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
Hansard 17 June 1998 (this page)
Third Reading
'Hansard', 17 June 1998
Hon. MAX BRADFORD (Minister of Labour), on behalf of the Minister of Lands: I move, That the Crown Pastoral Land Bill and the Land Amendment Bill be now read a third time. These two Bills have been broken out from the Crown Pastoral Land Bill that was recently reported back from the Primary Production Committee.
I am sure the House would want to congratulate the committee, particularly the chairman, Mr Eric Roy, on the excellent job it did in considering what amounts to complex legislation---contentious too, I believe---that has been progressed quite successfully. It received the support of all parties in this House except the Alliance. It is the sort of pattern we expect from the Alliance. It cannot support anything. For the most part it follows the Labour Party blindly into the Noes lobby, but in this case even the Labour Party got it right in supporting a piece of legislation that makes important changes to the way in which the Crown pastoral estate is managed, particularly in the form of giving public access to the Crown pastoral estate while protecting the tenure of those farmers who currently have access to the Crown pastoral estate.
I am sure the House will want to progress this legislation rapidly through its third reading. It has taken a long time to get to this point, but it is something that the public is waiting for. It is waiting for this legislation to come into effect. It is waiting for the certainty that comes with legislation that passes through the House. I commend this excellent legislation to the House. In an effort not to hold up the legislation at all I will take my seat and allow those who have very positive things to say, to speak---except the Alliance---in order that this legislation can be progressed.
Hon. JIM SUTTON (NZ Labour---Aoraki): The reason this Bill has taken such an unconscionably long time to get back is that every 3 years in this country we have a general election, and the Government, having introduced this Bill, then fell into a state of panic believing that if it got within sniffing distance of a general election while the Bill was still appearing in the news media, it would have a controversy along the same lines as the Queen's Chain controversy at the previous election, which is the sort of argument the Government can never win. So the Government buried this Bill for about 18 months while a general election was got out of the way and the votes were counted, and then it came out again, got dusted off, hosed down, and it is finally back here in the House.
Indeed, after all that, the Bill does not do any of the things that would doubtless have been alleged, like privatising the mountains, our common heritage, and that sort of thing. However, the Bill does do some pretty useful things. The Bill re-enacts and modifies the current provisions of the Land Act relating to Crown pastoral leases, it removes the power to grant new leases---except on the subdivision of existing leases---because I think that everybody recognises that this instrument has passed its use-by date and we want to phase them out rather than create new ones.
The Bill promotes sustainable land management in a way that reflects the much greater understanding in 1998 than the understanding that existed in 1948 as to what constituted sustainable land management. The Bill safeguards conservation, historic landscape, cultural, recreational, and public access interests of the land, and it does assist in facilitating the freeholding of Crown pastoral land that is capable of sustaining productive uses. That will be done through voluntary negotiated land tenure review. It ensures that the Crown obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi are upheld, and it provides greater accountability and transparency in the process.
It is worth repeating that tenure review is a voluntary process. The Crown is not obliged to agree to people freeholding mountain tops and covering them with tourist hotels, and so on, exclusively for the use of rich foreigners. The Bill does not override the Resource Management Act. It does not override the Local Government Act. All the planning procedures remain in place. No special atrocities can be committed on the high country as a result of this Bill. I think that once people realise that, a lot of the complaints that come will melt away.
I believe that the committee worked extraordinarily hard on this measure. The number of submissions will no doubt be related by the chairman of the committee in due course. The care taken by the committee was unusual in that we went through two rounds of submissions to the select committee because we sent out a tentative Bill as reported back to all the main submitters and they all had another go. More than that, they decided that because apparently the rules were off, it was open slather and they could make continuous and repeated representations, and it became a contest.
We had only to have a couple of deerstalkers being seen coming into Parliament Buildings, and the environmentalists got worried that deerstalkers might be making some submissions that had to be countered. For example, deerstalkers might be allowed to leave their used brass shells lying around and thereby desecrate the natural landscape values of the countryside. If anybody should be seen entertaining a merino wool producer in the members and guests lounge, the word went out and we would have a procession of people with recreational and environmental interests turning up at all the select committee members' offices to make sure that some sneaky submission had not been put in that needed to be countered.
At the end of the day I believe that the committee, by negotiation and care, produced a Bill that was better from all points of view than the one originally introduced.
I am sure the environmentalists gained out of this Bill, because they gained a degree of public control over certain land management and farming practices that we now realise do impact upon the other values embodied in the high country. The recreationists gained because they got a degree of recognition and a degree of priority for public access in decision-making that is unprecedented in the management of Crown pastoral lease land. Conservation gains because a very large amount of additional land will be allocated to the conservation estate in the process of tenure review. I believe that the runholders have also gained because a lot of the prejudices that have existed in the urban community about the management of high-country land will diminish in the future as a result of a much more transparent and accountable system of Crown supervision of the land that does remain in pastoral lease.
The process of tenure review is sought by all parties---all parties are happy with the process of tenure review that has been going on, but all parties have, at the same time, been nervous of the streamlining provisions of this Bill that will make possible a much more rapid progression through the backlog of applications. People are worried that perhaps they will not be able to keep up with the rate of reviews being considered, and so on, but I believe that it will be better.
It will be better for the lessees because they will be able to freehold the land with truly productive economic potential that can be used for economic purposes without prejudicing the other inherent values of the high-country land. They will be able to get much more flexible management of that land without having to jump through all the bureaucratic hoops that they have to jump through at this time, and without being limited solely to the pastoral use.
It is recognised nowadays that pastoral use is not always the highest and best use of pastoral lease land. Some of the land is suitable for quite intensive agriculture. More of it is suitable for other forms of economic use, like recreational use, the tourism industry, and so on, and this land can now be considered for these things on the same balance of factors as any other land. This, of course, is to the advantage of the occupiers who have more flexibility and a greater ability to manage their land.
I have got quite a deal of satisfaction from the processing of this Bill through the House. I have enjoyed working with other members of the committee from all parties. So in short, Labour will support this Bill.
Debate interrupted.
Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)
POINT OF ORDER---QUESTION TIME
Rt Hon. JONATHAN HUNT (NZ Labour): I seek the leave of the House to have question time at 2 o'clock. I do so because we have a very critical occurrence at the moment in the economy, with serious statements being made by both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. I think we should be able to have questions in Parliament as per normal. Of course, the leave I am seeking would not in any way break urgency.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Debate resumed.
ERIC ROY (NZ National): I think the House will look forward to concluding this legislation with the third readings of the Crown Pastoral Land Bill and the Land Amendment Bill, which we began last evening. This will bring to a close some 3 years and 3 months of activity around the Crown Pastoral Land Bill. That Bill was introduced in April 1995. It has had its third birthday. Mr Sutton, the member who opened the debate last night, said that it was an election issue that protracted this particular course of action on this legislation. That may or may not be true, but a point he made was that the legislation was now much better than it had been. Yes, we did have considerable consultation, more than on almost any other piece of legislation that I have been involved with in terms of coming to some decisions about the shape that the legislation should be and then putting out an issues paper to all the stakeholders.
So we have, I believe, a piece of legislation that has been very well consulted on and very well thought through that we are now presenting back to the House. Even through the Committee stage, certainly Government members were getting on a daily basis faxes, letters, e-mails, and phone calls around a whole range of issues that were in the legislation as reported back. I have to say to the House that a daily occurrence---
Rick Barker: Did the member ignore the lot?
ERIC ROY: No, the member should listen. I was just saying that on a daily basis we met officials in the office of the Minister of Lands and talked through a variety of issues that were raised. There were claims from the runholders, the lessees, that we had been captured by the green movement, the eco-movement, or whatever is the appropriate title for those people. Similarly, we had a number of claims from those particular groups---the recreational and green interest eco-groups---saying that the runholders had captured us.
A great deal of time was spent working through the issues, just to ensure again that what we had put forward was workable and that the principles that needed to be protected were protected. We ensured that the workability or the viability of the runholders was not being impinged upon in any way that would be a step back from what they had, but certainly to give them some sort of an advantage.
This legislation relates to $2.45 million hectares of land in the South Island, running from Southland to Marlborough. It essentially includes a great portion of the subalpine landscape of the South Island. It is an area that is very precious to a number of people. It is precious to the farmers who exist on that particular piece of the South Island. It is this piece of land that produces the finest quality fine wool anywhere in the world. It is of significance in terms of economic value and the livelihood of those people who are on it. It is also a piece of land that has a great deal of natural appeal, scenic beauty, and recreational opportunity, and it contains some very unique ecosystems, and so it is of interest to virtually all New Zealanders.
This legislation brought with it expectations from both sides of that argument that certain things would happen, and those things were never in the scope of the legislation. I received a letter yesterday from an individual who said that there should be no right of freeholding this land, but that has always been the case under the Land Act. This legislation has sought to clarify and simplify the manner in which that could take place, while beefing up the protection of those things that are so significant and so important.
Similarly, on the other side, some runholders believe they should have the right to have the entire lot freeholded with some covenants to protect a few bits and pieces along the way that they saw as partially relevant, and so these expectations were quite diverse. As the Minister who moved the third readings said, this has been quite controversial legislation.
It is my view that the harsher the environment that one lives in, the greater empathy there is for that particular land. We have a range of very deep feelings about a piece of land. I guess one should say that the tenure review process had taken place only on those tracts of land where the runholder had something to trade, something to give away, to the conservation estate. This sets out some principles that are much, much clearer and sets out some very clear mechanisms of protection.
It is no secret that what was happening was not particularly successful in the management arena. That is no criticism of the runholders that were there. This particular area of land was facing problems of weeds such as Hieracium and pests such as rabbits. The viability of those that were there was in question. Flexibility to diversify, to subdivide, or to take a range of options is certainly necessary. I am of the view that whilst this is a very precious piece of the environment for New Zealand, the appropriate custodian for its management is the runholder. We need to ensure that the protection is there, that we provide access for those people who want to enjoy it in a recreational way, but that we increase the viability and the options for those who are the custodians.
I believe that this legislation does that. It sets out quite clearly the involvement of the Department of Conservation in terms of the identification of those bits that need protection. It ensures that that protection is adequate, and that all those bits for which there is no viable productive use are being returned to the Crown estate, yet some degree of protection is necessary for those areas that hold inherent significant values.
The high country of New Zealand is a very fluid environment. It has changed significantly. The management of it is really quite critical. To conclude I just want to say that it is important that those areas are protected. I believe that it is important that the runholders be given the right opportunity to manage those tracts of land. I believe that they will not enter into negotiation of tenure review if they do not have an advantage out of it. They will not approach the process. One has to expect that they have an advantage.
Why do I say they are the important people? I have here a poem called The Reasons, written by Jim Morris, who was one of the submitters. He is a high-country farmer. I will read the first two verses. One should be able to appreciate the importance or the attitude of these people. It is not fame or fortune that makes men muster sheep on broken rugged hillsides and ranges rough and steep; it is not love of comfort or the working of short hours that makes him tread the mountains amid the pure fresh alpine flowers; it's the frosty early mornings as the dawn breaks clear and bright and the mists rise from the valley as the day takes o'er from night. And so it goes on. It is a very moving poem and it captures the essence of the people who run this land.
These people, I believe, are the appropriate custodians. If this land were to come back to the State it would be an impossibility to manage it in the way that these people can manage it. It would impose a cost upon the Government that is entirely inappropriate. It is important that this legislation is in place to give viability to those people who are the appropriate custodians of this country, with the protection devices in place to ensure that adequate protection for the important bits is there. I therefore urge the House to pass the third readings.
DAMIEN O'CONNOR (NZ Labour---West Coast - Tasman): As my colleague Jim Sutton said last night, Labour welcomes this legislation back into the House for its final passage. The country has been waiting for many years to have such legislation in place. The legislation has been around for too long and we hope that its passage today will be welcomed by everyone in New Zealand.
We have had, on the one hand, people who live and work on the land---as the previous speaker has said---people who have the high country in their blood, whose very existence has depended upon the utilisation of this land. So we can understand their passion in making submissions to the select committee. Their rights, of course, will be affected by this legislation; they had perceived rights to this land that were for a long time considered as good as freehold. None the less, the fact remains that this land is not theirs; it belongs to the public of New Zealand.
As lessees they had to work their way through this legislation to ensure that the rights that they had assumed, and that we had assumed as well, were not totally removed. Therefore, the passion with which they made submissions to the select committee could be well understood.
We had other people---those who look at the postcards of the high country, who travel from the cities to enjoy the recreational opportunities in the high country---who considered that this land was also theirs. They were also passionate in their submissions to the select committee.
I must reflect on a vision I keep in my mind of travelling through the high country in the middle of winter many years ago, on a bright moonlight night. I turned off the lights in the vehicle, and just viewed this spectacular landscape. To many people in New Zealand that is what the high country epitomises---vast expanses with amazing landscape and aspects that are simply unique to this country in this part of the world. The views of these people were also expressed with passion at the select committee.
The third group of people were those who considered that the ecology of the high country is very fragile, the landscape should be untouched, and it is absolutely imperative that we protect all the inherent values of that land. Those people were also passionate in their submissions.
So, in fact, we had three groups, and they scrutinised every word in this legislation very, very carefully. It was a difficult job for the select committee to come up with what we consider are the wise compromises and the best solutions to all the issues that they raised in submissions.
The issues of productive sustainability for the high country have been around for some time. The problems with Hieracium and with rabbits have been obvious to everyone. No thanks to this Government, I have to say, the rabbit problem has been dealt with through the introduction---unplanned as it was---of rabbit calicivirus. However, an ongoing issue is the sustainable productive capacity of the high country. I hope, Labour hopes, and we believe that this legislation will help ensure that the way forward is a truly sustainable one. In an attempt in recent years to ensure that we deal with the high country in an appropriate way, the process of tenure review has been taking place. The farmers and the Crown have voluntarily assessed the value of their leases and have divided up the land into that of high conservation value that should be returned to the Crown, and of high productive capacity that should be freeholded to ensure the best return to New Zealand as a whole. To date, that process has been very satisfactory.
However, we are now facing the difficulties of some more difficult lease issues, of areas that are not so easy to assess, and of landowners who are perhaps not so willing to undertake the tenure review process. It is essential that that process continues. We believe that this legislation will assist in that process by laying down some criteria, and by putting in place some firm guidelines that will assist the process into the future.
We must protect the ecological values of the high country. We must ensure that the productive capacity of it is also able to be accessed and utilised by those who live on that land and who have protected it for many years in the past and will do so in the future, but who need a viable living to ensure that that protection takes place. It is my view that this legislation is the select committee's carefully calculated instrument to assist the continuation of this tenure review.
It has not been easy. As the chairperson said, many select committee members have been bombarded with different viewpoints throughout the process, but we have, in the end, come up with a reasonable compromise. We have clarified the objectives of tenure review very carefully. There was much debate over that. New clause 20 of the Crown Pastoral Land Bill now sets out what is, I believe, a true balance in terms of the objectives of tenure review for the ongoing process of allocating that land into its appropriate categories. It is, in the words of clause 20, to "(i) Promote the management of reviewable land in a way that is ecologically sustainable: (ii) Subject to subparagraph (i), enabling reviewable land capable of economic use to be freed from the management constraints... resulting from its tenure under reviewable instrument;''. Those are technical words, but they say that there should be a balance of ecological protection along with the ability to put that land into productive use through one of the instruments, which, of course, will be freeholding.
Extensive submissions were heard, and, in spite of our best attempts, parties from either side of the debate are still not happy with the outcome of this legislation. I was terribly disappointed to receive a letter from one such party that is clearly inaccurate, and that does not reflect the substance of the outcome of our select committee process. I would like to read to members what is an inaccurate view of this legislation. It states: "The Pastoral Lands Bill allows the leaseholders to freehold the high altitude land for any commercial purpose. For the purchase price of a few cents an acre the leaseholders will be able to buy land and establish ski resorts or housing subdivisions for weekend batches or sell the land at great profit to wealthy foreigners or establish pine plantations.''
I can assure the people listening to this debate that every bit of that statement is incorrect. I assure them that this legislation will, in fact, guarantee protection of the land and that we have ensured that the freeholding process will be fair to the State and to the leaseholders.
We have also opened up the land to new and innovative ways of sustainable utilisation. The days of grazing only have long gone and there are extensive opportunities for tourism and recreation in the high country. It is important that we have allowed this through the legislation. I am sure that everyone in New Zealand will welcome those changes.
Everything was up for debate, and we did debate the issues. The definitions of significant inherent values were dealt with at length. I believe that our interpretation is the right one, that the progress of time will show that this legislation is a very useful instrument in protecting the ecological, landscape, and recreational values of the high country, and in ensuring the right of the lessees to carry on with that land.
Labour welcomes the passage of this legislation and we trust that it will remain a landmark in the protection of our great country and the significant inherent values that the high country holds for every one of us.
GAVAN HERLIHY (NZ National---Otago): The old saying: "It's all in the eye of the beholder.'', has never been more apt than when describing this Bill, because both interests, whose views are diametrically opposed, are claiming that the other side has scored a resounding victory. May I share some of the comments made during the incredibly intense lobbying that, no doubt, all members of the select committee have experienced since this Bill was reported back---lobbying that intensified as the Committee stage reached its climax.
The New Zealand Council of Outdoor Recreation Associations claims that this legislation is a major victory for farming interests. It says that the legislation tilts the playing field massively in favour of the 340 pastoral lessees.
The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society says that the reworked legislation is a major victory for pastoral lessees. What ill-informed, inaccurate nonsense! It may interest the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society and the New Zealand Council of Outdoor Recreation Associations to know that the pastoral lessees feel the exact opposite. They believe that the legislation allows for an insidious erosion of their rights by an ever-voracious environmental movement, represented at the coalface by the Department of Conservation.
I share some of their concerns and have lobbied long and hard on their behalf, and, no doubt, in their eyes I have failed. I suspect that the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society and other non-governmental organisations believe that my select committee colleague Jeanette Fitzsimons has been even a bigger failure. Such is the reality and rewards of political life, I guess! May I say that I totally refute the environmental interests' contention that this legislation has been a major victory for pastoral lessees, and I echo the comment made by the previous speaker.
This legislation, as reported back from the select committee, and now fine-tuned by way of the Minister's supplementary order papers, is, firstly, a move to promote the tenure review process. That is very important. Secondly, it protects the property rights of pastoral lessees. There is no sunset clause. Thirdly, it recognises society's changing values and expectations with regard to the Crown's ownership of pastoral leased land.
I wish to talk about some of the major concerns expressed by fellow pastoral lessees. Some of them have the misconception that a pastoral Crown lease is a contract between the State and the farmer. However, a pastoral lessee is a creation of statute, and statutes change over time. This legislation fine-tunes and moves on from the previous provisions included in the Land Act of 1948.
I would agree with the contention of lessees that under new clause 14 of the Crown Pastoral Land Bill the commissioner is now asked to take into account a broader set of values than previously, when considering applications from lessees for discretionary consents. That Bill makes it very clear, however, that the commissioner must include the very purpose of the lease---that is, its pastoral use. New clause 14 very clearly defines and requires the commissioner to balance these two potentially conflicting matters. Neither has predominance. Neither can be expressed in terms so strongly that it tends to exclude the application of the other. Hence the use of the word "desirability'' rather than direct references to "protection'' and "farming purposes''.
There is much suspicion and apprehension in farming quarters about the role of the director-general in influencing the commissioner's consent or discretionary actions under new clause 14. Although the commissioner is required to consult the Director-General of Conservation, consultation does not, I repeat does not, imply that the commissioner has to accept the views of the department. The interests of the lessee, as applicant, are protected by administrative law, and the commissioner is obliged to act fairly and reasonably in making decisions under this provision. The contention by farmers that the department will be insisting that the commissioner exercises discretion to refuse consent for some farming activities is just not correct. The commissioner is bound by administrative law.
Farmers have expressed concern about the meaning of paragraph (b) in new clause 14(2) of the Crown Pastoral Land Bill: "The desirability of making it easier to use the land concerned for farming purposes.'' It is intended to mean what it says: it is to remove the impediments to carrying out farming activities on pastoral leased land.
The main thrust of the legislation is to facilitate and encourage tenure review, and to make this a much more streamlined and amenable option than is currently being experienced by those who are going through the tenure review process.
May I remind farmers that they still hold the whip hand in this process; it is a voluntary process. Unless conservation interests enter into the process in a reasoned manner, they will not achieve their desired environmental outcomes. If conservation interests get too tough, too demanding, too unreasonable, the farmer can and probably will walk away. So both sides should never forget that. The process must be a win-win situation. If there are to be wins for conservation in this process, and I sincerely hope there are, then they will have to approach tenure review in a manner that will encourage the farmer to achieve his goals. Unreasonable demands from either side of the bargaining table will mean that a win-win situation will not be achievable. That would be a tragedy; that would negate the intention of this legislation.
There was much discussion within the Committee and among farming and environmental interests as to the role of protective mechanisms in protecting land with significant inherent values. Against the wishes of some environmental groups we have retained protective mechanisms as an instrument that can be used to protect reviewable land that has significant inherent values. Notwithstanding that the word "preferably'' is being included in the legislation, the use of protective mechanisms is not precluded.
I know that during the Committee stage, Jeanette Fitzsimons, who opposes this legislation, said that the Bill as drafted did not adequately reflect the intention of the select committee that only such relatively small ecologically important pieces of land should be protected. She was referring to the use of covenants as a protective mechanism. Further, she said that she definitely felt that it was necessary to report that the select committee was of the unanimous opinion that that was how covenants should be used. I totally reject that assertion. It was not the unanimous view of the committee.
Officials did point out that covenants would be used to deal with single issues like recreation and landscape values, as well as widespread areas, and, in fact, might be used to deal with what they called the "muddle in the middle''. The legislation is not restrictive in any manner or form as to the use of covenants. This reflects the majority select committee opinion. Sure, after much discussion we agreed that Crown ownership was preferable, but in no way did we rule out the use of other protective mechanisms, nor did we put restrictions on their use. It will finally be the commissioner who on a case by case basis decides what is the most desirable way of proceeding in a tenure review process. Covenants will be one of the instruments available to him to achieve an outcome on the review process.
Many in the farming sector questioned the department's ability to manage vast tracts of land that it is falling heir to from the current review process, and also the increased volumes of land that will no doubt fall within the department's governance as a result of this legislation. I also query whether this question has been adequately addressed and I hope that the legislation's passage through the House will spark a wider debate over the Crown's broader aspirations in respect of the formation of major reserves in South Island high-country ranges.
In summary, I believe that this legislation heralds progress for some of New Zealand's unique land. Freehold ownership of land, with economic use potential, will lead to its improved stewardship. Further, the property rights of those who for various reasons will not follow the tenure review path are protected. Every high-country situation is different. Therefore, it has been impossible to write a prescriptive wording to cover every conceivable situation. Thus a lot of faith will be put in the hands of the commissioner. I wish him well in the very important job he has before him of administering the intent of this significant legislation.
Finally, I say that I have found my involvement in this legislation a taxing one. I have been mindful of my vested interest, mindful that the hopes and aspirations of my fellow lessees weighed upon my shoulders, but also mindful of my duty as an MP to consider the wider interests. History will judge the wisdom of our decisions. I commend this legislation to be passed through the House, and thank all those who have been involved in the process, including the officials, my fellow select committee members, and the various interest groups who have extensively lobbied me---some very passionately.
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (The Alliance): The Alliance will be voting against the legislation, and that is a shame, because we agree that there needs to be legislation that provides for the ecological sustainability of the high country, that provides for the protection of inherent conservation values, and that creates some public conservation reserves or national parks in an area where there are virtually none. We also agree that those who farm there should be able to use a wider range of farming methods and types of farming than they can under leasehold tenure, provided that it is consistent with sustainability. Therefore we also support provisions to allow them to move beyond pastoralism to other forms of land use.
But this legislation sets up conditions for the wholesale foreign ownership of some of our most precious lands in the high country of the South Island, and that is something the Alliance can never agree to. The freeholding provisions are initially for the current lessees, but everyone knows there is a queue of overseas investors standing behind them, wanting to buy that land. It is interesting that just recently during the Indonesian crisis there was considerable feeling in the high country itself about the area now owned by the Suharto family, and to what extent it would become their bolt-hole when they left power in Indonesia.
It is disappointing that the Labour Party has said it will vote for this legislation but totally opposes foreign ownership of the high country. It is not actually possible to do both. Once this legislation goes through, there is absolutely nothing any of us can do to prevent foreign ownership of that land, because the rules of the Overseas Investment Commission are so weak that virtually every application is approved.
I think it is disappointing that many are portraying this legislation as some kind of struggle between vested interests, between 340 high-country lessees and a bunch of self-interested environmentalists who want to tramp, or hunt, or generally enjoy the recreational values of the high country. I do not see it that way at all. I think what we have been trying to do in the select committee is provide longer-term and more fundamental values for the whole of New Zealand. We have been trying to make sure that New Zealand's indigenous ecosystems do not become extinct---for example, special types of tussock grassland. We have been trying to protect soil, which is disappearing fast from many parts of the high country. We have been trying to make it easier for those who farm to do so in a sustainable way, and we have been trying to protect the long-term access to that country of New Zealanders who love it. I do not see the legislation in any way as a struggle between the lessees and the conservationists. If it were to be seen in that way, then I would have to say that there are a lot more New Zealanders wanting to enjoy the high country for recreational or ecological reasons than there are people wanting to farm it. But I do not actually think that is the argument.
The legislation relies on an exchange of rights between the lessees and the Crown. The drafting of the legislation has been very careful to recognise that the lessees have a right of perpetual renewal of their leases, and that nothing we do in this legislation is allowed to affect that in any way, but there has been very little recognition of the rights of the Crown under the Land Act, which gives it the right to resume leases if the land is not being managed sustainably. That seems to have been totally cut out of the options given to us.
The legislation does nothing to address the last remaining subsidised rents in this country---the peppercorn rentals paid by the lessees. It was an opportunity to start to move those towards market rents. The legislation does nothing about it.
I am very concerned at the statement made by Gavan Herlihy that the select committee did not agree that covenants could not protect ecological values adequately except for relatively small, discrete, and fenced areas. We are not talking about a covenant for landscape values, because obviously that is a different matter. The committee was very clear---and we were told this by the original promoter of the legislation, the previous Minister of Lands, and no dissent was expressed openly in the select committee---that covenants were intended to be used for small, discrete areas that were ecologically important, that could be fenced off from stock, but that did not need to be handed over to the Department of Conservation for its management.
The reason I am concerned is that I have a letter from the Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust to Federated Mountain Clubs, which states: "I advise the trust is progressing negotiations for 11 covenants involving tussock grassland, wetland, forest and other montane vegetation, over 45,000 hectares of freehold and leasehold land.'' Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust covenants are on the whole covenants to protect ecological values. Certainly, protecting the values of tussock grassland, wetland, forest, and other montane vegetation is not consistent with having animals grazing all the way through them. A Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust covenant is a totally unsuitable way of protecting the Crown's conservation interest in land that the Crown still owns but is about to freehold to farmers to graze without restrictions.
Not only does the legislation not make the committee's intention clear, but Mr Herlihy this morning has made them even less clear. Yet I do not recall anyone on the select committee expressing the view that 45,000 hectares of important ecological values could be protected by freeholding them and putting a Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust covenant across them.
I return to the argument that farmers are the most appropriate people to protect the ecological and soil values of their land. Of course farmers love their land. Of course they love living in the high country. It is a spectacular place. I know that families who have been there for generations form a very special relationship with it, and I do not want to say anything to downgrade in any way that special relationship, but we have to look at the facts. The soil has virtually gone from thousands of hectares up there. Thousands of hectares are raising nothing except Hieracium. That land has been seriously overgrazed. We have had report after scientific report about how serious the situation is, and who has been in charge of it while that has been happening? Pastoral farmers. So to argue that protecting the ecological values of the high country can simply be left to all the pastoral farmers there is clearly inadequate.
I am very disappointed that the Government not only refused to accept two amendments I proposed during the Committee stage---that was perhaps to be expected---but refused to give any reasons for that refusal, and refused to clarify the legal issues I raised during debate. It simply would not take a call to deal with those matters at all. I shall explain them just briefly.
Section 23D provides for current conservation land to be put into the pot of tenure review, and therefore eventually be disposed of by freeholding, presumably in return for some greater conservation values that come out of the mix. We do not oppose that in itself, but we have queried whether section 49 of the Conservation Act would require the Minister, under this process, to go through a proper public hearing process before that land was disposed of. The Minister refused to clarify whether it would or would not, and also refused to accept an amendment to this legislation to indicate that that section would apply here as well. That means the law is unclear.
Hon. RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader---ACT NZ): I rise to speak to the legislation on behalf of the ACT party. We also object to the legislation, but for the exact opposite reasons to those given by the member who has just spoken.
Rick Barker: That's a relief!
Hon. RICHARD PREBBLE: Yes. The Alliance is basically advocating socialising high-country pastoral regions.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: It's publicly owned now.
Hon. RICHARD PREBBLE: That is not true. People have perpetual leases, and it is a shame that the Alliance does not understand property rights. But the people who have those leases are the owners. It is true that the Crown also has property rights, but the Crown has property rights in fee simple land as well. Fee simple land comes from the Crown, but that does not mean that members of Parliament can say to people who own fee simple land that they have decided to have interesting views on conservation and that therefore those people's property rights are lost.
The Alliance is saying to the people who own those pastoral leases---which cover approximately 2.45 million hectares of South Island high country stretching from Southland to Marlborough---many of whom bought them and others of whom inherited them, that it does not recognise their property rights. I say to this House, representing the ACT party, which does recognise property rights, that property rights are fundamental to a free society, and that Parliament should not alter property rights without, firstly, an extremely good reason, and, secondly, compensation.
I basically believe that this legislation is driven by a fad about conservation and a misunderstanding with regard to the best way to administer 2.45 million hectares. The Crown has not told us how many resources will be required if the State starts to try to administer all this land. The amount of money involved would be enormous. Already the Department of Conservation tells us via its various pressure groups that it does not have enough money to administer the land it has at the moment, and that is true. Now the department is saying that even though it cannot administer the land that already is in the State's control, it has decided to take over, in many aspects, these 2.45 million hectares.
I ask the people in the Alliance who they think actually prevents people from roaring through the high country in four-wheel vehicles, doing a great deal of damage to the farms. Who does that at the moment? The lessees do it. They are not paid for it. They are actually unpaid stewards of this land. Who do Alliance members think actually prevents fires from doing enormous damage to the high country? Again, it is the lessees, who are unpaid stewards of the high country. Many of those---
Hon. Denis Marshall: They light a few themselves!
Hon. RICHARD PREBBLE: That is correct, but under the Land Act, before people can do that they need to have permission from the Commissioner of Crown Lands. Is the member suggesting that the landowners are lighting fires without getting permission?
[Interruption] I think the member is pointing out that we already have environmental measures that cover this land. Indeed, I point out to members of the Alliance that in fact all the pastoral leases are covered by the Resource Management Act and the regional councils. Measures are already in place. I do not believe that any case has been established for introducing the legislation in the first place, but I must say I am speaking on behalf of Ken Shirley, who was on the Primary Production Committee and put forward a number of amendments.
The particular clause that violates property rights the most would have to be clause 14, whereby before people can get permission to do a wide range of actions they have to get the commissioner's permission. It is a discretionary consent. I assure the House that a perpetual lease is recognised in the Land Transfer Act as being an estate in land. The lessees are property owners. A Crown pastoral lessee now has to go to the commissioner, who takes into account the desirability of protecting inherent values.
I am a lawyer. I have an honours degree in law. I do not claim to be a great lawyer, but I do not have a clue what that means. I say to members of the committee that they do not have a clue, either. We should not be passing laws when the Minister and the MPs do not know what they mean. That is what is wrong with the Resource Management Act. We passed the Resource Management Act although no member of Parliament knew what sections of it meant, and now no local body knows what it means and no property owner knows what it means. We have a series of court cases and complete confusion.
This is bad lawmaking. Why are we doing it? We are doing it because it sounds good. Members say "inherent values'' means "conservation values''. If that is so, why does the legislation not state it? It states "inherent values''. What on earth does that mean? If a property owner writes to the commissioner to ask to do something, why should it be a lottery as to whether the commissioner will say "Yes'' or "No''? It will change depending on the commissioner. To call this measure communist is probably wrong, because at least communism has some purpose behind it; it is just statism. The House is assuming that a commissioner sitting in Wellington, presumably one of my constituents, somehow knows better than the owner of the land what he or she ought to be doing.
There is no way that the commissioner can go down there to have a look. The commissioner does not have a set of incentives to make the right decisions. Indeed, a number of paid lobbyists here in Wellington for the various environmental groups will make his life hell if he does not say "No''. That is what will happen. We all know that. The same group of people who have been making the lives of various members of the committee hell will be lobbying that commissioner not to make proper decisions. That is a violation of property rights. Our party says that the ability of citizens to own property without interference from the State is a basic freedom. The pastoral owners have done a good job in protecting conservation values. They are far more likely to do so than this particular measure.
Therefore, I want to record that Ken Shirley put up alternatives to the Committee. They were voted down 112 to 8. Once again, the ACT party was the only party prepared to stand up in Parliament for property rights. As such, we will continue to vote against this legislation. This Parliament is far too ready to violate basic property rights and to violate the rights of citizens. This legislation is misconceived. It is the result of lobbying groups.
When we as parliamentarians are faced with issues like this, we should be prepared to stand up on behalf of the property rights of citizens. We should say that we are opposed to their being undermined. Therefore the ACT party is opposed to this legislation. It is a great shame that Mr Gavan Herlihy will not vote with his heart against it, because what he knows in his heart to be wrong he should also know in his mind to be wrong. This is bad, statism legislation, and it is a shame that the Government is putting it forward.
Hon. DENIS MARSHALL (NZ National---Rangitikei): I am pleased to take the call after the member who has just resumed his seat, the Hon. Richard Prebble, because the speech we have just heard is a complete antithesis of the speech we heard from Jeanette Fitzsimons. That pretty well sums up where many people are coming from on this issue.
I tell the Hon. Richard Prebble that when I, as Minister of Lands, was confronted with the issue of the future management of these areas, property rights was a very important issue. Of course, the best way of resolving the debate and the argument over the future use, management, and husbandry of these lands was actually to give the lessees more property rights than they have right now. That is precisely the framework we are putting in place with this legislation.
This legislation is the biggest reform of land management in New Zealand since the reforms of the mid-1980s---something that Richard Prebble had a great deal to do with---and, more important, since the Land Act came into place in 1948. In those days it was believed that the only thing one could do with the land was graze sheep. The Land Act imposed on the pastoral lessees who had a perpetual right of renewal of their leases a monoculture of grazing. If they wanted to do anything else they had to get permission, with all the dangers in that that Richard Prebble highlighted. In other words, they were exposed to the pressures of lobbyists on every side of the argument.
I said to those lessees that I could not believe that they enjoyed being so dependent on the whims of the Government and the Commissioner of Crown Lands as to their future. They seemed to enjoy having regular meetings with endless bureaucrats, sorting out how they should conduct their business from one year to the next. I thought that was crazy, and I am delighted to report that a former member, Warren Cooper, talking to the high-country farmers the other day, said it was crazy too. Who wants to conduct business at the mercy of the Government or the agents of the Government before one can go and make one dollar?
The answer is for these folk to negotiate with the Crown in the way that they will be able to as a result of this legislation. There will be voluntary negotiation to freehold land that has an economic use, while the Crown takes into account the conservation and sustainable land management issues that it must take account when it considers the future management of these lands.
I was brought up to be extremely suspicious of anything that smacks of a lease. On my father's knee I was told that the only property rights worth anything are freehold property rights, and anything less than that leads to a packet of trouble.
Hon. Richard Prebble: Because we have coalition Governments.
Hon. DENIS MARSHALL: We know that it leads to a packet of trouble, and Richard Prebble probably has very good experience of these matters. I think there now is a huge incentive for the pastoral lessees to negotiate with the Commissioner of Crown Lands over the future of the leases they hold. This legislation provides the appropriate framework to do that. There had been negotiations in the past before this legislation was introduced. They did not have the appropriate legislative framework to support them, and that is really why I was persuaded that this legislation was the appropriate course of action. It has taken a long time---I know that---but I think the time spent has been well spent.
I would like to acknowledge the work that many of those involved, on both sides of the argument, have put into it, particularly the two chairmen of the high-country branch of Federated Farmers whom I worked with---Bob Brown and John Aspinall---and also those involved on the conservation side, such as Bryce Johnson and Kevin Smith.
I must say it was not helpful that Federated Mountain Clubs and Public Access New Zealand carried on in the way they did over this issue. We went through endless negotiation. There were meetings with all the lessees and meetings with all the conservation groups in New Zealand when the policy objective was out there, before the legislation was drafted. We got a measure of agreement, and I brought the various groups to Wellington and sat them down in the Cabinet committee room. It was the most embarrassing confrontation I have ever had in my life. All those people with whom we had been working through the issue refused to agree on anything. It came very close to causing me to throw the whole thing out and walk away from it.
That gives an indication of the very entrenched views that some people have about the future of these lands. It is some credit to those involved that we were able to make progress and to bring this legislation into the House. I think that while there is a certain amount of play-acting from various groups, there now is much greater acceptance that there are significant benefits for all parties than many people are prepared to admit.
There are very high costs for the Crown in the administration of these leases at the present time. The Crown is out of pocket over their administration. Ownership inputs are required such as weed and pest control, and there are no current market value rents. In current terms, in plain economic terms, the Government is not getting a return on its investment, rights are not clearly defined, and the land is not being used to its highest economic potential. Consequently, our policy for land tenure reform is to make decisions as to the best land use by establishing the process set down in this legislation. This legislation will freehold Crown pastoral land capable of sustaining a range of economic uses. It will secure nature conservation, historic, landscape, cultural, recreation, public interest, and other Crown purposes in the high country. It will ensure ongoing management of land that remains under pastoral lease, and it will meet the Crown's obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.
I close by thanking all the members of the House who have participated in this debate. Labour members opposite made a very rational contribution to the argument, although a number of them were a bit xenophobic about foreign ownership. I cannot understand why some people must be excluded, apparently, from ownership when perhaps their husbandry is better than that of some of those who have been on the land for years. That is some strange, mystical belief that possesses members opposite, and they cannot quite get it out of their system.
I believe that with the passage of this legislation we will enter a new era in terms of the future of the 2.5 million hectares of Crown-owned pastoral land in the South Island, both to secure the future of those who make their living out of that land, and to ensure nature conservation and all the other interests in that land are protected.
RUTH DYSON (NZ Labour): The closing words of the member who has just resumed his seat highlighted the tension and the differences that have surrounded the passage of this legislation through Parliament, and the submissions that have been made to it. Mr Marshall said that the reason for the introduction of the legislation was to ensure the best economic use of our high-country Crown pastoral land. While that is one of the aims of the legislation, I guess it is not the only aim that members of this Parliament would wish it to have. Labour members sought to ensure that the conservation values of our high country are valued in the same sort of way as the concerns that Mr Marshall expressed about the best economic use, and they are not able to be compromised in every instance. Often there is a conflict between the best economic use and sustainable management. Therefore when there is compromise without a clear definition and without some clear leadership from the Government, as is the case in the reporting back of this legislation and its passage through its final stages, there will remain issues that need a clearer resolution in the future.
In my view, this legislation was introduced because of the tenure review process and the fact that it lacked any accountability. There was no process at all for public consultation in the tenure review process. Since the original Land Act in 1948, New Zealanders' views have matured in relation to the use of our land. We have seen much of it destroyed. We have seen the introduction of pests. We have seen much of our highly valued land unable to be restored to its original state. So one of the other purposes of the legislation was to ensure that the value that the community placed on the non-pastoral interests in the high country were reflected in the statutory powers and the duties of the commissioner.
Once again we see a potential conflict in the way that the community values our high-country land, particularly the non-pastoral interests in the land. Crown pastoral land is a term that is quite common in the South Island, but in the rest of New Zealand---in the North Island and in the smaller outlying islands, such as Stewart Island---people are not as familiar with that term.
What we are referring to is 2.5 million hectares of South Island high country. Mostly it is farmed under grazing leases, and most of those grazing leases have been in place since the 1850s. So we can understand why the farmers who are currently involved in grazing the land have a really strong commitment to it. Their families have been on the land and committed to it for a long time. It comprises about 20 percent of the South Island---quite a significant part of the Mainland. Most of the high country is environmentally sensitive and much of it has high public recreation and nature conservation values.
Throughout these third readings we have heard a lot about the process of public consultation on the legislation, about the legislation going backwards and forwards to different interest groups that have made submissions, and about the compromise that has been reached. However, major changes have been made to it. Quite significant changes have been introduced without consultation, or with minimal consultation. That should be of concern to Parliament.
I know that members often get isolated in the process of their work. We see the work every day and we often work hard, day in and day out, on a particular Bill, as indeed the select committee has worked very hard on this legislation. But we forget that a lot of our work is done behind closed doors. It is within the precincts of Parliament, and members of the public are left out or left behind. That has certainly happened with some quite significant parts of this legislation.
Despite the compromises that have been reached, and despite my remaining concerns about the final shape of this legislation, there have been some slight improvements on the previous situation. In the tenure review process there has been the inclusion of the concession provisions from the Conservation Act and the Reserves Act, and that certainly is a minor improvement on what was there originally. There have been new and specific definitions for significant inherent values and for natural resources. Those again are improvements that I congratulate the select committee on.
There have been new and enhanced controls on pastoral land in relation to burning, top dressing, and seeding. It is of interest that at the moment we are looking at major pollution, particularly in Christchurch. It has been proved recently that the greatest impact of pollution on our city comes from the burning off of stubble in surrounding rural areas. Most of us assume that the pollution is from our wood fires or from transport emissions, but in fact it is from stubble---not from the stubble that is removed with a razor, but stubble that is burnt off in the surrounding rural areas. Obviously, some greater recognition of the pollution implications of that burning off is important and this legislation has sought to address that, again in a minor way.
The statutory obligations of the commissioner have been strengthened in respect of the inherent values of our land. It has been spelt out that the commissioner will consult the Department of Conservation on matters of concern to it, and that is very important.
In the tenure review process, priority is given to the promotion of ecologically sustainable land management. But despite those improvements, there remain some key problems with the legislation. Land can now be freeholded, not just for pastoral farming but for any economic use. Once the use of that land is altered, as for skiing, helicopter use, or whatever other economic activity, it will not be easily returned to the sort of use that the majority of New Zealanders would wish.
The fact that land can now be freeholded not just for pastoral farming but for any economic use remains a concern. Conservation land and unoccupied Crown land is now available for freeholding. Even worse than that, that freeholding is without the safeguards that exist in the Conservation Act. Those safeguards include a process of public notification and submission. So once again, land is likely to change from being conservation land or unoccupied Crown land, into freehold land without the opportunity for any public input. That is a key concern to Labour, as well.
The use of covenants as a major instrument of tenure review is not satisfactory, more particularly when no criteria have been included in the legislation as to when covenants are to be used. That issue was raised consistently in submissions to the select committee and has still been overlooked. But the biggest concern that remains with this legislation is---as I said at the beginning of my address and as Mr Marshall addressed---with the conflicts that exist with the purposes of the legislation.
What should Parliament be looking at with regard to our Crown pastoral land? Sustainable management should be the purpose of pastoral land administration. It should be the purpose of ongoing administration of pastoral leases, not just for tenure review. That issue has been swamped by the interests of the lessees in the deliberation of this legislation.
There remain some major issues for conservation and recreation in New Zealand. This legislation does not address the lack of Government attention to our conservation estate. It does not require the Government to put more money into pest and predator control, into erosion control, and into providing suitable facilities for access to our conservation estate. It does not require the Government to plant the 195,000 hectares of land assessed as needing protection on the North Island East Coast. It does not deal with the terrible erosion occurring in the South Island high country. It does not deal with the Government inaction on rabbit control.
The Government was surprised when the rabbit calicivirus disease arrived in New Zealand, and it still has not put in place a comprehensive programme to control rabbits in this country. Until the Government starts to deal with the real problems that this country has with sustainable land management we will not see the recovery of land that all stakeholders in our nation want to see. All the conflicting interest groups that submitted to this legislation would like to see a stronger Government commitment to management of our conservation estate.
Labour does not see the conclusion of this legislation as conclusion of the issues. We will be monitoring closely the progress of tenure reviews. If the reviews do not progress, and valuable conservation land is degraded as a result of freeholding, Labour will revisit these provisions to provide a better balance for conservation values.
Hon. JOHN LUXTON (Minister of Lands): I just want to finish off the third readings of the Crown Pastoral Land Bill and the Land Amendment Bill. Unfortunately, I was detained by business in Auckland last night when the Bills commenced their third reading stage. I want to support this legislation, and recognise that it sees some resolution of the aspirations of different groups in our society with respect to Crown-owned high country in the South Island. It also reflects New Zealanders' changing attitudes towards that high country. The legislation provides for the reform of the approximately 2.5 million hectares of Crown pastoral land tenure in the South Island, by amending provisions that were introduced in 1948, when, obviously, views on what should happen to that land, and what was happening to it, were rather different from what they are today. It deals with both the administration and the tenure reform process of that land.
The Crown Pastoral Land Bill was introduced into this House a little over 3 years ago, and it is pleasing to achieve finally the passage of this legislation after this time. Once again I commend the select committee and officials for their efforts and careful consideration of the submissions.
Much of the time spent by the Primary Production Committee in considering the many submissions was spent in trying to find some middle ground between, at times, quite polarised views on the future and the stewardship of this South Island high country. New Zealand people have diverse and honestly held views on the issue, and I believe that the select committee has given a great deal of thought about how to balance the outcome in as fair a way as possible.
In particular, I commend the former Minister of Conservation and Minister of Lands, the Hon. Denis Marshall. He spent an enormous amount of time over the last 3 or 4 years in trying to find this resolution. I think the fact that he was both Minister of Conservation and Minister of Lands has been a key to providing an acceptable solution to this, so much so that many of us in Cabinet felt that he was spending much of his time in the South Island. We nicknamed him "Tussock Marshall'' as a result of the fact that he was spending so much time trying to find a resolution to the difficult issue of how we deal with Crown pastoral lands in the future.
I do not really want to go any further into the detail. I am quite sure that that has been canvassed by members on both sides. In finishing, I just want to repeat that I am very pleased to see that the legislation has progressed to this point. The legislation will facilitate both voluntary reviews---and I stress that it is voluntary---and the freeholding of parts of current leasehold properties, particularly those that do not have high conservation value. It will enable the Crown to protect other areas that do have significant conservation value, by freeholding them into the Department of Conservation estate, or by way of covenants, and it will ensure access over this unique part of our country. I am sure that these Bills will be welcomed as very good progress in handling the 2.5 million hectares of Crown pastoral land tenure in the South Island in a more appropriate way into the year 2000.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Crown Pastoral Land Bill and the Land Amendment Bill be read a third time.
Ayes 100
New Zealand National 44;
Labour 37;
New Zealand First 17; United New Zealand 1; Independent 1.Noes 18
Alliance 12;
ACT New Zealand 6.Majority for: 82
Bills read a third time.
Hansard 6 April 1995
Hansard
7 May 1998
Hansard
27 May 1998
Hansard
28 May 1998
Hansard 17 June 1998 (this page)