This page last modified 16 September 1998
Crown Pastoral Land Bill (text)
Hansard 6 April 1995
Hansard
7 May 1998
Hansard
27 May 1998
Hansard 28 May 1998 (this page)
Hansard 17
June 1998
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: 21
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.
Hansard 6 April 1995
Hansard
7 May 1998
Hansard
27 May 1998
Hansard 28 May 1998 (this page)
Hansard 17
June 1998