This page last modified 16 September 1998
Crown Pastoral Land Bill (text)
Hansard 6 April 1995
Hansard 7 May 1998 (this page)
Hansard 27
May 1998
Hansard
28 May 1998
Hansard 17 June 1998
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.
Hansard 6 April 1995
Hansard 7 May 1998 (this
page)
Hansard 27
May 1998
Hansard
28 May 1998
Hansard 17 June 1998