Ardern Shane: Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Ardern Shane: Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:670;Page:16799] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 It has been interesting to listen to members opposite debate the Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill. Certainly we have seen the true colours of Labour in this debate. Labour members do not like the words “farming profits”. They are opposed to any kind of agricultural profit. The word “agriculture” annoys them and the word “profit” sends them into a complete tailspin. They cannot stand it. That is all that the difference is. 
Under the 9 years of the previous Labour Government we saw what happened to a group of unique people in this part of the world. They are unique because of where they live and how they derive their income. They were trying to eke out a living in a very inhospitable area—sometimes not achieving that very well—and we had a Government that wanted to run them off the land. Let us look at the previous Government’s track record as custodian of those high country areas. Labour sees them as iconic and worth millions of dollars and says they should not be managed in the way that this bill proposes. Let us look at what Labour has been like as a custodian. The Clark Government went out and spent hundreds of millions of dollars on buying up high country leases and other freehold high country land to include in the conservation estate. Most people do not realise that the conservation estate in the South Island currently occupies more than 50 percent of the total land area in the South Island. People need to look at it. Although that land is some of the most beautiful and iconic the condition of it is a disgrace. Under the 9 years of a Labour Government that land deteriorated; it eroded and it became covered in weeds and pests. The State has become the neighbour from hell in some cases because of the way the Labour Government valued that ownership. 
What we have here is a group of individuals scattered across the South Island who over a long period of time have established a property right—a lease with the Crown—and have managed that land in a way that is sustainable. Labour members used to use the words “sustainable” and “sustainability” in every speech they gave. That land is being managed in a sustainable way. The weeds are being controlled. The pests are being controlled. The landscape is enhanced. There is a productive outcome for the nation. Those people pay taxes. There is an export earning capacity at the end of it. But no Labour members cannot stand that. They say it is Crown land and therefore the Crown should have total control. Presumably Labour would want to send some bureaucrat from Wellington to manage it. That is exactly what a Labour Government would do with the conservation estate. 
Let us look at what is happening in that regard. The example of public access is one that always sets me alight. When the Crown bought some of these iconic high country stations—and paid four times the value that a sheep farmer would have paid—it got control and put it into the conservation estate then locked the gate. The Crown would not allow public access. In one case public access had been allowed by the private owners for over 100 years yet the State got control and locked it up. No one was allowed to have public access. 
I come back to the bill at hand. The bill proposes a substantial step forward in bringing some certainty to those high country farmers with regard to their commitment to the State. We will go back and honour the intent of the original legislation which was passed by a previous National Government. That legislation was endorsed by the Labour Government because it did not step in and change that legislation. This bill will bring some certainty in terms of what the costs are. A couple of members opposite asked what would happen if one of those high country stations came on to the market and was sold to a foreign investor—one who was a multimillionaire a billionaire or whatever the case may be—and the lessee captured a higher amount of the value than the State deemed should be the amount that the lessee should capture. 
Hon David Parker 
: No what their lease says. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Well if that is the case then under this bill the lessee would have to pay a percentage to the State. That is what the bill says. Mr Parker who says he is a lawyer should be able to understand that. The lessee will have to pay a predetermined percentage to the State. So the only debate is about whether that percentage is high enough. Of course in Labour’s eyes unless it is 100 percent it is never enough. Because those guys were billionaires or whatever then even if it were 100 percent Labour would say it was not enough. Labour would say we should find another way to get at them. 
I tell Mr Parker that the State cannot run the whole of New Zealand. Countries that have tried to do that have failed. Welcome to the real world! We want people to farm this land. We want people to maintain the condition of it to prevent erosion to control weeds and to control pests. The State is not doing a good job of that in the substantial estate that it already has control over. What is the compromise? Members opposite offer no compromise. They want State ownership or nothing and no profits. They think that if people want to live in those areas then that is their choice but the State should not ever allow them to make a profit. 
Hon David Parker 
: That is not what we said at all and you know that. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: That is exactly the position that some of those people have found themselves in. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Listen carefully. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: The Hon Damien O’Connor will have his moment in the select committee. The Minister has said that the bill will be referred to the Primary Production Committee. I will value the member’s input and generally it is sound. 
It will be interesting to listen to the submissions. It will be interesting to hear the State side of the argument. It will be interesting to see what happened under the 9 years of Labour and how this whole thing became an absolute mess and was going backwards. There was no forward progress. No doubt those submissions will come forward. I welcome them and look forward to them. We have no choice but to look at an alternative to what the status quo delivers because that has been a failure. I look forward to the passage of this bill through the select committee and the report back to the House.