This page last modified 16 September 1998
Crown Pastoral Land Bill (text)
Hansard 6 April 1995 (this page)
Hansard 7 May 1998
Hansard 27 May 1998
Hansard 28 May 1998
Hansard
17 June 1998
['Hansard', 6 April 1995, pages 6827-35]
Hon. DENIS MARSHALL (Minister of Lands): I move, That the
Crown Pastoral Land Bill be introduced. This Bill will provide
for the reform of Crown pastoral land tenure by amending the provisions
of the current Land Act of 1949 that deal with its administration.
The lands we are speaking of in this legislation cover about 2.5
million hectares of the South Island. I believe that this legislation,
when enacted, will lead to the permanent retirement to Crown ownership
and control of hundreds of thousands of hectares of pastoral lease
in the high country. It will lead to the freeholding of areas
for productive value and, more important, it will lead to the
creation of hundreds of kilometres of public access along marginal
strips that currently have no legal public access.
This Bill has had a very, very long gestation period. I seem to
remember, Mr Speaker, that in a past life your tenure as Minister
of Lands almost saw similar legislation introduced into the House
back in 1990. However, time ran out and here we are 5 years later,
still without having resolved those problems that you, sir, were
so keen to try to deal with then.
However, the Bill's impetus goes back far beyond that time. It
was the 1982 Clayton Committee of Inquiry into Pastoral Leases
and Leases in Perpetuity that found, firstly, that pastoral lands
in general were grossly underdeveloped as a result of their non-freeholdable
lease tenure; and, secondly, that the Crown's protective purpose
for holding the land had not been fulfilled.
Successive Governments have agreed in principle with the commission's
findings that the pastoral leases should be freeholded to release
their potential and to offer the opportunity for better stewardship.
The reality is that only a minority of these leases have been
freeholded. Twelve years of reviews on how this should be done
have produced minimal results. However, this time we have experienced
a serious land-use crisis in this estate that has challenged its
very future sustainability.
In 1994 the South Island high country review, known as the Martin
report, reiterated Clayton's concern with tenure. The Martin report
asserted that: "A review of pastoral lease tenure is required,
with the objective of freeholding all land not required by the
Crown for the public interest." Clearly, a need for more
accountable ownership makes tenure review imperative if the land
is to flourish again.
The lack of progress can be attributed to the fact that the estate
is the last substantial Crown holding outside the conservation
estate, so there is strong public interest besides that of the
stakeholder lessees; that the land within the estate contains
a wide mix of productive and conservation values that, in the
light of the Crown's collective interest in conservation, have
made total freeholding an inappropriate action; and that the final
allocation of these values to either the Crown or the lessees
is a difficult task. The interests of both the Crown and the lessees
are intertwined. These interests need first to be identified and
then to be separated. The method and degree of split has proved
to be the insurmountable obstacle of the past.
This Bill is necessary because the present Act does not have the
flexibility required to develop the appropriate solutions.
The existing legislation does not make explicit provision for
a number of important aspects of tenure review, including the
voluntary nature of both parties' participation in the process
and public consultation on the preliminary proposals for tenure
review.
The mechanics of this Bill are that it comprises four parts. Parts
I, III, and IV are mainly machinery provisions. Part I enacts,
with some modifications, provisions equivalent to those in the
Land Act that relate to pastoral land. Essentially, this means
that the majority of provisions relevant to pastoral land can
be found in this one Act, instead of moving between the 1948 Act
and the new Crown Pastoral Land Bill.
I draw to your attention those clauses in Part I that contain
two significant requirements for land that will remain under pastoral
lease. These requirements relate to the present discretionary
consents and to the present lease forfeiture provisions.
Clause 14 now reads that the Commissioner of Crown Lands, when
considering applications for discretionary consents, "shall
have regard to the desirability of ensuring ... the protection
of the inherent values ... of the land." This provision will
give the commissioner a wider mandate than at present to protect
the Crown's interests in conservation values and soil condition
when considering applications to burn vegetation, to disturb the
soil, or to plant trees.
The forfeiture provisions of the present Act are augmented in
clause 15 by the addition of monetary penalties. These may be
imposed by a District Court on application by the commissioner.
This measure provides penalties to match lesser breaches of covenant,
when the more Draconian right of forfeiture of the whole lease
for any breach may be inappropriate. I think that that Draconian
right on its own has probably led to a very lax administration
of penalties in the past.
I believe that the most important provisions of the Bill are contained
in Part II and relate to tenure reviews. By way of explanation,
I say that the Crown and the lessees have a combined interest
in pastoral leases, referred to as the lessors' and lessees' interest.
Tenure review is a process of joint review by the lessor and the
lessees of all land within a pastoral lease or leases.
The objectives of this review are to identify the desired interests
of both parties and to provide a starting-point to negotiate their
eventual exchange. The objective is for each party to take its
interests separately. The Crown's primary objective here is to
restore to its ownership areas with inherent values. This objective
also assists with the achievement of the Crown's overall strategic
goal to promote a sustainable future for all land in New Zealand.
As a starting-point, this Bill creates, in the interpretation
section of clause 2, a land status called "reviewable land".
This is land held under a reviewable instrument, such as a Crown
pastoral lease, at the commencement of the Act.
The objects of Part II are found in clause 20. They are the key
objects of the legislation and they promote sustainable management
of reviewable land. Subject to that overriding requirement, the
objects are to facilitate the restoration to full Crown ownership
and control of reviewable land that has high inherent values,
which are also defined in clause 2 to mean natural resources,
recreational, cultural, and historic values; to facilitate the
freehold of reviewable land capable of productive use; and, very
importantly, to facilitate the creation of appropriate public
rights of access to, and enjoyment of, reviewable land.
These objects have been an issue of debate between the stakeholders
involved in the development of the policy that has led to this
Bill. I invite the Primary Production Committee, to which I refer
this Bill, to consider closely the numerous submissions it will
no doubt receive on this single clause.
Part II establishes the following principles. In clause 21 there
is a need to take into account the principles of the Treaty of
Waitangi whilst working through the tenure process.
Clause 22 signals a global or whole-of-property approach, whether
it be to single or multiple properties under review. Such reviews
will eventually produce preliminary proposals for the division
of land according to the objectives of the parties.
It is very important to note that clause 25 indicates that after
public notice there will be a 40-day opportunity for the public
to make submissions on the preliminary proposals. These are proposals
tentatively agreed between the lessor and the lessees and put
to the applicants in writing.
The commissioner is required to consult the iwi authority of the
area in which the land is situated. The commissioner may not develop
substantive proposals without having considered the matters raised
by the iwi authority, and without having considered all written
submissions received from any person or organisation. This is
set out in clause 27.
Tenure review is a voluntary process in which either party may
withdraw from a review at any time prior to the signing of a final
agreement.
A very significant innovation in this Bill is the establishment
of registrable land management covenants in favour of the commissioner.
This is found in clause 31. The purpose of these covenants is
to bind land when extra protection is considered to be an appropriate
condition of freeholding. In future, these covenants may be transferred
to territorial local authorities, in order to be monitored and
enforced, if necessary, under the Resource Management Act.
Other protective mechanisms available to the commissioner when
alienating Crown land are covenants under the Conservation Act,
the Reserves Act, and open-space covenants under the Queen Elizabeth
the Second National Trust Act.
Finally, the outcomes I seek to achieve are as follows: firstly,
to provide an opportunity, through freeholding, for diversification
of land use and improved stewardship that will ensure the future
sustainability of this land; secondly, to enable new freeholders
to get on with their lives, with certainty of tenure and with
freedom from unnecessary intervention by the State; thirdly, to
provide an opportunity for the Crown to reserve for posterity
conservation and heritage assets within this present domain; and,
fourthly, to settle once and for all the question of proprietorial
accountability for the land.
These matters have been in the pipeline for many years. As land
is involved, the development of the Bill has brought out all the
passions traditionally associated with land ownership. That is
evident from the extensive and intensive public consultations
that I have been involved with over the past year or more, and
from the nearly 800 submissions I received in response to my proposals.
I am pleased, finally, to bring this matter to this House.
The pastoral lease estate has had a long history of grazier settlement
that is almost as old as the European presence in New Zealand.
This estate is now the last frontier of Crown land settlement.
I believe that the time has finally come for the Crown to withdraw
from an interest in the productive area in this estate. However,
in doing so, the Crown should first restore to its full ownership
and control those areas within the estate that have genuine conservation
values. My expectation is that about one million hectares of this
domain could eventually be added to the conservation estate for
the future benefit of all New Zealanders.
I am mindful of the obstacles that have plagued past attempts
to rationalise the tenure of this estate. So the premises of this
Bill are as follows: that there should be simple enabling, rather
than prescriptive, legislation to encourage voluntary negotiated
settlements; that the Crown should adopt a facilitating, rather
than a greedy, approach, as equitable solutions must be found
if the parties are to be encouraged to sign up; that promotion
of an ethic of sustainable land management must be the overarching
goal of this endeavour; and that there is a need to take into
account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi while working
through the tenure review process.
As I said before, this legislation has been subject to the most
extensive consultation process. It is fair to say that some conservation
groups are concerned about some of the issues--and quite properly
so. It is very important that we do provide the opportunity for
those groups, and obviously the lessees, to put their points and
concerns to the select committee so that, if required, further
material can be added to this legislation in order to clarify
more easily the issues involved here. I know that the select committee
would be very interested to hear from these groups on those issues.
I am very happy to move the introduction of this Bill.
PETE HODGSON (Dunedin North): The rationalisation of high-country
leases is almost certainly, without doubt, a good thing. But this
Bill in its present form, which seeks to facilitate that rationalising
process, is not a good thing. This is a longstanding problem.
For decades the high country has been degrading under--as it happens--a
system of leaseholding. Leaseholding may have been only a modest
contributor to that degradation and not the significant factor
that the Minister would have us believe, but insofar as it has
contributed, it has been through inappropriate and insufficient
supervision by an endless series of commissioners and by an endless
series of changes to the Land Act and its interpretation, which
has seen an inexorable decline in the ecological integrity of
the land in question.
Most of the cause of the degradation has not been the system of
ownership, but in fact has been ignorance--ignorance by all of
us--by farmers, scientists, Governments, territorial local authorities,
and anyone else who has had a role in it. The first paper against
tussock burning and its effect on trace elements was published,
I think, in the 1870s. It is still going on, so attitudes change,
but my goodness do they change slowly! The ignorance on all sides
has been the underlying problem. Farmers have been only a part
of the problem and they are potentially a significant part of
the solution. We have now a situation in which Hieracium, rabbits,
and financial hardship--financial ruin in some cases--are all
wrapped up with public access that is able to be withheld in law,
and variably in practice it is withheld. Runholders are unable
to do anything but undertake pastoral farming, and there is a
growing anxiety that some ecosystems arc not merely deteriorating
or degrading so much as moving to a state of collapse, notwithstanding
the excellent work over recent years from the rabbit and land
management programme.
Rationalisation of high-country leases allows land to be freeholded,
with the runholder doing with that land more than just pastoralism.
That is a good thing because the land can withstand more than
just pastoralism, and the runholder could certainly do with the
financial benefit that may arise from other activities. Other
land--usually, but not always, the high land--would move into
the Department of Conservation, and that is where it should have
been for the last 100 years if only we had had such a department.
This is land on which it is inappropriate to graze, or inappropriate
to graze except extremely sparsely and carefully. That land needs
to move into the conservation estate. We are talking about one
of the great grasslands of the world, and we are talking about
its demise.
Rationalisation, therefore, is a good thing. In recent years it
has been quietly going on anyway without any changes to the Land
Act. I cannot remember how many of the leases have been rationalised;
it would be about six or 10 out of 300-odd. So it is not many,
but there are another 80 in the pipeline. It is being done carefully
and slowly, and all the stakeholders--as modem lingo would have
it--are involved and the outcomes are either very good or excellent.
Rationalising the high-country leases is a good thing. However,
the Land Act in its present form stops some rationalisation, and
that is why the Minister has decided to introduce an amendment
to the Land Act 1948. To my knowledge there is only one lease
that has been stopped by the Land Act 1948, though more may well
be coming up and others may have been identified. To my knowledge,
and I think I am correct in saying this, only the Earnscleugh
Station between Clyde and Alexandra falls into that category.
I think that is the case.
So we have to ask the question: do we really need a law change
to manage one rationalisation that has been identified so far,
or should we proceed quietly, involving all the stakeholders rather
informally achieving the outcomes that the Government protests
it wants anyway? Well, the Minister has decided that he will bring
in Land Act changes now, and in doing so he has succeeded in blowing
a couple of years of trust that had been built up between the
regional council, but mostly between the green groups or the public
access groups on the one hand, and the runholders on the other.
That is very, very sad. What has happened is that those people
have drawn their battle-lines, moved off into their respective
comers, and are now lobbing pot-shots and politically correct
statements at one another.
Jack Elder: Like the fiscal envelope.
PETE HODGSON: I do not think it is a good thing. It does
indeed remind one of the fiscal envelope, and I want to try to
explore why I think that has happened. There are two main reasons;
one is process and one is content. I want to deal with the process
issue first. The Minister claimed in his introduction speech,
and it is one of the rather few things in his introduction speech
on which I disagree, that the consultation has been exhaustive.
It has not been exhaustive. No draft legislation has been shown
to any person. I have not seen it before today. I have been shown
a Government policy paper--except that I was told it was not quite
policy--on the issue, as have a number of other people, in secret.
That is not widespread consultation; it is true that the Minister
has consulted freely with some key people, but the Minister has
not consulted widely.
Hon. Denis Marshall: Oh, yes I have.
PETE HODGSON: Well, if the Minister has consulted widely
I wonder whether he would like to tell us in his reply whom he
has consulted in the general public. I do not think anyone who
is not a particular stakeholder has been involved. What we need
in this debate is public involvement. It is needed because the
understanding of the issues that face the high country is not
good, and this would be an excellent opportunity to improve it.
What has happened is that the people who have been consulted--I
think all of them, as would be expected--are unhappy about something,
but some are unhappy about a lot of things, and I am one of them.
I now turn to the content of the Bill and say that there are many
aspects of this Bill of which I disapprove. The fact that the
word "commercial" exists in the Bill without any other
definition as to what commercial might mean, so long as anything
is commercially viable on this land.
Hon. Denis Marshall: No, it's productive.
PETE HODGSON: Well, so long as anything is commercially
viable or productive under this land, it can take place as the
Bill is written at the moment. That means that anything can take
place subject, of course, only to district plans and so on, on
this great grassland of the South Island. I am not sure that it
should be as wide open as that and I would lodge that as my first
complaint. My second complaint is that this Bill allows the privatising
of class 8 land; there is no class 9 land. Class 8 land is as
steep and as rocky as one can get. Class 8 land is all the mountains
of our country. This allows class 8 land to be privatised.
Hon. Denis Marshall: It can be done now.
PETE HODGSON: That may be the case but it is not necessarily
how it should be. Can I just say that there is nothing wrong with
privatising a piece of class 8 land if it happens to be a small
cliff in the middle of the paddock. I have no problems with that
at all. We are not saying that class 8 land must never be privatised.
There must be a square metre of it somewhere that is appropriate
to privatise, but there is no indication in this Bill that it
is limited to a square metre or a hectare of it here or there.
No limitation is mentioned in the Bill at all. That means that
the Bill is wide open and that is why people can stand up and
say--and say correctly--that this legislation will allow the privatising
of mountains. That is the case. The Torlesse Range would be a
good example, parts of the Remarkables would be another, and on
it goes.
Hon. Denis Marshall: No, it couldn't happen.
PETE HODGSON: Because he has called across the House that
it could not happen, I say to the Minister that he might like
to respond and say quite why it could not happen. My reading of
the Bill in its present form is that it can happen.
The next point I want to make is that the public access provisions
are in the Bill and the Minister is to be congratulated on having
them in there, but what has happened is that the Minister has
allowed public access up waterways and around lakes. This is not
a land where people necessarily walk up valleys. This is the land
of the happy wanderers. These are curved hills, and people walk
over the, hills ordinarily. They do not ordinarily walk over hills
when it comes to the Tararuas, they go up a valley. But this is
land where people ordinarily walk over hills, whether they are
doing cross-country skiing or picking up an alpine flower, or
whatever. That is what they ordinarily do. That is what I did
over summer, yet the public access provisions make no mention
of anything other than waterways and I think they should. I also
make the point--
Hon. John Falloon: They can still stop people now. It's
on leasehold land.
PETE HODGSON: Indeed they can. The Minister is quite correct
to point out that leases in their current form have the Trespass
Act in place, and that public access will be advanced by this
legislation, so let me put that on record. I would like to say
that if we are going to make that change let us make it an appropriate
change. Let us advance public access issues appropriately for
the land in question, and as it is currently written they are
not.
There are no criteria in general as to what might be put in the
Department of Conservation estate and what might not. I am not
talking about principles or goals of gaining sustainability and
so on, I am talking about hard-nosed criteria. Let me refer the
Minister to the last great land carve-up, which took place in
the mid-1980s. It involved the creation of the Department of Conservation
estate, which involved substantial areas of Now Zealand, especially
the West Coast, and criteria were drawn up. They were not strictly
adhered to because criteria cannot be. There is no straight line
in nature, but one can draw up criteria, and one can use them
as a guideline, and the Minister has not put in this Bill that
criteria will be drawn up. He certainly has not put criteria in
the Bill.
So we are going blind here. We do not quite know what can be negotiated
in or out. We do not know what will happen to a finger valley
of a certain width, because it has not been put into the Bill.
We have managed to define native forests, or at least the New
Zealand Forest Accord has. It was not a Government issue, it was
a private sector one. It managed to define those reasonably, though
it was a bit rough around the edges, but in this Bill there are
no criteria as to what ought to move into the Department of Conservation
and what ought not to. That means that anything can go anywhere,
and that means that the Bill is open-ended. That is not good.
Fifthly, I make the point that there is no need for urgency. There
are 80 leases in the pipeline awaiting negotiation. They will
take years to negotiate, and what has happened since the Minister
began his famous wide consultation is that the goodwill needed
for that negotiation to continue has ebbed away. What has happened
so far is that we have gone backwards, not forwards. I would say
that there is no particular need for urgency. Earnscleugh has
been indicated as an area where it is going to get stuck. We accept
that, but there are 79 others. Let us make progress on those.
The sixth point I want to make is that there is undue reliance
on covenants under the Land Act in this legislation, and I am
very anxious about that. I note that the Resource Management Act
is not used and that, frankly, is because the Government does
not trust the strength of regional councils to enforce any covenants
that might he put up under the Resource Management Act. That might
he an appropriate judgment, so the Minister has decided to use
the Land Act. But, frankly, using the Land Act in the past has
not worked. For decades it has allowed continual degradation to
occur, maybe due to ignorance in some cases--ignorance on behalf
of all of us--but certainly due to a lack of will in other cases.
I am frankly unconvinced that it will get any better if we rely
on covenants this time around.
The second reason for my anxiety about the reliance on covenants
is that in a negotiating sense it will be used to promote the
privatising of huge tracts of land, on the grounds that they will
have covenants on them, which will not then be enforced, and the
degradation will continue. So I have some anxiety about covenants.
The seventh point I want to make is that attention is not paid
to the vexed and difficult issue of overseas ownership of our
high country. I would like the Minister to note that not only
is overseas ownership of our high country now allowed, in this
legislation one could readily argue that it is promoted. Let me
take the Minister through the issues. The Bill allows for a third
party to whom the about-to-be-freeholded land might be on-sold
to be part of the negotiating process as to what land will be
freeholded.
Let me say it again. A farmer has a person or a company to whom
he or she wishes to on-sell land that he or she is about to get
freeholded. Not only are there no criteria in the Bill about overseas
ownership of the high country, but a prospective overseas owner
can be actively involved in the negotiations as to what goes where.
That is not OK. In recent weeks, changes to the law regarding
the Overseas Investment Commission failed to put any strengthening
of criteria whatever into who might or might not own our land.
This Bill is utterly silent on the issue except that it promotes
it by allowing a third party to be involved in the negotiations.
I am not sure that this Bill is what we want. Certainly it is
an advance in many respects. Certainly in the issue of public
access it is an advance but I think not a significant advance.
We want a signal that the rationalisation of leases is a good
thing, but we are not particularly interested in legislation that
allows for open-ended commercial activity that does not provide
for public access over mountains, and that does allow for class
9 [sic] lands to be privatised without any limitations on how
much class 9 [sic] land we are talking about, whether it is to
be measured in hectares or square miles. We are not particularly
interested in legislation that relies as much as this does on
covenants under the Land Act, which have been known to fail in
the past. In particular, we are not interested in legislation
that at first glance appears to promote the possibility of foreign
ownership of high-country leases. With those introductory remarks
the Opposition has made its case.
JOHN BLINCOE (Nelson): This Bill has been a very long time
in gestation. Clearly, from the lack of Government speakers, the
Minister has had a somewhat lonely time. One imagines that since
he is the only speaker the Government has put up he is the only
person in the Government who has any understanding at all of what
the Bill is about.
I guess that the Minister wishes this Bill to be something of
a flagship of his stewardship--as the Minister of Lands, at least--because
I might observe parenthetically that his stewardship as Minister
of Conservation has been anything but remarkable, because his
watch has seen a progressive run down of the conservation estate.
Perhaps the Minister--as the Minister of Lands--wants to salvage
something of his reputation. I think the Minister is actually
in danger of making his reputation worse with this Bill.
The Bill gives me the distinct impression of having been thrown
together in some haste. One hears stories about officials working
on it until about 3 o'clock in the morning and thereabouts, and
I would be most surprised if this Bill were to emerge from the
select committee without extensive rewrites, both as to substance
and as to form.
As my colleague the member for Dunedin North--the future Minister
for the Environment--was observing a few moments ago, there has
been a process of tenure review under the existing law, where
the South Island high-country stations, which are subject of course
to these long-term pastoral leases from the Crown, have been examined
on a case-by-case basis. Land, much of which has been degraded
through pastoralism over the last 100 years or so but that is
appropriate for conservation purposes, has gone to the conservation
estate. Land that is clearly farmable, the lower land, has been
freeholded, and some land has gone into special leases when it
is appropriate that some grazing should take place.
The Opposition by and large has been pretty impressed with the
way that process has gone. The various stakeholders have got together--the
leaseholders, the Crown, the various non-governmental organisations
and interests--and by and large people have been pretty happy
with the outcomes in the cases that have been dealt with to date,
but there are quite a lot left to go.
What I am unclear about from this Bill is whether the Bill intends
to facilitate the process that has been occurring to date so that
perhaps it can go somewhat faster, be better resourced, or whatever,
or whether it intends to take a quite different approach altogether.
I would be extraordinarily dubious about this Bill if it were
to lead to outcomes that were significantly different from the
sorts of pretty satisfactory outcomes we have been having to date.
There certainly seems to be a range of impressions abroad in that
regard.
It is I think fair to say that the impression of Federated Farmers
via the South Island high-country committee--they put out a glossy
leaflet explaining their position--is that this exercise under
the new legislation would be essentially a freeholding exercise.
They argue essentially that their pastoral leases are the next
best thing to freehold anyway, and that essentially they were
freeholded in 1948 under the existing Act, and really they already
have virtually the whole bundle of rights that freeholding would
represent.
Certainly, judging from their publicity, it appears that they
are under the impression that this Bill is about freeholding almost
all of their properties. The question of consultation has arisen,
and I would assume that, whatever the consultation process has
been with other bodies, this Government in particular would have
consulted well with Federated Farmers. The Government has very
close links with that organisation and, one would have thought,
particularly with the South Island high-country committee.
Certainly, that committee and Federated Farmers have emerged with
the clear impression that this Bill is about freeholding the pastoral
leases, with very few qualifications. They have the impression
that two qualifications are significant. The first is that the
Crown will be able to insist on the protection of specific areas
of ecological significance by a process of covenants--the Crown
will not get to own those areas but there will be covenants over
them, and they will still be in private ownership. The second
significant qualification is that in some cases pastoral lease
land of profound ecological significance will go into the Crown--that
is, the Department of Conservation--estate during the freeholding
process.
Federated Farmers have the clear impression that this is essentially
a privatisation exercise. They must have got that impression from
talking to the Minister over many months, yet the Minister in
the House tonight gives us the impression that we will end up
with a lot of this land reverting to the Crown.
The problem with the Bill is that it is so loose and wide open
that one can read into it virtually whatever the Minister of the
day wishes to read into it, and I do not think that is good enough.
We are dealing with an area that does represent 30 percent of
New Zealand's land area. It does have huge values for New Zealanders,
even though many of them have had trouble getting access to it
in the past, and I think that, if this Bill is to be of any use
at all, it should improve on the processes that have been taking
place to date.
Certainly it should insist that there is a consistent process--not
a process that might vary from one negotiation to another--and,
most important, it should be a process that all the significant
interest groups are satisfied with. Because if the Minister is
to achieve anything out of this exercise he certainly ought to
achieve non-controversial outcomes, otherwise this exercise would
be a very substantial failure.
A couple of points are of particular concern. One is the lack
of specific criteria for when the Commissioner of Crown Lands
can freehold. He is left with a virtually unfettered discretion,
as far as I can see. As my colleague the member for Dunedin North
has noted, on a previous exercise quite detailed criteria were
used. They were extremely helpful. They seem to be entirely absent
from this exercise, and I think that is likely to lead to a mediocre
exercise rather than one of any great worth. I also observe that
the non-governmental organisations are not entirely happy with
the direction of things.
For example, the New Zealand Fish and Game Council has been trying
to find out from the Minister for some time whether he supports
freeholding of pastoral lease lands when those lands are to be
used for commercial eco-recreational tourism ventures based upon
sports fish angling, gamebird hunting, or natural water pursuits
such as rafting or canoeing. The Fish and Game Council reflects
a view that is held by many New Zealanders that we ought not to
have exclusive use of public fish, game, and natural water resources
for personal and commercial gain, and that it is in fact critical
that any review of the Land Act ensures that New Zealanders can
continue to get access to public resources.
The Fish and Game Council has been seeking assurances from the
Minister since November of last year. It reminded him again just
recently that the council had not had an answer. I understand
that it still has not had one. This appears to be one of those
"too hard" questions, but the fact that the Minister
has been unable to provide apparently any sensible answer to that
at all has only given rise to more disquiet as to what the objects
of this particular legislative exercise are, and certainly as
to what the outcome would be. So I would very much appreciate
it if the Minister in his reply would give us some indication
on that point.
Will we end up with a situation in which public fish and game
resources are effectively privatised because they become part
of commercial tourism ventures? That would be quite contrary to
the views of the vast majority of New Zealanders, and I would
have thought the Minister ought to be sensitive to that, given
one or two other recent exercises.
I would also particularly like to hear the Minister's views on
criteria, whether he thinks they should be in the Bill, whether
he perhaps proposes to introduce them by way of a supplementary
order paper or whatever, because, frankly, the Bill at the moment
is so wide open that it could be used for anything, including
no good.
Debate interrupted.
Debate resumed.
JACK ELDER (Henderson): The problem that this legislation
seeks to redress is a longstanding problem, one that has worried
people of all political stripes for a long time, and it is no
accident that it has been very difficult to get together opinions
on the issue in any form that could make anything like readable
legislation.
But, like the member for Dunedin North, I am very concerned about
this process, There are some difficult problems that, by their
very nature, we do not necessarily want to approach head-on. If
I can just make an analogy, I think the Government's probably
good-hearted attempts--if I can put it that way--to deal with
Maori grievances through a fiscal envelope are in the same category.
Progress is being made slowly and, on a case-by-case basis, one
can deal with the problems--in the case of Maori grievances we
have the Tainui agreement--but trying to approach something in
a complete "envelope" way, as this legislation tries
to, inevitably causes problems. We have to ask ourselves why it
sometimes causes problems.
It is very easy to understand that, and it is the same reason
the Government has had trouble with the fiscal envelope. It is
because the process drives people into their comers. I believe
that the reason we have seen some rationalisation proceed so far
in these high-country stations--only a small number so far, but
I understand there are 80-odd in the pipeline, and that is most
encouraging--is that on a case-by-case basis the environmentalists
who are concerned, the leaseholders and others who represent them,
and anybody else who is interested, can make their input. They
are able to get over the problem. They are able to make compromises
because they can see sensible, rational ways of getting out of
difficult situations. Each one will be different. I think that
is a healthy process.
I have to say to the Minister that I am very concerned that trying
to encapsulate this process in a legislative process of this nature
will lead to problems. It will drive some of the representatives--the
green groups and the leaseholder representatives--into comers,
where they take positions that they might not otherwise need to
take if we were dealing with each case on a case-by-case basis.
It is a slow process but I think it is worth while, because it
is a problem that has been with us for so long.
It may be, at the end, that we find an intractable group that
cannot be dealt with in any way other than by legislation, almost
on a case-by-case basis. If that is so, maybe that is the way
to deal with it. I must say that my preference is not always to
try to find general solutions because they very rarely please
everyone. It drives people into taking positions that are not
helpful in finding solutions.
I have been down to the South Island and talked to representatives
of the leaseholders.
Rt Hon. Don McKinnon: Big-noting.
JACK ELDER: I actually went down with the member for St
Kilda, if the Minister must know. We went down to study a number
of problems in that area. The clear impression I got was that
we are now faced with a situation whereby some of these leaseholders
are in very difficult financial straits. I got the feeling--quite
apart from the feeling that I had of wanting to find a solution
to it, and understanding the problem--that some of the leaseholders
wanted to off-load the problem areas of each of their leaseholdings
on to the State. In some ways I think that, underneath, that is
what they really wanted.
That, unfortunately, may be what we end up with, because there
is a coincidence--of course it is a natural coincidence--between
the areas that have been abused, if that is the right word. and
the areas that have problems with rabbits and hieracium, and the
financial problems that go with those things. Many of the leaseholders
want to get out of those sorts of problems.
The Minister also talked--by way of interjection--about the consultation
that has taken place. We want to know about that, because from
our side it is not readily obvious when that has taken place.
Rt Hon. Don McKinnon: Every Sunday afternoon as the master
goes off to the high country.
JACK ELDER: I am sure. I know that the Minister has been
dealing with this for a long time, and I know that he sees this
as the issue that he really wants to fix in his tenure as a Minister.
He feels that he will go down as a great Minister of Agriculture
if he can fix this problem. There is a major difference between
talking to the people and getting a feel for the major issues
and trying to find general solutions, and actually talking to
the protagonists and finding out what the Minister is proposing
is acceptable to those pressure groups. Sometimes all the general
consultation in the world does not prepare one for the grim reality
of the detail of legislation and how the pressure groups react
to that.
Hon. Denis Marshall: Very true.
JACK ELDER: Absolutely true. It is a different thing altogether.
That is the part of the consultation we want to know about. I
have no doubt that the Minister has done many times what I did,
and what I know other members on this side of the House have done--talked
to the leaseholders, green groups, the environmentalists--
Pete Hodgson: The Minister went around the short course
many times, didn't he?
JACK ELDER: He has done it many times, I am sure. We want
to know exactly who has seen the legislation. What do they actually
think about it? What are their reservations about it? What sort
of problems will we get from these different groups? I have an
awful fear that we will see environmentalists in particular reacting
like stuck pigs to this. That will drive people into camps, and
that will not be helpful for the total process.
The member for Dunedin North questioned the Minister on the urgency
of this legislation. The Minister indicated across the House that
there is some urgency. We want to know exactly what the urgency
is. The member for Dunedin North said there was at least one leaseholding
on which things were being held up because of it.
Pete Hodgson: One out of 80.
JACK ELDER: Maybe there are more. What is the urgency?
Is it just that one case? If so, why do we deal with general legislation?
We want to know exactly what the urgency is if this problem is
being progressed in the normal negotiating process.
The member for Nelson and the member for Dunedin North also mentioned
something else that we are very concerned about, and that is the
issue of public access. We are very concerned about that, as we
should be. All of us in this House should be concerned.
One of the unquantifiable--almost unquantifiable--potential benefits
of areas such as this is the attractiveness in general that it
gives our country; not only to us as New Zealanders, but also
to visitors. It is the sort of atmosphere that it gives New Zealand
and the attractiveness that we have to people who come here for
a visit, spend money, and create jobs. I am a very firm believer
that that is something that we do not take account of.
I shall just mention other legislation that I think neglects this
potential area of wealth and importance in New Zealand--that is,
fishing legislation. We completely underestimate the importance
of the recreational and tourist potential of the fishing industry.
We concentrate instead on the dollars and cents at the bottom
of the line of what is quantifiable in exports and catch levels.
We really need to be a bit more sophisticated than that.
No one in this House--and I do not think anyone outside this House--wants
to stop farmers from making a living out of productive land. We
all understand the importance of pastoral faming to New Zealand.
We all understand the importance of some of the areas involved.
JILL WHITE (Manawatu): There are two aspects that I wish
to speak about tonight: firstly, the attitude of New Zealanders
to the land, and, secondly, the instrument chosen in this Bill.
Looking first at the attitude of New Zealanders to land, I think
it must be acknowledged that land is about feelings and about
history. I am talking about Maori and Pakeha history. On the one
hand we have the importance of conservation values and the enjoyment
of the conservation estate. We have issues of public access. On
the other hand we have concerns about freeholding and about the
alienation of land from, first of all, the Crown, then possibly
from New Zealand ownership. As has already been said this evening,
we cannot afford to underestimate those issues in this Bill.
This Bill will need very wide consultation. I am sure there will
be a great number of submissions in the select committee process.
I want to talk about the change of instrument proposed in the
Bill--the instrument of land management and doubts as to whether
the new instrument is sophisticated enough to actually cope with
what is being asked of it. Historically the instrument has been
a reliance an Crown ownership to ensure bottom line sustainable
management. It has to be said that this has not always been a
runaway success. Degradation of the land is now better understood
than it was 10 years ago. Some land is still degrading; some land
is recovering.
The power has been with the Crown to control management. It has
to be said that it has meant a veto over diversified land use
and overreliance on merino sheep. There have been some obstacles
to alternative ways of using the land. I maintain that the Crown
actually has an ability to learn from and to deal with these issues,
whether or not it has in the past. However, the Crown wants to
give away that ultimate power of being able to take back land
and resume any public purpose for that land. That particular part
of the tool has seldom been utilised, but it has been there as
a sanction. But now we have the Crown moving away from its power
of landlord to determine standards of land use to come to quite
a different tool, in particular that tool of covenanting.
When it comes to covenants, we have the example of the Queen Elizabeth
the Second National Trust. We have had important values to the
public--values like landscape, heritage, wetlands, and indigenous
forests--that can be effectively preserved by such a trust. But
this is on a very small scale. The Government is proposing in
this Bill to extend covenants to a much more sophisticated use.
We think that it is trying to run before it can walk. Currently
the voluntary tenure review has been in use and has proved to
be in acceptable use.
But there are dangers in pushing a process, as the Government
appears to be forcing the process in this Bill at an imprudent
pace with the change from one instrument to another instrument
that is not fully proven. I am speaking about management covenants.
At the moment, a covenant like the Queen Elizabeth the Second
National Trust requires landowners, for example, to keep a fence
around a patch of indigenous bush or around a wetland to keep
cattle out. It is voluntary, it is simple, it is easily monitored,
and people are well motivated. But there will be great difficulty
in sustainably managing, for example, class 7 land--high-country
grasslands--when there have to be constant adjustments to the
management regime. If I can mix metaphors, it will be a bit of
a movable feast and we do not even know where the goalposts are.
We do not currently have the tools to do the monitoring of the
regime that we should have. Farmers are getting into developing
techniques, but the reality is that the sophisticated technology
is not there to monitor objectively things like soil and herbage.
The question about the development of the instrument and its readiness
to be used is a significant one. The other one is the question
of people's feelings about the alienation of land in New Zealand.
I come back to where I started from--conservation values. There
will be big questions about whether the Government is prepared
to put in resources to manage that extra conservation land as
it should be managed.
Hon. DENIS MARSHALL (Minister of Conservation): I would
like to thank Opposition members for the way in which they have
contributed to this debate on the introduction of this Bill. Some
very genuine questions have been raised. and I think the best
way to progress them is through the select committee process.
I have often been asked about the consultation process. There
was a very extensive public consultation process, both through
workshops and forums and through publicly advertised meetings.
Consultation does not necessarily mean agreement, but what it
did do was bring out the issues into the public arena. I think
that everyone will now take the opportunity to make their submissions
to the select committee on this Bill. I urge the select committee
to do its job diligently and to bear those submissions. I believe
that in the end we will get some good legislation.
Bill introduced and read a first time, and referred to the Primary
Production Committee.
Consideration of Report of Primary Production Committee
'Hansard', 7 May 1998
Hon. JOHN LUXTON (Minister of Lands): I move, That the House take note of the report of the Primary Production Committee on the Crown Pastoral Land Bill. This Bill, for those who may be listening, is, firstly, a Bill to establish a system for reviewing the tenure of Crown land held under certain perpetually renewable leases; secondly, to establish a system for determining how Crown land formerly held under pastoral occupation licence, and certain other Crown land, should be dealt with; and, finally, to provide for the administration of Crown pastoral land. So this Bill will provide for the reform of about 2.5 million hectares of Crown pastoral land tenure in the South Island by amending the provisions of the current Land Act of 1948, which currently deals with its administration.
The broader objectives of the Bill are: firstly, to facilitate the freeholding of Crown pastoral land that is capable of sustaining a range of commercial uses; secondly, to provide for a voluntary tenure review process that secures nature conservation, historic, landscape, cultural, recreation, and public access purposes, and other Crown interests in the high country; and, thirdly, the Bill makes provision for the management of those lands that remain under pastoral lease.
Additionally, the Bill ensures that the Crown's obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi are recognised. The present Land Act does not have the flexibility required to develop appropriate solutions to achieve these objectives.
The Bill was introduced into the House in April 1995 by my colleague the Hon. Denis Marshall, who has been able to help shepherd this Bill through the Primary Production Committee. I am sure that he, along with my other colleagues, will contribute to the debate in more detail shortly. I thank members of the select committee and the officials for their efforts over the years on this Bill and the significant issues that it addresses.
First, I want to talk about the background to the issues and the debate that have culminated in this Bill. Successive Governments over the past 20 years have attempted to develop legislative initiatives to restructure the tenure of Crown pastoral land, but the difficulty in reconciling the strong farming and conservation lobbies has generally stalled the process. In 1982 the Clayton report found that pastoral lands were, in the main, underdeveloped as a result of the inability to freehold the land. The report also found that the Crown's protective interest in holding the land had not been fulfilled. In 1994 the South Island High Country Review---the Martin report---reiterated the concern with land tenure, asserting that a review of pastoral lease tenure is required, with the objective of freeholding all land not required by the Crown for public interest.''
Since 1983 the Commissioner of Crown Lands has been undertaking a process of tenure review based on the Land Act of 1948. However, the current review process has some difficulties in today's world, because the provisions of the Land Act enable only productive values to be taken into account. No consideration of other values is permitted. In addition, there is no statutory framework for the review process, hence the need for this Bill.
The Crown Pastoral Land Bill has been under consideration by the Primary Production Committee since 1995. Because of the size of the land area under consideration and its commercial, conservation, recreation, and landscape values, there has been strong public interest in this Bill. Three hundred and sixty-eight submissions were received and considered. The varying interests were recognised by the coalition agreement, which stated: "Ensure public consultation on the issue of high country leases to preserve land with high conservation value, prior to any amendments to the law proceeding beyond the report back of the select committee. Thorough consideration of this issue and further negotiation required.'' As a consequence of this statement, additional submissions were called for from selected groups on an issues paper prepared by the Select Committee. As a result of these and previous submissions considered by the committee, the Bill has been substantially changed since it was first introduced in 1995.
The Crown Pastoral Land Bill covers both the administration of pastoral leases in clauses 3 to 19, and the tenure reform process in clauses 20 to 31R. In considering the Bill, I am advised that the select committee has tried to steer a middle course, balancing the often conflicting interests of farming groups on one hand, and conservation and recreation groups on the other. While most of the Bill was agreed to unanimously by the select committee, some clauses were agreed to by a majority. In some cases, dissent was largely related to wording rather than the intent behind a particular section. However, some were key issues, and I would like to refer to these now.
I have received a number of recent letters expressing concern that property rights will be eroded by clause 14, which deals with discretionary actions. Clause 14 has been the subject of much debate in the select committee. It requires the Commissioner of Crown Lands to consider both farming and conservation interests when considering whether to grant consent for activities such as cropping and cultivation, timber felling, burning, and soil disturbance. The objective is not to restrict lessees' rights but to ensure that the Crown's interest in the land is safeguarded.
Complicating this issue is the perception held by some leaseholders that the secure tenure provided by Crown pastoral leases bestows on them the same property rights as freehold owners, but this is not the case. Leaseholders hold perpetual leases over the land and there have always been certain restrictions on land use in order to protect the Crown's interest in the land as its owner. Under the Land Act 1948, both lessees' interests and the Crown's interest in the land were protected. At that time, the emphasis was on the productive values of the land, with pastoral farming being regarded as the best use of the land.
Since 1948 there has been a growing public concern about the natural values of the land and that they should be protected. The Crown Pastoral Land Bill reflects this change of perception, by the requirement for the Commissioner of Crown Lands to take into account the desirability of protecting the inherent values of the land. This means that clause 14 does not erode property rights. It simply means that the Commissioner of Crown Lands is now able to give consideration to conservation values, as well as farming values, when considering consents. In practice, the consideration given to consent applications is unlikely to be significantly altered.
Clause 20 deals with the objectives of the Bill. The primary debate in the Primary Production Committee was on the objectives of the review process. Farming groups wanted sustainable management to be the overriding objective, while conservation and recreational groups wanted the main goal to be the restoration to full Crown ownership and control of reviewable land with significant inherent values that need to be protected. I understand that the select committee carefully considered the use of the phrase "sustainable management''. The use of the definition of sustainable management in the Resource Management Act 1991 was not considered appropriate as, in that context, it means managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way or at a rate that enables peoples and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being. The Resource Management Act meaning could be taken out of context in relation to the scope of the Crown Pastoral Land Bill. A new definition of the same term could be also confusing.
So the select committee decided that the term "sustainable management'' should be omitted and the two objectives in clauses 20A and 20B should be given equal standing, with the preferred mechanism for the protection of significant inherent values being restoration to full Crown ownership and control. Together with protective mechanisms, such as covenants, the objectives will provide sufficient flexibility to achieve robust tenure review outcomes. One of the trade-offs in having such broad objectives has been to prescribe the tenure review process to ensure that the objectives are fully addressed when implementing individual reviews.
Clause 24F, which deals with protective mechanisms relating to covenants, has also caused some debate. A range of options has been included in the Bill to give additional flexibility to review negotiations. Conservation and recreational groups wanted clear criteria limiting the circumstances where covenants can be used. In particular, they see covenants as being applied only to small areas of land. Farming groups oppose such criteria, believing that each case should be considered on its merits.
The select committee considered that the objects of tenure review will secure the protection of significant inherent values, and there was no need to define the circumstances in which covenants should be used.
These are some of the main issues, and I am sure other speakers will cover them from their perspective and in some greater detail later in this debate. The ability to allow for tenure reviews and the freeholding of parts of the current leasehold properties is facilitated by this Bill. Likewise, the ability of the Crown to protect areas of current leases of significant conservation values, either as part of the Department of Conservation estate, or by way of Queen Elizabeth II National Trust Act covenants, will be welcomed by many New Zealanders. The Bill also provides for processes to ensure access to this particular land. In conclusion, I am happy to move that the House take note of the report on this Bill.
DAMIEN O'CONNOR (NZ Labour---West Coast - Tasman): It is very pleasing to follow the Minister, who has given a very good outline of the background to this Bill. I was, and still am, a member of the Primary Production Committee, which dealt with this Bill. I was not there at the start, way back in 1995 when this Bill was brought into the select committee. It has been an extensive process. It has been a wordsmith's delight as I do not think there is one word, full stop, or colon that has not been debated, such has been the scrutiny of the Bill. I suppose we have to ask why this has been so. The fact of the matter is that the high country of the South Island is a special place to every New Zealander, whether those people are lucky enough to enjoy it, either through work or recreation, or just see it as an icon and an example---a vision for the New Zealand that we sell to the world in terms of our tourism promotion.
It is essential that we protect that land. There are currently people who utilise that land and have utilised it for many, many years---people who have, as of right, occupation and grazing licences that have enabled them to generate wealth for the country, and livelihoods for themselves and their families. It has been essential that those people and their property rights have not been overridden or squashed in the process.
The Government set about a tenure review process a number of years ago that has been applauded by most people throughout the country, whatever side of the debate they come from. However, there has been some frustration that the process has not moved on at a faster rate, and a view that only the easy leases have been dealt with. There are many more difficult issues that will arise in the near future, and there is a need for more guidance from Parliament. This Bill is a very good attempt to achieve this. No doubt there will be people who disagree with the final passage of this Bill. However, all on the select committee were unified in their determination to see that fair consideration be given to those with existing property rights in these regions and to those who wish to seek access and have a right to these areas in the future, be they recreationists or those who are considering conservation values for our future generations.
The objects of the Bill, as was stated, are to promote sustainable land management, to safeguard the conservation, historic, landscape, cultural, recreational, and of course not the least, public access interest in the land. They are significant objectives, and there was a view that we should allow the tenure review process to continue because it has been successful to date and because a large amount of goodwill between parties has been built up in the process.
There is, however, alongside that goodwill a suspicion that as the issues become more difficult, some sectors will gain more control and land will either be privatised---that is the view of those opposing it---or will be put into ownership inappropriately, and that conservation land and values may be compromised. I am sure we will hear views that are perhaps contrary to those of my own. I believe that the process has been very sound and should continue with the balance of views that we have seen in the past.
We are talking about effectively 20 percent of the South Island---20 percent of the Mainland of New Zealand. That is a very significant portion of land---2.4 to 2.5 million hectares of prime, pristine, beautiful New Zealand high country. We have to get it right, and I think that the select committee has done a very good job in progressing this Bill.
Why was it wanted? The Land Act 1948 did not provide for guidance in the form of legislation for this tenure review process and we had to set about formalising the process that has been going on for some time. There needed to be some flexibility and guidelines in that process and we have attempted, I believe, to come up with some very fair solutions.
The fact of the matter is also that community values have shifted over the years from the times when pastoral licences were issued when the original rights of access and control were given to farmers in those areas. People demand now that the areas should not be overstocked, and that conservation issues should be considered when management practices are formalised. This Bill does go a long way forward in insisting that consultation take place with the Department of Conservation by landowners and pastoral lessees.
There is conflict, as I said before, between farmer lessees, environmental advocates, recreational groups, and the public of New Zealand in some cases, who all see this as their land. The level of suspicion about their objectives is high and we have done our best to try to overcome that. The Bill is a worthy improvement to the status quo.
Some of the issues---and as I said, they were all dealt with in detail---that I should raise from the environmental movement relate to the definition of what are significant inherent values. What are those values that we are setting about to protect through sustainable land management practices? We dealt with this issue at great length.
I think that the definition we arrived at is a fair one. The report back states that significant inherent values must be shown before we can just override the rights of current lessees and set aside land into conservation that could possibly be used for productive use. We have, as best we could, defined what that is.
There are new statutory obligations in the Bill that state consultation must take place between the Commissioner of Crown Lands and the Department of Conservation to approve land management practices on those areas that will still be set aside in the public domain and public ownership, but available for productive use. The land that cannot be clearly defined as best sold off to existing lessees, and land that is not of pristine environmental value, is able to be used for the benefit of the country in terms of production. We have ensured that access to that land is guaranteed through the Bill. We have put in place provisions for easements that will ensure recreationalists such as fishers and trampers will be able to have access to all these areas. Recreationalists have wide-ranging powers to access the areas that they have always had access to in the past.
We have also ensured that the definitions laid down in the law are clarified. The key definition that was originally taken for the Resource Management Act, and which forms the objectives of this Bill, is management of the land in a sustainable way. After great debate we determined that the land should be managed in an ecologically sustainable manner. I think what we did here was a significant shift that said the ecological values of the high country and the land were paramount; instead of just managing the land in a productive and sustainable manner, it should be done in an ecologically sustainable manner. That does shift the priorities for consideration by both the Department of Conservation and the Commissioner of Crown Lands in allowing management practices to take place.
I hope that the pastoral lessees see this Bill as real progress. We have allowed significant input into that through the select committee, and while not agreeing with every one of the proposals, I believe that we have done our very best to consider that their property rights should not be unduly undermined. They must now take into consideration the public values in sustainable land management and the protection of the ecological values of that area, the South Island high country.
ERIC ROY (NZ National): I am delighted to be speaking to the report back of this Bill. I am delighted for several reasons. First, this legislation has had its third birthday since it was introduced on 6 April 1995. That date has been passed. Secondly, I am delighted because I believe that the committee has done a good job. It is a very contentious issue, and we will talk more about that as we work through the report process. There have been a number of expectations, and not everybody can be satisfied. I am pleased that we have given the Bill due consideration, and have gone through the process of actually reconsulting through the submission process.
I am pleased too because a number of farmers and managers of what is a very important ecological resource in New Zealand have been severely limited by the restrictions of the legislation in place in relation to restructuring their operations, in terms of both the size of the operation where a subdivision has needed to take place, and alternative options for land use. All those matters will be brought on to the table when the Bill is passed.
I am also very pleased that we are able to bring this legislation back in a form with which I am relatively satisfied. Not everybody can be satisfied. Some people talk about such legislation producing equal misery. I tend to look at it in a more positive way and say we have dealt with the opportunity in as fair a way as possible.
At this point I give sincere thanks to those people who have participated: the members of the select committee---and there have been two select committees, as the Bill has gone over a parliamentary term---who have contributed in a way that has been most helpful throughout the whole process; the clerks of the committee, who have worked diligently throughout this process; a number of advisers; and the 368 submissioners, who over the period have contributed some very well-constructed thoughts. In a way, those submissioners have contributed very much to the success of this process. Quite often submissioners might say they are opposed to a Bill and state what they feel is wrong, but I can recall a Marlborough District Council member who came along with some suggested wording. Various other people have, in different ways, contributed to what has been a quite substantial rewrite of the legislation, while still embracing the direction in which the legislation wanted to go. So my thanks as chair of the Primary Production Committee to all of those involved.
The predominant part of the committee's activity over the last 3 years has gone towards this legislation. We endeavoured to meet all the submissioners. For that reason we held select committee meetings in Queenstown, Dunedin, and Christchurch, which allowed landholders and interest groups in the South Island to present their submissions orally at those meetings.
As the previous speaker said, the land under question comprises about 20 percent of the South Island. I think some 276 pastoral leases are in existence. There are one or two in Southland, and the others are in Otago, Canterbury, and Marlborough. They are quite extensive holdings, and there are a number of expectations held by different sections of the community. It is land that is enjoyed recreationally, it is land on which tourist activity is enjoyed, but principally the land use has been pastoral farming.
This legislation does not deal with what the appropriate form of tenure is. That decision was made prior to it. In 1948 it was recognised that the freeholding of some of this land was an appropriate form of tenure. Therefore, this debate is not about whether freeholding is appropriate; that decision has been made before. This legislation sets out some principles that must be adhered to as we work towards a tenure review process. It talks about sustainability of the high country. It ensures access for those people who want to use this very special part of New Zealand for recreational or other purposes. This legislation also offers options in terms of land use and the restructuring of tenure.
The high country is special, and is a piece of New Zealand that is intrinsically different from anywhere else. It is a harsh and unforgiving environment. Aspects of its management had to be addressed through this legislation; we could not let what was in existence continue. For a start, in terms of those people who wanted to review their tenure, the only ones to be dealt with were those who had something to trade. They had something of high inherent value on their property that they could trade, to be put into the conservation estate, or covenanted, or something else, and so there was a negotiation process. There was case by case negotiation down the line, which was a very lengthy, convoluted process, and only those land occupiers who actually had something to trade progressed to that point. It was an expensive and convoluted process.
On the other hand, a number of---I do not know whether we call them landholders, land occupiers, or licensees, or lessees---
Pete Hodgson: Runholders
ERIC ROY: Runholders---that is the word. Runholders were, in some cases, locked into properties that were no longer economically viable, yet they were limited in terms of actually being able to subdivide or do other things. So the necessity was there to address that issue.
There are also some other very significant issues. We are saying that this area is special, but we are not handling it well. We have a problem with Hieracium throughout a lot of this country. The weed problem is starting to show itself. There are wilding trees over a lot of it, and a number of other weeds. There has been an endemic rabbit problem that at the moment has been dealt a bit of a blow as a result of, shall we say, some outside events. But the runholders and the managers have had significant difficulties in terms of their own viability and the management process. So some more flexibility had to be worked through in terms of this area.
In dealing with this legislation we had to deal with a number of components. We did not meet only the runholders, the licensees. We met the recreational groups, those people who were interested in access, and those who had a specific interest in just the ecology, who said this area is special---and, yes, we do recognise that. It is my view that the best managers, those people who are best able to maintain this land, are those who can make a living from it. If the Crown suddenly had to deal with 20 percent of the South Island, given its existing problems in terms of weeds and pests and management it could not do it. Realistically, the best thing we can do is to facilitate the managers who are there.
Anybody who listened to the submissions could not help but be impressed by the great affinity of the runholders for this land, and their great wish to have its sustainability elements maintained. They also expressed a real concern about their viability. For that reason, we believe that this is necessary legislation that will give them more flexibility. I believe that the moves we have made will not in any way erode the equity that they have put into their properties, but will enhance it.
So we bring back to the House a Bill that is our best effort to deal with a range of controversial alternatives. The expectations covered a broad range. There were some very extreme expectations, from one end of the spectrum to the other---from locking up the land completely to maximising its use. I recommend the Bill to the House, and I look forward to the debate in the Committee stage.
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (The Alliance): Any Bill that determines the future of more than 10 percent of New Zealand has to be extremely significant. But the South Island high country is not just any 10 percent; it holds a very special place in the hearts of a great many New Zealanders, even if they have seen it only on a calendar. It is a land of spectacular grandeur; of mountain peaks, scree slopes, productive valleys, ecological mountain wetlands, and many other values. It contains mountain ecosystems that do not exist anywhere else in New Zealand. It is loved and used by New Zealanders for tramping, fishing, hunting, photography, climbing, and the experience of just being there.
One of its special values is that it forms a whole. Because such a vast area is still owned by the Crown, although under perpetual lease, it has an integrity and a wholeness that we believe should not be broken up into lots of little different bits of freehold land. It also produces New Zealand's finest merino wool, and that is something that should continue and be supported as long as it is ecologically sustainable.
But much of the land is seriously degraded. Much of the Mackenzie Basin, which I have visited, is nothing but bare earth and Hieracium.
For parts of this land sheep are no longer an appropriate land use, yet the pastoral leases allow no other land use but grazing. Clearly, therefore, the status quo cannot continue.
This Bill achieves some very good things. It creates the possibility for the first time of a network of representative conservation reserves under the management of the Department of Conservation, in an area that is notable for its lack of protected conservation land. It allows pastoral land that is capable of much more productive, profitable, and sustainable use, such as horticulture, forestry, and tourism development, to be used for those purposes. It creates the possibility of increased public access to some of that land. It allows the Commissioner of Crown Lands, who must approve some farming activities such as tussock burning, to take into account the inherent values, the conservation values, of the land. Court cases have shown he is not allowed to do that under the current Land Act.
But it achieves all those improvements at a price. The price is the alienation from public ownership of a very large part, probably the majority of, that land. Why on earth would the Alliance oppose the freeholding of farmland? I want to make it absolutely clear that we are not opposed to farmers owning their farms. That is a New Zealand tradition that is long established and, in itself, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. But this land in the South Island high country is not like the average Waikato dairy-farm. It has those other, very special values, which freeholding could exclude the public from. There is intense overseas interest in this land, as shown by recent purchases of leases and of high-country stations that are currently freehold. It is often said, and I think it is an exaggeration but there is a core of reality to it, that behind every lessee currently negotiating to make this land freehold stands an overseas investor offering him a good price once he has achieved those terms. I remind the House that yesterday the Treasurer confirmed that only nine applications for overseas ownership of rural and sensitive land have been turned down by the Overseas Investment Commission in the period that he has been Treasurer---and that is supposed to be an improvement.
One of the reasons we are opposed to this process continuing in the high country is that although the Land Act does give the lessees the full rights of trespass, the right to exclude other people from the land, including recreationalists, in practice a good relationship has developed in most areas between the lessees and recreationalists, and there are few areas where they are excluded. There is absolutely no reason for that to continue if the land is sold to people who have no stake in New Zealand, and who have no understanding of New Zealanders' longstanding practice of regarding the high country as a place where they can go.
The underlying assumption of this Bill and of Government policy, which was accepted by the select committee long before I joined it, is that it is about an exchange of rights, that the right of the lessees to renewal of their leases in perpetuity is absolute, and that all that the Crown can do is try to offer them inducements to part with those parts of their land that, in any other circumstance, would long ago have been put in the conservation estate. It has never been adequately recognised that the Land Act does provide for resumption by the Crown of leases if soil and water values and the productivity of the land have not been adequately protected. I think no one can deny, on visiting that country, that there are areas of high country---by no means all of it---where soil and water values and the productivity of the land have not been adequately protected during their years in leasehold tenure. But such resumption for those reasons has never happened, and it is clear that under this Government it never would.
There was an alternative to freeholding; an alternative that could have achieved all the benefits I outlined earlier. It could have given us the conservation benefits, could have given us the public access benefits, and could have freed up the lessees by giving them the right to use their land in the most productive and profitable way other than pastoralism where that was sustainable. That could have been achieved without abrogating the lessees rights at all, except where it could be shown that they had not met the requirements of the Land Act. It could have been done through an exchange of rights, with the lessees being offered tailor-made leases that gave them the right to use the land in the most sustainable and productive way. That would have given them a genuine advantage over their present system of being pastoralists, and it would not have alienated that land from Crown control.
Under this Bill we have no idea how much land or which land will end up being protected for its ecological or recreational values. The outcome depends entirely on the process of negotiation. It is up to a process between the commissioner and the lessee as to what they agree to. We have tried to give them the clearest guidance we can, but nobody would dream of putting an acreage on the area of land that will be protected, or, apart from a few outstanding examples like mountain peaks, say which land it will be.
This Bill is really about getting the Government out of owning land in the public interest. The Alliance does not think it is appropriate that the Government abrogate its responsibilities in that respect. However, the select committee was part-way through the Bill when I joined it, and because the Bill does achieve some substantial benefits I have worked as cooperatively as possible to maximise those benefits. In opposing the freeholding provisions I have been a minority of one, but the select committee members have also been cooperative in allowing me to state that position and to argue it, and I thank them for that.
I think the Bill has substantially improved over the 3 years that it has been before two select committees. The framework for negotiating this exchange of rights is now much better defined than it was, and there is less scope for freeholding just anything. So I believe that the 3 years of consideration have been worth while.
Debate interrupted.
Debate resumed.
Hon. DENIS MARSHALL (NZ National---Rangitikei): I wish to speak to the report back from the Primary Production Committee on the Crown Pastoral Land Bill. It is older than its third birthday. My colleague Eric Roy suggested that it was 3 years old and came into the House in 1995. It has a history that goes back many, many years.
Mark Peck: It should be going to school.
Hon. DENIS MARSHALL: It is older than I am. The issue is that the Land Act has been outdated for many years. Successive land Ministers were confronted with the issue of trying to deal with a reform, a review, a modernisation of the Land Act. Sadly, they failed.
I remember well, Peter Tapsell as Minister of Lands addressing a high-country farmers meeting, I think in 1989, with a proposal that met with considerable comment from both farmers and conservationists.
Some years later when I became Minister of Lands in 1993 I decided to pick up the challenge and see what could be done to improve both the conservation and sustainable values of large areas of the South Island high country, and the interests of the pastoral farmers who were endeavouring, in many respects, to make an income from the rights they had to exclusive pasturage on those lands.
We were helped by a very constructive report---the Martin report---chaired by Graham Martin of the Otago Regional Council. A committee came down with a report that suggested that many of the land management practices in the pastoral lands of the South Island were unsustainable. Buoyed by that report we then went on an extensive consultation process, both with the farming community---the pastoral farmers or runholders---and with the conservation groups. I have to say that occasionally my patience was exhausted; occasionally I thought neither party would ever get any agreement at all on any of the issues that we are addressing in this legislation.
However, I have to say that I was pleased that the farming community did accept that it was desirable to move away from the situation where they were entirely at the whim of a negotiation with a changing array of officials and politicians over the future of their lands. In that regard I differ from the view expressed by Jeanette Fitzsimons that the Government is always the best one to be dealing with when it comes to the future of our natural resources.
Sometimes, I have to say, the Government, in terms of politicians and bureaucrats, does not come to the best decisions about the ecological interests, the sustainable interests of our lands. It is best that we devise frameworks and processes with agreed criteria for people to work within over the protection of those lands, and that is what this Bill achieves.
Notwithstanding the many disagreements that occurred prior to1995, we did persevere with legislation. It was introduced into the House. It was frustrated, I must say, by an election in the meantime, and it was frustrated by the Standing Orders, which allowed every new piece of legislation to leapfrog over the existing one. However, that time period did give the select committee ample opportunity to give very full consideration to the interests of all parties in this legislation.
I would like to congratulate the committee on the way that it has worked together representing all interests on this legislation, because it has done the very best it can in terms of bringing this legislation back to the House. Although there are bound to be one or two issues of controversy, both from the perspective of the runholders and from the perspective of the conservationists, we have achieved something here that will stand in good stead for many generations to come.
What will occur, as a result of this legislation, is the opportunity for those leaseholders to negotiate within a much clearer framework over their future. It will give them a stronger stake in the productive land, which does have some value and which can be managed sustainably under the requirements of the Resource Management Act, I might add, as well as give the Crown the opportunity to negotiate for the protection of that land, which we believe has the greatest priority for protection.
I have said for a number of years that, as a result of this legislation, we will see the protection of about a million hectares of land that is currently grazed by pastoral farmers throughout the mountain lands of the South Island. A million hectares is a substantial area of land. It will not immediately be retired from grazing but over time that will finally happen. It finally brings down the curtain on probably 150 years of somewhat controversial management of our sensitive mountain and range lands throughout the South Island.
They were the easiest lands to graze when the European settlers first came here. They had already been burnt. They were luxuriant tussock lands and it was extremely easy to establish large flocks of sheep on them. Sadly, the early settlers found that overgrazing and the introduction of rabbits brought disastrous results. Since then there have been many efforts to try to establish a better regime for the management of those lands. I remember Jonathan Elworthy as Minister of Lands having very sensitive discussions with farmers while he attempted to retire some of the more sensitive areas of the mountain tops.
This Bill is the final step and I believe that we will see, remaining in that back country of the South Island, farmers and business people who will be able to use the productive areas sensitively and responsibly. We will see retired, lands that can only be described as our most sensitive and some of our most pristine and highly valued from a nature conservation point of view---areas that Jeanette Fitzsimons described very aptly as being so dear to the hearts of New Zealanders. They are part of the area that gives us our reputation internationally.
Most people look at New Zealand and see not necessarily the verdant pastures of the Waikato or Sky Tower in Auckland; most of them see photographs not of national parks but of the range lands of the South Island; lands that are grazed by the runholders of New Zealanders.
I strongly support this report back. I think the select committee has done an excellent job. I look forward to the debate in the Committee stage. I am sure that there will be some comment and interest, as I have said, both from the runholders and from the conservation groups. I think this Bill will stand in good stead for the management of this very important part of New Zealand for generations to come.
PETE HODGSON (NZ Labour---Dunedin North): It is with some pleasure that I take part in this debate. I think it has to be said that this is the last great land carve-up in our history. I cannot imagine what other great land carve-up there might exist in the remaining future of our country. It is the point at which we almost settle the boundary lines on various ways in which we divide land use.
My role in this issue goes back a long time. I guess, like many people, I am a bit schizophrenic about it. I have been a high-country veterinarian in an earlier life, and I understand some of the issues of runholders pretty well. I have also spent time as Labour's spokesperson on the environment and on conservation. I tramp in the tawny hills. I love them. I come from Otago.
Despite my earlier comment that this was the last great land carve-up, it must be said immediately that there will need to be more revisiting of this issue, inevitably, and that that revisiting will probably go on for ever. It needs to be said that although this is a significant step, and in many cases the last point in which boundaries are set and the last great carve-up, it will not be the end of the matter. There will need to be continual tweaking of policy, indeed of amalgamations of privately held land, and a revisiting perhaps of some of the issues in the future.
That is not because this is some sort of horrible compromise that needs revisiting straight away; I do not think it is. It is because information changes and values change. Ten years ago we had not heard of Hieracium; 20 years ago we were not talking about wilding pines.
There will inevitably be new threats and challenges to these series of ecosystems. We will need to have in our minds that this is not the end of the matter at all. It cannot end.
That said, I say that the status quo is not working. The Land Act of 1948 is not working. I say to my colleague Jeanette Fitzsimons that this is so, even with Government controls and Government oversight, and with the Commissioner of Crown Lands being putatively involved in the everyday life---if only he was sometimes, I have to say---of leaseholders. There are problems with pests. Conservation values are not being attended to. There are indeed some access problems. Perhaps most of all, underlying it, the land continues to be used unsustainably.
It does not matter what one does to change that, the unsustainability under the current regime persists. Large quantities of the tops must be retired. It is silly not to do so. The very earliest paper that I have read on the merits and demerits of tussock burning was printed in 1888. This is not a new issue. We still do not have it completely right. But the status quo is not working, and this legislation has to be an improvement. It is probably a significant improvement. I hope it is a significant improvement, and I think it is probably a significant improvement for the parties.
The parties are, firstly, the pastoralists, who are about to become farmers; secondly, the conservationists; and, thirdly, those people who want access. Those three interests have to come together and all those interests have to be met. I think this legislation advances the interests of all of them. It is, however, legislation that requires a fair amount of trust. We need to be able to trust that the Department of Conservation will have the money to manage the new conservation parks that I hope will form up along the tops of the Pisa range or the Rock and Pillar, or wherever.
At the moment, I am not clear whether the Department of Conservation has money to look after land that it is about to receive. So there is a matter of trust in saying: ``Boy, I hope they are going to get it.'', because retiring it and then not conserving it has to be dumb.
Secondly, there is the matter raised---I think properly---by Jeanette Fitzsimons about future ownership. The Labour Party is in favour of foreign investment. The Labour Party likes foreign direct investment. We will always be that way. That has been our history as a party. It has also been New Zealand's history. Without foreign investment, there would not be a country here. High country is different. The high country is not available for private ownership by rich overseas interests for personal bolt-holes. It is politically not available. It should not be allowed to be available. We have to trust the Overseas Investment Commission in this respect that, despite its rather meagre record, there will not be a buy-up of high-country land by overseas interests. I make what is perhaps the obvious statement that if there is such a buy-up, there will be a major political backlash to that, and it will come from Labour as well as from other sources. So that line needs to be put in the sand.
The point of the matter is that one cannot freehold land without taking that risk. Contrary to the view held by my colleague Jeanette Fitzsimons, it is my view---and perhaps it is not as informed as hers---that one cannot make progress without freeholding.
Some trust is required in a couple of other areas. I need to know that in the out-years, when the negotiations go on, the Department of Conservation will have the money not to look after the land that it will receive but to buy it or to trade for it. At the moment it does have the money, because the trades are pretty straightforward. The runholders who have gone through this voluntary process have, for the most part, been in a position to trade, and have traded. There have been clear winners in both directions. It will get harder. At that point it may be that money from the Department of Conservation will be needed.
Hon. Denis Marshall: The Commissioner of Crown Lands needs money.
PETE HODGSON: I am sorry. The Minister is quite right. In any case, I am aware there has been an increase in the funding available. What I do not know is whether it is enough, so that becomes an area of trust.
Finally, the reason the voluntary process has worked is that it has been voluntary. If the non-governmental organisations, which have inevitably been part of that process, have not been happy, then they have had the ability, which they have never used, to go to the court and say that such a thing was outside the Land Act. A lot of the stuff we have been doing so far is arguably outside the Land Act. No one has tested it; they have a voluntary agreement instead.
We do need to be mindful of those problems. I think the select committee has done well. It has some very talented people on it. I can say that because I am not one of them. It does, in my view, reflect the various views that are around. The select committee has, in my view, worked this through very carefully indeed. It did get snarled up politically in respect of the 1996 election. I have to say with respect to the Minister of Lands at the time, Denis Marshall, that I thought the original legislation was far too permissive; I think this legislation is better.
I will just say one last thing, in passing, to the ACT speaker who is yet to speak. Property rights in land are not inviolable. Property rights in land can change, will change, and will always change. The reason is that the circumstances around land ownership also change.
The Trespass Act that is applied to the Land Act, subsequent to the 1948 rewrite, itself was a property right for farmers and is being taken away, in part, by negotiation. It can be taken away without negotiation. The State must always reserve that right in respect of private property. The secret is never to use it or to use it very rarely.
But the member should not think that property rights stand above all other rights, because they do not. In the cascade of rights, property rights are not at the top. They cannot be at the top, because if they are at the top, then other things like ecosystems come below those rights. That cannot be right. There cannot be any inviolable right to do something to an ecosystem that can never be undone.
GAVAN HERLIHY (NZ National---Otago): I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution to this report back of the Crown Pastoral Land Bill. The handling of this particular legislation has been a challenging assignment for the select committee. Ample evidence of that is that the Bill, as Mr Roy, the chairman of the committee, has said, was introduced over 3 years ago---way back on 6 April 1995. It has spanned two Parliaments---the forty-fourth and the forty-fifth Parliaments of this House.
It is my understanding that such was the sensitivity of this legislation that even though the former select committee of the forty-fourth Parliament had completed its deliberations, the Bill was put on the back-burner pending the 1996 general election. I believe that that decision has been advantageous to the overall outcome of the objectives of this Bill.
Mr Hodgson in his speech said that he hoped there had been a significant improvement. I contend that the Bill before us today is indeed a significant improvement. The new Primary Production Committee, of which I am a new member, inherited the work of the old committee but was fortunate still to have some of the institutional knowledge from Messrs Roy and Sutton, and of course from the Hon.Denis Marshall, who brings his ministerial understanding to many of the issues that confronted this committee.
Crown pastoral leases cover approximately 2.5 million hectares of the South Island high country. The land covers about 20 percent of the South Island. As I declared at the onset of the select committee process, I now declare a personal interest in this legislation, as I am one of those pastoral lessees who own a block of this land on the Rock and Pillar Range in my home electorate of Otago. I guess I am no different from the majority of pastoral lease owners. This land has been in our family for four generations. While sort of understanding that the Crown is the ultimate owner, we believe we have been in de facto ownership of this country. That is understandable, because we are the ones who have cared for its stewardship over such a long period of time. Rightly or wrongly we have assumed a pseudo freehold expectation as to our management of this land. Again, that is understandable. We are the ones who have farmed it. We are the ones who have depended on this land for our living. We are the ones who have husbanded this land. It has been part of our heritage.
So, understandably, there is local angst against third parties who believe they have aspirations for this country. While we have had access only to the pasturage in days gone past, we the farmer lessees were the only ones who had the major interest in the past, present, and future outcomes of this country. However, all that is changing. My fellow farmers and I understandably feel threatened by some of these changes.
More and more of the general population out there sees the potential of this land for their own personal recreational and conservation purposes. They believe that as the Crown is the ultimate owner, they should have a right to have some uninterrupted passage on to this country. They believe they have a right to have some form of input into how this land is managed or, in their words, is managed on their behalf.
We the landowners understandably resent this intrusion. Thus a classic conflict has developed, with at the far end of the spectrum farmers wanting to protect their rights while at the other end of the spectrum some members of the public are represented at times by over-vocal non-governmental groups who increasingly feel that it is their right to push the Crown into being a lot more assertive in defining what rights they have as public citizens---rights they mayhave considered to be inherent due to the Crown's ownership of pastoral lease country.
That is a conflict that will increasingly grow and it is one of the inherent weaknesses in this current pastoral lease system. This was recognised, as the Hon. Denis Marshall said, in the Martin report, which believed that the ultimate stewardship for this country from a farming perspective would be better served if the productive portions of these leases were freeholded. At the same time, those areas that the Crown believes need protection from a conservation viewpoint should be transferred into Crown ownership under the stewardship of the Department of Conservation.
Basically, this Bill is all about making that process a more efficient one administratively than the current tenure review process is, which is unacceptably and torturously long; it is a current process that has the inherent danger of being captured by the bureaucratic system. So this Bill streamlines the tenure review process, and lessees will welcome this as a positive advance.
The select committee deliberated and agonised over the wording of clause 20, which is at the hub of the Bill---it defines the objectives of the tenure review. I am satisfied that we have got it right. May I stress that the words ``economic use'' are now included, rather than just "productive use''. Traditionally we have thought only in terms of productive farming values of pastoral leased land, but all that is changing. One has only to look at the land use on Mr and Mrs John Lee's Waiorau snow farm at Cardrona, where the land is being used commercially not only as a Nordic ski area but also for testing cars and, more specifically, testing car tyres. This has developed into a major commercial business with a spin-off being captured not only by Mr and Mrs Lee, but also by the wider Wanaka community. Mr and Mrs Lee's activities show that this land has wider uses than just growing wool.
So this Bill, which is being reported back to the House today, allows for a much wider spectrum of activity, namely economic activity not just farming productive use to be considered by the commissioner in the tenure review process. This is progress and I am proud to be part of that.
Let me make it abundantly clear that tenure review is not a mandatory process; it is a voluntary one. Whether a deal is finally signed in any tenure review process will be in the hands of both the farmer concerned and the Crown's agent---the commissioner. At the end of the day both parties have to be satisfied before a deal is done. Therefore, it is a win-win situation. It will definitely be a win for the land that is given freehold title, as I believe that will allow for more effective management of that country in the new millennium.
But not all farmers will be able to be in a win-win situation. The balance of their country may be such that unless the Crown is prepared to be exceedingly generous from a cash perspective, the balance of the country will mean that tenure review is not an option. So in all probability many farmers will want to retain their current leases, and to do otherwise would be an erosion of property rights.
Thus this brings back into focus the other contentious part of the Bill, namely clause 14---that area that deals with the granting of discretionary actions. In the last few days since the Bill has been out there in the farming community, a number of concerns have been brought to my attention. I am taking these concerns seriously and will be seeking some expert opinion from officials as to the validity of some of the concerns that have been brought to my attention, principally by the South Island High Country Committee of Federated Farmers and the High Country Trustees. We must closely scrutinise some of these perceived anomalies before we progress to the next stage, namely the Committee stage of the Bill.
I am not going to venture an opinion until I have had some advice as to the relevance or lack of relevance of some of these concerns expressed. But I must say from the committee's perspective that we have attempted to achieve in this particular right in clause 14 a reflection of what is the current actual process of the commissioner now. We have attempted to clarify the meaning of "inherent values'' in the glossary of terms in the Bill, and this is of concern to some people out there. Sure, it is relatively broad, but it does not differ from the current range of values that the commissionercurrently takes into consideration.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge the assistance of three specific people in my Otago electorate in broadening my understanding of the issues involved in this Bill. I refer here to the Alexandra lawyer Mr John Williamson, who is a font of institutional knowledge on this legislation; Mr John Aspinall, who is the chairman of the South Island High Country Committee of Federated Farmers; and Mr John Miller---a driving force behind what is seen to be an activist group by many people, the High Country Trustees. I also acknowledge the work over the last 17 months of my fellow members of the Primary Production Committee and of the officials. Thus I commend this legislation to the House.
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour---Whanganui): I, too, like my colleagues on both sides of the House this morning, am pleased to participate in the debate on this Bill. The Crown Pastoral Land Bill follows on from the 1948 Land Act, as was also stated earlier on during the debate.
The Land Act has been around for a lot longer than probably most of us who are debating here on this very issue today.
Eric Roy: That was a good year---1948.
JILL PETTIS: We will not go into that. It probably was a very good year for that member. This Bill is an important Bill. The select committee had 368 submissions, which I think indicates the passion and the level of concern there is in the broader New Zealand community about what this Bill will mean and what it holds for the future. While I was not able to participate in the select committee process, I have quickly read some of the submissions and they are excellent. A lot of thought and a great deal of research and consideration went into the preparation of those submissions, and I congratulate all of the submissioners from whatever side of the issue they come.
I, too, add my congratulations to the members of the select committee because I know that they worked very, very hard on this issue. The negotiations were obviously---from my reading---intensive.
I also know that some submissioners were called back and asked to be heard again because of the desire of the select committee members to get this Bill as right as possible. There is no way that this Bill will satisfy all the desires and demands of all submissioners, but it has made considerable progress. Basically, this Bill has to be passed so that where the tenure has not been reviewed that can be undertaken and progress can be made. That is an important aspect.
To date, only the most easy of leases have been completed. The voluntary tenure review, which forms a significant part of this Bill, is the process whereby lessees gain the right to freehold farmable land in return for surrendering what is predominantly natural land---usually the mountain land in their leases---to the conservation estate. It is interesting to note that up until early last year the number of tenure reviews that had been conducted was rather insignificant when we look at the number of pastoral leases that are currently held. In fact, in Canterbury only 45 percent of all of the 340 pastoral leases had chosen tenure review. In the Otago area the total area of pastoral lease in those 19 leases was some100,000 hectares. [figures all wrong]
Those of us in the North Island probably have some difficulty in comprehending the enormous amount of land that is involved in each lease. Earlier this year I had the privilege of accompanying my colleague Jim Sutton to the Mackenzie Country. I regret to say that it was my very first visit. What magnificent country! I say that most sincerely. I see my colleague Mr Roy on the other side of the House nodding in agreement. What truly magnificent country it is. I came back to the North Island feeling like I was a walking tourist conductor, because the land is just magnificent. But the special nature of the land has to be taken into consideration, and it most certainly was by the select committee and the submissioners that appeared before it.
This is difficult land. It is dry, and it has been degraded over the years. Two occasions in particular come to mind---late last century and again in the 1930s. The degradation that occurred through man's lack of good husbandry of the area was mostly driven by financial reasons and the difficult times experienced by runholders during those two periods. Even earlier this year when I was down there I saw that the land is grey. We are not used to that in the North Island. The Hieracium that covers the hills is something that we do not see a lot of in our part of the world. As I flew back from the Mackenzie Country and stepped from the plane in the North Island, it was raining. I almost felt guilty, because we did not need the rain in the North Island, but, my word, those people certainly did need it in the South Island.
I am concerned about some of the failures that we still need to address. I am not casting aspersions on any particular sector of Parliament, but there are matters that still need to be addressed. Unfortunately, this Bill can go only part-way towards conserving our estate---the whole of the New Zealand estate, not only the conservation estate. The Bill does not---and it cannot, unfortunately---force the Government to provide better for our precious conservation estate. The Bill cannot make the Government give the Department of Conservation the resources that it needs to take care of this precious and fragile land. It cannot make the Government put more money into pest and predator control or into erosion control, which is a real issue in this high-country land.
Nor can this Bill make the Government provide suitable facilities for access to the conservation estate. Access to the conservation estate has formed a large part of the debate surrounding this issue.
One of the more satisfying things that has come out through the debate and through the excellent submissions that were put forward by various recreational groups is that public access will be secured where this is consistent with ecologically sustainable land management and the protection of those significant inherent values.
New Zealanders value their ability to be able to travel the wild country, especially the back country. The country that we are talking about today is wild country. It is essential that New Zealanders are able to gain access to land so that we can all enjoy what is intrinsically part of New Zealand. This area is very erosion prone.
Further work needs to be done to deal to the terrible erosion occurring in the South Island high country and other marginal land that is prone to it.
The Bill also fails to address or to take a proactive approach to rabbit control. That was one of the issues that I discussed during my visit to the Mackenzie Country. With regard to rabbit control, nothing has been addressed in this Bill. Until the Government actually starts to deal with the real problems this country has with sustainable land management, we will not see the recovery of land that all stakeholders are striving for despite the many trade-offs and the great cooperation that this Bill has facilitated.
In closing, I wish to support one of the comments made by my colleague Mr Hodgson about the level of trust that will be required with regard to the Overseas Investment Commission's oversight of the sale of this special land to foreign interests. This high-country land is one of the jewels in New Zealand's crown. It is not for sale to foreign interests. This is our land. I do not say this with any sense of xenophobia. This land is not for sale to foreign ownership.
OWEN JENNINGS (ACT NZ): As previous speakers have correctly stressed, this Bill is particularly important. It comes after many years of negotiation, a vast number of submissions over a wide-ranging area, and a good deal of very hard work done by a number of people both in this present Parliament and by some who have gone before. As other speakers have said, this Bill is one of the major Bills to be dealt with in the House this year. It does impact. It affects a very major part of the South Island, a very critically important area. Equally, it affects the lives of many hard-working families who contribute a good deal to the real wealth of New Zealand, and I am not talking just about the dollars but about the quality of life in New Zealand. We are talking about the lives of people who have chosen to live in some of the more remote areas, who love their land, and who care for it in almost every instance in the best possible way in terms of the environment and in terms of their contribution to our quality of life and our wealth as a nation.
The Bill addresses tenure review and redefines the rules. In so doing, it raises some question of process. I do not believe that there are too many people in this House who disagree with the overall need for change and the direction it is held in. We did hear many very impassioned pleas for better-quality management of what is a fragile landscape, a fragile ecology, with areas of historical interest and other interests that have to be taken into consideration.
As my colleague Mr Pete Hodgson rightly suggested, property right issues are involved here. While we have heard the Minister and one or two speakers suggest that the changes proposed in this Bill do not greatly impact upon the rights of the landowners involved, I strongly disagree. There are changes in the process in respect of the rights of occupation and pasturage that are held by lessees in perpetuity that do now limit the things they are able to do relative to what they could do before. That, therefore, changes the nature of the equity those people have in those properties. To say that property rights will not change under this Bill is to take a shallow view of it. The lessees were given, rightly or wrongly, a very strong and robust interest and right in this land---the right to occupation and pasturage. We change that at peril to the whole question of property rights. As I have said before in this House, property rights are important. They do underpin our democracy. They do underpin every commercial transaction. Parliament, by coercion and fiat, changes those rights at some great risk. I stress again-
Hon. D A M Graham: It doesn't do that.
OWEN JENNINGS: I tell members that I was out on the hustings a few weeks ago and New Zealanders told me, and they told the National Party in the ballot box, that property rights are very important to them. They want better recognition in this House of those property rights, and to change them without due consideration for people's interests, and without proper compensation, is unforgivable. Once again, Parliament is taking away the right of people to do with their land and their interest in the land what they could do before. It is no wonder that the select committee received very strong---sometimes very emotional---pleas about those particular interests.
There are new interferences involved---interferences to issues like topdressing and oversowing---that will diminish the lessees' interests. Now that the commissioner is required to take into account inherent values, there will be changes in management. Those changes may be worth while. That is not the issue. They may well improve the quality of what is done there. They may well improve our environmental management of the area, and that may be a good goal.
But when we are making these changes, and reflecting the changing attitudes and mores of New Zealanders, it is important that we recognise the sanctity of property rights, and, where appropriate, that compensation is payable.
The overall intent of this legislation is supported and accepted by most people. It is a matter of process and detail. The legislation does presuppose that there will always be a conflict between lessees' interests and conservation interests. I suggest that that is not always so. There were many submissions that insisted that, indeed, lessees' interests and commercial activity and farming activity should be removed from most of the areas involved. ACT does not support that contention. In fact, ACT members believe that the inclusion, for example, in clause 20 of the word "preferably'' raises some very important aspects that this Parliament must consider in the second reading. In our view the requirement to have the changes in ownership vested solely and strictly in full Crown ownership overlooks two major considerations. One is that the Crown is taking a major fiscal risk. An unbudgeted and unresearched debt will be raised in respect of the management of these areas for things like fires, weeds, pests, and access, which I do not believe the Crown has properly considered. The kind of underpinning concept that somehow the Crown will be a better manager at all times and in all conditions and circumstances is a false premise. It would have made far more sense to have ensured that the people who have an existing financial interest in the land, but, more importantly, have a genuine love of this land, were left as managers of that estate, and that the Crown contract them to care for that land in a proper way.
The use of covenants in an extensive way would have reduced the Crown risk and seen built-in managers working in the interests of all New Zealanders in that land estate. I am disappointed that the word "preferably'' has crept into the legislation. I think we ought to reflect on the very effective mechanisms that are available through covenants that could have reduced the Crown risk and brought the parties together in a cooperative manner and ensured effective management. We know this can work effectively from the fact that there are now two national parks in areas under covenant in New Zealand in which the public interest and the private interest are married in a sensible, cost-effective way, thus ensuring that good conservation outcomes are achieved at the same time as the land is used.
I suggest that, as we go through the process with this Bill, we reconsider that aspect in a much more robust way. I suggest that the ACT party will be raising questions regarding property rights, compensation, and the way in which this Bill tramples across those rights once again. ACT members will be suggesting changes to that. I think that it is important that we deal with this issue. It has been around for a long, long time. The Bill does update many of the processes that, clearly, do need updating. It will help in arriving at a more certain outcome, which is important in this issue. I think that New Zealanders will be better off for the passage of this Bill.
One of the most beautiful and fragile estates in New Zealand will be in better hands as a result of it, particularly if we adopt some changes that I think are essential to the final outcome.
The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.
Amendments recommended by the Primary Production Committee by majority agreed to.
Bill to proceed.
Procedure
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip---NZ National): I seek leave of the House for the second reading of the Crown Pastoral Land Bill to be taken pro forma forthwith.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave has been sought for the second reading of the Crown Pastoral Land Bill to be taken pro forma forthwith. Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none.
Second Reading
Bill read a second time.
Consideration of Report of Primary Production Committee
'Hansard', 27 May 1998
Instruction to Committee
Hon. NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Crown Pastoral Land Bill that it consider the Bill part by part and take the schedules as a single question. The select committee has been considering this Bill for a very long time, and has given very careful consideration to it. There has been a very large number of submissions to it. It has heard extensively from a large number of key groups, whether it be the high-country trustees, Federated Farmers, the South Island high-country committee of Federated Farmers, the Fish and Game Council, or the Federated Mountain Clubs.
All of those groups have had ample opportunity to make submissions on this important Bill.
Further to that, the Bill was actually reported back in a provisional report just prior to the 1996 general election, and a further round of submissions was invited by the select committee. By the fact of the number of stages---from the first process of the discussion document, to the first Bill, to the second stage of submissions that have been allowed---it would make the best use of this House's time if we were to consider the Bill in that way. In so doing, we would be able to make progress on this important Bill, both for the benefit of the farming community in the South Island and for the important conservation gains that are part of this legislation.
Instruction to Committee
TREVOR MALLARD (NZ Labour---Hutt South): There is a problem with the Government's approach, and I think it is due to the ineptitude of the Leader of the House or, probably to be nice to him, to his overwork. I am being nice to him. Otherwise one could just say that he is an ignorant fool and does not know how to run the House. That is the alternative approach. I am being nice to him in saying that he is overworked and does not understand. Over the last 3 weeks there has been example after example of legislation that is not very contentious---about which there is a bit of an argument, but not very much---yet the Government has deliberately sought to antagonise the Opposition and extend the debate, either by the use of urgency or by using this part by part approach.
Most of these clauses would have gone through with no debate whatsoever, and some clauses with fairly short debate. What the Government guarantees when it moves such a motion is opposition. It guarantees debate to the closure. It ignores the role of Parliament as it can be---a place where people can work together, discuss things in Committee in an informal approach, and work their way through legislation.
I turn to the suggested parts of the Bill. I think that at some stage, maybe during a debate on the Standing Orders, Parliament will have to discuss the drafting of Bills, and the shape of them with regard to the number of parts. In the past it was the prerogative of the law draftspeople, but I detect a certain trend---not only from this Government; it was there before---towards putting Bills into parts, and quite a small number of parts, at that. The result of that is some issues, which are different issues, that could be logically considered as single issues or groups of issues.
In this particular Bill one only has to go to Part 1 and see that there are four distinct issues within the first part. The application of the Land Act 1948 is hardly a major issue. I think if the Bill was properly drafted, it would be sitting right at the end of the Bill, amongst the savings and consequential amendments. That might be a better place for it.
The Bill is about pastoral leases, occupational licenses, and pastoral land generally. Mixed up in the same debate are special provisions relating to the calculation of rent payable for the first renewal of pasture release granted before 1 December 1979---a pretty technical type of issue. At the same time, we discuss the burning of vegetation or activities affecting or disturbing soil. I say to the Government that they are different issues. They are separate issues.
The calculation of rent is quite a separate issue from the burning of vegetation.
The member is shaking his head. I can just about hear the rattle from Mr Roy as he comes across. The point he has to remember is that the Opposition generally supports the thrust of the Bill. We have concerns about some of the sustainable management aspects of the use of pastoral land. We want to discuss those and we want to seek some assurances from the Government. Even a couple of years ago, we had reasonable, good-humoured, and positive debate in this House. It does not happen now.
I do not blame it entirely on MMP and its influence, although maybe I do slightly because it goes without saying that there is a certain unreliability in the reactions of some of the minor parties.
We need a decent Leader of the House, someone who understands how the place worked, someone who would spend time on understanding how it works.
The Prime Minister should review the workload of Wyatt Creech, who is, effectively, the Deputy Prime Minister. We know that Mr Peters is titular Deputy Prime Minister, but we also know that all the work that used to be done by a Deputy Prime Minister within a Government is now being done by Wyatt Creech. Education is a very important portfolio, and he has that portfolio. I think he has another substantive portfolio as well, although I am not quite sure which one it is. He is also Leader of the House. That, for Geoffrey Palmer---for someone with his mind---would have been an extensive workload. He would have been pushed. But someone like Wyatt Creech---
Eric Roy: Don't be uncharitable.
TREVOR MALLARD: I think I am being charitable. I am just saying that he is being stretched, and this House is suffering as a result. This House is becoming a shambles. We have had days and days of unnecessary urgency. We are having debates that last for goodness knows how long on part by part motions, which actually extend the total Committee stage on a Bill. That is inevitable when a part by part motion is moved. There are parts on which there would have been hardly any debate, parts that people just agree with and that would have slipped through. The Chairman says: "All those in favour say 'Aye', against 'No' '', and that will be the total discussion on them.
That is the way whole portions of Bills get debated because we are forced into this artificial structure, which is quite different from what the approach to the Committee stage is meant to be. I remind the House what the Committee stage approach is meant to be. It is meant to be a line by line, a clause by clause, relatively informal approach to legislation, with questions going back and forth.
For example, members should look at the drafting of clause 29. We now have clauses 29A to 29Q. Maybe that is a result of the work of the select committee. The select committee has done some very good work on this Bill. I am told that many of the concerns of the Opposition have been met and the Bill has come back to the House being better drafted than it was when it went to the select committee. I am told that the approach at the select committee was positive, not antagonistic. This is not legislation on which the Government will survive or fall. It is legislation that the House should consider carefully because it is very important, especially in the sustainability area. It is not a Bill on which we should be forced into the straightjacket of a part by part debate---I think deliberately---by the Leader of the House, antagonising the House.
Mark Burton: It's very hard to tell.
TREVOR MALLARD: Well, it is deliberately antagonising the House, in a way that in my opinion is totally unnecessary.
Instruction to Committee
ERIC ROY (NZ National): I was not going to prolong this debate by taking a call, but I will make two points quite quickly. The first is simply that this Bill, more than any other, is one that is suitable to debate part by part because the elements of the clauses follow on in a very consequential way.
Hon. Dr Michael Cullen: One after the other.
ERIC ROY: The member is quite astute. It is important that we grasp the concepts, and when we talk about the objects of the Bill, discretionary actions, and the matters that the previous member mentioned, that they follow on. It is important we debate those in terms of the context.
The member has castigated the Leader of the House. As chairman of the select committee, I have tried to manage this Bill. As soon as I was aware of it, I sought the advice of Opposition members, asking them how long they wanted to consider it. We know that there is a great degree of unanimity on the Bill but that there are some issues on which we will separate. Clauses 14 and 20, in two separate parts, are areas where we are likely to separate. I asked for some sort of understanding and said that if we could not get it, then we will move on a part by part basis.
David Carter: Did the member get it?
ERIC ROY: No, I am afraid we did not get it, with the result that we are seeking to debate the Bill part by part. Do I think that affects the manner and the effectiveness of the way that the Committee will deal with it? No, I do not, because these parts are consequential as they follow through. There are a couple of issues in separate parts that we will deal with. This is an expedient way to deal with this. From the Government's point of view, I am prepared to accept that we may well debate those two parts for up to an hour. That may be a consequence of the way we do it, and I do not seek to avoid that. I sought to get some sort of an agreement. It was not forthcoming; consequently, we want to progress this Bill that has been in the select committee for 3 years. There has been an interim report, an issues paper, and a whole range of things to try to get the best possible deal. Let us do it part by part.
Instruction to Committee
MARK BURTON (Senior Whip---NZ Labour): I, too, am moved to take a call, although I was not going to. The member who has just resumed his seat is entirely correct. He is a very hard-working select committee chairperson, and I do not think there is a member in the House who would debate that. Let us be fair, Mr Roy is a hard-working member. The problem is, as my colleague Mr Mallard pointed out, that it is not for Mr Roy to come into the House and see that there had not been a negotiation, an organisation of the House's business in an orderly way. All credit should go to Mr Roy that in the eleventh hour he tried to sort out something and rush over here with a bit of a proposition about---
Eric Roy: There's a phone in the foyer.
MARK BURTON: It was a matter of minutes before the House was to deal with the business. I do not criticise Mr Roy at all. I think he was doing a sterling job.
Trevor Mallard: He's just making up for the ineptitude.
MARK BURTON: That is right. He is doing a sterling job, trying to cover the tracks of a Leader of the House who is just not coping. I suggest to the Government that it has a very experienced member there. Perhaps it is time there was an assistant Leader of the House. I think that Mr Eric Roy would be a fine assistant. We might see the House's business arranged in a more orderly fashion, then we would not have part by part motions as a last-minute lurch. I am sure that Mr Roy would be much more orderly in facilitating the Government's business. We might have the opportunity to consider the proposition in a more measured way, and who knows what the outcome of that would be!
This is not the way to conduct the House's business. I am afraid that it is typical of the rolling shambles that we have had in the last few weeks. I have watched Government members falling like flies from their benches. I cannot refer to the absence from the Chamber of members, but there has been plenty of space on the Government benches in the last few days. Government members are falling like flies under the stress of pressure, of the urgency that is largely unnecessary.
For instance, this morning the House sat under urgency for 18 minutes because the Government could not organise its business. It is just no good. Frankly, this sort of arrangement needs to be done in a more orderly way when there is time to look properly at the ramifications of what is being proposed.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.
Ayes 70
New Zealand National 44;
New Zealand First 17;
ACT New Zealand 7;
United New Zealand 1;
Independent 1.
Noes 49
Labour 37;
Alliance 12.
Majority for: 21
Motion agreed to.
In Committee
Clause 1. Short Title
PETE HODGSON (NZ Labour---Dunedin North): I regret to tread on the Standing Orders, but I want to ask very gently whether the Minister of Conservation will be able to take the chair during the course of the debate.
Eric Roy: Yes, he is.
PETE HODGSON: Thank you. The short title states that the Act may be cited as the Crown Pastoral Land Act 1995. We have no particular problem with that. However, we wonder whether the term "Crown pastoral land'' necessarily covers not only pastoral leases but occupational licences. We wonder whether that term is sufficiently generic to cover both of those and whether the Minister could assist us on that. If he is able to assist us, we would be happy to let the clause go through without further debate.
ERIC ROY (NZ National): That question was raised initially. Of course, the short title actually still embraces the original Land Act that deals with that particular issue. If members follow through the appropriate clause, they will find that pastoral occupational licences will be reviewed as they fall due, so consequently they will not exist after continuing reviews of their time of expiry. So the Bill does deal with them. They are also covered subsequently under the provisions of the Land Act, which this Bill sits alongside.
Pete Hodgson: Pastoral occupational leases didn't exist in 1948.
ERIC ROY: Well, they are still covered. The member will be aware that they are covered satisfactorily in a clause in the Bill.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2. Interpretation
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (The Alliance): I believe that there are definitions in clause 2 that deserve to be discussed in the Committee. It took a significant amount of time in the select committee to change "high inherent value'' to "significant inherent value'', and I think the public may like to know the arguments that went on in the course of that.
An inherent value is defined extremely widely to include ecological and conservation-type values, cultural and human-type values, historical values, and scientific values. When we came to the question of how high the inherent values have to be before land ought to be protected in Crown ownership and control under the Department of Conservation, we decided on the word "significant'' rather than the word "high'', because we felt that the word "high'' was much too restrictive. The high-country land has a great many values associated with it that are of enormous public interest and concern.
It was felt that it was not right that the definition should be too restrictive. In determining that we would use the word "significant'', we linked it to the definitions in the Conservation Act and the Reserves Act to achieve consistency across the management of conservation land generally, so that those features that are worthy of preservation under the Conservation Act or the Reserves Act are also worthy of protection under this legislation. I think that is an important consistency that the select committee achieved.
The other definition I would like to refer to is "protective mechanism''. Protective mechanisms are the alternative and less preferred way of protecting land that has significant inherent values but for some reason does not go back to Crown ownership and control as part of the Department of Conservation estate. Protective mechanisms can include covenants under the Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust Act as well as a variety of other kinds of covenants and easements.
There is a wide degree of concern in the community that the intention of the select committee was that covenants under the Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust Act should be used only for relatively small, fenced, and discrete pieces of land, such as wetlands or particular confined ecosystems that are a long way from the Department of Conservation estate and cannot easily be managed in association with it. The legislation as drafted does not adequately reflect the intention of the select committee that only such relatively small, ecologically important pieces of land should be protected by covenant rather than by full restoration to the Crown.
I therefore feel it is necessary to report to the Committee that the select committee was of the unanimous opinion that that was how covenants ought to be used. In the end, the safeguard that we saw was that the Minister of Conservation would not, under his Act, be able to approve protection of large areas of land with significant inherent values under a mechanism that has no public input, no public access, can be reversed in the future, and is simply an agreement between a private landowner and a trust. I want to make absolutely clear in this debate the intention of the select committee. We were told that officials would implement this Act in such a way that the use of trusts under the Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust Act would be limited to small, discrete, fenced areas of land that could not reasonably be put in with the rest of the conservation estate.
PETE HODGSON (NZ Labour---Dunedin North): I thank my colleague Jeanette Fitzsimons for some expansion on matters that have been concerning some of us on the Labour side as well. They are to do with the so-called whole-of-property Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust covenants. If the select committee believes that they apply only to small and discrete areas, that raises the question of why, later in the Bill, the Bill does not state that.
Jeanette Fitzsimons has given a useful explanation in suggesting that the check and balance is that the Minister of Conservation---any Minister of Conservation of the day---must sign off pursuant to the purposes under the Act that he or she operates, the Conservation Act.
That surely is a very good safeguard. It perhaps is not readily understood. It was not readily understood by myself, I might say.
What Jeanette Fitzsimons might also have said, but did not, was that leaving the whole-of-property covenants there as an option---that is, by not having the words "small and discrete areas''---allows whole-of-property covenants to be put over land that has not been subject to tenure review and that currently, and in the future, is ordinarily just Crown pastoral land. Indeed, it enables someone to put a whole-of-property covenant over land after it has been freeholded, which would offer it additional protection, one assumes, to the protection that it would receive if it were simply freeholded.
The question arises as to whether it is the intention of the Government---and we will, when we get to that stage of the Bill, invite the Minister of Conservation to get to his feet to specify it---to take an owner's prospects of a whole-of-property covenant into account in the negotiation process. That could be quite a problem. Someone whose land comes up for review could say: "We're going to stick a whole-of-property covenant over the freeholded bit.'', and the Government could say: "That's fine. You can therefore have a larger freeholded bit than you might otherwise have had.'' I think that risk still exists. When the time comes we will need the view of the Minister of Conservation, to ascertain whether the Government sees that risk, and if it does see it, what it intends to do about it.
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour---Whanganui): I am pleased to join the debate this afternoon. First, I acknowledge that this Bill is rather complex. I am sure that word "complex'' will be uttered more than once this afternoon as we proceed through the debate. While the Bill is complex, it is of incredibly long-term importance to New Zealand. It is not just a little Bill that we will debate, then put aside and move on to something else. There are long-term implications contained within this Bill.
As I said in debate in the House a fortnight or so ago, I did not participate in the select committee process. I regret that I was not able to, but we cannot be in three places at once. It has been a very steep learning curve for me. I do not profess for one moment to be an expert on this Bill, but I am certainly pleased to add a small contribution to the debate this afternoon. At this stage I too want to comment briefly about the term "significant inherent value'' in clause 2. The Bill states: " `Significant inherent value', in relation to any land, means inherent value of such importance, nature, quality, or rarity that the land deserves the protection of management under the Reserves Act 1977 or the Conservation Act 1987:''. Jeanette Fitzsimons spoke earlier about these significant values. We need to pay special attention to that term. This Bill refers to huge tracts of land in the South Island. I believe that significant value is attached to all that land, hence the complexity of this debate. The long-term significant value of those particular tracts of land must be accorded at all times, now and into the future. I see nods of acquiescence from members on the other side of the Chamber. Certainly, we will be observing to make sure---and I am sure many people out there from various non-governmental organisations will be watching very, very closely---that that attention is accorded to those lands from now on into the future.
While I acknowledge that considerable consultation and negotiation took place during the lengthy debate over a whole term of Parliament, when this Bill was before the select committee, there still remains some disquiet about some of the trade-offs that had to occur during the negotiation process. I have some concerns that there are some failings still within the Bill. In some respects---
Eric Roy: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think we are debating clause 2. We have had an expression from the other side about the importance of actually doing the business. This speech is getting on to other matters in the Bill.
The CHAIRPERSON (Geoff Braybrooke): I listened very carefully to the honourable member. She slips back now and again to clause 2, but she is lengthening it out into what could be generously described on occasions as a second reading speech. I recognise the enthusiasm of the member, but I would be grateful if she could just stick exactly to clause 2, "Interpretation'', for the next 50 seconds.
JILL PETTIS: Thank you for your generosity, Mr Chairperson. I seek the Chairperson's indulgence. Now that there are only 40 seconds left, I will resume my chair and allow somebody else to speak. I will join the debate later on.
Hon. DENIS MARSHALL (NZ National---Rangitikei): I would like to speak briefly to clause 2. Within clause 2, "Interpretation'', there is one particular interpretation that is controversial. The select committee acknowledged that at the time, and dwelt at some length on the issues surrounding it. I refer to the words "inherent value''. "Inherent value'' is the interpretation applied to words in clause14 that deal with discretionary actions.
I have heard comment from Opposition speakers about their disquiet as to whether the decisions made by the committee with regard to values in this legislation give adequate protection to the land. I must say that the farming community that is affected is concerned about the term "inherent value''. When farmers apply for some discretionary action---some consents---the commissioner, in relation to any land, has to take into account: "(a) A cultural, ecological, historical, recreational, or scientific attribute or characteristic of a natural resource in, on, forming part of, or existing by virtue of the conformation of, the land; or (b) A cultural, historical, recreational, or scientific attribute, or characteristic of a historic place on or forming part of the land:''.
That very, very broad range of criteria must be taken into account. In fairness to the Green movement, which has expressed some disquiet, I think it covers all its concerns. I have no doubt at all that every possible attribute has been considered. The farming community has some justification in feeling some disquiet about this particular interpretation of "inherent value''. Nevertheless, the committee gave it its full consideration. It is happy to stick with it. Quite frankly, I do not think we can do any better than the interpretations in clause 2.
Hon. KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader---ACT NZ): It has just been pointed out that the interpretation clause, clause 2, is critical as it relates to clause 14. Contrary to the previous speaker, I believe that the high-country farmers of this country have, indeed, considerable cause for deep concern with the interpretation as it now appears before the Committee. I believe that the Government has rolled over excessively to the influence of an extremely vociferous and narrowly focused Green lobby. The point I would like to make to this Committee is that it comes back to a property-right issue and a stewardship-rights issue.
We all recognise the sensitive and vulnerable---
The CHAIRPERSON (Geoff Braybrooke): Whilst I am absolutely fascinated with the honourable member's speech, we are only on clause 2, "Interpretation''. This is not a second-reading speech. We have to stick to what is in the Bill. There will be plenty of opportunities when we do the Bill part by part for that speech, which most certainly will be in order then. But at the moment I ask the member to speak, as per the Standing Orders, only to clause 2, "Interpretation''.
Hon. KEN SHIRLEY: I was very mindful of that point. I was responding to the previous speaker. He made the point very clearly that the interpretation with regard to significant values has a direct application on clause 14, which we will come to later.
The point is that those high-country farmers---contrary to the member's comment---do have very just cause for grievance. Indeed, I know they are very aggrieved. I have spoken to them as recently as this morning. They continue to be very aggrieved by the way this interpretation has been skewed. Clause 2 is skewing the context of the Bill. It is very important from the outset of this debate, and to the extent we are taking it part by part, that that point is clearly made in the debate.
For generations the high-country farmers have managed those lands---recognising the sensitive and vulnerable nature of the landscape---in a stewardship role. The implication in the interpretation of "Significant inherent value'' is that somehow---and this is the premise of the Green movement---State control and Government control will do it better.
That comes down to a philosophical point, if one believes inherently that State control and Government control will do it better. I do not believe that. I believe people empowered will do it better. The risk we have is the tragedy of the commons. Indeed the existing evidence is that the Department of Conservation cannot manage the existing land it has.
Eric Roy: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I make the point again that the member has strayed well from clause 2.
The CHAIRPERSON (Geoff Braybrooke): Indeed he has. I was in some hope that the Hon. Ken Shirley would come back to clause 2. He can discuss the matters he has raised in Part 1, and they will most certainly be in order, but until we get to Part 1 as a whole, I must ask him to stick strictly to clause 2, which is one of the few clauses that we will discuss as a clause only. I ask him for the second time to come back and talk about the interpretation. If not, I will have to curtail the member's speech, because if we give licence to one, we have to give it to all.
Hon. KEN SHIRLEY: Clearly the Government members were not enjoying my speech. It is a matter of inherent values. I can only repeat the point that has been made that relates directly to clause 2, "Interpretation'', which creates the framework as it were where subsequent clauses hang and take their effect. We must always refer to what the interpretation is.
I repeat that this Bill has skewed those interpretations, and therefore in any disputes in the future the courts and appeal authorities will look to these interpretations for the guidance of what was the intent and object of this Parliament, and to that extent their findings will be skewed. That is the fear that the high-country farmers have, and it is a very legitimate fear. Overall they support the Bill. They have been waiting a very, very long time for it. It has had a huge gestation period, but right at the outset we must be quite sure that we get---
Eric Roy: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member has again strayed from the point.
The CHAIRPERSON (Geoff Braybrooke): There are but a few seconds to go and, to be fair, the Hon. Ken Shirley has been here long enough. He does throw in an occasional word that is quite relevant. I have been extremely lenient up to now. He has only a few seconds to go, and I hope he will just wrap up his contribution on clause 2.
Hon. KEN SHIRLEY: I thank you yet again, Mr Chairperson. It seems that the discomfort of Mr Roy is greater than I thought. I repeat, in case he was not listening, that clause 2, "Interpretation'', is critical. It is the foundation. I signal here that ACT New Zealand is very concerned about the definition and interpretation of inherent value, because it does lay a foundation for how that interpretation will be viewed in the future.
DAMIEN O'CONNOR (NZ Labour---West Coast - Tasman): I am pleased to follow the former member for Tasman who I know is, or certainly was, renowned for his strong support of the green movement in that neck of the woods.
We are dealing with clause 2, which is a very significant part of the Bill as has been stated before. The definitions were thoroughly canvassed. I have to tell the House that we had an ACT member on the committee. The select committee had the benefit of all the ideas from Mr Owen Jennings, so as members can imagine, we canvassed most of these views very widely. He did raise concerns, as did many submitters, about what "significant inherent value'' might mean when it comes to the interpretation through the tenure review process.
But there were a lot of other definitions, as there are here, such as "reviewable instrument''. We discussed at length whether pastoral occupational licences should be included in the review process.
Eric Roy: Go back to clause 2.
DAMIEN O'CONNOR: If Mr Roy looks at clause 2, I think he will find a definition there relating to "reviewable instrument''. What I am trying to do is to explain to the Chamber some of the arguments and issues that were raised in arriving at what I consider is a very balanced clause. "Significant inherent values'', as explained by a number of people, was widely debated, and there are some concerns about that.
What we should note by its omission, rather than by the fact that it is in the Bill, is that there is no definition of "sustainable management''. I think that many people who originally looked at the Bill will say: "That seems bizarre for a Bill that is clearly designed to ensure sustainable management of the high country.'' Well, that is true, but the select committee looked at this issue at length, and we decided that to be consistent in legislation, we had to go back to the Resource Management Act and see what "sustainable management'' referred to and how it was defined in that Act. The committee decided that it was not appropriate to use "sustainable management'' as a clause or a term in this Bill, or in fact as an objective. We went further than that and defined it very, very clearly. The objective of the Bill now in our words is: "To promote the management of reviewable land in a way that is ecologically sustainable.'' That is quite different, and in fact is a compromise from either end of the spectrum. We believe that it does take into consideration the views and wishes of the farmers and the conservation movement.
After all, this Bill is about ensuring the protection of the high country, and at all times, in every one of the definitions in clause 2, we were very aware that we had to appease the views and certainly come up with a reasonable compromise.
I would just like to finish on that note and say that the Bill is not lacking by its omission of sustainable management as an interpretation. We have dealt with that appropriately, and members will find during further debate on this Bill that we will explain that we believe we have come up with the best solution.
RUTH DYSON (NZ Labour): Like some of my colleagues who have spoken, I had the pleasure of sitting for a little while during the considerable deliberations on this Bill. Although a number of the National Party members have said: "This has taken such a long time, therefore we should try to ram it through the House tonight at the earliest possible opportunity.'', I do not feel like that about a Bill that is primarily quite divisive in some parts. Although there have been attempts at a number of compromises, I do not mind that. I think it is much better to spend longer and take more time on the exact wording of a document and try to get better agreement, rather than having constant win-lose situations. I am not sure that the interpretations in the clause we are currently discussing have reached that stage.
I would like to ask the Minister some specific questions because I do not understand why there is such a lot of difference between the old clause 2 that was struck out, and the new clause 2. There are a number of areas of interpretation that are significantly different so I wonder whether the Minister would mind taking a call to explain that. I am sure it is pretty obvious to him, but I regret that it is not obvious to me. For example, why is the Land Act not referred to at all in new clause 2, "Interpretation'', whereas it was quite specifically mentioned as "the former Act'' in the earlier interpretation clause? I do not quite understand how one can have reference to "the Land Act 1948'' but then not put in the interpretation of clause 2.
I also assume that "grass'' is still given the ordinary interpretation, unless we have some Northland variation on its meaning. In the original clause 2, "Interpretation'', "grass'' included clover and lucerne, but it is not included in the new interpretation clause, so that is a bit of a puzzle to me as well. "Pastoral lease'' has a different interpretation. It is called "pastoral land'' rather than "pastoral lease''. "Pastoral lease'' does not have an interpretation at all under the new clause 2. The definition of easement under "protective mechanism'' has quite a number of omissions. If that was agreed to by the committee and is an improvement, then that is good. But I think when we are looking at progressing the debate on the Bill the least we can do is try to get some clarity about the interpretation, and I certainly do not have that at the moment.
There are a couple of other areas that are quite significantly different, and I do hope that the Minister is able to assist with his view on why those were changed. "Removable improvement'' is another area that was quite specifically outlined in the original clause 2, relating to an occupation licence meaning a building, an enclosure, fencing etc., but the new clause has no such interpretation at all.
The final point I want to make is that if we cannot get understanding of and agreement on the interpretation of the Bill, then it is unlikely that the rest of it will progress either with great speed or with the sort of understanding and support that this type of Bill needs.
It should not be seen, as Mr Shirley indicated, as a win for one sector. What we would like to do is ensure that the values that New Zealanders hold for the sustainable management of our lands are reflected in all our legislation. It does not seem to me that the select committee has been able to get that understanding and support. It is not reflected as clearly as I would like to see in the interpretation, and I certainly hope that the Minister takes his only opportunity for a call on the interpretation part of this debate to clarify those few specific points for me.
Hon. Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Leader---NZ Labour): Clause 2 is a very interesting clause because it shows first of all that the Bill has been changed enormously from the Bill that came into the House, went to the select committee, and has now come back from the select committee. The original interpretation clause is just over a page long. The new clause is something over 5 pages long. Nearly everything that is in the new interpretation clause is not in the original interpretation clause, and nearly everything that is in the original interpretation clause does not appear in the new interpretation clause.
The original clause included the most extraordinary phrase: "the former Act'', referring to an Act that remained in force and was referred to on a number of occasions throughout the Bill itself. I have no idea what was meant by the term "the former Act'' when that was drafted in the original Bill. It clearly was not the former Act; it was the principal Act, in effect, at that point.
Eric Roy: That's why we changed it.
Hon. Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Indeed. I come to some interesting questions that I want to raise with the Minister. I am grateful that the Minister has the capacity---I hope he does---to answer those questions in relation to some cross-fertilisation with other areas of conservation. I note that in the definitions of "cultivation'' and "improvement'', there is some degree of overlap and potential confusion. The definition of "cultivation'' includes drainage and felling bush. The definition of "improvement'' includes draining and clearing bush.
I do not pretend to be an expert in matters agricultural, but I am unclear about the difference between felling bush and clearing it. I assume that I would not normally fell bush as part of cultivation and just leave it there. One would normally be clearing the bush off the land. Presumably cultivation and improvement have different meanings somewhere within the Bill. It seems to me that the definitions include things that are extraordinarily similar in that regard. I think that common language usage would tend to regard felling bush and clearing it as being much the same thing.
In so far as draining and drainage are different, I would have thought that drainage was an improvement of a permanent character, and that draining was a form of cultivation. Draining is something that we do and is not something that is of a permanent character. Drainage is something that is of a permanent character. It is the thing that the draining occurs within---if I might suggest the normal use of the English language yet again. In so far as there is a difference, it seems to me that the meanings are reversed. "Improvement'' ought to include drainage, and "cultivation'' ought to include draining, not the other way round.
So I raise those matters, and I also raise the wisdom of having a very long list of specific improvements, including the rather strange phrase: "clearing of broom, bush, gorse, scrub or sweetbriar;''. There are three specific forms of plants mentioned---broom, gorse, and sweetbriar---and two generic references mentioned---bush and scrub.
There is a fundamental rule of law that once we start listing things, it can be questioned whether if we have not included something, it is covered. I really wonder whether it is wise to go beyond stating "substantial improvement of a permanent character;'' and then to get into a very long and specific list, including water tanks, sheep dips, and other things. Will the committee be satisfied that all possibilities are included in that list, because if---
Pete Hodgson: Like horse races.
Hon. Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Like horse races, etc. Other things should perhaps be in there that may have been left out. Are they meant to be included under the definition of the term "improvement''? A very strong legal case can be made that if they are not in there, then a court may rule that they are not meant to be there by the intention of Parliament. If they are clearly akin to something like a water tank or a sheep dip, but are not listed---
Eric Roy: Read (a), under "improvement''.
Hon. Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, I know, but the problem is that once we start listing, there is a rule of law in that regard. I remind the member of that.
I think that probably Jeanette Fitzsimons and I would have some doubt about whether a reclamation from a swamp should always be regarded as an improvement. It is not true that reclamations from swamps should always be regarded as an improvement---
Pete Hodgson: It's not a reclamation; it's a "clamation''.
Hon. Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Indeed. As the member quite rightly said, it is a "clamation'' in one sense or another. I also finally ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that the definitions of terms like "ecosystem'', "inherent value'', etc., are consistent with the definitions of the same terms used in other conservation-related legislation. If they are not, then it seems to me we have a difficulty in using language in one Bill that is different from that in another Bill when we are covering essentially the same matters for inclusion within the legislation.
The final point I would like to raise is that while I like to see legislation that avoids repetition, it does seem to me that to use the term "pastoral land'' when one means "Crown pastoral land'', creates confusion. It might be better, instead of altering the term in the definitions clause, to keep using the term "Crown pastoral land'' throughout the legislation. To read the Bill and to find the term "pastoral land'' being used in a very general sense, so that one has to keep referring back to that small definitions clause, seems to me to create confusion.
Taking the definition of "reviewable land'', I see that it means land that "(a) Is held under a reviewable instrument; or (b) Is pastoral land not for the time being held under a reviewable instrument.'' When I read it I thought it could not possibly mean that all pastoral land not held under a reviewable instrument was covered by this Bill. An awful lot of pastoral land in this country is not Crown pastoral land. "Pastoral land'' has a very broad, general meaning in agricultural practice. It did seem to me, when reading the Bill, that there were difficulties in that regard.
I come back to the two things that worried me the most, which were whether definitions that were being used were consistent with definitions applied in other related statutes that had the same purpose---if one likes---or covered the same kind of lands and usages. Secondly, I was worried whether particularly the definitions of "cultivation'' and "improvement'' contained some potentially inherent contradictions that might cause difficulty further down the track.
Hon. NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): I just want to respond quickly to the points that were raised by Mr Michael Cullen with regard to the issue of definitions. Firstly, on the issue of the definition of "cultivation'', I say that that is a subset of "improvement''. If the member looks under the definition of "improvement'' he will see that cultivation is a subset of that definition. So it is not surprising that there are elements of the definition of "cultivation'' that are repeated within the definition of "improvement''.
The first point that I would make to the member is that the select committee was unanimous in its recommendations in relation to the changes in these definitions, and I suggest that if he really is serious about wanting to make changes and having concerns about it, he should discuss it with his Labour colleagues who were on the select committee. His caucus colleagues agreed that the proposition for the definitions of these matters was quite appropriate.
Secondly, I point out that this is an amendment to the Land Act of 1948, and it is important that there be some consistency. I think that in relation to the definitions of both "cultivation'' and "improvement'', while we might be able to have some argy-bargy about why they might be defined in this way or that way, the simplest thing in terms of continuation of pastoral leases is that those definitions should substantially be maintained. That is the approach that has been taken by the select committee, and I think it is wise to do so.
JILL WHITE (NZ Labour): It is interesting to hear the Minister's comments on "cultivation'' being a subset of "improvement''---I think that was his explanation. I am not totally sure that that makes it any clearer, but it is useful. What I have found difficult about the Minister's response was his saying that the members of the select committee were unanimous in their findings and that we should talk to our own caucus committee members and everything would be then all right. I thought that that was a totally inadequate response from the Minister.
Of course we can talk to our caucus colleagues, but the Committee stage plays a really important role in any Bill that is being debated. It is at that stage that questions can be asked, and then, hopefully, clarified by the ministerial response. That then becomes part of the written record in relation to this Bill. I would be very reluctant for members to take on any idea that just because something was unanimously agreed to in the select committee, it could not then be questioned during the Committee stage. That would be a dreadful disregard of due process. That is the first point I wished to make in relation to this matter.
I have some questions to ask the Minister as well, and I certainly hope he will not turn around and say to me that I should ask my own caucus colleagues. I want these questions to be part of the record, and I would hope the Minister would give some due considered response to them.
I wish to raise some points in relation to the interpretation of "inherent value'' and the lack of interpretation of sustainable management. First, in relation to "inherent value'' I ask whether this interpretation is used anywhere else. Looking at the parts that have been struck out or have been recommended to be struck out by the select committee, it appears that this is part of the Bill that was significantly changed. In the original Bill, "inherent values'' means "(a) Its natural resources (within the meaning of the Conservation Act 1987); and (b) Its recreational, cultural, and historical values:''.
That has been considerably changed in the recommendation from the select committee. In new clause 2 it is stated: '` `Inherent value', in relation to any land, means a value arising from---(a) A cultural, ecological, historical, recreational, or scientific attribute or characteristic of a natural resource in, on, forming part of, or existing by virtue of the conformation of, the land; or ...'' . It goes on to (b), but I am not going to read any more. I think I have read enough to illustrate that there are considerable differences between that which has been struck out and that which is recommended to be incorporated into the Bill.
What interests me here is that the explanatory note states that the term "inherent values'' is quite different from "intrinsic values''. The term "inherent values'' is like the word "amenity''. It is an expression that everybody knows what it means to them, but that people find it incredibly difficult to explain, particularly when writing it down. One of the important things about a term like "inherent value'' or "amenity value'' is that what is excluded is as important as what is included in the definition. I would like the Minister to give due consideration to that point and to respond to it.
We come to the question of another term, "sustainable management'', that is used---or perhaps it is more correct to say it has not been used, because the wording in the original Bill in relation to this term has been changed. Clause 20(a) now states: "(i) Promote the management of reviewable land in a way that is ecologically sustainable:''. I cannot find any interpretation of "ecologically sustainable'' in this interpretation. Does the Minister believe that this creates problems down the track? This is an issue I think he should be prepared to respond to.
DAVID CARTER (Junior Whip---NZ National): I move, That the question be now put.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.
Ayes 70
New Zealand National 44;
New Zealand First 17;
ACT New Zealand 7;
United New Zealand 1;
Independent 1.
Noes 49
Labour 37;
Alliance 12.
Majority for: 21
Motion agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
New clause 2A. Act binds the Crown
The CHAIRPERSON (Geoff Braybrooke) put the question that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 88 in the name of Hon. John Luxton be agreed to.
New clause 2A agreed to.
Part 1. Pastoral Leases and Occupation Licences
PETE HODGSON (NZ Labour---Dunedin North): I want to turn straight to clause 14---others will talk on the earlier clauses---because I want to pick up the debate about "inherent'' versus "intrinsic''. We have already heard in this House from Denis Marshall that the farming fraternity is concerned about the use of the word "inherent''. We have heard from others that people who have a concern for environmental matters are also concerned about the use of "inherent'', because it is not intrinsic.
We have heard from the deputy leader of the Labour Party Michael Cullen, that if we use words that are similar but different there will be a lot of confusion. Michael Cullen asked whether the word "inherent'' had the same meaning as it does in other legislation, or whether there were different ways of describing things.
The word "inherent'' does not appear in the Resource Management Act---probably the best Act of its nature---but the word "intrinsic'' does. It is defined, and the definition is related strictly to ecosystems, or aspects of ecosystems. So it is a flora and fauna, air, water and soil type definition, and that is all, whereas inherent values include values of history, recreation, culture, and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh. So it is a much broader definition, yet it includes the flora and fauna type definitions.
The scene is now set for a debate of mammoth proportions, because those from an environmental perspective will say: "Inherent values are being applied to the flora and fauna of the land.'' No Parliament in its right mind would, in the same decade, pass one set of protections for one lot of flora and fauna defined by "intrinsic'' values, and then later apply another set of protections that are defined as "inherent'' values. The environmental lobby would argue, therefore, that there would need to be some similarity between the current use of the intrinsic values clause in the Resource Management Act and it being pushed across and used in the Crown pastoral lease legislation.
The runholders would say: "That'll be the day. That means you are going to accord some member of our flora and fauna that might be endangered, or similar, the same level of protection that is accorded a gold mine. That is bizarre.'' And so it is. The way around it is to distinguish between inherent and intrinsic. The place to do it is in clause 14. The way to do it is to change the word "inherent'' where it appears for the second time in paragraph (a) of clause 14(2) to the word "intrinsic''. That would get us around the problem, from both sides.
We would have a cascade, admittedly of only two levels, of protection. We would protect the intrinsic values of the flora and fauna and the inherent values of other things, such as the land itself other than its recreational value.
I remind the Minister what the definition of "inherent values'' includes. It is all the cultural, ecological, historical, recreational, and scientific attributes or characteristics. I am simply saying that the word "ecological'' be taken out and the word "intrinsic'' ascribed so that it is consistent with the Resource Management Act. It will give the landholders the view that something that is part of the natural flora and fauna will be accorded a higher level of protection but, equally, something that is not part of that will be accorded a lower level of protection.
It would be inferred, I think, that intrinsic values would have a higher test placed on them than inherent values. If that differentiation is not made, then there will be a running debate. I think that is serious, indeed.
The other point I want to make about clause 14 is this: if clause 14 proves anything, it is that we must get on with high-country tenure review. If members do not mind me being blunt, a large part of this is to do with burning tussock, which has been a discretionary activity for some time the scientific debate on which has raged for about 110 years. We are now writing into our law that the commissioner must, on the one hand, take into account the desirability of protecting inherent values and, on the other hand, the desirability of "making it easier to use the land for farming''.
What is a commissioner to do with that? What is the commissioner to do when being told on the one hand to allow it so the land can be farmed, and on the other hand disallow it so that inherent values can be protected? It really is a muddle. It really is a dollar each way. It is the opposite of the Resource Management Act, in which a series of things were set out as being matters of national importance, then other matters of importance were listed, and so on. Instead of having a hierarchy, we have a balancing act that no reasonable person can meet.
So we must get on and do the sorting out of what can be burnt and what cannot, by changing the ownership on the one hand from leasehold to Crown ownership in the Department of Conservation, and on the other hand from leasehold to private ownership. The nonsense in clause 14 can then be done away with, with the passage of history.
There is one other matter. Nothing in this Bill, now or in the future, renders tenure review compulsory. If the runholder cannot strike a deal, the runholder has nothing with which he or she may trade and no trade will take place. That means we are likely to end up with this muddle in the middle for many decades to come.
I am sorry that the select committee has seen fit not to put an end date on this, maybe 20 years hence, so that between now and then everyone had to go through that review process, and, if they did not, they would be compulsorily reviewed. I am sorry that has not happened. It seems to me that we will need to revisit it.
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (The Alliance): I draw the attention of the Committee to what clauses 5, 6, and 7 do to the rents paid by high-country lessees to the Crown---that is, nothing. Ever since Crown pastoral tenure was established, extremely concessionary rents have been paid by these leaseholders for Crown lands. Once upon a time that was normal across a huge range of activities in New Zealand that were seen as contributing to the economy and to the public good.
Times have changed. State house tenants now pay market rents, and in some cases higher than market rents, across the board. They were not even given a transition time. It was simply dumped on them. The Crown does not now normally subsidise farming or any other economic activity. The rents paid for the pastoral leases are the last great State subsidy to farmers---to a group of people who generically in New Zealand pride themselves on not needing subsidies any longer.
This Bill was the opportunity to do something about that, without taking away any rights that the leaseholders hold under the Land Act. That Act provides for regular rent reviews. This was an opportunity, gradually, over time, with notice, and at the provided-for review period, to bring those rents into line with the market rents that everybody else in New Zealand is expected to pay. It does not do that. I remind the House that the Land Act does not give lessees perpetual rights to low rents. It gives them perpetual rights to renewable leases, but not to the peppercorn rents they have been paying. This Bill cements in place those highly concessionary rents and the farming practices that go with them.
I would like to know where the ACT perk-busters are on this issue, given that they oppose State subsidies to anybody else for anything else. I have not heard ACT members talking about the extremely poor deal the Crown gets out of the rents paid for its land. They do not even amount to enough to cover the administration costs, which of course is the main reason that the Crown---[Interruption] That is the issue. If the Crown is losing money on rents and the farmers are losing money on farming, we really have to ask whether this is a sustainable business activity. That is precisely what the Martin report and many others have asked.
Hon. Ken Shirley: Unpaid stewards.
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS: The member says they are unpaid stewards. I have walked across Crown pastoral leasehold land that is nothing but bare dirt and Hieracium.
Hon. Ken Shirley: That's because of the Department of Conservation rabbits from next door.
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS: Department of Conservation land is a long way away from the land I have walked on, which is bare dirt and Hieracium. The rabbit problem and the Hieracium problem are largely a result of bad land management. That is what people have been trying to correct for a long time.
I do not think it is reasonable that only large landholders in the South Island be exempt from the need to pay market rents, which have now caught lessees in Taranaki. If it is Maori land the rent has gone up. If it is Crown land the rent has not gone up. I think it is unfortunate that we did not take the opportunity to bring that into line with other lessees in New Zealand.
DAMIEN O'CONNOR (NZ Labour---West Coast - Tasman): Jeannette Fitzsimons does raise a very interesting issue. While I was not on the committee for all the time that submissions were heard, it is a glaring omission from the Bill. Perhaps the Minister can take a call and explain to us why we do not have reasonable rent reviews in this process.
I believe that farmers do not want to be the beneficiaries of subsidies any longer. I am sure they are very happy to front up with a realistic rental amount on their leases. But I do say from the select committee's perspective that the objective of our process was to encourage and to facilitate the ongoing tenure review process. I think the existing situation is unsuitable. We were trying to ensure that the goodwill remained in the process, that the Crown would regain control of appropriate land, and that freehold could take the place of the land that was clearly best utilised for production.
None the less, if the pastoral leases are to continue until the tenure review process is completed, it is only fair that those farmers should pay a reasonable rental on this land. Those lessees on Maori land are having to face that reality. I believe that the high-country lessees should also do that. I am sure that the Minister can get some advice and perhaps explain why we did overlook that; and maybe the chair of the committee would like to explain to us why that has been so.
I will just go through the clauses. We are debating this in a part by part way, and I think it is important that we go through it systematically. I go back to clause 3. What was attempted here through the select committee process was a determination that the Crown or its agents should set the stocking limitations on this land. That is a very, very difficult thing to do. Our conclusion in the Bill as it is now basically states that there should be some control over levels without setting specified limits in legislation.
The commissioner, hopefully, will have all the wisdom, knowledge, and expertise to set reasonable stocking levels that will protect the environment, make for sustainable farming, and make it viable for people to go on and manage the land in a profitable and sustainable way in terms of environmental values.
Clause 8 is another clause that a few issues arose around. This is a new provision that makes it clear that expired pastoral leases can be renewed only if at the time of the expiry the commissioner and the lessee have agreed that the lease be renewed. There is no obligation on the Crown to renew the leases. It has to be in agreement. That is in keeping with the spirit of the Bill, and I think we have moved a long way. It is effectively removing the right of perpetuity, and hopefully encouraging tenure review that will put the land in the appropriate allocations.
We go on to pastoral occupation licences in clauses 10 and 11. There was great debate about whether these should continue. In conclusion, I believe that we said they are a useful tool in the ongoing process of tenure review; that to wipe them out, as some of the conservation and recreational groups wanted to do, would have been very unfair. It would have left some problems in how the land, in limbo, if one likes, should be managed. Should it be for utilisation by farmers or by anyone else who had a better idea for that land, or should they be renewed and then the decision made either to freehold or to place that land in the conservation estate?
ERIC ROY (NZ National): I pick up a couple of the points that have been made in the debate on this part to date. The first one relates to the points made by Mr Pete Hodgson with regard to inherent versus intrinsic. It should be recorded here that ''inherent'' refers to the Crown's ownership of aspects. It is not pertinent to make comparisons to the Resource Management Act when we are talking about the impact of discharge of air and water, or whatever, and the impact that would have on the intrinsic values of the environment. They are two succinctly different things. I do not believe that we are releasing a debate at all in the future because it is distinctly different in that respect.
This is simply a method of identifying the inherent values, the Crown's ownership---quite specifically spelt out in the interpretation clause---that we spent about an hour debating just a little earlier. That is the first point.
The second point is the one just raised by Jeanette Fitzsimons with regard to the select committee, or the Bill, overlooking the prerogative of sorting out a market value rental. I have to say firstly that is outside the scope of the Bill. This is simply a means of facilitating a tenure review.
I will just make these comments as well. The member might well say: '`Yes, it fits in the broad gambit.'' But I do not know that market back-rentals are not being paid, and the member may have some evidence to suggest that. Can I just point out to the Committee that a substantial proportion of these properties are for sale in the South Island, and at least a third of them are for sale for a sum that is probably less, in many cases substantially less, than the capital value of those particular properties. I think there is a fairly justifiable case to argue, that these runholders are paying a market rental. The fact that no buyers can be found for the properties, I think, proves the point that they are actually paying a market rental. Otherwise, if this was some golden opportunity there would be a rush of people in there to purchase them. I do not accept the premise that they are paying less than market rental.
It is very easy to be a wee bit frank at this stage and say these people are getting some kind of subsidy through that. The truth of the matter is that a number of these runholders are seeking to exit and there is an absence of people wanting to purchase. I say to that member that would indicate to me that maybe more than market value is being paid in terms of a rental.
It is a harsh environment. It is a difficult environment. It has a number of requirements that are quite difficult to manage in terms of public access and a whole range of environmental issues, which substantially impact upon the ability to generate capital. So therefore it may well be a case that the actual rental that is being struck is substantially beyond the market value, if one takes into consideration all of the issues that surround that particular setting of rentals and the viability of those enterprises.
Hon. KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader---ACT NZ): Could I commence by substantially agreeing with the previous member. I think he made some very good points there. The market has clearly determined the fact that there are people who would like to quit those licences, and that there are no takers does spell it out. To that extent I think it can be said that some of those South Island high-country farmers are at the moment unpaid stewards of the land. We can debate the degree of stewardship but to a large extent they are performing that role.
As I outlined in the earlier debate on clause 2. '`Interpretation'', ACT New Zealand has deep concern with clause 14. We know that the Land Act required the pastoral lessee to obtain the commissioner's consent prior to undertaking certain land-use activity, such as burning and soil disturbance. Under the Land Act the commissioner, when exercising his discretion to grant such consent, could take into account only water and soil values and matters of good husbandry.
Apart from these issues of discretionary consent, the pastoral lessees had the exclusive right of pasturage. Clause 14 of the Bill before us requires the commissioner to take into account the desirability of protecting inherent values---that is, conservation values---when exercising a discretionary consent. That alters the terms of those pastoral leases and to that extent it is intruding on prevailing property rights. It should be of concern to this House when the Crown uses its might to intrude and prevail and change existing property rights.
But the real issue is this. An attempt has been made in the drafting of clause 14. It has taken a number of years and a lot of effort to strike this balance. We have subclause (a) and subclause (b). We find that clause 14(2)(a) is quite clear with regard to the conservation values. It states: '`(a) The desirability of protecting the inherent values of the land concerned (other than attributes and characteristics of a recreational value only), and in particular the inherent values of indigenous plants and animals, and natural ecosystems and landscapes;''.
Subclause (b) introduces balance in respect of farmers' rights, and states: '`(b) The desirability of making it easier to use the land concerned for farming purposes.'', but it is hopelessly inadequate and hopelessly skewed. It is a very, very inadequate subclause. Subclause (a) is clearly worded but unfortunately the balancing clause, subclause (b), which is intended to protect farmers' interests, is poorly worded. I have to ask whether that is deliberately so.
Is the Minister using the great footprint of the State to skew the scrum? It also misses the point. This is not about ease of use of the land but rather about achieving sustainable management and better utilising the full productive value of the land.
To that extent I have tabled an amendment that essentially strikes out subclause (b) of clause 14(2) and substitutes the following subclause: '`(b) The desirability of the lessee or licensee of the land concerned achieving sustainable management of all of the land of the lessee or licensee and in a manner which realises the productive value of the land concerned for farming purposes.''
That wording would spell it out quite clearly. It would ensure that we have the balance that was intended and was sought. But if we leave the clause unchanged then clearly the scrum is skewed. The farmers of the South Island high country could be very aggrieved if we do not adopt the amendment that I have tabled. That is my urging of the Committee of the whole House.
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour---Whanganui): I want to talk about clauses 5 to 7, which relate to rentals payable. Given the rather significant increase---and some may say major increase---in rights accorded to lessees, I find it rather surprising that the rental does not automatically rise also. I mention this because I think it signifies a certain inconsistency in the Government's policy in relation to other policies that impact upon the social conditions of all New Zealanders---whether they are lessees of Crown pastoral land or live in urban areas.
The points raised by other speakers about the level of rentals paid are quite significant, and, therefore, these clauses are worthy of debate.
If the market determines the setting of State house rents why is that principle not applied to the Bill? I feel a personal involvement in this, given that my own Bill to bring social responsibility into housing was voted down. Yet we have another sector of our broader New Zealand community---
The CHAIRPERSON (Geoff Braybrooke): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Could we please stop all this discussion in the centre of the chamber. It is like Piccadilly Circus on a half-pay night. I want to listen to the honourable member, and not hear the hum of conversation of other members. If they wish to have a discussion they should please go out to the lobbies.
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour---Whanganui): I look forward to the Minister responding to issues about rentals payable that were raised by other members. If the Government is so determined to take subsidies away from everything else, why does it continue to subsidise the 340-odd remaining pastoral leases? Surely, consistency alone requires that these peppercorn rentals of one-third to one-quarter of Department of Conservation and other market rentals be substantially increased, given that current rentals average only about 40c per hectare.
I listened to and acknowledge the argument put forward by Mr Shirley from the ACT party, that the land is so marginal that 40c per hectare is all that the market would attract. I have to say that this is a huge inconsistency to the ACT party's normal position on things to do with the economy, because subsidies are anathema to those who are so far right of the political spectrum that they make Genghis Khan look like a liberal! I am particularly keen to hear what Mr Shirley has to say about that. I know that we cannot request that the ACT party answer questions but I would be interested in hearing what he has to say.
I do know that the land is particularly fragile in the area of New Zealand we are discussing, because I have visited it and I have a visit planned in the next fortnight to go and look at the high country of the South Island.
Given the poor nature of the land, and the fact that lessees do have to hold huge tracts of land to try to make what is sometimes a very poor living out of the land, one has to ask whether this land should be farmed in the first place. I suspect that farming is not the best use of this land, given that when I visited the Mackenzie Country earlier this year it was indeed grey. It was not green; it was grey. So in the long-term interests of New Zealand---
Hon. Ken Shirley: So is the Hawke's Bay.
JILL PETTIS: I say in response to the ACT member that the land in the Hawke's Bay is grey for only 2 or 3 months of the year. The land we are talking about is grey for the vast majority of the year. So in the broader long-term interests of New Zealand one has to ask whether farming is the best use of this land.
I now refer to clause 14, which is a very topical clause.
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (The Alliance): There is no doubt that clause 14 is the most contentious clause in Part 1, and I would like to reply to some of the things that Ken Shirley said a few minutes ago.
The property rights of the Crown, which owns the land, and the lessees who lease it are absolutely clear under the Land Act. The Crown retains ownership of the land; the lessee leases the right to pasture animals on the vegetation. It is clear under the Land Act that the lessee had to apply for permission to do anything other than that---and there are a long list of activities that require permission. So for the Crown to take into account in the 1990s some values that were not widely recognised in the 1940s, when deciding how to exercise its ownership rights and what things it will give permission for, clearly does not reduce the statutory rights of the lessees at all. The Crown is absolutely within its rights to decide that in the 1990s it is appropriate to take into account the conservation values of the land, even though those things were not widely considered in the 1940s.
The Martin report has made it clear that the sustainability of this land is very much in question. The Land Act allowed the question of soil and water to be taken into account, but not the inherent values of living organisms and conservation values. The intention of clause 14 clearly is to extend the matters that the Commissioner of Crown Lands could consider when granting those consents. Given what the Martin report found about the degradation of much of this country, in my view ecological sustainability and the damage to conservation values should have been the bottom line when the commissioner gave his consent. The problem is not that the balance is skewed. The problem is that it is not skewed and it ought to be skewed. In fact, the ecological bottom line ought to come before the convenience of the farmer; otherwise, there will be nothing to farm in the long term. But the clause does not set an ecological bottom line or a conservation bottom line. It requires the commissioner to balance the conservation values against making it easier to use the land for farming. The commissioner will have a very difficult job to implement this clause. I believe that there should have been a hierarchy in clause 14, and I am sorry that there is not.
I remind the House that in terms of the arguments that sometimes take place between the values of farmers or of productive industry of whatever kind, and the values that conservationists put forward, we are not talking about balancing the views, the preferences, and the rights of environmentalists against the views, the preferences, and the rights of farmers; we are actually talking about the survival of the land itself, of the conservation values of that land, and of species that we hope will be there in the long term. It is not a balancing of one section of society against another section of society. It is a balancing of the long-term productivity and biodiversity of our land against the desire of a group of people, right now, at this moment in time, to make some money. That is fine, except they have to do it within the conditions that should be set.
Hon. NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): I want to respond briefly to some of the more intelligent contributions that have been made in the Committee stage.
Firstly, I want to respond to the point raised by Mr Pete Hodgson in relation to clause 14 about whether '`inherent value'' or '`intrinsic value'' is better terminology for describing those things. It is not just a matter of words; it is a matter of consistency of legislation. Within the Resource Management Act the term '`intrinsic value'' is used. The member argued that the word '`intrinsic'' might better describe what is desired in clause 14. The difficulty is that the provisions that are required in terms of the balancing act actually extend beyond things that are intrinsic. We have two choices: either to have an inadequate definition for the purposes of this legislation, or, alternatively, to have one definition of '`intrinsic'' in the Resource Management Act and a different definition of '`intrinsic' in this legislation. The Primary Production Committee quite correctly decided that while '`intrinsic'' might be the more appropriate word, the easier thing to do to avoid that conflict was to use the term '`inherent''. I think that is a sensible approach.
It has been interesting to note the debate between the Alliance and the ACT party on the principle of property rights. On the one hand we have the ACT party beating the drum as though the property rights of the pastoral leaseholder are absolute, and ignoring the fact that the land is still Crown owned. Yes, the pastoral leaseholder has a perpetual right, and that needs to be recognised, but the land remains Crown land. On the other hand, and to the other extreme---and that perhaps is not surprising, when people are sticking to their positions philosophically---Alliance members overlook that very real right that the pastoral leaseholder has, and want to skew the provisions in clause 14 so far in favour of the Crown that I think one could run a legitimate argument that the Crown was taking away particular rights from that pastoral leaseholder without compensation. Clause 14 attempts to strike that balance.
It is somewhat ironic that when I first got to know the ACT member Ken Shirley in politics he had long hair and he was a radical '`greenie''. He has come a very, very long way and has converted to the other end of the extreme. Perhaps it is age or something that has changed Mr Shirley's perspective on life, but he is a long way from his days at university in terms of being green and having long hair. Mr Shirley has an amendment that he thinks will provide better balance in clause 14(2).
Clause 14(2) tries to provide the Commissioner of Crown Lands with some guidance from Parliament in trying to weigh up the ecological values of this land and the need to protect it, with the legitimate right of the pastoral leaseholder to get on with his or her business of farming. I think the balance that has been struck is pretty good. Effectively, it states that if activities on the land enable the land to be easily used for farming purposes, and do not compromise the ecological values, then that is fine. But if they do compromise them, then we get into the weighing exercise.
I am doubtful that the amendment put forward by the ACT member takes the farmers' case forward a whole lot. While new clause 14 clearly sets out that it is about weighing up protection vis-a-vis use as a farm, the amendment in the name of Mr Shirley starts winding into the whole principle of sustainable management. I think it takes the balance away. It makes the case for the farmer harder, in that rather than being quite explicit---farm use versus ecological protection---he starts watering down farm use with some principles of sustainable management. I think that is unnecessary, confusing, does nothing for farmers, and adds only further uncertainty. It is true that clause 14 provides something of a balance for the Commissioner of Crown Lands, but I think it is better to be quite explicit about the two factors that he needs to balance, rather than confuse the issue with the very wordy version proposed by the member.
It is equally so with the debate about the payment of rentals. Some members have said, hang on a moment, these farmers are the same as a State house tenant. The point not recognised by Opposition members is that these farmers have a perpetual right under specific provisions currently covered in the Land Act. One starts to draw a very difficult picture when one starts messing around with the rental arrangements of somebody who has a perpetual right. A State house tenant does not have a perpetual right, nor do we provide a subsidy to the farmers paying this rent in the same way that we do for State house tenants through the accommodation supplement. Again, in terms of the balance that is provided, the ACT party says that we are being far too tough, and the Alliance and Labour say that we are being far too soft. I believe that the Bill currently before the House provides a fair balance in terms of the interests of the Crown and the interests of the pastoral leaseholders.
Hon. NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): I want to respond briefly to some of the more intelligent contributions that have been made in the Committee stage.
Firstly, I want to respond to the point raised by Mr Pete Hodgson in relation to clause 14 about whether '`inherent value'' or '`intrinsic value'' is better terminology for describing those things. It is not just a matter of words; it is a matter of consistency of legislation. Within the Resource Management Act the term '`intrinsic value'' is used. The member argued that the word '`intrinsic'' might better describe what is desired in clause 14. The difficulty is that the provisions that are required in terms of the balancing act actually extend beyond things that are intrinsic. We have two choices: either to have an inadequate definition for the purposes of this legislation, or, alternatively, to have one definition of '`intrinsic'' in the Resource Management Act and a different definition of '`intrinsic' in this legislation. The Primary Production Committee quite correctly decided that while '`intrinsic'' might be the more appropriate word, the easier thing to do to avoid that conflict was to use the term '`inherent''. I think that is a sensible approach.
It has been interesting to note the debate between the Alliance and the ACT party on the principle of property rights. On the one hand we have the ACT party beating the drum as though the property rights of the pastoral leaseholder are absolute, and ignoring the fact that the land is still Crown owned. Yes, the pastoral leaseholder has a perpetual right, and that needs to be recognised, but the land remains Crown land. On the other hand, and to the other extreme---and that perhaps is not surprising, when people are sticking to their positions philosophically---Alliance members overlook that very real right that the pastoral leaseholder has, and want to skew the provisions in clause 14 so far in favour of the Crown that I think one could run a legitimate argument that the Crown was taking away particular rights from that pastoral leaseholder without compensation. Clause 14 attempts to strike that balance.
It is somewhat ironic that when I first got to know the ACT member Ken Shirley in politics he had long hair and he was a radical '`greenie''. He has come a very, very long way and has converted to the other end of the extreme. Perhaps it is age or something that has changed Mr Shirley's perspective on life, but he is a long way from his days at university in terms of being green and having long hair. Mr Shirley has an amendment that he thinks will provide better balance in clause 14(2).
Clause 14(2) tries to provide the Commissioner of Crown Lands with some guidance from Parliament in trying to weigh up the ecological values of this land and the need to protect it, with the legitimate right of the pastoral leaseholder to get on with his or her business of farming. I think the balance that has been struck is pretty good.
Effectively, it states that if activities on the land enable the land to be easily used for farming purposes, and do not compromise the ecological values, then that is fine. But if they do compromise them, then we get into the weighing exercise.
I am doubtful that the amendment put forward by the ACT member takes the farmers' case forward a whole lot. While new clause 14 clearly sets out that it is about weighing up protection vis-a-vis use as a farm, the amendment in the name of Mr Shirley starts winding into the whole principle of sustainable management. I think it takes the balance away. It makes the case for the farmer harder, in that rather than being quite explicit---farm use versus ecological protection---he starts watering down farm use with some principles of sustainable management. I think that is unnecessary, confusing, does nothing for farmers, and adds only further uncertainty. It is true that clause 14 provides something of a balance for the Commissioner of Crown Lands, but I think it is better to be quite explicit about the two factors that he needs to balance, rather than confuse the issue with the very wordy version proposed by the member.
It is equally so with the debate about the payment of rentals. Some members have said, hang on a moment, these farmers are the same as a State house tenant. The point not recognised by Opposition members is that these farmers have a perpetual right under specific provisions currently covered in the Land Act. One starts to draw a very difficult picture when one starts messing around with the rental arrangements of somebody who has a perpetual right. A State house tenant does not have a perpetual right, nor do we provide a subsidy to the farmers paying this rent in the same way that we do for State house tenants through the accommodation supplement. Again, in terms of the balance that is provided, the ACT party says that we are being far too tough, and the Alliance and Labour say that we are being far too soft. I believe that the Bill currently before the House provides a fair balance in terms of the interests of the Crown and the interests of the pastoral leaseholders.
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour---Whanganui): I genuinely do not want to be provocative, but the Minister of Conservation just talked about perpetual rights and land being held in perpetuity. What about the Maori Reserved Land Amendment Bill, which recently went through the House with great trauma?
Hon. Nick Smith: We paid compensation!
JILL PETTIS: I genuinely do not want to be provocative, but I believe that there is a huge inconsistency in having this right to lease in perpetuity, when we have just been through a traumatic period for a lot of people on both sides of the lessee and lessor issue. Here we are doing a very similar thing in the South Island. No wonder this place falls into disrepute occasionally. If I did not have Irish ancestry and a great deal of affection for my Irish ancestors, I would say that there was something Irish about it.
To go back to clause 14, significant responsibility will be placed on the Commissioner of Crown Lands as a consequence of this clause.
The requirement for the commissioner to take into account the desirability of protecting inherent values has virtually been nullified by the other requirement to take into account the desirability of making it easier to use the land for farming purposes, which is in paragraph (b) in clause 14(2).
Hon. Nick Smith: Would the member take paragraph (b) out?
JILL PETTIS: I am talking about the inconsistency, and how we will have to rely very, very heavily on the Commissioner of Crown Lands because paragraph (b) talks about the desirability of making it easier to farm the land. When I spoke earlier I asked whether farming was the best use of this land given the fragility of it. The commissioner is now required to undertake what is almost an impossible balancing act when considering applications to burn or clear vegetation, or any other discretionary consents. The commissioner must take into account both the desirability of protecting those special inherent values and the desirability of making it easier to farm the land. No real, clear criteria are given to guide this decision-making process, and no priority is given to the protection of those special inherent values.
I want to refer briefly to the Martin report. I believe that it is a very useful report because in connection with clause 14 it states: '`Our philosophy''---being the people of New Zealand's philosophy---'`for the sustainable use of the high country is that long-term ecological considerations must take precedence over social and economic needs.'' One has to question whether long-term ecological considerations are being seriously considered in respect of paragraph (b) of clause 14(2). Given that the leases are already established as being for pastoral purposes, it is rather difficult to understand why the Bill has this additional requirement to promote farm development. Recognition of indigenous flora and fauna and the inherent values should be given priority by the Commissioner of Crown Lands in any application for a discretionary consent to prevent further loss and depletion of indigenous vegetation. I commend the Martin report. I draw the Government's attention to the very simple recommendations contained in it that were written some years ago.
GAVAN HERLIHY (NZ National---Otago): As a Crown pastoral lessee and one of the 340 people referred to in this Bill, for once I find myself agreeing with Mr Shirley, who referred to the lessees as being unpaid stewards of the high country.
I find it quite incredible that there are such totally divergent views within the Labour Opposition on one particular aspect within Part 1. I agree with Damien O'Connor that there is no obligation to review in this Bill. That is totally at odds with Pete Hodgson, who is critical of Part 1 in that nothing in it makes review compulsory. That is correct, and neither should there be. To do otherwise would be a gross abuse of property rights. The perpetual right of renewal leases remain. While that is divergent from the views of the non-governmental organisations, the Primary Production Committee studied it very carefully. It would have been a gross abuse of property rights to extinguish that perpetual right of renewal.
Part 2, which we will deal with this evening, looks at making the tenure review process a more amenable one. If a win-win situation cannot be achieved it is most important, in terms of the Crown pastoral lessees that remain, to aid their stewardship of this land. Clause 14 is most important in this respect. Currently, the lessees require the approval of the Commissioner of Crown Lands, under the Land Act, in terms of soil and water values. The inherent values that we have introduced in this Bill broaden that scope, but that reflects society's changing values, and it is the Crown's responsibility as the ultimate owner to recognise those.
We have a balance. I disagree with Mr Shirley's comments that clause 14 does not provide a balance. I totally disagree with Jeanette Fitzsimons that the environmental values should come before the farming values. We have got the balance right. The commissioner, who has always done the job in the past, will continue to do that.
RUTH DYSON (NZ Labour): I want to be generous to the Primary Production Committee and the Minister of Conservation and say that, from their contributions tonight, I believe that they really do think the public will understand what clause 14 means. In fact the Minister was very clear when he said that the desirability of making it easier to use the land concerned for farming purposes, which is stated in clause 14(2)(b), would be determined on the basis of taking into consideration protection of the inherent values of the land concerned. I do believe that is what the Minister wants this clause to say. I think that is probably what the select committee members feel, because they have all said that. They have all said: '`We've got the balance right. Of course we don't want to destroy the natural environment. Of course we want to protect the inherent values of the land.'' The difficulty I have is that is not what the Bill says.
I think that, as the select committee process went on for so long, its members talked about this issue amongst themselves, heard the submissions, knew where they were headed, and said: '`Yes, of course, we all understand that.'' But it has not been reflected as clearly as I would like to see or, in my view, as clearly as the public needs to have it reflected. I think it is disappointing that those members have become a bit overwhelmed with their own work, so to speak. I have heard the National members---
Eric Roy: That is cruel.
RUTH DYSON: No, I am being quite genuine, actually. I do think those members think the clause says something quite different. Unfortunately, the position of Parliament has ended up being really unclear, and legislation should not be like that. Legislation on these sorts of issues requires some leadership, and I would like the Minister to take up, just once, a leadership position in this type of legislation. I do not think the clause is clear enough or good enough. The select committee and the Minister might think they know what it means, but it is certainly not obvious.
This clause is a really backwards step in determining our land use. It is the sort of thing that got chucked out when the Town and Country Planning Act was repealed---look at this on the one hand, and look at that on the other hand. Instead we have been moving towards a clear definition of values from Parliament. In my view, this clause takes a backwards step. It puts the Commissioner of Crown Lands in an impossible position. The commissioner has to look at the desirability of protecting inherent values, then to weigh up the desirability of making the land easier to farm. Where is the guidance on that balance? Where are the criteria on which the commissioner should base that decision-making process? Perhaps some of the key deliberative points from the select committee should be put into the Bill, because that is the only way that the commissioner will get any guidance from Parliament.
That is a very weak approach to take. It is certainly not nearly as crazy as the approach that the ACT member wants to take. I agree absolutely with the National members of Parliament that that approach is very silly. We have to recognise as a Parliament that when it comes to moving towards use of the land for farming, there are some negative impacts. The balance of those negative impacts and our determination of the weight of the inherent values of the land concerned are not outlined in this clause. We are abdicating to the commissioner our responsibility and the leadership role that should be taken in legislation, by not providing any criteria or guidelines at all for the decision-making process in weighing up those two key aspects---the protection of the inherent values of the land and the desirability of the land being used for farming.
I do not think that is a proper thing for Parliament to do. We are giving the commissioner a huge responsibility without any guidelines.
In my view, it will be challenged through the court process, and that will be very unhelpful. It is not a good idea for Parliament to be handing over to a commissioner, and, eventually, a court, what is properly our right to determine the interpretation of our laws. We should be much clearer about that. It might take longer, it might be a slower process, but it is our responsibility to take up that leadership role.
Hon. DENIS MARSHALL (NZ National---Rangitikei): I move, That the question be now put.
The CHAIRPERSON (Ian Revell): The Committee, which has been debating this part for about 50 minutes or so, is probably in a position to determine whether it is ready---
Damien O'Connor: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson---
The CHAIRPERSON (Ian Revell): I am on my feet at the present time. The Committee is probably in a position to determine whether it is ready to vote on this issue. I will not hear a point of order about it because it is purely at the Chairperson's discretion. However, I will take a point of order on a procedural or other technical matter if the member wishes to raise one.
DAMIEN O'CONNOR (NZ Labour---West Coast - Tasman): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson, relating to the wide range of issues we are trying to address here. We have had only one call. I just wish to take one short call.
The CHAIRPERSON (Ian Revell): I have observed the length of debate that has occurred and I have listened carefully to the debate. I am satisfied that the Committee is in a position to determine whether it wants to decide on the part.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.
Ayes 70
New Zealand National 44;
New Zealand First 17;
ACT New Zealand 7;
United New Zealand 1;
Independent 1.
Noes 49
Labour 37;
Alliance 12.
Majority for: 21
Motion agreed to.
The CHAIRPERSON (Ian Revell) put the question that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 88 in the name of the Hon. John Luxton to Part 1 be agreed to. Amendments agreed to.
The CHAIRPERSON (Ian Revell) put the question that the following amendment in the name of Hon. Ken Shirley to clause 14 be agreed to:
to omit paragraph (b) of clause 14(2) and substitute the following new paragraph: (b) The desirability of the lessee or licensee of the land concerned achieving sustainable management of all of the land of the lessee or licensee and in a manner which realises the productive value of the land concerned for farming purposes ("sustainable management'' having the meaning given by section 5 of the Resource Management Act 1991 to it).
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 7
ACT New Zealand 7.
Noes 112
New Zealand National 44;
Labour 37; New Zealand First 17;
Alliance 12;
United New Zealand 1;
Independent 1.
Majority against: 105
Amendment negatived, and Part 1 as amended by Supplementary Order Paper 88 agreed to.
Part 2. Tenure Reviews
Progress reported.
Sitting suspended from 5.56 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Continuation of Committee Debate
'Hansard', 28 May 1998
In Committee
Debate resumed from 27 May.
Part 2. Tenure Reviews ( continued)
DAMIEN O'CONNOR (NZ Labour---West Coast - Tasman): It is pleasing to know that we will be able to go very carefully through this Bill today and, probably, after the recess, in the next sitting. I think it warrants the kind of scrutiny we are giving it. We are now dealing with Part 2, and I want to talk about clause 20, which is probably the most significant clause of the Bill. It was the focus for much of the philosophical debate that surrounded this Bill, and it was very important for the Primary Production Committee to get the wording absolutely right. As has been said before, there are basically three major interest groups: conservationists; recreationists; and those who have utilised the land in the past and those who see in the future new possibilities for utilising it, following the passage of this Bill.
I would like to talk about clause 20 as it was originally proposed. It raised the largest number of submissions of any clause. I am not sure what the number was, but I have a substantial synopsis of the submissions. It is an example of the work that the committee had to do. The original clause 20 proposed that the primary objects of the tenure reviews would be: "(a) To promote the sustainable management of reviewable land; and (b) Subject to paragraph (a) of this section, to facilitate---(i) The restoration to full Crown ownership and control of reviewable land that has high inherent values; and (ii) The freehold disposal of reviewable land...; and (iii) The creation of appropriate public rights of access''. Every one of those words was scrutinised.
There was great debate. Conservationists said that the provision did not put conservation as the No. 1 priority as it should. The farmers said that their property rights were being undermined, and that the objects of the Bill clearly were to facilitate economic use. The recreationists said that their right of access was being put down in ranking, and should be right at the top.
The select committee dealt with this clause at length, and I think we came up with a fair and balanced solution, but I am sure my colleagues will have questions about the wording of it. I am sure the Minister can answer them in this debate today. The committee decided that paragraph (a) should read: "(a) To---(i) Promote the management of reviewable land in a way that is ecologically sustainable:''. The committee thought that wording truly reflected the balanced approach that this Bill takes to tenure review, to protection of the high country, and to having a balance of priorities. There was, obviously, debate about whether economic use should have greater priority over the conservation and protection of intrinsic values. The Minister will, no doubt, help explain the wording.
Paragraph (a) continues: "(ii) Subject to subparagraph (i), enable reviewable land capable of economic use to be freed from the management constraints''. That means, effectively, that the criteria in the regime of past management of the high country will now be replaced by this extensive Bill, which lays out all the criteria and offers new opportunities to utilise the land. Traditionally, it was just pastoral utilisation. There is debate about the degradation that caused. There are new opportunities in tourism and many other forms of utilisation, such as new recreational purposes that require concessions. All those things are now possible following a rebalancing of priorities, as detailed in the clauses that follow.
We have to protect the significant inherent values of the reviewable land. As pointed out in previous debate in the Committee stage, the issue of significant inherent values received a lot of submissions. We had to balance the views of the conservationists, who clearly saw that those inherent values were paramount, and the economic uses, which are significant, and, certainly, are the motivation for many of the existing lessees---the pastoral leaseholders---to undergo the tenure review process. They want to ensure that they get something out of that process.
The objective of protecting the high country is truly admirable and, I think, the view of every New Zealander, whether a farmer, conservationist, or recreationist. We must protect the high country. But it is a question of maintaining a balance, and protecting the rights of those people who live in those areas, who have lived on the land, and who, I believe, probably have more knowledge about the management of that land than any academic. However, the views of the academics, the people who have studied the ecological values, the flora and fauna, are important. They have a large band of supporters. They view the protection of this land from an ecological perspective as absolutely paramount.
Clause 20 is the key part of the Bill, and goes a long way to achieving the balance that was always an objective of the select committee. The land is able to be reviewed so that we can rejig the priorities, and can allow some of the land to go into private ownership and some of it to go back to the Department of Conservation. That reviewable land must be managed in a way that is ecologically sustainable. As I said, the term "sustainable management'' was removed from the Bill, because it would have had to be consistent with its use in the Resource Management Act. That was not appropriate for our objectives here. Clause 20 is well worded. I hope the Minister can answer some questions about other details and words in that particular clause. I am sure that we will spend some time debating it.
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour---Whanganui): Indeed, clause 20 is one of the key clauses in this Bill. I am sure that it will certainly attract considerable debate from those people who did not have the opportunity to sit in the select committee. Many unanswered questions need to be repeated.
This clause refers to the sustainable management of reviewable land. Yesterday, when we discussed Part 1, the issue of sustainable management of this fragile and unique land dominated a considerable part of the debate.
I have some questions to ask with regard to information about protections that the Government itself has put in place previously to ensure that environmental concerns are taken into consideration whenever any legislation is passed. That can be legislation of a minor nature or a major nature.
In 1973 some environmental protection and enhancement procedures were drafted and became known as the report from the Ministry for the Environment called the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Procedures. These still stand in place. In fact, just last year in response to queries about whether these protection procedures were still in place the Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Simon Upton, answered in the affirmative. He said that the "EP and EP'', as they are more commonly known, still stand in place. Indeed, the Minister said at that time that where the Resource Management Act does not apply directly, Government agencies are encouraged to undertake and publish environmental assessments. A case in point that he used at the time was the assessment of the impacts of the spray programme for the white spotted tussock moth.
If an environmental protection and enhancement procedure assessment was done for the white spotted tussock moth, one has to ask, given the special environmental concerns that apply in respect of Crown pastoral land, has an environmental protection and enhancement procedure assessment been done in connection with these lands? If that assessment has been done, I want to know whether it has been published.
Eric Roy: It has been done on a case by case basis.
JILL PETTIS: Was it presented to the select committee? Did the select committee consider it? What were the outcomes of those considerations? I look forward to the Government members of the select committee talking about this aspect of protection to inform the Committee---and especially informing those members who were not able to participate in the select committee process---and to expand more fully as to exactly what the findings were in regard to this type of assessment being done on this special part of New Zealand.
Mr Roy acknowledges that it was done, and is being done, on a case by case basis. I am very pleased to hear that, and I certainly hope that Mr Roy is able to take the next call to expand on that. I know that my colleagues on this side of the Chamber who were on the select committee have furnished those of us who were not on it with a great deal of information. But we have not been given a copy of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Procedures assessment that was done in this particular case. I feel sure that that is not an omission on the part of my colleagues.
ERIC ROY (NZ National): I do not want to prolong this debate, but this is the crucial clause to the whole Bill. We might say that it is the absolute nub of the matter, and the objects and the principles under which these decisions are made. It is a particularly controversial Bill. I have to say that there is the expectation of a diversity of opinion on both sides of this argument. There are some extremes from the runholders, the eco-groups, and recreationists. There is a diversity of opinion. It is probably fair to say that in terms of the runholders, their expectation was: "Yep, we want this piece of legislation. We want it defined. We actually want a blueprint that says, 'Here's a simple way to do tenure review---freehold the lot, slap a few covenants on the bits that are special.', but we would still have ownership of them.''
So some of the runholders had that expectation. That is what we should do, and while we are doing it we should give the Resource Management Act and the district plan a whack around the ear as well for getting in their way, in terms of doing what they want to do. On the other side, we have some of the Environment and Conservation Organisations groups and recreational groups that had an expectation totally counter. Here is our opportunity to rescue from those individuals who are raping and pillaging this pure and magnificent piece of New Zealand. We need to get it all back into the Crown estate, and maybe they can keep a few acres around the house to grow some grapes, but the great bulk of this land will go back into the Crown estate.
With expectations from one extreme to the other, we cannot draw up objects that will satisfy everybody. We have been somewhat inundated.
Clause 20 engendered the greatest number of submissions. I think we have got a sensible solution. It is a middle course. It defines the process, highlights the objectives, promotes the management of reviewable land, and sets out the mechanisms by which the important aspects of this land are protected. It sets out some ways in which it can be protected by protective mechanisms, preferably by putting it into the Crown estate but allowing for a whole range of options other than that, recognising that each particular case is distinctly different.
The previous speaker said she wanted an environmental impact report on the whole process. I have got to say that not every property is the same. It is so diverse. That is why it is a matter of interpretation and a matter of having objects that actually facilitate that on a case by case basis. I can assure her and the Committee that on each tenure review, a very involved, complicated, and precise process goes through an analysis of what is essentially to be protected, what is the best way of giving those protections, and facilitating the tenure review process. Clause 20 is a critical objects part of the Bill, and we have agonised over it on a number of occasions. I am not sure how many times the select committee has actually returned to this after receiving submissions.
Hon. Ken Shirley: And the member still got it wrong.
ERIC ROY: I do not believe so. I believe that we have got a workable solution from which both sides of the extreme argument can actually find a way of doing what is necessary. I am not sure which point of view Mr Shirley is actually representing, but I have to say to him that this land is intrinsically special to New Zealand, and aspects of it require protection. I believe that the objects, as set out in this Bill, actually do that without impeding the process of a tenure review.
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (The Alliance): Clause 20 is indeed the heart of the Bill. I think we spent more time on clauses 20 and 14 than on all the rest of the clauses put together, certainly in the year and a bit that I was on the select committee. Clause 20 looks at the criteria that are to be used in the land allocation process, which is the process of negotiation between the Crown and the lessees, as to which land goes into which category. It is about the allocation process and it is about setting those criteria. It is only indirectly about the management of that land, although the aim of it is to put land in the appropriate category that would ensure the appropriate management for that type of land and the particular values that it has.
It has two equal objectives set out in paragraph (a) and paragraph (b). Neither is given prominence over the other; nor are they particularly in conflict with each other. Paragraph (a) talks about promoting the management of reviewable land in a way that is ecologically sustainable.
We chose those words "ecologically sustainable'' for two reasons. Firstly, as has been said before, the Bill is about allocation and not about management. Management is subject to the Resource Management Act, anyway, to the extent that it is interpreted by regional councils. It was not appropriate to import the whole sustainable management definition from the Resource Management Act into this Bill.
However, the other reason for using this phrase is that the words "sustainable'' and "sustainability'' have become seriously degraded over recent years to the point that it is unclear what they mean in most contexts. It was many years ago, more than a decade ago, at the beginning of this terrible process, that I first heard a Cabinet Minister talking about sustainable levels of unemployment. I realised at that stage that "sustainable'' was "gone'' as far as having a useful word to talk about the long-term health of the planet. "Ecologically sustainable'' makes it quite clear that we are tying it to the ability of productive land to remain productive in all its aspects, for ever.
That is what "ecologically sustainable'' means. I want to make it clear that I do not include all lessees in this, but the way much of the high country has been managed for decades is not ecologically sustainable in the long term, and it needs to change. That is object 1.
Part of that object is removing the constraints on the management of that land that prevents it from being sustainable at present. Those are the constraints of the pastoral lease tenure that prevent a lot of perfectly sustainable and sensible land uses, which might be a lot better than running sheep. Parts of this country can be used for horticulture. Parts could be used for forestry---not, I hope, on the skylines and ridge tops but certainly in other places. There are parts where a tourism business would be a more sensible and sustainable use of that land than continuing to graze sheep.
We wanted to free-up the use of that land, not to do more environmental damage but to use it in ways that are more appropriate to its particular nature. That is what paragraph (a)(ii) of clause 20 means.
Alongside and equal with that objective of ecologically sustainable management is to enable the protection of the significant inherent values of reviewable land. That refers to the fact that alongside the sustainability of production itself there are other features outside the question of production but that nevertheless society as a whole wishes to preserve. I am talking about the conservation values of particular systems of vegetation, ecosystems, plants, animals, landscape values, and the values that people go to the high country for.
GAVAN HERLIHY (NZ National---Otago): I was interested this morning to hear Jill Pettis refer to pastoral lease land as being fragile, rather than "poor'', which is the word she used last night. I believe that this shows her shallow understanding of the potential of some of this country. Some high-country land is very productive; other parts of it are included in this classification because of an accident in history. This Bill provides for the tenure review that will allow for the freeholding of high-country land that has economic use.
I wish to affirm that the select committee did not do an assessment of the environment on each of the 340 pastoral leases. A reading of the legislation will show that we have set down in a very detailed format the process to be followed in such a tenure review.
My colleague Eric Roy summed up some of the unrealistic expectations of the people at both ends of the spectrum of this very emotive debate---expectations that cannot and will not be delivered in this Bill. As he said, at one end of the spectrum are farmers who believe they have a pseudo-freehold title to the land, and as such the tenure review process would be giving them effectively the freehold title, putting a covenant on some areas that may have some fragility, and business would go on as usual.
At the other end of the spectrum are the non-governmental organisations and some of the environmental groups that believe that this land has been raped and pillaged for decades and generations, which is totally unfair and totally untrue; that they would walk away with all of this land in the conservation estate and that property rights of farmers and pastoral lessees who did not want to go into a tenure review process because there was no win-win situation available would be cut off and eroded by putting a sunset clause into Part 2. We have not done that.
The main thrust of the legislation, Part 2, which we are debating now, is to facilitate and encourage tenure review and to make it a much more streamlined and amenable option than is currently being experienced by those who were going through the tenure review process. May I remind the Committee that farmers still have the whip hand in this process. It is a voluntary process, and unless conservation interests enter into the process in a reasoned manner they will not achieve their desired environmental outcomes. If conservation interests get too tough, too demanding, or too unreasonable, the farmer has the ability to walk away from the tenure review process.
This would be a disaster because we have constructed clause 20 to enable a win-win situation. If there are to be wins for conservation in the process, and I believe there will be, then farmers have to approach tenure review in a manner that will achieve those goals, because unreasonable demands from either side, the pastoral lessees and conservation interests, will mean that the win-win situation will not be able to be achieved.
I believe that the wording of clause 20 is such that it will allow the most favourable outcome from the tenure review process. As paragraph (a)(ii) states, it enables reviewable land capable of economic use to be freed from management constraints. Of interest and of real pertinence in this section is the use of the words "economic use'' rather than the words "productive use'', as were used in the past. We are talking here about more than just the use of this land for farming.
We have seen in the recent decade that there are other uses for some of this high-country land other than for just pastoral farming. One has to look no further than the Pisa Range in my own Otago electorate, where entrepreneur and developer, John Lee, is farming the snow and the high country, not just for skiing but also for other purposes, such as vehicle testing. I am pleased that we have included in Part 2 the words "economic use''.
There is some concern amongst farming interests that we have included the word "preferably'' in paragraph (b)(i) of clause 20.
Hon. KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader---ACT NZ): I would like to begin by taking exception to the comments made by the previous speaker when he referred to Mrs Fitzsimons having a shallow understanding of high-country land. While I fundamentally disagree on many aspects of policy issues with Jeanette Fitzsimons, I would like to make the point that I have great respect for her technical understanding and in-depth knowledge on the South Island high country.
Eric Roy: It was Jill Pettis whom the member referred to.
Hon. KEN SHIRLEY: Moving on, I have to say that clause 20 is certainly of great concern, and it does relate to clause 14. I know that clause 14 was in the earlier debate yesterday on Part 1. But with the imbalance that had already been introduced in clause 14 we now have a compounded situation in clause 20. Before I debate that, I would just like to remind the Committee of the issues being raised with regard to the Resource Management Act and people wanting to import the definitions of sustainability from the Resource Management Act, particularly with references to phrases such as "ecologically sustainable.'' I would like to remind the Committee that South Island high-country lessees and licence holders are, as well, subject to the full provisions of the Resource Management Act. No one is exempt from the provisions of the Resource Management Act. This Bill is all about determining a way in terms of how licences and leases will be renewed---nothing more than that. It is not an exemption from the Resource Management Act; it is as well as, an addition to, the Resource Management Act.
Indeed, if people have concerns we can have it in the district plan. The Minister could have a national policy statement to ensure that those vulnerable, ecologically sensitive lands of the South Island do get the protection they require. No one is arguing that they are not vulnerable landscapes, which are very sensitive ecologically and require careful management. It is the role of the Resource Management Act to attend to those matters. But, regrettably, in this Bill we have a back-door method in terms of contractual land tenure arrangements that is trying to import a whole lot of other functions and doing it very badly, in my view.
Clause 14 is unclear. The balance has been tipped. The part referring to the ecological aspects is very clear, but the wording with regard to land use by the farmers is extremely obscure. That upsets the balance, and we now have great concern with clause 20 of the Bill.
The primary concern has to be with the word "preferably'' used in paragraph (b). The paragraph reads: "To enable the protection of the significant inherent values of reviewable land,---(i) By the creation of protective mechanisms; or (preferably) (ii) By the restoration of the land concerned to full Crown ownership and control;''.
Certainly there are areas in the high country that perhaps appropriately should revert to the Crown. But here we have tipped the whole balance, and the clear instruction in considering this will be that this wording will be trotted out. I know that Ministers of Conservation are subject to lobby groups in future considerations; there is no doubt in my mind. It will be like a gun to the head of the commissioner in reviewing this. He or she will think: "Now, what was the intent of Parliament back in 1998 when this was passed?'', and will hone in on that word "preferably''. It compounds that imbalance that has already been established in clause 14, and that is indeed very regrettable.
In clause 14, "Discretionary actions'', subclause (2) states: "In taking any action described in subsection (3), the Commissioner must take into account---(a) The desirability of protecting the inherent values of the land concerned...''. I think that in itself is adequate evidence that we do not need that word "preferably''.
The other matter is philosophical, and that is the underlying assumption that the Crown in fact is a better steward than the private owner---and I, frankly, just do not accept that, and the evidence does not support it.
GAVAN HERLIHY (NZ National---Otago): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Under Standing Order 109; I wish to correct a statement made by the previous speaker. He quoted me as quoting Jeanette Fitzsimons, when indeed it was Ms Jill Pettis.
The CHAIRPERSON (Ian Revell): The member has clarified that the reference was not to the member indicated by the speaker who has just concluded, but to another member. Is that as far as---
Jill Pettis: I will give a 5-minute dissertation on that.
The CHAIRPERSON (Ian Revell): The Committee is obliged!
GRAHAM KELLY (NZ Labour---Mana): I spent a little time on the select committee that dealt with this Bill prior to the last election. I am grateful for Eric Roy's comments to refresh my memory about some of the issues that we dealt with. At the start I have to say two things. First of all---
Eric Roy: We missed the speaker on the select committee.
GRAHAM KELLY: I know that the member missed me on the select committee, but maybe I can make amends for that later on. The first thing I want to say is that this move to deal with this issue, hopefully once and for all, is overdue. Secondly, I say that the objects in clause 20---the first clause in this long part of the Bill, and I say to Mr Chairman that there are other clauses that we will want to canvass a little later---are the key to whether this new Bill, the new Act as it will be, will work.
I want to deal with an issue that Mr Shirley raised at the conclusion of his comments. He was describing in clause 20 the definition, or the objects, of this part of the Bill, and he talked about enabling the protection of the significant inherent values of renewable land by the creation of protective mechanisms, or preferably---and he dealt with the issue of the word "preferably''---by the restoration of the land concerned to full Crown ownership and control.
I would like to ask the Minister how he sees that word being used in practice. It seems to me that every time this issue comes up, someone has to make a choice. If that is the case, then the select committee and this Parliament have in fact given the Minister, or whoever is administering this section of the legislation on behalf of the Crown, a very clear steer that preferably the restoration of land to full Crown ownership and control is a priority.
What I would like to ask the Minister, because I think the Government needs to make some comment, is how he sees that working when there is a conflict of interest. Where does he draw the line between what is preferable and what is not? Where does he make the choice? I assume that every new Minister who takes on the portfolio to administer this Act---as it will be---may have a slightly different view.
Hon. Denis Marshall: The commissioner will have.
GRAHAM KELLY: Commissioners will come and go. If the commissioners act on behalf of the Crown to administer the legislation on behalf of the Government---and commissioners will come and go, and I take the point that commissioners have outlasted Ministers on a ratio of about10 years to 1 probably---however, that does not deny the issue I raise of how consistency on this issue is maintained between one commissioner and another, between one Government and another, and between one Minister and another.
Hon. Ken Shirley: By striking out the simple wording.
GRAHAM KELLY: I do not think we should strike out the simple wording. We have said that the restoration of the land to Crown ownership has a greater value than other things that are listed earlier in that clause.
We do know that clause 20 clearly talks about sustainable management and renewable land. One question I have about sustainable farming, which was previously on freehold land, is if the land is capable of economic use, then can it be freeholded? The answer must be "Yes'', but putting that in the context, preferably of clause 20(b), where does the Minister draw the line? Will the Crown retain ownership of that land and still maintain it for profitable economic use---that is, for farming, forestry, or some other use? How will the Minister deal with that issue; and, indeed, will the Crown want to continue to own and to lease that land out to farmers?
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (The Alliance): I spoke previously about clause 20(a). I would like to move on to clause 20(b), which establishes the corresponding equal objective of the Bill, which is to enable the protection of significant inherent values. It was unfortunate that the less preferred way of doing this was placed first in the Bill, and the more preferred way was placed second. However, I am advised that that will have no effect on the implementation, and that the word "(preferably)'' establishes clearly that return to full Crown ownership and control is what we expect to happen to the vast majority of the land that needs to be retired from farming.
But I really must comment on the assertion that farmers are the best guardians of those values. If land is sufficiently fragile and sufficiently damaged that the way to preserve its significant inherent values is to get the sheep off it, then how on earth could farmers be the best people to do that? This is about what land can be sustainably farmed, and what land cannot be sustainably farmed and ought to be protected.
Graham Kelly: That's a value judgment.
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS: Yes, it is, but there is also a great deal of scientific underpinning of that value judgment, and a lot of work has been done on that level. So I absolutely reject the idea that land that needs to be retired from grazing can be best protected by farmers. I also reject the idea that we do not need any of this sustainable stuff because the Resource Management Act does it all, and it is all subject to the Resource Management Act.
Mr Shirley knows full well that the Resource Management Act kicks in only when a consent for something is needed. A lot of the practices in the high country are ongoing and do not require any consents. Therefore, they never come before the Resource Management Act and the council process.
I also disagree with some in the environmental movement who say that the words "capable of economic use'' now mean that everything can be freeholded, up to the mountain tops. That is certainly not what this clause states, and it is not what the committee intended. The hierarchy in the clause is quite clear.
Clause 20(c), which allows for freehold disposal, is subservient to clause 20(a) and clause 20(b), which provide for ecological sustainability in the management and for protection of significant inherent values. So only after the significant inherent values have been adequately protected and ecological sustainability has been promoted, can freeholding proceed. I would like to reassure the non-governmental organisations that are concerned about this that I am firmly of the belief that that is what that clause means.
Recreation is also subservient in the hierarchy to those other two values. That is because under present leasehold tenure recreationists have no legal right to Crown pastoral land. Now, we might regret that. We might say it is very unfortunate that the original Act---the Land Act---was set up that way, but nevertheless that is what the leases say. In most cases very good recreational access has been negotiated with the lessee.
This Bill tries to ensure that that can be provided for with easements and covenants, but it does not make it a primary objective, because to do so would deny rights in relation to trespass that the lessees currently have. I believe there is a lot of opportunity in the negotiations that will take place, to increase recreational access to this land, and I hope very much that that is what will happen.
But clause 20(c) creates a much more worrying effect, which is the reason that the Alliance will vote against this part, and, ultimately, against the Bill. Clause 20(c) sets up the eventual wholesale overseas ownership of the New Zealand high country. There is nothing else in legislation or practice that will stop that. We know that overseas owners are already negotiating with lessees, saying: "When you've got your freehold, come and see me and I'll give you a good price.'' We know that the Overseas Investment Commission will do nothing to stop this. It has just approved the sale to Americans of Glenburn Station in the Wairarapa, despite the fact that New Zealand farmers were prepared to offer the same price. There is no obvious national interest in that. The Overseas Investment Commission is powerless to stop it.
DAMIEN O'CONNOR (NZ Labour---West Coast - Tasman): I, too, would like to follow on with some of the concerns raised by Jeanette Fitzsimons. This Government's attitude to overseas ownership has been very lax. It has encouraged the sell-off of our country, and we do not wish to see that happening. The Labour members on the committee were certainly not in favour of passing this legislation so the land could be sold off, but we were in favour of placing the ownership of the land in the hands of the farmers so they could have a vested interest in it and take care of it in a sustainably managed way.
I would just like to raise another issue. This Bill is about trust. Ultimately we are placing trust in the hands of many people. Perhaps one of the most important and significant of those people is the Commissioner of Crown Lands. Clause 21 deals with matters that must be taken into account by the commissioner when he considers the review of these lands, and when he considers the carve-up---for want of a more subtle word---of the land and the placing of that land into the conservation estate or into the hands of the farmers themselves. He has to take into account the objects of Part 2 of the Bill that we have been debating. He has to, of course, take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, then, of course, he has to consult with interested parties as specified in clause 21A. He must consult the Director-General of Conservation. This provision was placed in the Bill to offer some security to the conservationists who believe that this Government---consistent with many of its other policies---will just ram through whatever it wishes to see take place.
There is still a considerable amount of pressure on the National Party from high-country farmers and I am sure that will continue for a few more weeks. But it was important that we insisted that the commissioner must consult the director-general. The Director-General of Conservation has a clear mandate to protect the intrinsic, inherent, and natural values of the lands under his control. The commissioner may then consult any personal body he thinks fit. There is a vast range of interest in the high country, and, as has been pointed out, possibilities for increased economic use and a greater range of economic use. It used to be just farming; this Bill will now allow interests like forestry, rabbit control, mining for minerals, hydro-electricity generation, tourism, and recreation to be consulted.
It is on the shoulders of the commissioner now to go and consult those people when he undertakes a review process for an individual lease. I think it is a very good and wise thing to have in this Bill, but it is also placing a huge amount of responsibility on that person's shoulders. I hope and trust that the Bill will be a good tool for the commissioner to use for the wise outcomes that we hope will come of it.
Clause 23, dealing with tenure reviews, states up front that this whole process is of course voluntary, and that there is no obligation for the Crown to undertake tenure review, or for the lessees to be participants in it. It is in fact only after agreement between the commissioner and the leaseholders that they will proceed along the path of tenure review that will in fact achieve the outcomes that we want here.
Some people have raised the point that we have dealt with the easy leases, and are now facing the harder ones. They ask whether this will in fact mean the protection of key areas of land if leaseholders refuse to participate in the process. I hope that we have put in place very good criterion guidelines that will encourage every leaseholder to undertake review eventually. If they refuse to, I think this Committee may in fact be forced to come back and look at this Bill again to determine that there are obligations to do so.
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour---Whanganui): I object to Mr Herlihy's patronising statements earlier on, and it is quite uncharacteristic of Mr Roy to be involved in anything like that. Mr Herlihy was obviously standing behind the door when brains were handed out in his family.
Hon. Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I fail to see what that sort of abuse has to do with what we are talking about in the Chamber today.
The CHAIRPERSON (Geoff Braybrooke): This type of interjection and point of order normally grows legs, and starts to get out of hand. I understand what the Minister of Maori Affairs is saying. I understood that the honourable member who was on her feet was in rebuttal. In this Chamber, we always allow a short period for rebuttal. That is quite within the rules, and I know that the member will very quickly come back to the part she is discussing.
JILL PETTIS: In closing my rebuttal I would say that just because I do not live in the South Island does not mean to say that I do not care about the South Island. I care very much about it, and I object to the assumption that member made.
When I rose to my feet earlier on I asked Government members of the select committee whether an environmental protection and enhancement procedures assessment report had been prepared. Mr Roy has had an opportunity to respond following my contribution to the debate, but he failed to mention whether this environmental impact assessment had been done at all. Far be it from me to suggest that one has not been done, but I feel sure that if it had, my Labour colleagues on the select committee would have furnished me with a copy of such a report. They have not been able to do so, so that suggests, I believe, that an environmental impact assessment has not been done at all. I request the Government members who are on that select committee---
An Hon. Member: Ask the Minister.
JILL PETTIS: I ask the Minister of Conservation to respond to this, and to advise the Chamber whether this assessment has been done at all. The Commissioner of Crown Lands will have an onerous responsibility as a consequence of this legislation, and I believe that an environmental impact assessment report is an essential element in helping the commissioner to make decisions in the future. I have some sympathy with the position in which the commissioner may find himself in future years when problems arise.
I want to inform the Government Ministers on the select committee about what an environmental impact assessment is, because I do not believe that one or two of them really understand what it is. An environmental impact assessment is a process whereby a conscious and systematic effort is made to assess the environmental consequences of choosing between various options that may be open to the decision maker.
Hon. Tau Henare: What's that document the member is reading?
JILL PETTIS: This is a Government document from the Ministry for the Environment that was prepared in the 1970s and has not been rescinded. The Minister for the Environment responded to that effect in a letter on 31 January 1997. So, as we can see, the Minister for the Environment was not still on holiday at the end of January last year---all compliments to him.
The other issue that I want the Minister to respond to is why these impact reports are so important. Given that a report was prepared for a tussock moth incident, why has a report not been prepared in this instance in relation to the Crown Pastoral Land Bill? This Bill will affect a huge area of New Zealand and a large number of people. Tussock moths can be wiped out, but it will be generations before the errors that occur as a consequence of this Bill can ever be corrected.
I just want to tell Government members about when reports are prepared and what some of the criteria are that are used for establishing why an environmental assessment is required. For example, an assessment is required if the proposal is likely to have a significant impact on ecosystems in the area. I suggest---and I know that other speakers have suggested---that as a consequence of this Bill there will be a significant impact on ecosystems.
BOB SIMCOCK (NZ National---Hamilton West): I move, That the motion be now put.
The CHAIRPERSON (Geoff Braybrooke): I am afraid the member will have to get the motion correct if he wants to move it. The motion was moved incorrectly.
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (The Alliance): I would like to move to clause 23D. I circulated an amendment yesterday that states that clause 23D should be amended by inserting after the words "Minister of Conservation'' the words "subject to section 49 of the Conservation Act''. Clause 23 provides for a comprehensive review of neighbouring land that is under many different tenures, such as pastoral leases, pastoral occupation licences, unoccupied Crown land, freehold land, and Department of Conservation land. It is clearly sensible to take this comprehensive approach to the high country. I believe that better total outcomes will be able to be negotiated by including such a range of land within the pot that is being negotiated, rather than having the piecemeal approach that would have happened otherwise.
However, it always raises concern among people in the community when it is proposed that the Department of Conservation should quit some of the land that it holds on behalf of the public. The Conservation Act provides very well for meeting this concern with a mechanism in section 49 that provides for public consultation by the Minister of Conservation before the Minister decides that a piece of conservation land is surplus to requirements. That consultation in section 49 provides that affected members of the public have a right to be heard on the matter.
Clause 23D provides that conservation areas and reserves, with the prior written agreement of the Minister of Conservation, may be included in the review of land under a Crown pastoral lease. It is not absolutely clear to me whether, under this Bill, the Minister would still be required to observe section 49 of the Conservation Act, or whether the public process under this Bill, which is a lesser and later public process, would replace section 49. My amendment is intended to make it clear that the Minister would still be required to observe section 49 of the Conservation Act when deciding that conservation land was surplus to requirement and could be put in the pot for tenure review.
If the Minister has legal advice, and can assure the Committee on the record that section 49 would still apply anyway, and that that amendment is therefore unnecessary, then I would be happy with that assurance. Otherwise, I would like the Committee to agree that we should not reduce the rights of the public to have an input into whether conservation land can be disposed of, through legislation that will not be part of the Conservation Act. If we are going to do that, we should amend the Conservation Act, and then there would be a real argument. But we should not do it by a back-door method in other legislation.
The reason for that is that, as the Department of Conservation has more and more land to administer and as its job gets more and more complex---and, often, as the number of its field staff are reduced---increasingly it is the members of the public who use those lands who have a very good knowledge of what values there are in certain areas. I suggest that if we want the best outcomes under this Bill, it would be unwise not to allow members of the public to be heard and to present the detailed information they have on particular pieces of land that the Minister might not be aware of.
GRAHAM KELLY (NZ Labour---Mana): I want to deal with one matter in clause 20 then deal with clause 23. In clause 20 protective mechanisms such as covenants are included, but there are no criteria as to when those covenants are to be used and what area of land is considered appropriate. I ask the Minister in the chair whether he can tell the Committee what he envisages will make up the criteria, and how he will define an area of land.
For example, the old Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust covenants have proved to be mainly suitable for small areas of land, and can be varied at any time. But we are not talking about just small areas of land; this new Bill opens it up for the Commissioner of Crown Lands, or a farmer, or someone else to initiate a process to look at more than just a small area of land. I would like to know from the Minister when a small area of land is not a small area of land. When does a small area of land become a large area of land in terms of those sorts of decisions? I would like an answer on that, as well as on the first question I raised.
Eric Roy: It has nothing to do with the size of the land.
GRAHAM KELLY: Well, the Minister can tell us, because it is worth having on the record.
Clause 23, which deals with tenure reviews, potentially allows for a land-grab by lessees, by providing for unused Crown land and even conservation land that adjoins the pastoral lease to be included in the tenure review. There were no similar provisions in the Bill when it was introduced. I am given to understand that the public was not given the opportunity to comment on those quite substantive changes to the tenure review process.
Eric Roy: Not true.
GRAHAM KELLY: Well, if it is not true, as the honourable member has said, I think someone from the Government should take a call and tell us that we have got it wrong. I do not believe that my information is wrong. It is important because this is a highly controversial matter. It has gone on and on like a babbling brook for decades. Everyone wants it fixed up. We have participated in the process in a constructive way in the select committee, but this provision is potentially divisive. There is potential for a land-grab by lessees in those circumstances I mentioned. The public was not given the opportunity to make submissions on those changes. I think that leaves this Parliament and the Government open to criticism.
I would like the Minister to comment on that. If what I have said is wrong, I am very happy for the Government to say so. But if I am right, and I believe I am, then I ask how it will take into account that criticism, because it is not insubstantial. I do not want that to be the reason for ongoing disputation, but it could well be.
Clause 23D permits conservation land to become freehold without, I think, enough safeguards such as exist under the Conservation Act to prevent what one could describe as the thoughtless disposal of land. That is effectively a back-door method of privatising conservation land.
Hon. Tau Henare: Oh!
GRAHAM KELLY: Yes, it is a back-door method. If clause 23D permits freeholding without safeguards, then it is effectively, de facto, a mechanism of privatisation of conservation land through that disposal.
Jill Pettis: It is not just effectively.
GRAHAM KELLY: My colleague has corrected me. It is in fact the case, and that is a back-door method. I do not know whether that was the intention of the Government. Can the Minister assure us that it was not its intention? Can the Minister assure the Committee that that will not happen? My reading of it is that it will happen for unused Crown land, and given the size of the pastoral leases it potentially affects thousands of hectares. We are not talking about an isolated pocket. I would like some answers from the Minister about that. It is a very serious issue. It is an issue that will cause ongoing arguments, which none of us want.
Hon. DENIS MARSHALL (NZ National---Rangitikei): I move, That the question be now put.
The CHAIRPERSON (Geoff Braybrooke): I am quite prepared to accept that. I think the Committee has heard enough debate to make up its own mind.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.
Ayes 71
New Zealand National 44;
New Zealand First 17;
ACT New Zealand 8;
United New Zealand 1; Independent 1.
Noes 49
Labour 37;
Alliance 12.
Majority for: 22
Motion agreed to.
Hon. TAU HENARE (Minister of Maori Affairs): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. During the counting of the vote the Hon. Dr Michael Cullen made a disparaging remark about one of the Independent MPs, with the words: "They don't even know where the South Island is.'' It has been noted on several occasions that people should not make snide remarks as a vote is taken, especially when the votes of the Independent members of this House are being taken.
The CHAIRPERSON (Geoff Braybrooke): The Minister of Maori Affairs is quite correct. The Speaker has ruled on that on several occasions, as it leads to disorder. A vote should be taken in silence. I ask the Hon. Dr Michael Cullen to withdraw and apologise for that remark.
Hon. Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Leader---NZ Labour): I withdraw and apologise, even in the member's absence.
The CHAIRPERSON (Geoff Braybrooke): No, that is not helping; in fact, it antagonises. The member will now withdraw and apologise correctly.
Hon. Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Leader---NZ Labour): I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.
The CHAIRPERSON (Geoff Braybrooke): Not referring to my ruling, I hope.
Hon. Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I refer to Speakers' rulings referring to the absence of members. There is a general tendency in this Chamber to assume that there is a Standing Order that prevents in any circumstance reference to a member being absent. If one consults Speakers' rulings one finds that that is not so. It depends on the circumstances. The fact that Mrs Kopu seems to consider it all right to turn up to work about 1 day a week and receive a parliamentary salary of $78,000 is, I think, a public disgrace.
The CHAIRPERSON (Geoff Braybrooke): That is not a point of order. It may be a question for debate or even a question for a notice of motion, but it is not a point of order and is ruled out. We now come back to the business of the Committee of the whole House, which is that Part 2 stand part.
The question now is that the following amendment in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to clause 23D be agreed to: to insert after the words "Minister of Conservation'' the words "subject to section 49 of the Conservation Act''.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
Labour 37;
Alliance 12.
Noes 71
New Zealand National 44;
New Zealand First 17;
ACT New Zealand 8;
United New Zealand 1;
Independent 1.
Majority against: 22
Amendment negatived.
The CHAIRPERSON (Geoff Braybrooke) put the question that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 88 in the name of Hon. John Luxton to Part 2 be agreed to.
Amendments agreed to, and Part 2 as amended by Supplementary Order Paper 88 agreed to.
The CHAIRPERSON (Geoff Braybrooke) put the question that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 88 in the name of Hon. John Luxton to Part 2A be agreed to.
Amendments agreed to, and Part 2A as amended by Supplementary Order Paper 88 agreed to.
Part 2B agreed to.
Part 3. Savings, and Consequential
Amendments and Repeals
A party vote having been called for on the question, That Part
3 be agreed to. [Interruption]
Hon. Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Leader---NZ Labour) said: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We have just had a point of order about people interrupting votes while they are being taken, and the acting senior Government whip decides to interject just as we start to take a vote.
The CHAIRPERSON (Geoff Braybrooke): Members should just calm down, please. I can understood why Dr Cullen feels aggrieved. These little interjections between members, as each one tries to get the last word, lead to disorder. We will not have disorder in this House. We will now vote on Part 3 and I require that to be heard in silence.
DAMIEN O'CONNOR (NZ Labour---West Coast - Tasman): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. In all that rush and confusion we have effectively been denied the opportunity to speak on Part 3.
The CHAIRPERSON (Geoff Braybrooke): I think my voice can be heard; it was once heard on a thousand parade grounds. I read each part slowly and carefully. If members wish to speak they must rise to their feet and call "Mr Chairman''. I can assure the honourable member that nobody did that. There were a couple of little shuffles, but nobody stood on his or her feet to seek the call. When nobody stands I then put the question as I am required to do by the Standing Orders. We now come to Part 3, for which the honourable member, Jill Pettis, has asked that a vote be taken. That is what we are in the midst of doing now.
ERIC ROY (NZ National): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Firstly, I apologise to the Chair for my interjection during the calling of the vote. There was a degree of unanimity expressed by the party opposite at the commencement of this Bill. I am concerned that there is a desire to be counter-productive and to delay proceedings by voting against something, when we initially had some degree of unanimity across the party.
The CHAIRPERSON (Geoff Braybrooke): That is not a matter within my jurisdiction at all. This vote will be taken in silence, as required by the Standing Orders.
GRAHAM KELLY (NZ Labour---Mana): I am not trifling with the Committee. I accept your ruling unreservedly. I seek leave for the opportunity to debate Part 3.
The CHAIRPERSON (Geoff Braybrooke): Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is objection.
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip---NZ National): Given that there appears to have been some confusion about the debate on this particular part, and given that leave has been sought to debate it but has been turned down, I seek the leave of the House that opportunities be given to two members to speak---that is, two 5-minute slots.
The CHAIRPERSON (Geoff Braybrooke): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. That ends the matter. We will now continue with the vote on Part 3.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 3 be agreed to.
Ayes 70
New Zealand National 44;
New Zealand First 17;
ACT New Zealand 8;
Independent 1.
Noes 49
Labour 37;
Alliance 12.
Majority for: 2
Part 3 agreed to.
Part 4. Substantive amendments to Land Act 1948
The CHAIRPERSON (Geoff Braybrooke): I call Mr Rick Barker.
Hon. TAU HENARE (Minister of Maori Affairs): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I believe that what has just happened in this Chamber is that the junior Opposition whip rose to his feet for a call because he was worried about his mates not getting the call. It is quite obvious---
The CHAIRPERSON (Geoff Braybrooke): That is not a point of order. It may be an opinion that the honourable gentleman holds, but it is not a point of order. I call Mr Damian O'Connor.
DAMIEN O'CONNOR (NZ Labour---West Coast - Tasman): For the Minister's information, I appreciate the efforts made by my colleague because I am very deaf in one ear and occasionally I do miss the call. I appreciate the efforts he has taken to ensure that I get the call.
We are dealing with Part 4. This is a very important part of the Bill, and is concerned with access. The recreationists who came along and lobbied us very hard put in some very good submissions on the Bill. They were very concerned about their right of access to land after the review process had taken place, and whether through that process they would continue to have access to Crown land, and of course access to land placed in freehold ownership.
We have tried to do two things here: first of all, we have tried to ensure that access will be provided; and, secondly, we have tried to ensure that where land is considered to be of such high natural inherent value, the commissioner does have the ability to exclude the public from getting on to that land. As has been stated previously, there are some very high natural values in high-country areas. The plants are very fragile. The environment is harsh. Any access by people, however well meaning, can sometimes be detrimental to the natural values of that area.
Part 4 will enable the commissioner to have control over some of those key areas of land that are fragile. The commissioner will be able to authorise access to that land for people but, more important, will also be able to exclude people.
The intent of the Bill, as stated before, is to consider the views and the aspirations of conservationists, of farmers---those seeking productive use---and of course of the recreationists. We have dealt with every word in this part of the Bill very, very carefully to ensure that there are adequate mechanisms to protect the land wherever necessary but also to ensure that the recreationists have access, as of right, to all the land that will not be adversely impacted on by their presence.
I think this last part of the Bill is very important. The select committee has endeavoured, wherever possible, to consider all the interests. We now place that responsibility in the hands of the commissioner, through this legislation. We trust that he or she will do the job adequately and will maintain and protect these lands for a long time into the future.
My colleagues will have some questions about Part 4. I think that, in general, it is a very suitable compromise towards ensuring protection and ensuring access to the land under review.
GRAHAM KELLY (NZ Labour---Mana): I have a couple of questions about the effect of the trespass orders in clause 34B. It is appropriate that rights are given to deny access to people who would otherwise use that land when they should not. On the other hand, there will be those who will unreasonably deny access to other New Zealanders. This clause provides that those instructions to deny right of access can be given orally as well as in writing. There is also a warning provision. Under section 3 of the Trespass Act, people can be warned to leave the land and, indeed, to stay off the land.
This clause talks about the application of the Trespass Act, and I would like to ask the Minister in the chair whether, from his legal background, he could tell us about the effect on that Act of that trespass order. Are there any variations in the trespass order that would apply generally in New Zealand, compared with what applies in this Bill? Indeed, I wonder whether any consideration has been given to the effects of giving an order and then having people react against it.
For example, on election day we allow people to vote even if they know that their names are not on the roll. They are checked and their votes are not counted. The reason we do this is that we do not want polling clerks being given a whack around the ear because someone gets upset. The same principle will apply here. Has any consideration been given to the effect of denial of access? What protections are there for those people who deny that access---who are in authority or are leasing the land or have other uses for it, not necessarily just farming? What protection will they be given by the Crown when they deny that right?
What we are dealing with here is an area of the country that is miles away from the nearest police station. How on earth does one blow a whistle and call up the local bobby? To do that is impractical. Even if the bobby was just down the road, the wind would probably be blowing in the wrong direction and he or she would not hear the kerfuffle.
In theory this sounds fine. I would like to know in practical terms how it will work in terms of the questions I have raised.
RICK BARKER (NZ Labour---Tukituki): I will take up the challenge of the Minister of Maori Affairs and speak on this Bill. I am interested in a couple of things in part 4. I was not on the committee and I have not been privy to all of the debate, but the Committee of the whole House stage on a Bill is where any member has the opportunity to ask questions of the Minister and to take part in the debate. We are at that stage with this Bill.
Firstly, I am interested in the phrase "kinds of people'' used in section 67A(1) in clause 34B. I have understood that the general rule is that we talk about "classes of people''. I just wonder why we have changed it to "kinds of people''. Could it be that the National Party is trying to write the class system out of legislation, out of history? Is there a political significance about this? There may not be, but it is an interesting point. I wonder how people will refer to it. It seems to me that when we write legislation it is important to use the same phrases and the same words because they are defined. If we use as a convention the term "classes of people'', why change it? I want to know that.
Secondly, we have here an extensive set of provisions that state that any person who is part of "the kind'' who breaches the conditions under which he or she has access to the land then he or she can go through a process of being warned, and so on, and if that person does not have the benefit of paragraph (a) of this subsection then he or she is trespassing. I understand that, but what happens if people have been told by the lessee or the occupier, or whoever it is, that they have breached the conditions when they genuinely believe they have not? Where is their right of redress? Also, if someone has decided that a person has done something wrong and that person is told that he or she cannot go back on to the property, or to that area, it seems to me that the ability to stop that person from going there is open-ended, so that ban is there for life. How does a person then say: "Well, I have paid my penance, 6 or 7 months; when can I go back and under what conditions?'' There is no right of review. In this modern age we have "sin bins'' and people know they get 10 or 20 minutes behind the sticks, but in this case people could be put in the "sin bin'' for life.
Rt Hon. D A M Graham: No, read the Trespass Act.
RICK BARKER: Well, the Minister might be able to clarify that for me. I would be very interested. I have not seen that in there. I am interested to know why the select committee felt that it needed to put in this whole, substantial new section. Why was it not in the original draft of the Bill? It seems to me to be quite a significant question. The Minister might care to answer both of those questions I have brought forward.
ERIC ROY (NZ National): I move, That the question be now put.
Hon. Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Leader---NZ Labour): I have some new matters to raise under clause 34A that I would like the Minister to comment on, relating to three matters of drafting.
New section 60AA of the Land Act reads: "Despite any enactment or rule of law, the Commissioner may under section 60 create an easement to Her Majesty...''. First, It seems to me to be rather peculiar to specify the sex of the Sovereign. If the Minister cares to go back to the reference in the Bill relating to holidays, he will see that we use the usual legal terminology "Sovereign's Birthday''. Even though we all refer to it as the Queen's Birthday, legally it is referred to as the Sovereign's Birthday, in case something untoward should happen, say, with a London bus, or some other matter and we find ourselves with a King on the following day, therefore no longer with a female Sovereign but a male one. The question I really want to raise is, why does it create an easement to Her Majesty rather than an easement to the Sovereign?
For some peculiar reason we are also not referring to the Crown as a general body; we are referring to the specific person who, in fact, is the head of State. But we are referring to that person in a gender-specific sense rather than a non-gender specific sense. We went to a lot of trouble in the 1980s to remove gender-specific references in legislation. One recognises that while the Queen is undoubtedly a woman, the Sovereign is not necessarily so, and at any moment, given the fact that our Sovereign is a person now in her 70s, it is quite possible that we may be out of date already---that the sovereign is a male at this very point but the news has not quite reached us at this particular moment.
Secondly, why there is no principal verb in section 60AA in clause 34A? It states: "Despite any enactment or rule of law, the Commissioner may under section 60 create an easement to Her Majesty, in favour of any adjacent Crown land, over all or any part of any land... that the Commissioner thinks--- (a) Likely to be disposed of;''. Surely there should be an "is'' in there somewhere so that it reads "thinks--- (a) Is likely to be disposed of; or (b) Is likely to become conservation area under the Conservation Act 1987; or (c) Is likely to become a reserve''. But there is no principal verb actually in that particular clause of the sentence. The member prefers a subjunctive but I suggest to him that the average person does not like subjunctives but prefers to read plainer English than that form.
My final question to the Minister asks why this section is called section 60AA. If one turns to the principal Act one will find that there is indeed mentioned in the reprint series of the principal Act, Volume 23, at page 605, a section 60A. This would seem to make it sensible to insert section 60AA, but the problem is that 60A was repealed in 1991. There is no section 60A in the principal Act now; there has not been for some 7 years, and it does not seem to make much sense to insert a doubly denominated 60AA instead of a new section 60A, because that leaves unusable the terminology 60AA for any future insertions in this particular legislation.
There are three problems with this section, all matters of drafting. First, why do we have a gender-specific reference to the Sovereign, instead of a non-gender specific reference to the Sovereign? Second, why are we using the rather complicated subjunctive form of grammatical construction instead of a simple principal verb in terms of "is'' before the three separate parts? Third, why are we ignoring the fact that section 60A, which was previously inserted in the Act, was repealed in 1991, which means that there is now no section 60A in the Land Act, and that that description is available for usage in this particular section in this clause, making the description "60AA'' somewhat unnecessary?
Hon. DENIS MARSHALL (NZ National---Rangitikei): I move, That the question be now put.
The CHAIRPERSON (Geoff Braybrooke): It is a very narrow part so I am quite prepared to accept it.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.
Ayes 71
New Zealand National 44;
New Zealand First 17;
ACT New Zealand 8;
United New Zealand 1;
Independent 1.
Noes 49
Labour 37;
Alliance 12.
Majority for: 22
Motion agreed to.
Part 4 agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
Title
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (The Alliance): I wish to amend the title by inserting in paragraph (c) after the word "administration'' the words "and ecological sustainability''. In respect of paragraph (c) of the title, the wording would then be: "An Act---(c) To provide for the administration and ecological sustainability of Crown Pastoral Land.'' Paragraph (c) relates to that land that will continue in Crown pastoral tenure for some time. The words "20 years'' have been suggested in other parts of this debate.
Although one of the motivations for this legislation was that the Crown wanted to get out of leasehold tenure altogether and get rid of this land, another strong motivation for it surely was the years of study, research, and investigation that have gone into a number of reports about the damage being done to parts of the land. The Martin report is one such example. That led to a strong belief, I think, in all parties that some measures had to be taken to provide for that land to be managed in a more sustainable way in order to protect its ecological values.
I do not think anyone could argue that this Bill is just about administration. It is about a great deal more than that. I believe that if we insert the words "and ecological sustainability'' it will make it clear in the title what the Act is about and that those pastoral lands that remain in leasehold tenure will be managed in a more ecologically sustainable way under this legislation than they have been previously.
The CHAIRPERSON (Geoff Braybrooke) put the question that the following amendment in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to the Title be agreed to: to insert in paragraph (c) after the word "administration'', the words "and ecological sustainability''.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
Labour 37;
Alliance 12.
Noes 71
New Zealand National 44;
New Zealand First 17;
ACT New Zealand 8;
United New Zealand 1;
Independent 1.
Majority against: 22
Amendment negatived.
Title agreed to.
The Committee divided the Bill into the Crown Pastoral Land Bill and the Land Amendment Bill, pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 86.
Bill reported with amendment.
Procedure
ERIC ROY (NZ National): We have made good progress and I seek leave that we might hold the third readings presently. Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to set down for third readings presently the two Bills arising out of the Crown Pastoral Land Bill---that is, the Crown Pastoral Land Bill and the Land Amendment Bill. Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is. Therefore those two Bills are set down for third readings next sitting day.
Third Reading
'Hansard', 17 June 1998
Hon. MAX BRADFORD (Minister of Labour), on behalf of the Minister of Lands: I move, That the Crown Pastoral Land Bill and the Land Amendment Bill be now read a third time. These two Bills have been broken out from the Crown Pastoral Land Bill that was recently reported back from the Primary Production Committee.
I am sure the House would want to congratulate the committee, particularly the chairman, Mr Eric Roy, on the excellent job it did in considering what amounts to complex legislation---contentious too, I believe---that has been progressed quite successfully. It received the support of all parties in this House except the Alliance. It is the sort of pattern we expect from the Alliance. It cannot support anything. For the most part it follows the Labour Party blindly into the Noes lobby, but in this case even the Labour Party got it right in supporting a piece of legislation that makes important changes to the way in which the Crown pastoral estate is managed, particularly in the form of giving public access to the Crown pastoral estate while protecting the tenure of those farmers who currently have access to the Crown pastoral estate.
I am sure the House will want to progress this legislation rapidly through its third reading. It has taken a long time to get to this point, but it is something that the public is waiting for. It is waiting for this legislation to come into effect. It is waiting for the certainty that comes with legislation that passes through the House. I commend this excellent legislation to the House. In an effort not to hold up the legislation at all I will take my seat and allow those who have very positive things to say, to speak---except the Alliance---in order that this legislation can be progressed.
Hon. JIM SUTTON (NZ Labour---Aoraki): The reason this Bill has taken such an unconscionably long time to get back is that every 3 years in this country we have a general election, and the Government, having introduced this Bill, then fell into a state of panic believing that if it got within sniffing distance of a general election while the Bill was still appearing in the news media, it would have a controversy along the same lines as the Queen's Chain controversy at the previous election, which is the sort of argument the Government can never win. So the Government buried this Bill for about 18 months while a general election was got out of the way and the votes were counted, and then it came out again, got dusted off, hosed down, and it is finally back here in the House.
Indeed, after all that, the Bill does not do any of the things that would doubtless have been alleged, like privatising the mountains, our common heritage, and that sort of thing. However, the Bill does do some pretty useful things. The Bill re-enacts and modifies the current provisions of the Land Act relating to Crown pastoral leases, it removes the power to grant new leases---except on the subdivision of existing leases---because I think that everybody recognises that this instrument has passed its use-by date and we want to phase them out rather than create new ones.
The Bill promotes sustainable land management in a way that reflects the much greater understanding in 1998 than the understanding that existed in 1948 as to what constituted sustainable land management. The Bill safeguards conservation, historic landscape, cultural, recreational, and public access interests of the land, and it does assist in facilitating the freeholding of Crown pastoral land that is capable of sustaining productive uses. That will be done through voluntary negotiated land tenure review. It ensures that the Crown obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi are upheld, and it provides greater accountability and transparency in the process.
It is worth repeating that tenure review is a voluntary process. The Crown is not obliged to agree to people freeholding mountain tops and covering them with tourist hotels, and so on, exclusively for the use of rich foreigners. The Bill does not override the Resource Management Act. It does not override the Local Government Act. All the planning procedures remain in place. No special atrocities can be committed on the high country as a result of this Bill. I think that once people realise that, a lot of the complaints that come will melt away.
I believe that the committee worked extraordinarily hard on this measure. The number of submissions will no doubt be related by the chairman of the committee in due course. The care taken by the committee was unusual in that we went through two rounds of submissions to the select committee because we sent out a tentative Bill as reported back to all the main submitters and they all had another go. More than that, they decided that because apparently the rules were off, it was open slather and they could make continuous and repeated representations, and it became a contest.
We had only to have a couple of deerstalkers being seen coming into Parliament Buildings, and the environmentalists got worried that deerstalkers might be making some submissions that had to be countered. For example, deerstalkers might be allowed to leave their used brass shells lying around and thereby desecrate the natural landscape values of the countryside. If anybody should be seen entertaining a merino wool producer in the members and guests lounge, the word went out and we would have a procession of people with recreational and environmental interests turning up at all the select committee members' offices to make sure that some sneaky submission had not been put in that needed to be countered.
At the end of the day I believe that the committee, by negotiation and care, produced a Bill that was better from all points of view than the one originally introduced.
I am sure the environmentalists gained out of this Bill, because they gained a degree of public control over certain land management and farming practices that we now realise do impact upon the other values embodied in the high country. The recreationists gained because they got a degree of recognition and a degree of priority for public access in decision-making that is unprecedented in the management of Crown pastoral lease land. Conservation gains because a very large amount of additional land will be allocated to the conservation estate in the process of tenure review. I believe that the runholders have also gained because a lot of the prejudices that have existed in the urban community about the management of high-country land will diminish in the future as a result of a much more transparent and accountable system of Crown supervision of the land that does remain in pastoral lease.
The process of tenure review is sought by all parties---all parties are happy with the process of tenure review that has been going on, but all parties have, at the same time, been nervous of the streamlining provisions of this Bill that will make possible a much more rapid progression through the backlog of applications. People are worried that perhaps they will not be able to keep up with the rate of reviews being considered, and so on, but I believe that it will be better.
It will be better for the lessees because they will be able to freehold the land with truly productive economic potential that can be used for economic purposes without prejudicing the other inherent values of the high-country land. They will be able to get much more flexible management of that land without having to jump through all the bureaucratic hoops that they have to jump through at this time, and without being limited solely to the pastoral use.
It is recognised nowadays that pastoral use is not always the highest and best use of pastoral lease land. Some of the land is suitable for quite intensive agriculture. More of it is suitable for other forms of economic use, like recreational use, the tourism industry, and so on, and this land can now be considered for these things on the same balance of factors as any other land. This, of course, is to the advantage of the occupiers who have more flexibility and a greater ability to manage their land.
I have got quite a deal of satisfaction from the processing of this Bill through the House. I have enjoyed working with other members of the committee from all parties. So in short, Labour will support this Bill.
Debate interrupted.
Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)
POINT OF ORDER---QUESTION TIME
Rt Hon. JONATHAN HUNT (NZ Labour): I seek the leave of the House to have question time at 2 o'clock. I do so because we have a very critical occurrence at the moment in the economy, with serious statements being made by both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. I think we should be able to have questions in Parliament as per normal. Of course, the leave I am seeking would not in any way break urgency.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Debate resumed.
ERIC ROY (NZ National): I think the House will look forward to concluding this legislation with the third readings of the Crown Pastoral Land Bill and the Land Amendment Bill, which we began last evening. This will bring to a close some 3 years and 3 months of activity around the Crown Pastoral Land Bill. That Bill was introduced in April 1995. It has had its third birthday. Mr Sutton, the member who opened the debate last night, said that it was an election issue that protracted this particular course of action on this legislation. That may or may not be true, but a point he made was that the legislation was now much better than it had been. Yes, we did have considerable consultation, more than on almost any other piece of legislation that I have been involved with in terms of coming to some decisions about the shape that the legislation should be and then putting out an issues paper to all the stakeholders.
So we have, I believe, a piece of legislation that has been very well consulted on and very well thought through that we are now presenting back to the House. Even through the Committee stage, certainly Government members were getting on a daily basis faxes, letters, e-mails, and phone calls around a whole range of issues that were in the legislation as reported back. I have to say to the House that a daily occurrence---
Rick Barker: Did the member ignore the lot?
ERIC ROY: No, the member should listen. I was just saying that on a daily basis we met officials in the office of the Minister of Lands and talked through a variety of issues that were raised. There were claims from the runholders, the lessees, that we had been captured by the green movement, the eco-movement, or whatever is the appropriate title for those people. Similarly, we had a number of claims from those particular groups---the recreational and green interest eco-groups---saying that the runholders had captured us.
A great deal of time was spent working through the issues, just to ensure again that what we had put forward was workable and that the principles that needed to be protected were protected. We ensured that the workability or the viability of the runholders was not being impinged upon in any way that would be a step back from what they had, but certainly to give them some sort of an advantage.
This legislation relates to $2.45 million hectares of land in the South Island, running from Southland to Marlborough. It essentially includes a great portion of the subalpine landscape of the South Island. It is an area that is very precious to a number of people. It is precious to the farmers who exist on that particular piece of the South Island. It is this piece of land that produces the finest quality fine wool anywhere in the world. It is of significance in terms of economic value and the livelihood of those people who are on it. It is also a piece of land that has a great deal of natural appeal, scenic beauty, and recreational opportunity, and it contains some very unique ecosystems, and so it is of interest to virtually all New Zealanders.
This legislation brought with it expectations from both sides of that argument that certain things would happen, and those things were never in the scope of the legislation. I received a letter yesterday from an individual who said that there should be no right of freeholding this land, but that has always been the case under the Land Act. This legislation has sought to clarify and simplify the manner in which that could take place, while beefing up the protection of those things that are so significant and so important.
Similarly, on the other side, some runholders believe they should have the right to have the entire lot freeholded with some covenants to protect a few bits and pieces along the way that they saw as partially relevant, and so these expectations were quite diverse. As the Minister who moved the third readings said, this has been quite controversial legislation.
It is my view that the harsher the environment that one lives in, the greater empathy there is for that particular land. We have a range of very deep feelings about a piece of land. I guess one should say that the tenure review process had taken place only on those tracts of land where the runholder had something to trade, something to give away, to the conservation estate. This sets out some principles that are much, much clearer and sets out some very clear mechanisms of protection.
It is no secret that what was happening was not particularly successful in the management arena. That is no criticism of the runholders that were there. This particular area of land was facing problems of weeds such as Hieracium and pests such as rabbits. The viability of those that were there was in question. Flexibility to diversify, to subdivide, or to take a range of options is certainly necessary. I am of the view that whilst this is a very precious piece of the environment for New Zealand, the appropriate custodian for its management is the runholder. We need to ensure that the protection is there, that we provide access for those people who want to enjoy it in a recreational way, but that we increase the viability and the options for those who are the custodians.
I believe that this legislation does that. It sets out quite clearly the involvement of the Department of Conservation in terms of the identification of those bits that need protection. It ensures that that protection is adequate, and that all those bits for which there is no viable productive use are being returned to the Crown estate, yet some degree of protection is necessary for those areas that hold inherent significant values.
The high country of New Zealand is a very fluid environment. It has changed significantly. The management of it is really quite critical. To conclude I just want to say that it is important that those areas are protected. I believe that it is important that the runholders be given the right opportunity to manage those tracts of land. I believe that they will not enter into negotiation of tenure review if they do not have an advantage out of it. They will not approach the process. One has to expect that they have an advantage.
Why do I say they are the important people? I have here a poem called The Reasons, written by Jim Morris, who was one of the submitters. He is a high-country farmer. I will read the first two verses. One should be able to appreciate the importance or the attitude of these people. It is not fame or fortune that makes men muster sheep on broken rugged hillsides and ranges rough and steep; it is not love of comfort or the working of short hours that makes him tread the mountains amid the pure fresh alpine flowers; it's the frosty early mornings as the dawn breaks clear and bright and the mists rise from the valley as the day takes o'er from night. And so it goes on. It is a very moving poem and it captures the essence of the people who run this land.
These people, I believe, are the appropriate custodians. If this land were to come back to the State it would be an impossibility to manage it in the way that these people can manage it. It would impose a cost upon the Government that is entirely inappropriate. It is important that this legislation is in place to give viability to those people who are the appropriate custodians of this country, with the protection devices in place to ensure that adequate protection for the important bits is there. I therefore urge the House to pass the third readings.
DAMIEN O'CONNOR (NZ Labour---West Coast - Tasman): As my colleague Jim Sutton said last night, Labour welcomes this legislation back into the House for its final passage. The country has been waiting for many years to have such legislation in place. The legislation has been around for too long and we hope that its passage today will be welcomed by everyone in New Zealand.
We have had, on the one hand, people who live and work on the land---as the previous speaker has said---people who have the high country in their blood, whose very existence has depended upon the utilisation of this land. So we can understand their passion in making submissions to the select committee. Their rights, of course, will be affected by this legislation; they had perceived rights to this land that were for a long time considered as good as freehold. None the less, the fact remains that this land is not theirs; it belongs to the public of New Zealand.
As lessees they had to work their way through this legislation to ensure that the rights that they had assumed, and that we had assumed as well, were not totally removed. Therefore, the passion with which they made submissions to the select committee could be well understood.
We had other people---those who look at the postcards of the high country, who travel from the cities to enjoy the recreational opportunities in the high country---who considered that this land was also theirs. They were also passionate in their submissions to the select committee.
I must reflect on a vision I keep in my mind of travelling through the high country in the middle of winter many years ago, on a bright moonlight night. I turned off the lights in the vehicle, and just viewed this spectacular landscape. To many people in New Zealand that is what the high country epitomises---vast expanses with amazing landscape and aspects that are simply unique to this country in this part of the world. The views of these people were also expressed with passion at the select committee.
The third group of people were those who considered that the ecology of the high country is very fragile, the landscape should be untouched, and it is absolutely imperative that we protect all the inherent values of that land. Those people were also passionate in their submissions.
So, in fact, we had three groups, and they scrutinised every word in this legislation very, very carefully. It was a difficult job for the select committee to come up with what we consider are the wise compromises and the best solutions to all the issues that they raised in submissions.
The issues of productive sustainability for the high country have been around for some time. The problems with Hieracium and with rabbits have been obvious to everyone. No thanks to this Government, I have to say, the rabbit problem has been dealt with through the introduction---unplanned as it was---of rabbit calicivirus. However, an ongoing issue is the sustainable productive capacity of the high country. I hope, Labour hopes, and we believe that this legislation will help ensure that the way forward is a truly sustainable one. In an attempt in recent years to ensure that we deal with the high country in an appropriate way, the process of tenure review has been taking place. The farmers and the Crown have voluntarily assessed the value of their leases and have divided up the land into that of high conservation value that should be returned to the Crown, and of high productive capacity that should be freeholded to ensure the best return to New Zealand as a whole. To date, that process has been very satisfactory.
However, we are now facing the difficulties of some more difficult lease issues, of areas that are not so easy to assess, and of landowners who are perhaps not so willing to undertake the tenure review process. It is essential that that process continues. We believe that this legislation will assist in that process by laying down some criteria, and by putting in place some firm guidelines that will assist the process into the future.
We must protect the ecological values of the high country. We must ensure that the productive capacity of it is also able to be accessed and utilised by those who live on that land and who have protected it for many years in the past and will do so in the future, but who need a viable living to ensure that that protection takes place. It is my view that this legislation is the select committee's carefully calculated instrument to assist the continuation of this tenure review.
It has not been easy. As the chairperson said, many select committee members have been bombarded with different viewpoints throughout the process, but we have, in the end, come up with a reasonable compromise. We have clarified the objectives of tenure review very carefully. There was much debate over that. New clause 20 of the Crown Pastoral Land Bill now sets out what is, I believe, a true balance in terms of the objectives of tenure review for the ongoing process of allocating that land into its appropriate categories. It is, in the words of clause 20, to "(i) Promote the management of reviewable land in a way that is ecologically sustainable: (ii) Subject to subparagraph (i), enabling reviewable land capable of economic use to be freed from the management constraints... resulting from its tenure under reviewable instrument;''. Those are technical words, but they say that there should be a balance of ecological protection along with the ability to put that land into productive use through one of the instruments, which, of course, will be freeholding.
Extensive submissions were heard, and, in spite of our best attempts, parties from either side of the debate are still not happy with the outcome of this legislation. I was terribly disappointed to receive a letter from one such party that is clearly inaccurate, and that does not reflect the substance of the outcome of our select committee process. I would like to read to members what is an inaccurate view of this legislation. It states: "The Pastoral Lands Bill allows the leaseholders to freehold the high altitude land for any commercial purpose. For the purchase price of a few cents an acre the leaseholders will be able to buy land and establish ski resorts or housing subdivisions for weekend batches or sell the land at great profit to wealthy foreigners or establish pine plantations.''
I can assure the people listening to this debate that every bit of that statement is incorrect. I assure them that this legislation will, in fact, guarantee protection of the land and that we have ensured that the freeholding process will be fair to the State and to the leaseholders.
We have also opened up the land to new and innovative ways of sustainable utilisation. The days of grazing only have long gone and there are extensive opportunities for tourism and recreation in the high country. It is important that we have allowed this through the legislation. I am sure that everyone in New Zealand will welcome those changes.
Everything was up for debate, and we did debate the issues. The definitions of significant inherent values were dealt with at length. I believe that our interpretation is the right one, that the progress of time will show that this legislation is a very useful instrument in protecting the ecological, landscape, and recreational values of the high country, and in ensuring the right of the lessees to carry on with that land.
Labour welcomes the passage of this legislation and we trust that it will remain a landmark in the protection of our great country and the significant inherent values that the high country holds for every one of us.
GAVAN HERLIHY (NZ National---Otago): The old saying: "It's all in the eye of the beholder.'', has never been more apt than when describing this Bill, because both interests, whose views are diametrically opposed, are claiming that the other side has scored a resounding victory. May I share some of the comments made during the incredibly intense lobbying that, no doubt, all members of the select committee have experienced since this Bill was reported back---lobbying that intensified as the Committee stage reached its climax.
The New Zealand Council of Outdoor Recreation Associations claims that this legislation is a major victory for farming interests. It says that the legislation tilts the playing field massively in favour of the 340 pastoral lessees.
The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society says that the reworked legislation is a major victory for pastoral lessees. What ill-informed, inaccurate nonsense! It may interest the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society and the New Zealand Council of Outdoor Recreation Associations to know that the pastoral lessees feel the exact opposite. They believe that the legislation allows for an insidious erosion of their rights by an ever-voracious environmental movement, represented at the coalface by the Department of Conservation.
I share some of their concerns and have lobbied long and hard on their behalf, and, no doubt, in their eyes I have failed. I suspect that the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society and other non-governmental organisations believe that my select committee colleague Jeanette Fitzsimons has been even a bigger failure. Such is the reality and rewards of political life, I guess! May I say that I totally refute the environmental interests' contention that this legislation has been a major victory for pastoral lessees, and I echo the comment made by the previous speaker.
This legislation, as reported back from the select committee, and now fine-tuned by way of the Minister's supplementary order papers, is, firstly, a move to promote the tenure review process. That is very important. Secondly, it protects the property rights of pastoral lessees. There is no sunset clause. Thirdly, it recognises society's changing values and expectations with regard to the Crown's ownership of pastoral leased land.
I wish to talk about some of the major concerns expressed by fellow pastoral lessees. Some of them have the misconception that a pastoral Crown lease is a contract between the State and the farmer. However, a pastoral lessee is a creation of statute, and statutes change over time. This legislation fine-tunes and moves on from the previous provisions included in the Land Act of 1948.
I would agree with the contention of lessees that under new clause 14 of the Crown Pastoral Land Bill the commissioner is now asked to take into account a broader set of values than previously, when considering applications from lessees for discretionary consents. That Bill makes it very clear, however, that the commissioner must include the very purpose of the lease---that is, its pastoral use. New clause 14 very clearly defines and requires the commissioner to balance these two potentially conflicting matters. Neither has predominance. Neither can be expressed in terms so strongly that it tends to exclude the application of the other. Hence the use of the word "desirability'' rather than direct references to "protection'' and "farming purposes''.
There is much suspicion and apprehension in farming quarters about the role of the director-general in influencing the commissioner's consent or discretionary actions under new clause 14. Although the commissioner is required to consult the Director-General of Conservation, consultation does not, I repeat does not, imply that the commissioner has to accept the views of the department. The interests of the lessee, as applicant, are protected by administrative law, and the commissioner is obliged to act fairly and reasonably in making decisions under this provision. The contention by farmers that the department will be insisting that the commissioner exercises discretion to refuse consent for some farming activities is just not correct. The commissioner is bound by administrative law.
Farmers have expressed concern about the meaning of paragraph (b) in new clause 14(2) of the Crown Pastoral Land Bill: "The desirability of making it easier to use the land concerned for farming purposes.'' It is intended to mean what it says: it is to remove the impediments to carrying out farming activities on pastoral leased land.
The main thrust of the legislation is to facilitate and encourage tenure review, and to make this a much more streamlined and amenable option than is currently being experienced by those who are going through the tenure review process.
May I remind farmers that they still hold the whip hand in this process; it is a voluntary process. Unless conservation interests enter into the process in a reasoned manner, they will not achieve their desired environmental outcomes. If conservation interests get too tough, too demanding, too unreasonable, the farmer can and probably will walk away. So both sides should never forget that. The process must be a win-win situation. If there are to be wins for conservation in this process, and I sincerely hope there are, then they will have to approach tenure review in a manner that will encourage the farmer to achieve his goals. Unreasonable demands from either side of the bargaining table will mean that a win-win situation will not be achievable. That would be a tragedy; that would negate the intention of this legislation.
There was much discussion within the Committee and among farming and environmental interests as to the role of protective mechanisms in protecting land with significant inherent values. Against the wishes of some environmental groups we have retained protective mechanisms as an instrument that can be used to protect reviewable land that has significant inherent values. Notwithstanding that the word "preferably'' is being included in the legislation, the use of protective mechanisms is not precluded.
I know that during the Committee stage, Jeanette Fitzsimons, who opposes this legislation, said that the Bill as drafted did not adequately reflect the intention of the select committee that only such relatively small ecologically important pieces of land should be protected. She was referring to the use of covenants as a protective mechanism. Further, she said that she definitely felt that it was necessary to report that the select committee was of the unanimous opinion that that was how covenants should be used. I totally reject that assertion. It was not the unanimous view of the committee.
Officials did point out that covenants would be used to deal with single issues like recreation and landscape values, as well as widespread areas, and, in fact, might be used to deal with what they called the "muddle in the middle''. The legislation is not restrictive in any manner or form as to the use of covenants. This reflects the majority select committee opinion. Sure, after much discussion we agreed that Crown ownership was preferable, but in no way did we rule out the use of other protective mechanisms, nor did we put restrictions on their use. It will finally be the commissioner who on a case by case basis decides what is the most desirable way of proceeding in a tenure review process. Covenants will be one of the instruments available to him to achieve an outcome on the review process.
Many in the farming sector questioned the department's ability to manage vast tracts of land that it is falling heir to from the current review process, and also the increased volumes of land that will no doubt fall within the department's governance as a result of this legislation. I also query whether this question has been adequately addressed and I hope that the legislation's passage through the House will spark a wider debate over the Crown's broader aspirations in respect of the formation of major reserves in South Island high-country ranges.
In summary, I believe that this legislation heralds progress for some of New Zealand's unique land. Freehold ownership of land, with economic use potential, will lead to its improved stewardship. Further, the property rights of those who for various reasons will not follow the tenure review path are protected. Every high-country situation is different. Therefore, it has been impossible to write a prescriptive wording to cover every conceivable situation. Thus a lot of faith will be put in the hands of the commissioner. I wish him well in the very important job he has before him of administering the intent of this significant legislation.
Finally, I say that I have found my involvement in this legislation a taxing one. I have been mindful of my vested interest, mindful that the hopes and aspirations of my fellow lessees weighed upon my shoulders, but also mindful of my duty as an MP to consider the wider interests. History will judge the wisdom of our decisions. I commend this legislation to be passed through the House, and thank all those who have been involved in the process, including the officials, my fellow select committee members, and the various interest groups who have extensively lobbied me---some very passionately.
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (The Alliance): The Alliance will be voting against the legislation, and that is a shame, because we agree that there needs to be legislation that provides for the ecological sustainability of the high country, that provides for the protection of inherent conservation values, and that creates some public conservation reserves or national parks in an area where there are virtually none. We also agree that those who farm there should be able to use a wider range of farming methods and types of farming than they can under leasehold tenure, provided that it is consistent with sustainability. Therefore we also support provisions to allow them to move beyond pastoralism to other forms of land use.
But this legislation sets up conditions for the wholesale foreign ownership of some of our most precious lands in the high country of the South Island, and that is something the Alliance can never agree to. The freeholding provisions are initially for the current lessees, but everyone knows there is a queue of overseas investors standing behind them, wanting to buy that land. It is interesting that just recently during the Indonesian crisis there was considerable feeling in the high country itself about the area now owned by the Suharto family, and to what extent it would become their bolt-hole when they left power in Indonesia.
It is disappointing that the Labour Party has said it will vote for this legislation but totally opposes foreign ownership of the high country. It is not actually possible to do both. Once this legislation goes through, there is absolutely nothing any of us can do to prevent foreign ownership of that land, because the rules of the Overseas Investment Commission are so weak that virtually every application is approved.
I think it is disappointing that many are portraying this legislation as some kind of struggle between vested interests, between 340 high-country lessees and a bunch of self-interested environmentalists who want to tramp, or hunt, or generally enjoy the recreational values of the high country. I do not see it that way at all. I think what we have been trying to do in the select committee is provide longer-term and more fundamental values for the whole of New Zealand. We have been trying to make sure that New Zealand's indigenous ecosystems do not become extinct---for example, special types of tussock grassland. We have been trying to protect soil, which is disappearing fast from many parts of the high country. We have been trying to make it easier for those who farm to do so in a sustainable way, and we have been trying to protect the long-term access to that country of New Zealanders who love it. I do not see the legislation in any way as a struggle between the lessees and the conservationists. If it were to be seen in that way, then I would have to say that there are a lot more New Zealanders wanting to enjoy the high country for recreational or ecological reasons than there are people wanting to farm it. But I do not actually think that is the argument.
The legislation relies on an exchange of rights between the lessees and the Crown. The drafting of the legislation has been very careful to recognise that the lessees have a right of perpetual renewal of their leases, and that nothing we do in this legislation is allowed to affect that in any way, but there has been very little recognition of the rights of the Crown under the Land Act, which gives it the right to resume leases if the land is not being managed sustainably. That seems to have been totally cut out of the options given to us.
The legislation does nothing to address the last remaining subsidised rents in this country---the peppercorn rentals paid by the lessees. It was an opportunity to start to move those towards market rents. The legislation does nothing about it.
I am very concerned at the statement made by Gavan Herlihy that the select committee did not agree that covenants could not protect ecological values adequately except for relatively small, discrete, and fenced areas. We are not talking about a covenant for landscape values, because obviously that is a different matter. The committee was very clear---and we were told this by the original promoter of the legislation, the previous Minister of Lands, and no dissent was expressed openly in the select committee---that covenants were intended to be used for small, discrete areas that were ecologically important, that could be fenced off from stock, but that did not need to be handed over to the Department of Conservation for its management.
The reason I am concerned is that I have a letter from the Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust to Federated Mountain Clubs, which states: "I advise the trust is progressing negotiations for 11 covenants involving tussock grassland, wetland, forest and other montane vegetation, over 45,000 hectares of freehold and leasehold land.'' Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust covenants are on the whole covenants to protect ecological values. Certainly, protecting the values of tussock grassland, wetland, forest, and other montane vegetation is not consistent with having animals grazing all the way through them. A Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust covenant is a totally unsuitable way of protecting the Crown's conservation interest in land that the Crown still owns but is about to freehold to farmers to graze without restrictions.
Not only does the legislation not make the committee's intention clear, but Mr Herlihy this morning has made them even less clear. Yet I do not recall anyone on the select committee expressing the view that 45,000 hectares of important ecological values could be protected by freeholding them and putting a Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust covenant across them.
I return to the argument that farmers are the most appropriate people to protect the ecological and soil values of their land. Of course farmers love their land. Of course they love living in the high country. It is a spectacular place. I know that families who have been there for generations form a very special relationship with it, and I do not want to say anything to downgrade in any way that special relationship, but we have to look at the facts. The soil has virtually gone from thousands of hectares up there. Thousands of hectares are raising nothing except Hieracium. That land has been seriously overgrazed. We have had report after scientific report about how serious the situation is, and who has been in charge of it while that has been happening? Pastoral farmers. So to argue that protecting the ecological values of the high country can simply be left to all the pastoral farmers there is clearly inadequate.
I am very disappointed that the Government not only refused to accept two amendments I proposed during the Committee stage---that was perhaps to be expected---but refused to give any reasons for that refusal, and refused to clarify the legal issues I raised during debate. It simply would not take a call to deal with those matters at all. I shall explain them just briefly.
Section 23D provides for current conservation land to be put into the pot of tenure review, and therefore eventually be disposed of by freeholding, presumably in return for some greater conservation values that come out of the mix. We do not oppose that in itself, but we have queried whether section 49 of the Conservation Act would require the Minister, under this process, to go through a proper public hearing process before that land was disposed of. The Minister refused to clarify whether it would or would not, and also refused to accept an amendment to this legislation to indicate that that section would apply here as well. That means the law is unclear.
Hon. RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader---ACT NZ): I rise to speak to the legislation on behalf of the ACT party. We also object to the legislation, but for the exact opposite reasons to those given by the member who has just spoken.
Rick Barker: That's a relief!
Hon. RICHARD PREBBLE: Yes. The Alliance is basically advocating socialising high-country pastoral regions.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: It's publicly owned now.
Hon. RICHARD PREBBLE: That is not true. People have perpetual leases, and it is a shame that the Alliance does not understand property rights. But the people who have those leases are the owners. It is true that the Crown also has property rights, but the Crown has property rights in fee simple land as well. Fee simple land comes from the Crown, but that does not mean that members of Parliament can say to people who own fee simple land that they have decided to have interesting views on conservation and that therefore those people's property rights are lost.
The Alliance is saying to the people who own those pastoral leases---which cover approximately 2.45 million hectares of South Island high country stretching from Southland to Marlborough---many of whom bought them and others of whom inherited them, that it does not recognise their property rights. I say to this House, representing the ACT party, which does recognise property rights, that property rights are fundamental to a free society, and that Parliament should not alter property rights without, firstly, an extremely good reason, and, secondly, compensation.
I basically believe that this legislation is driven by a fad about conservation and a misunderstanding with regard to the best way to administer 2.45 million hectares. The Crown has not told us how many resources will be required if the State starts to try to administer all this land. The amount of money involved would be enormous. Already the Department of Conservation tells us via its various pressure groups that it does not have enough money to administer the land it has at the moment, and that is true. Now the department is saying that even though it cannot administer the land that already is in the State's control, it has decided to take over, in many aspects, these 2.45 million hectares.
I ask the people in the Alliance who they think actually prevents people from roaring through the high country in four-wheel vehicles, doing a great deal of damage to the farms. Who does that at the moment? The lessees do it. They are not paid for it. They are actually unpaid stewards of this land. Who do Alliance members think actually prevents fires from doing enormous damage to the high country? Again, it is the lessees, who are unpaid stewards of the high country. Many of those---
Hon. Denis Marshall: They light a few themselves!
Hon. RICHARD PREBBLE: That is correct, but under the Land Act, before people can do that they need to have permission from the Commissioner of Crown Lands. Is the member suggesting that the landowners are lighting fires without getting permission?
[Interruption] I think the member is pointing out that we already have environmental measures that cover this land. Indeed, I point out to members of the Alliance that in fact all the pastoral leases are covered by the Resource Management Act and the regional councils. Measures are already in place. I do not believe that any case has been established for introducing the legislation in the first place, but I must say I am speaking on behalf of Ken Shirley, who was on the Primary Production Committee and put forward a number of amendments.
The particular clause that violates property rights the most would have to be clause 14, whereby before people can get permission to do a wide range of actions they have to get the commissioner's permission. It is a discretionary consent. I assure the House that a perpetual lease is recognised in the Land Transfer Act as being an estate in land. The lessees are property owners. A Crown pastoral lessee now has to go to the commissioner, who takes into account the desirability of protecting inherent values.
I am a lawyer. I have an honours degree in law. I do not claim to be a great lawyer, but I do not have a clue what that means. I say to members of the committee that they do not have a clue, either. We should not be passing laws when the Minister and the MPs do not know what they mean. That is what is wrong with the Resource Management Act. We passed the Resource Management Act although no member of Parliament knew what sections of it meant, and now no local body knows what it means and no property owner knows what it means. We have a series of court cases and complete confusion.
This is bad lawmaking. Why are we doing it? We are doing it because it sounds good. Members say "inherent values'' means "conservation values''. If that is so, why does the legislation not state it? It states "inherent values''. What on earth does that mean? If a property owner writes to the commissioner to ask to do something, why should it be a lottery as to whether the commissioner will say "Yes'' or "No''? It will change depending on the commissioner. To call this measure communist is probably wrong, because at least communism has some purpose behind it; it is just statism. The House is assuming that a commissioner sitting in Wellington, presumably one of my constituents, somehow knows better than the owner of the land what he or she ought to be doing.
There is no way that the commissioner can go down there to have a look. The commissioner does not have a set of incentives to make the right decisions. Indeed, a number of paid lobbyists here in Wellington for the various environmental groups will make his life hell if he does not say "No''. That is what will happen. We all know that. The same group of people who have been making the lives of various members of the committee hell will be lobbying that commissioner not to make proper decisions. That is a violation of property rights. Our party says that the ability of citizens to own property without interference from the State is a basic freedom. The pastoral owners have done a good job in protecting conservation values. They are far more likely to do so than this particular measure.
Therefore, I want to record that Ken Shirley put up alternatives to the Committee. They were voted down 112 to 8. Once again, the ACT party was the only party prepared to stand up in Parliament for property rights. As such, we will continue to vote against this legislation. This Parliament is far too ready to violate basic property rights and to violate the rights of citizens. This legislation is misconceived. It is the result of lobbying groups.
When we as parliamentarians are faced with issues like this, we should be prepared to stand up on behalf of the property rights of citizens. We should say that we are opposed to their being undermined. Therefore the ACT party is opposed to this legislation. It is a great shame that Mr Gavan Herlihy will not vote with his heart against it, because what he knows in his heart to be wrong he should also know in his mind to be wrong. This is bad, statism legislation, and it is a shame that the Government is putting it forward.
Hon. DENIS MARSHALL (NZ National---Rangitikei): I am pleased to take the call after the member who has just resumed his seat, the Hon. Richard Prebble, because the speech we have just heard is a complete antithesis of the speech we heard from Jeanette Fitzsimons. That pretty well sums up where many people are coming from on this issue.
I tell the Hon. Richard Prebble that when I, as Minister of Lands, was confronted with the issue of the future management of these areas, property rights was a very important issue. Of course, the best way of resolving the debate and the argument over the future use, management, and husbandry of these lands was actually to give the lessees more property rights than they have right now. That is precisely the framework we are putting in place with this legislation.
This legislation is the biggest reform of land management in New Zealand since the reforms of the mid-1980s---something that Richard Prebble had a great deal to do with---and, more important, since the Land Act came into place in 1948. In those days it was believed that the only thing one could do with the land was graze sheep. The Land Act imposed on the pastoral lessees who had a perpetual right of renewal of their leases a monoculture of grazing. If they wanted to do anything else they had to get permission, with all the dangers in that that Richard Prebble highlighted. In other words, they were exposed to the pressures of lobbyists on every side of the argument.
I said to those lessees that I could not believe that they enjoyed being so dependent on the whims of the Government and the Commissioner of Crown Lands as to their future. They seemed to enjoy having regular meetings with endless bureaucrats, sorting out how they should conduct their business from one year to the next. I thought that was crazy, and I am delighted to report that a former member, Warren Cooper, talking to the high-country farmers the other day, said it was crazy too. Who wants to conduct business at the mercy of the Government or the agents of the Government before one can go and make one dollar?
The answer is for these folk to negotiate with the Crown in the way that they will be able to as a result of this legislation. There will be voluntary negotiation to freehold land that has an economic use, while the Crown takes into account the conservation and sustainable land management issues that it must take account when it considers the future management of these lands.
I was brought up to be extremely suspicious of anything that smacks of a lease. On my father's knee I was told that the only property rights worth anything are freehold property rights, and anything less than that leads to a packet of trouble.
Hon. Richard Prebble: Because we have coalition Governments.
Hon. DENIS MARSHALL: We know that it leads to a packet of trouble, and Richard Prebble probably has very good experience of these matters. I think there now is a huge incentive for the pastoral lessees to negotiate with the Commissioner of Crown Lands over the future of the leases they hold. This legislation provides the appropriate framework to do that. There had been negotiations in the past before this legislation was introduced. They did not have the appropriate legislative framework to support them, and that is really why I was persuaded that this legislation was the appropriate course of action. It has taken a long time---I know that---but I think the time spent has been well spent.
I would like to acknowledge the work that many of those involved, on both sides of the argument, have put into it, particularly the two chairmen of the high-country branch of Federated Farmers whom I worked with---Bob Brown and John Aspinall---and also those involved on the conservation side, such as Bryce Johnson and Kevin Smith.
I must say it was not helpful that Federated Mountain Clubs and Public Access New Zealand carried on in the way they did over this issue. We went through endless negotiation. There were meetings with all the lessees and meetings with all the conservation groups in New Zealand when the policy objective was out there, before the legislation was drafted. We got a measure of agreement, and I brought the various groups to Wellington and sat them down in the Cabinet committee room. It was the most embarrassing confrontation I have ever had in my life. All those people with whom we had been working through the issue refused to agree on anything. It came very close to causing me to throw the whole thing out and walk away from it.
That gives an indication of the very entrenched views that some people have about the future of these lands. It is some credit to those involved that we were able to make progress and to bring this legislation into the House. I think that while there is a certain amount of play-acting from various groups, there now is much greater acceptance that there are significant benefits for all parties than many people are prepared to admit.
There are very high costs for the Crown in the administration of these leases at the present time. The Crown is out of pocket over their administration. Ownership inputs are required such as weed and pest control, and there are no current market value rents. In current terms, in plain economic terms, the Government is not getting a return on its investment, rights are not clearly defined, and the land is not being used to its highest economic potential. Consequently, our policy for land tenure reform is to make decisions as to the best land use by establishing the process set down in this legislation. This legislation will freehold Crown pastoral land capable of sustaining a range of economic uses. It will secure nature conservation, historic, landscape, cultural, recreation, public interest, and other Crown purposes in the high country. It will ensure ongoing management of land that remains under pastoral lease, and it will meet the Crown's obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.
I close by thanking all the members of the House who have participated in this debate. Labour members opposite made a very rational contribution to the argument, although a number of them were a bit xenophobic about foreign ownership. I cannot understand why some people must be excluded, apparently, from ownership when perhaps their husbandry is better than that of some of those who have been on the land for years. That is some strange, mystical belief that possesses members opposite, and they cannot quite get it out of their system.
I believe that with the passage of this legislation we will enter a new era in terms of the future of the 2.5 million hectares of Crown-owned pastoral land in the South Island, both to secure the future of those who make their living out of that land, and to ensure nature conservation and all the other interests in that land are protected.
RUTH DYSON (NZ Labour): The closing words of the member who has just resumed his seat highlighted the tension and the differences that have surrounded the passage of this legislation through Parliament, and the submissions that have been made to it. Mr Marshall said that the reason for the introduction of the legislation was to ensure the best economic use of our high-country Crown pastoral land. While that is one of the aims of the legislation, I guess it is not the only aim that members of this Parliament would wish it to have. Labour members sought to ensure that the conservation values of our high country are valued in the same sort of way as the concerns that Mr Marshall expressed about the best economic use, and they are not able to be compromised in every instance. Often there is a conflict between the best economic use and sustainable management. Therefore when there is compromise without a clear definition and without some clear leadership from the Government, as is the case in the reporting back of this legislation and its passage through its final stages, there will remain issues that need a clearer resolution in the future.
In my view, this legislation was introduced because of the tenure review process and the fact that it lacked any accountability. There was no process at all for public consultation in the tenure review process. Since the original Land Act in 1948, New Zealanders' views have matured in relation to the use of our land. We have seen much of it destroyed. We have seen the introduction of pests. We have seen much of our highly valued land unable to be restored to its original state. So one of the other purposes of the legislation was to ensure that the value that the community placed on the non-pastoral interests in the high country were reflected in the statutory powers and the duties of the commissioner.
Once again we see a potential conflict in the way that the community values our high-country land, particularly the non-pastoral interests in the land. Crown pastoral land is a term that is quite common in the South Island, but in the rest of New Zealand---in the North Island and in the smaller outlying islands, such as Stewart Island---people are not as familiar with that term.
What we are referring to is 2.5 million hectares of South Island high country. Mostly it is farmed under grazing leases, and most of those grazing leases have been in place since the 1850s. So we can understand why the farmers who are currently involved in grazing the land have a really strong commitment to it. Their families have been on the land and committed to it for a long time. It comprises about 20 percent of the South Island---quite a significant part of the Mainland. Most of the high country is environmentally sensitive and much of it has high public recreation and nature conservation values.
Throughout these third readings we have heard a lot about the process of public consultation on the legislation, about the legislation going backwards and forwards to different interest groups that have made submissions, and about the compromise that has been reached. However, major changes have been made to it. Quite significant changes have been introduced without consultation, or with minimal consultation. That should be of concern to Parliament.
I know that members often get isolated in the process of their work. We see the work every day and we often work hard, day in and day out, on a particular Bill, as indeed the select committee has worked very hard on this legislation. But we forget that a lot of our work is done behind closed doors. It is within the precincts of Parliament, and members of the public are left out or left behind. That has certainly happened with some quite significant parts of this legislation.
Despite the compromises that have been reached, and despite my remaining concerns about the final shape of this legislation, there have been some slight improvements on the previous situation. In the tenure review process there has been the inclusion of the concession provisions from the Conservation Act and the Reserves Act, and that certainly is a minor improvement on what was there originally. There have been new and specific definitions for significant inherent values and for natural resources. Those again are improvements that I congratulate the select committee on.
There have been new and enhanced controls on pastoral land in relation to burning, top dressing, and seeding. It is of interest that at the moment we are looking at major pollution, particularly in Christchurch. It has been proved recently that the greatest impact of pollution on our city comes from the burning off of stubble in surrounding rural areas. Most of us assume that the pollution is from our wood fires or from transport emissions, but in fact it is from stubble---not from the stubble that is removed with a razor, but stubble that is burnt off in the surrounding rural areas. Obviously, some greater recognition of the pollution implications of that burning off is important and this legislation has sought to address that, again in a minor way.
The statutory obligations of the commissioner have been strengthened in respect of the inherent values of our land. It has been spelt out that the commissioner will consult the Department of Conservation on matters of concern to it, and that is very important.
In the tenure review process, priority is given to the promotion of ecologically sustainable land management. But despite those improvements, there remain some key problems with the legislation. Land can now be freeholded, not just for pastoral farming but for any economic use. Once the use of that land is altered, as for skiing, helicopter use, or whatever other economic activity, it will not be easily returned to the sort of use that the majority of New Zealanders would wish.
The fact that land can now be freeholded not just for pastoral farming but for any economic use remains a concern. Conservation land and unoccupied Crown land is now available for freeholding. Even worse than that, that freeholding is without the safeguards that exist in the Conservation Act. Those safeguards include a process of public notification and submission. So once again, land is likely to change from being conservation land or unoccupied Crown land, into freehold land without the opportunity for any public input. That is a key concern to Labour, as well.
The use of covenants as a major instrument of tenure review is not satisfactory, more particularly when no criteria have been included in the legislation as to when covenants are to be used. That issue was raised consistently in submissions to the select committee and has still been overlooked. But the biggest concern that remains with this legislation is---as I said at the beginning of my address and as Mr Marshall addressed---with the conflicts that exist with the purposes of the legislation.
What should Parliament be looking at with regard to our Crown pastoral land? Sustainable management should be the purpose of pastoral land administration. It should be the purpose of ongoing administration of pastoral leases, not just for tenure review. That issue has been swamped by the interests of the lessees in the deliberation of this legislation.
There remain some major issues for conservation and recreation in New Zealand. This legislation does not address the lack of Government attention to our conservation estate. It does not require the Government to put more money into pest and predator control, into erosion control, and into providing suitable facilities for access to our conservation estate. It does not require the Government to plant the 195,000 hectares of land assessed as needing protection on the North Island East Coast. It does not deal with the terrible erosion occurring in the South Island high country. It does not deal with the Government inaction on rabbit control.
The Government was surprised when the rabbit calicivirus disease arrived in New Zealand, and it still has not put in place a comprehensive programme to control rabbits in this country. Until the Government starts to deal with the real problems that this country has with sustainable land management we will not see the recovery of land that all stakeholders in our nation want to see. All the conflicting interest groups that submitted to this legislation would like to see a stronger Government commitment to management of our conservation estate.
Labour does not see the conclusion of this legislation as conclusion of the issues. We will be monitoring closely the progress of tenure reviews. If the reviews do not progress, and valuable conservation land is degraded as a result of freeholding, Labour will revisit these provisions to provide a better balance for conservation values.
Hon. JOHN LUXTON (Minister of Lands): I just want to finish off the third readings of the Crown Pastoral Land Bill and the Land Amendment Bill. Unfortunately, I was detained by business in Auckland last night when the Bills commenced their third reading stage. I want to support this legislation, and recognise that it sees some resolution of the aspirations of different groups in our society with respect to Crown-owned high country in the South Island. It also reflects New Zealanders' changing attitudes towards that high country. The legislation provides for the reform of the approximately 2.5 million hectares of Crown pastoral land tenure in the South Island, by amending provisions that were introduced in 1948, when, obviously, views on what should happen to that land, and what was happening to it, were rather different from what they are today. It deals with both the administration and the tenure reform process of that land.
The Crown Pastoral Land Bill was introduced into this House a little over 3 years ago, and it is pleasing to achieve finally the passage of this legislation after this time. Once again I commend the select committee and officials for their efforts and careful consideration of the submissions.
Much of the time spent by the Primary Production Committee in considering the many submissions was spent in trying to find some middle ground between, at times, quite polarised views on the future and the stewardship of this South Island high country. New Zealand people have diverse and honestly held views on the issue, and I believe that the select committee has given a great deal of thought about how to balance the outcome in as fair a way as possible.
In particular, I commend the former Minister of Conservation and Minister of Lands, the Hon. Denis Marshall. He spent an enormous amount of time over the last 3 or 4 years in trying to find this resolution. I think the fact that he was both Minister of Conservation and Minister of Lands has been a key to providing an acceptable solution to this, so much so that many of us in Cabinet felt that he was spending much of his time in the South Island. We nicknamed him "Tussock Marshall'' as a result of the fact that he was spending so much time trying to find a resolution to the difficult issue of how we deal with Crown pastoral lands in the future.
I do not really want to go any further into the detail. I am quite sure that that has been canvassed by members on both sides. In finishing, I just want to repeat that I am very pleased to see that the legislation has progressed to this point. The legislation will facilitate both voluntary reviews---and I stress that it is voluntary---and the freeholding of parts of current leasehold properties, particularly those that do not have high conservation value. It will enable the Crown to protect other areas that do have significant conservation value, by freeholding them into the Department of Conservation estate, or by way of covenants, and it will ensure access over this unique part of our country. I am sure that these Bills will be welcomed as very good progress in handling the 2.5 million hectares of Crown pastoral land tenure in the South Island in a more appropriate way into the year 2000.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Crown Pastoral Land Bill and the Land Amendment Bill be read a third time.
Ayes 100
New Zealand National 44;
Labour 37;
New Zealand First 17;
United New Zealand 1;
Independent 1.
Noes 18
Alliance 12;
ACT New Zealand 6.
Majority for: 82
Bills read a third time.
Hansard 6 April 1995
Hansard
7 May 1998
Hansard 27 May 1998
Hansard 28 May 1998
Hansard 17 June 1998 (this page)