Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Chair. I listened to the Minister's gratuitously insulting comments about what he called quaint old-fashioned ideas" relating to important principles of property rights in New Zealand in relation to land tenure. Yes a leasehold is not a freehold—that's understood by everybody involved. But it was gratuitously insulting for the Minister to imply that the property right contained in the lease in perpetuity of these of these 170-something high country leaseholders is somehow a quaint old concept or idea that needs modernising. That is entirely inappropriate and I would have thought better of the Minister.I want to continue where I left off on my last contribution in relation to the definition now of inherent value. So when I was last speaking on this I made the point that the inherent value that the purpose of the bill seeks to establish makes no comment or recognition of the enhancement and inherent value of the leaseholders yet it does call for a greater understanding and closer supporting relationship with Māori for instance but no mention of the leaseholders.Well in the definition part of the section inherent value is actually attempted to be defined. It says that inherent value "means a value that arises from an ecological a landscape a cultural a heritage or a scientific attribute or characteristic of a natural resource that—" and then it goes on. Then further on it says it "relates to a historic place on or forming part of the land" and then the absolute final insult is that in subclause (b) it says "does not include any value that relates to or is associated with farming activity a pastoral farming activity". So a pastoral farming activity is specifically excluded from being considered an inherent value.Well that's just ideological claptrap; that is insulting; that is a slur upon the hard work of generations of high country farmers who have done so much to enhance protect and maintain the high country of New Zealand that is so loved and cherished by all New Zealanders. These people have done it season in and season out over generations. To specifically exclude from the definition of inherent value pastoral farming activity is just plain wrong.Now it's important that people listening to this debate understand the genesis and the history of it because it actually started in the last Parliament when the then Land Information New Zealand Minister was shepherding this piece of legislation through the Parliament and staff started it off. It was based on ideological agendas rather more than practical application in any regard to the land or the people that make their lives and their livings and raise their families there and have done for generations.This is a piece of Green Party ideological envy politics actually. That's really what it's about but it's being supported by the full Labour Party caucus—65 of them. The sad thing for those 65 is that even though they will be whipped into supporting this piece of legislation most of them will not be in this Parliament when we repeal it next. Most of them will not be here. So it must be utterly frustrating for them because they know in their heart of hearts that to specifically exclude from a definition of inherent value in this legislation the work and the history and the effort and the blood sweat and tears that amounts to pastoral farming activity is fundamentally wrong.I want to just in the short time—in fact I'm going to ask the Minister why pastoral farming is excluded in their definition of inherent value and then I'll make a further contribution later on."