig in post holes and other relatively minor things, I’ve actually got two questions in relation to what he said. One of those is: why did they not just actually put that in a regulation, to say that was a permitted activity, instead of saying that someone could actually just withdraw the letter at some point in time?

The second thing is: when the Minister gave his explanation around Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) not being able to go into those farms or being able to have certain authority over those farms, why, then, does this bill then relate a clause, which I’m trying to take out and replace, that brings Cabinet into the decision? How many other decisions that Government agencies take do Cabinet Ministers go and put their fingers into? Why will the amendment I’ve got here not be taken up and put into this bill as a change? Why does Cabinet need to have a role in doing this, when, as the Minister describes, it’s something that he expects that LINZ will be able to do? Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaking to the amendment in the name of Barbara Kuriger, could the Minister confirm that the Environment Committee considered quite carefully this whole issue around what constituted Government policy? One of the reasons that this clause in the bill refers specifically to national environmental standards and policy statements is that the select committee desired that there was a degree of clarity around exactly what national policy the Commissioner of Crown Lands would refer to, and the fact that it was a national environmental standard that had been signed off by Cabinet in the same way that the National Environmental Standards for Freshwater have been would give certainty to the commissioner when he or she was making decisions around discretionary consent and had to bring national policy to bear. What exactly was that Government policy—and the clause was intended to make that clear.

The other thing that I wondered if the Minister could elaborate on was that the Opposition has repeatedly given the suggestion that all pastoral lessees are family operations that have been on the land for generations. Could the Minister confirm that there are a number of overseas residents—absentee owners—and companies who own pastoral leases, and that it is not all this image we have of generations of one family owning the lease?

Further, could the Minister, in terms of the partnership relationship that he talked about—that the bill, through the regulatory regime that it implements, is all about ensuring that things like pests are controlled. Could he elaborate on the significant Government investment that this Government has made in things like wilding pine control and wallaby control, and on Land Information New Zealand’s involvement in rolling out that pest management work?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Very quickly, this speaks to the amendment in the name of Scott Simpson and I think it’s a good amendment, and I want some clarity on behalf of the Minister. I think this House deserves it and I am going to read it verbatim: “For the purpose of deciding whether the activity is necessary to enable the lessee or licensee to exercise their rights and obligations under the lease or licence, the Commissioner may consider the extent to which granting consent enables the lessee or licensee to maintain the historical financial performance of the pastoral farming enterprise.” For that express purpose, I go back to my previous question, which was talking about inherent value. Minister, can you please, for the sake of everyone in this Chamber and those that would choose to be listening at home, explain what “inherent value” means?

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, look, I want to pick up where the member Mark Cameron left off in speaking about the amendment in my name, labelled (C) on the Table. This relates to clause 8 of the bill and the proposed new section 12(3), and my amendment would delete the proposed new section 12(3) and replace it with clause 12(3) in the words that Mark Cameron read out. So I’m not going to repeat them for the benefit of the committee, but they are there on the tabled amendment.

What’s really at the nub of this amendment is uncovering the deeply cynical sinking-lid policy that this Government and particularly the Green Party, who were the genesis of this piece of legislation, want to impose on the lessees of high-country pastoral Crown leases. And it’s to do with this, Madam Chair: the bill as drafted operates as a sinking lid on these lease operations, and, over time, the plan buried deep in this section is to actually undermine the viability of the very farming operation that the leases provide the leaseholders with. So the results of this bill, by precluding the commissioner from considering the economics of farming, except to the extent that the benefits relate to the ongoing financial viability of the farming enterprise—what that really means is that the farm actually has to be going broke or bust before the economics of the farm can even be considered.

Now, that’s the secret hidden agenda of this legislation. The Greens, in particular, supported by the Labour Party in this Parliament, who have an absolute majority, actually don’t want these leaseholders on the Crown pastoral-lease land; they want them gone. They want them gone, and the real time bomb in this legislation is within that clause, because that’s the sinking lid. So in order for the considerations to be undertaken by the commissioner, it’s very apparent that the economics of the farming operation have to be so dire, so bad, and so concerning that they must be literally on their last legs before the economics of the farm can be considered. And that’s just absolutely an abomination.

So all the fine words that the Minister has put into his contribution actually belie what is buried deep in the fine print of this legislation. And so my question to the Minister is: why can’t the economics of the farming operation be taken into account at an earlier stage, and why is it that this sinking-lid policy has been hidden—buried—in the fine detail of this legislation, hoping that nobody would discover it until it was far too late?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask the Minister, the Hon Damien O’Connor, about the amendment in my name which would propose to amend the amendments section 2 in clause 6 regarding inherent values. In the current amendments to section 2, “inherent value” means “a value that arises from an ecological, a landscape, a cultural, a heritage, or a scientific attribute or characteristic of a natural resource that—(i) is in or forms part of the land or exists by virtue of the natural character of the land; or (ii) relates to a historic place on or forming part of the land;” but, as one of my colleagues earlier said, strangely “does not include a pastoral farming activity”.

The amendment in my name would amend the definition of “improvements” by inserting, after “includes”, “the managed regeneration of indigenous vegetation”. This would insert a new defined term, in its appropriate alphabetic order: “managed regeneration of indigenous vegetation means regeneration resulting from active”—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): We are still considering Part 1 of the bill. The amendment the member is speaking to is contained in Part 2.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaking to Part 1 and speaking to Barbara Kuriger’s amendment, which amends clause 8 of the bill, and it relates to Government policy that relates to nationally applicable environmental standards, Minister, such as national policy standards and national environmental standards. Now, this comes back to the heart of decision making at the centre of the bill, Minister. So, Minister, I have two questions for you as I realise we’re getting to the point of the debate where it’s important that there’s absolute clarity for those watching and for those who’ll be affected by the legislation.

So the first question is, Minister, do you consider that Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) officials and the Commissioner of Crown Lands are better equipped to make decisions about how to manage ecosystems under Crown pastoral lease than the farmers who manage that land and depend on that land to actually produce a living for their families? That’s question one. Do you believe that LINZ and the Commissioner of Crown Lands are better equipped to make decisions about environmental management than the people who actually live on the land?

The second question is around clause 5, around decision making. It says that the Crown “must recognise and provide for the [interests] of Māori” when it is making decisions about discretionary consents for pastoral activities, commercial recreation permits, any easements, or operation of stock. That is of great concern to many people in New Zealand at this time—that unelected iwi Māori interests will also have decision making over resource consents for farming activities. It’s explicit in the bill, Minister. It’s explicit in the bill. So, Minister, my second question is, will you rule out that iwi Māori groups will not have decision making over consenting for Crown pastoral land consent applications? Because, Minister, if you won’t rule it out, then that’s another can of worms that your Government has ripped open. You’re going to have to explain not just to the farmers on Crown pastoral leases, you’re going to have to explain to all the farmers of New Zealand what’s coming for them next. Should they expect this to be a part of the Natural and Built Environments Bill that your Minister, David Parker, is bringing to this House this week?

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to address the amendment in the name of my colleague Nicola Grigg—

💬 Nicola Grigg: Cool—that’ll be good.

—yes, it’s a very good amendment—and it relates to clause 8 of the bill and new section 11(3)(aa). The amendment proposes to delete paragraph (aa) and replace it with a new paragraph (aa), which reads: “may consider any offsetting proposed as a way of counterbalancing adverse effects on inherent values, when determining the level of adverse effects on inherent values;”.

This is designed specifically so that environmental offsetting done on the pastoral lease property can actually be taken into account when the commissioner considers decisions relating to the mitigation of any adverse effects from a proposed discretionary activity. Now, it seems to me to be utterly logical that if in cornerstone legislation such as the zero carbon legislation and other climate pieces of legislation and, indeed, other environmental pieces of legislation, offsetting is permitted—indeed, encouraged—then why would it be excluded from this piece of legislation other than simply to further reinforce the narrative that this is a Government that actually does not want these farmers to succeed in any possible way, because the practical effect of this position is to ensure that farmers do not undertake any discretionary activity which will produce a net benefit to the inherent values of the pastoral lease.

Surely that kind of activity, that kind of environmental offsetting—for instance, it might be the development or the maintenance or the enhancement of a wetland area on the property. Now, why wouldn’t that restoration programme of a wetland area, which would by definition perhaps inherently involve earth disturbance requiring the commissioner’s consent—why would not that good environmental work be allowed for and provided for?

So I’m keen to know why the Minister has excluded that possibility and why he’s already indicated that his party, using their absolute majority in this current Parliament, will not accept the provisions of the very sensible amendment that Nicola Grigg has put before this committee for its consideration.

I call—

💬 Chris Penk: Simon Court.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): —Simon Court.

Thank you, Madam Chair, I do appreciate the call and the challenge with so many Simons in this 53rd Parliament—and the challenge that brings everybody.

Minister, I put two questions to you before. They’re serious questions. They’re questions that are not just for the people affected by this bill, the lessees, and those who assist them with preparing for and applying for resource management consents—which they are already required to do under the Resource Management Act. I’m talking about those farm consultants, those legal advisers, those technical experts in soil science who have to put applications for resource consents together, who will now actually be tapped out having to put consent applications on behalf of lessees to Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) and the Commissioner of Crown Lands.

So my question to you, Minister, is: look, do you think any of this is actually necessary? And do you think that if it is necessary to have a parallel consenting regime, of course, as the landowner, the Crown, of course, should have final decision-making over what goes on on their land if it is going to seriously devalue or damage the land? That should be the right of every property owner, and any property owner engaging in a commercial leasing arrangement—which is what this is—would of course have those clauses in the lease which set out their decision making. But, Minister, the level of decision making that LINZ and the Commissioner of Crown Lands are required to undertake under this bill is quite extraordinary, and it essentially mirrors the type of consent, consideration, and processing under the Resource Management Act which these farmers and operators are already required to undertake.

So, Minister, my two questions are: is this necessary; do LINZ and the Commissioner of Crown Lands have any more capability to make a decision about environmental management than the farmers who run the land and their expert advisers? And secondly, does this legislation give decision making to unelected iwi Māori groups, which it appears to say, under Māori interests in clause 5(1)(a), “recognise and provide for”? Minister, that’s an important question. I would appreciate it if you answer it for the benefit of the committee tonight. Thank you.

No, it doesn’t. In order to clarify the member’s second question, of course we have to pay respect to tangata whenua—for the most part, it’s Ngāi Tahu in the South Island but Te Tau Ihu, in the top of the South Island, also has interests in some of these Crown pastoral leases. We have moved on—if that member hasn’t recognised—to acknowledge the Treaty of Waitangi and Māori across all areas of our country. If he doesn’t respect that, he shouldn’t be here. What I say is that—

💬 Simon Court: Point of order, Madam Chair. I’d just like to remind the Minister that we are all elected members and we all have a right to be here. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): And I’d like to just remind the member that, in terms of monitoring what happens in this Chamber, it is up to me to make that call.

Thank you. And I have the right to an opinion on the values of people who should be here. Can I just say that we must recognise and provide for the relationship; it does not mean that Māori have oversight of every single decision, and it’s important to clarify that.

If we come back to the question of who knows the land best, I acknowledge absolutely that those who have lived on the land know it really well. They’ll also, in discussions with many of them—and I’d put to you that I’ve been on more high-country leases than just about everyone in this House over the last 12 months, and I’ll give you a list of them if you like. Can I say that, as we understand across other areas of the farming sectors, there’s a lot that we don’t know as well.

💬 Barbara Kuriger: Yeah, right! On your bike.

And science is understanding—well, water quality. I can guarantee that the member over there doesn’t know as much as she should about the water quality in and around her many farms. Perhaps if we all did, we’d have better management practices.

💬 Barbara Kuriger: I raise a point of order, Madam Chair. About less than two weeks ago, that Minister was in one of my catchment groups and we were both there, together, where one of our farms is—so just button off.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Can we please just keep the temperature down and let’s not throw insults at each other across the Chamber.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: I raise a point of order, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, you’ve made a ruling. But, under intense provocation from the Minister—uncalled for provocation from the Minister—my colleague Barbara Kuriger responded, as she is entitled to do, and I don’t think she should be called out for it. But the Minister should be encouraged not to be unnecessarily provocative in a debate that shouldn’t be taking place in the manner in which it is, led by him at the moment.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): That was what I was trying to encourage by saying let’s not throw insults at each other across the Chamber. And that actually goes to both sides. Can we just calm down, thank you.

Absolutely. What goes around comes around and I’d rather keep it on the straight. But I think it’s important not to throw out accusations around this place—that people on this side don’t understand farming and people on that side do. There’s a lot that we have to learn. When it comes to the question, from the member over there, about who knows best, it’s a partnership arrangement between Land Information New Zealand, who have a lot of very knowledgeable and passionate people, about managing—as guardians and custodians, and owner of the lands—the rights of New Zealanders to ensure that those rights are enduring and that we don’t cause unnecessary damage. The people on the land do know a lot—absolutely.

So as we move forward, as we have done in this legislation, this has very much been part of a consultation discussion—robust, some of it—to get to a place where I think we’ve got the balance about right. That is, some would wish us to continue with tenure review—yes, I understand that—but some actually just want certainty and to get on and to farm the land as their ancestors and others have done. That’s what we’re offering here through this legislation. Yes, there will be people who disagree with parts of it. But on all the contentious issues, I have had active, robust discussion with the High Country Accord, with many of the members in the lessees, and I’ve tried to make the adjustments to get the balance right between the landowner, the people of New Zealand, and the lessees who have a perpetual right of renewal and the right to pasturage—but not to soils, and not to some things that have been claimed in the committee. But, actually, as technology and as new opportunities, as innovations roll forward, we want to leave the door open for engagement and partnership arrangements that allow that innovation to be carried out on high-country leases. Indeed, that’s what we will do.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, I want to ask you about a point raised by the High Country Accord in their submissions regarding new section 100, where they said it’s inherently discriminatory and contrary to the principle that all are equal before the law. They made the point that the fact that the offence provisions in new section 100 apply to just 150 properties and families is egregious. All New Zealanders should be equal before the law. The criminal law should be of general application and should not single out a group purely on account of their contractual relationship with the Crown.

And they made the point that the fact that the lessee can be issued with an offence notice for removal for a wilding pine without consent, while his freehold neighbour cannot, or that the Department of Conservation as a neighbour simply chooses not to do so and is not accountable for the spread of the resulting seed, is submitted to be contrary to accepted principle of law. They made the point they’re not aware of any other example of the Crown choosing to impose offence provisions upon those with whom it is in a contractual relationship for matters arising from that contract.

I move, That the question be now put.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 129 be agreed to.

The question is that Nicola Grigg’s tabled amendment to clause 8 to replace new section 11(3)(aa) be agreed to.

The question is that Barbara Kuriger’s tabled amendment to clause 8 to replace new section 11(3)(b) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Scott Simpson’s tabled amendment to clause 8 to replace new section 12(3) be agreed to.