Simmonds Penny; Kuriger BarbaraPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I would like to ask the Minister: how does this Part 1 of the bill recognise the contribution of the approximately 170 high country farmers and their families and the contribution that they have made to agriculture in New Zealand; their contribution to the history of high country farming; the contribution made financially environmentally conservationally emotionally; the investments that they have made over several generations? How does this part of the legislation recognise the trust that was involved in a voluntary process—the tenure review? How does it give some value to the 1.2 million hectares of our national landscape—something close to 5 percent of New Zealand's total land area that has been administered managed carefully and prudently cared for by these families over generations? How does it show any respect for the relationships that have been there over generations? I would note the lack of respect that was shown from the other side of the Chamber when my colleague mentioned that there were families in tears at the kitchen table and the response from the other side was scoffing. So how does this introduction show some respect for those farmers?BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you Madam Chair. My colleague Penny Simmonds just talked about a lack of respect for the farmers—and the genesis of this bill is that the current Government and the previous coalition Government had no trust of the farmers. My colleague Scott Simpson talked before about the genesis of this bill where in the last Parliament the previous Minister got up and made a speech and when I heard the current Minister get up and make his speech I felt like there were two different agendas going on. The concept of the current Minister is It'll be all right; we're not doing very much. We're actually going to let these people get on and have their quiet enjoyment of their leasehold properties." Well let me just suggest that the Government has come in and probably actually caused a massive upheaval to the quiet enjoyment of these leasehold properties. So I have an amendment in line with that and this is about how the process of applications is done to undertake activities on the land with the commissioner and around the commissioner's decision. And if we go to clause 8 "Part 1 replaced" I want to propose a new section 11(3)(b). I want to delete the proposed section 11(3)(b) which actually currently says "may consider relevant Government policy decided by Cabinet in particular policy that relates to national directions (such as national policy statements and national environment standards);". Now the reason I want to change this is I think the words "decided by Cabinet in particular policy" are totally unnecessary. We have generational farms down in the South Island who know far better than any member of the Cabinet. And we've seen what happens when Cabinet sticks their fingers into decisions. You know we've seen the "Let's get rid of the gas and burn a heap of Indonesian coal." scenario. Cabinet's sticking their fingers into generational and multigenerational farming which are showcase farms. They are farms that prior to COVID had tourists coming down. They're exemplar farms around pest control they're exemplar farms around weed control and they bring people in to showcase New Zealand. If we look at a lot of photos overseas and we see the tourists coming in the activities on these farms—nobody likes more than seeing a picture of New Zealand with wonderful merino sheep in it. It's an absolute showcase and an absolute exemplar. So I think Cabinet should keep its nose out of these high country farms and let the farmers get on with it. I would like my amendment—to remove the provision that's in there and say "may consider relevant"—this is to do with the commissioner—"may consider relevant Government policy that relates to nationally applicable environmental matters" and then "(such as national policy standards and national environment standards". These people know what they're doing. They don't need an overbearing Cabinet coming in interfering with their lives upsetting their multigenerational families and actually taking control over something that was working perfectly—perfectly—before this actually happened. So thank you Madam Chair."