Sage Eugenie; Dean JacquiHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. Thank you. I'm very pleased to stand and speak in support of the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill. It was indeed a privilege to introduce this bill as Minister for Land Information last term and then to serve on the select committee while it considered the submissions on the bill. The fact that there is a 15-page quite detailed report explaining the differences between the bill as introduced and the bill as being reported back to the House I think highlights the huge work of submitters in providing the committee with some very substantial submissions the work of Land Information New Zealand officials the select committee secretariat and also Parliamentary Counsel. So like others I would like to acknowledge all of that and also repeat the thanks that colleagues have given to the High Country Accord for organising the visit with the secretariat on Branch Creek Station and Minaret. And I think Stuart Smith's comments at some length on that visit highlight the benefits when select committees actually get out into the field and hear from submitters in their own place on their own ground and just the real practical insights that that gave us.I would also like to acknowledge all of the leaseholders who made submissions and described their leases their history on them whether they'd been in the family just some of the issues that they deal with and the challenges that they deal with day to day. That gave us a really good background context for considering the legislation. But I do reject the statements by the Hon Scott Simpson that there was an ideological basis for this bill. National's concern is with the protection of property rights. One of the reasons for the bill was the quite significant public concern that the Crown interest because the Crown is the owner of these 2.5 million hectares of South Island high country the lack of protection of the Crown interest in the high country and the quite extensive regulatory review that Land Information New Zealand did highlighting problems with the existing statutory regime the fact that it was perceived as largely process driven that it didn't have clear outcomes the major concerns about tenure review and the fact that the Crown interest was not being protected there—were part of the reasons for the bill. We heard from Dr Bill Lee of Manaaki Whenua in support of Forest & Bird and it was just he highlighted particularly that wider public interest in high country lands on pastoral leases; the mosaic of vegetation; the significance of the species because they're often quite distinctive species like the Brachaspis robustus the grasshopper; the huge ecosystem-services values that the high country provides to downstream users in terms of harvesting water for example; and the use that folk downstream make of that. So protecting these upper catchment areas ensuring that inherent values are sustained benefits all of us both in terms of carbon capture source stability and that harvesting of water. So the discretionary consent regime which the bill significantly changes and which the select committee is suggesting be improved further is a critical part of safeguarding inherent values the Crown's interest and the public interest in the sustainable management of this land while providing for a secure long-term future for pastoral farming. There were some submitters and some in this House who have argued that we just leave it all to the leaseholders that there hasn't been any evidence of degradation in the high country and I think Federated Farmers argued that. I would remind members of the evidence that was presented by Dr Lee and others that even in the Mackenzie Basin alone 68000 hectares of indigenous vegetation over 22 percent of the floor of the basin was completely changed destroying the indigenous character of that between 1990 and 2017. Dr Lee had some very compelling maps just showing the major change with very bright-green areas that had highlighted that conversion. So again some clarity around inherent values how they are to be managed how the discretionary consent process is to be managed are at the heart of this bill in order to ensure that those values are sustained long term. The bill also ends tenure review. And the public concern about that was that large areas of land which had been free-holded through tenure review were being intensively developed and the loss again of that landscape character and indigenous vegetation. Dr Ann Brower in her submission highlighted that in net terms the Crown had paid across some $57 million as at 2017 while disposing of more land some 436000 hectares being free-holded with 371842 hectares becoming conservation land. So more land being free-holded yet in net terms the Crown paid out net $57 million to leaseholders. That inequity and the fact that the Crown was not getting a good outcome through the tenure review process is again another reason for ending it. As one former pastoral lessee who had been through tenure review—Dr Gerry McSweeney—noted leaseholders had had 20 years to decide whether they wanted to go through tenure review. It is now time that it ends. And as Dr McSweeney also highlighted just the increasing diversification in the high country now earning more from mānuka honey on that property near Arthur's Pass than from annual calf sales. Natural landscapes and nature are really the defining feature of the high country and how those lands are managed. So with the changes in this bill I think it will significantly improve that along with the fact that Land Information New Zealand is no longer working through third-party organisations consultants; it is much more actively involved in working with leaseholders. Now Stuart Smith talked about the wilding conifer problem. That cannot just be left to leaseholders. Certainly in their leases they have a responsibility to keep leases free of pests and weeds. But it has been the Crown in a partnership which has invested over $100 million over four years in tackling the weed tree the wilding conifer threat. Some of that money quite a chunk of it is being invested on pastoral lease land and that is supported by leaseholders. So that is what this bill is also about.Points made by others that I'd just also like to underline: a much better commitment to the Treaty partnership and giving effect to Treaty principles in the bill and the select committee strengthened that; the infringement offences which did cause some concern amongst the leaseholding community are a standard feature of most legislation. It is an ability to go in—rather than with a neutron bomb of going to the High Court implementing proceedings—with a fines procedure where there may have been an activity like burning cultivation undertaken without the requisite discretionary consent under the Act. Similarly just with concerns around things like offsetting some submitters wanted this. This is not part of this bill because of that overall concern to actually ensure that we sustain the inherent values of pastoral lease lands and we have a better regime which ensures that pastoral farming can continue but that those inherent values are much more to the fore in decisions about what sort of activities should take place given that the pastoral lease provides for a right of pasturage and quiet enjoyment but not of cultivation burning and destruction of biodiversity. Thank you Madam Speaker I support the bill.Debate interrupted.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): With apologies to the member this debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 24 August.The House adjourned at 4.55 p.m.