Kuriger BarbaraBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you Madam Speaker. Well the member Glen Bennett just said it all when he said it's our land. That typifies the Labour Government in that everything is about them; everything is about centralisation with no thought for the people that have been on this land for a very long time. The second thing that Glen Bennett said was that their esteemed Minister Damien O'Connor had brought this to the House. Well I was here for the first reading of this bill and I remember I spoke in slot No. 4 and what was really interesting I heard Eugenie Sage get up and speak on the bill. Then I heard Damien O'Connor get up and speak on the bill and they told two different stories about what this meant. And I was really regretting that I'd taken speech slot No. 4. I would have rather been No. 6 because I was waiting to see what Mark Patterson was going to say from a New Zealand First perspective because he had a different view altogether and was saying Well we'll see what happens with this." Unfortunately for the farmers Mark Patterson would have been a good advocate. This thing is wrong wrong wrong. The bill is an omnibus bill that amends the Crown Pastoral Land Act and the Land Act 1948. What it seeks to achieve is the following outcomes: "maintaining or enhancing inherent values across the Crown pastoral estate for present and future generations while providing for ongoing pastoral farming of pastoral land". What on earth does this Government think that the farmers are doing now? We have a zero readiness report here which none of the Government members are choosing to talk about which was done by KPMG last week or the week before and while New Zealand is actually ninth in the world out of 32 countries on this table agriculture is sitting at number one. And where do you actually hear anyone on the Government side of the House talking about that? You don't. It seems to be a big feature of this Government to want to lead the world in COVID response—well that's all gone wrong. That's all totally gone wrong—not leading the world. Nobody even knows what the traffic lights mean anymore. So this bill seeks to end tenure review and improve. It says "the way Crown pastoral land is administered and regulated." Well there goes that word "regulated" because there's that many regulations around now that people are still trying to work out which ones work and which ones don't work. And "The bill aims to ensure that the department administers Crown pastoral land in a way that maintains or enhances the … inherent values that arise from ecological landscape cultural heritage and scientific attributes or characteristics while providing for ongoing pastoral farming." It says "The bill does not seek to change leaseholders' tenure right to pasturage quiet enjoyment of the leasehold properties". Well I can tell you there's been no quiet enjoyment of these leasehold properties since this Government's tried to take over take the power and take everything away from the enjoyment that these leaseholders have had for many many many years. So it's talking about "Redesigning regulatory system to"—theoretically—"deliver improved Crown pastoral land outcomes." So I'm going to read that again because maybe the person who's speaking next on the other side of the House—so "Redesigning regulatory system to"—theoretically—"deliver improved Crown pastoral land outcomes." So what is this theoretical delivery that's going to do something any better than the farmers can do? I mean I was at a catchment recently not in this particular area but talking about land improvement and these people had to have six different entities to work through their catchments and they had to report back to the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Ministry for the Environment which is fair enough—no one minds accountability. But they had to report back to each one quarterly at different times of the year. So tell me how theory and box-ticking actually gets the boots on and gets anything done? There's a classification of activities here intended to improve the timeliness and efficiency of the decision-making process. Under the bullet points permitted pastoral activity leaseholders may undertake these activities without applying for a consent. Then you turn over the page: discretionary pastoral activities—leaseholders must apply for a consent to undertake these activities. So this is going to turn into a "What do I apply for consent for? What is going to be the thing that I'm allowed to do that's going to continue my quiet enjoyment of my leasehold property?" And then we come to prohibited pastoral activities and leaseholders may not. Now I know how the lines get blurred between some of these things and I can see a lot of the people that are going to win out of these are going to be the lawyers and the people who are going to be challenging what's discretionary; what's prohibited. All of that sort of stuff. Then we come to the statutory decision-making process "the application of an effects-based test aimed at both assessing the level of adverse effects of an activity and minimising those effects as far as possible". So this is an effects-based test. Who knows what theory that's going to be based on? "A pastoral farming test to establish whether an activity that has more than minor adverse effects on inherent values" and "a final decision-making stage where the Commissioner can carry out a range of further considerations before approving the application in full or in part with or without conditions or declining it." So you know there's going to be a pastoral farming test. Pastoral farming generally in our book involves having animals on pasture and we know that there are some things that happen with pastoral farming that can have some effects and we're working on those as an industry and nobody would dispute that we need to make some changes.Then you get to the final decision making where the commissioner can you know make a range of further considerations. Nobody's talking about what these further considerations are before approving or declining. So this talks about "Increasing transparency accountability and public involvement". Now this really annoys me. The Crown is going to take this over. We're going to have the most open and transparent Government who tell nobody anything saying that this will increase transparency accountability and public involvement. I don't think so. I think the minute that the Government signs off on this bill it'll probably be the last we get any transparency and accountability. It'll all be tied up behind the doors and no one will ever hear anything about it ever again from this Government. They're not talking to our mayors during COVID. They're not open and transparent during anything. So this bill is a really bad move. National opposes this bill in its absolute entirety. It should be ripped up. It should never be allowed to happen and while it says it seeks to provide stronger and clearer accountability and transparency in the department's administration of Crown pastoral land I have no faith in the system to deliver anything better than what those good farmers have been delivering for generations and who should be able to carry on doing it for generations. We strongly oppose the introduction of a new infringement regime which confers to the commissioner additional enforcement powers. So these people who are going about you know their quiet enjoyment of their leasehold properties are all of a sudden bound to the introduction of new infringement regimes where people will walk in with their clipboards and tick the boxes. Nobody minds having accountability but another set of regulations is something that these farmers do not need. Section 100GA is too heavy handed—reinforcing monitoring and policing of Crown pastoral leaseholders insinuating they are to blame for the position of the high country is where they have done their best to look after the land. I had a firsthand look at the weekend and they've done a good job. This bill is rubbish. Thank you Madam Speaker."