Huo Raymond: Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Huo Raymond: Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:678;Page:1271] 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 It is regrettable because the Minister who is responsible for this particular bill—the Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill—the Hon Maurice Williamson is not in the chair and I do acknowledge the Minister— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No no. I know what the member is saying but he needs to be a little bit more careful about how he is saying it. He did say that the Minister is not in the chair and by implication that is saying that he is not in the Chamber. So I just ask him to be a bit cautious about how he actually does that.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Because if he’s in the Chamber he’s got to be in the chair.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Yes.  
RAYMOND HUO 
: I say that it is regrettable because I really wanted to ask him to correct the misleading statements made by some of his colleagues—well at least one of them.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He would correct the member over there.  
RAYMOND HUO 
: It is very important for him to do so because that would affect the credibility of the National Party simply because— 
Hon Amy Adams 
: Ha ha! 
RAYMOND HUO 
: Do you think it is funny? I do not think it is funny. In light of the contribution made by Jacqui Dean I think it is appropriate for me to restructure my contribution because she repeated some of the misleading statements she made during the general debate in the last sitting week. She accused the New Zealand Labour Party or anyone who was opposed to this particular bill of being anti-farmer or practising the politics of envy.  
Jacqui Dean 
: I’m sorry I hurt your feelings but it’s true.  
RAYMOND HUO 
: Well that member will be able to confirm to this Committee that this particular bill affects only the high country Crown-owned pastoral leasehold properties. How many farms will this particular bill be affecting? 
Jacqui Dean 
: 220.  
RAYMOND HUO 
: Yes fewer than 220 and that member is accusing the Labour Party or anyone who is opposed to this bill of being anti-farmer. This bill has got nothing to do with the New Zealand farming industry at large. This bill has got nothing to do with the productivity or business efficacy of our dairy farming sector at large.  
As I said I think it is very appropriate for me to restructure my contribution in light of the statements made by Jacqui Dean. Miss Jacqui Dean let us have a look at a Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s report of 2009. That report was entitled  
Change in the high country: Environmental stewardship and tenure review 
. It questions the methodology of the current tenure review process and makes a number of recommendations. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment proposed setting up a high country commission to provide more oversight of the high country. She also suggested a greater use of private covenants to protect biodiversity on Crown pastoral leases. Miss Jacqui Dean could you please confirm to me and this Committee whether that makes the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment anti-farmers.  
Let us have a look at the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society position. The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society approves of a number of initiatives provided by this bill but it does have a problem with lower rentals due to tenure review negotiations and the missed opportunity to put in place economic instruments that could benefit conservation values. I am sure that my Green colleagues will agree with me. To avoid any doubt I have a direct quote: “Why is the rental being simply constructed around base pastoral farming earning value when in reality it is an economic pricing instrument that the Government could be using to encourage good practice on pastoral lands? For example it would be possible to have a higher base rental for a pastoral lease that added to conservation activity such as pest and weed control or improved public access then provide an environmental rebate for this work.” Does that make the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society anti-farmers? 
Shane Ardern 
: Yes. 
RAYMOND HUO 
: Great! Thank you for your confirmation. For the information of that member this concept of encouraging—[ 
Interruption 
] Thank you Mr Chairperson. Good call. I know that Mr Chairperson is very tolerant. 
Jacqui Dean 
: The member is not speaking. I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am listening very carefully to your point of order.  
Jacqui Dean 
: Thank you. I sought the call because the member who was given the call clearly had yielded it to me by not saying anything. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No he had not. I am the one who determines who has the call and I have given it to Mr Raymond Huo. I look forward to his continuing. 
RAYMOND HUO 
: We have a very good Chairperson. I apologise for my remarks. For the information of the member Labour loves farming and Labour loves farmers. Labour does support farming sectors at large and we support productivity and business efficacy which is not and will not be in any way covered in this particular bill.  
This concept of encouraging good behaviour through economic instruments is not new. In fact Professor Anton Meister at Massey University was advocating this initiative 20 years ago. I am not quite sure whether the member Miss Jacqui Dean has ever read this book I have here by Dr Ann Brower. Have you ever read that book? I respect Dr Brower simply because she states that as an academic her allegiance is to scholarship theory and the letter of the law and not to interested groups. Should not that allegiance be our allegiance as well? Absolutely plus accountability and responsibility to the voters to taxpayers and to New Zealand not to the small number of farms affected by this bill.  
To be fair to those who feel very strongly about Dr Ann Brower’s view or who feel strongly against her view I would like to note the views of Professor Lewis Evans and Professor Neil Quigley as well. Dr Brower in her 2006 report observed that the leaseholders are receiving both freehold land and cash payments from the Crown as outcomes of the tenure review process but the High Country Accord requested the two professors to review the assumptions methodology and conclusions. As a result of their review they have concluded that Dr Brower’s concerns resulted from “a series of conceptual and technical errors in the interpretation of pastorallease rights the Tenure Review process and data relating to its outcomes”. The reason why I quote those different views is to show how to have a robust debate rather than presenting misleading or mendacious statements which is not helpful.  
That brings me to another point. I think the Minister responsible for this bill got pretty much all the factors right but he ignored just one important factor and that is non-pastoral values. What this bill seeks to achieve is to change the rules for setting rents for pastoral leases. The rents will be determined purely on the stock-carrying capacity of the land and not on the value of the property or the non-pastoral values that these Crown-owned pastoral leases of properties are increasingly purchased for. That is the very important point that I wish to bring to the attention of this Committee.  
Miss Jacqui Dean also touched upon hardship. What I can confirm is that the current rent is set relatively low at 2 percent of the land value. In addition there is a mechanism to reduce rents in cases of hardship but none of the farmers has ever applied for a discount. So can that member confirm to me the reason why cases of hardship have not applied for a discount?  
The other factor I really want to touch upon that I feel very strongly about is the Maori Reserved Land Amendment Act 1997.