Hodgson Pete: Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hodgson Pete: Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:670;Page:16800] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 The previous speech was a confused contribution a somewhat bigoted contribution and certainly a bewildered contribution from the member of Parliament for Taranaki - King Country. It was a strange contribution because Shane Ardern of all members was part of a Government that voted to rapidly and significantly increase the rentals of farms in his electorate because it was deemed to be the right thing to do in terms of sorting out the balance of property ownership and property rights. Yet that same member is now speaking in favour of legislation the Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill that reduces the property rights of the owner and increases the property rights of the lessee. The legislation is a law change that has no basis in economics and that is being done entirely on the basis of lobbying. 
If the story is to be told we need to be reminded that when the previous Labour Government came to power 11 years ago some lessees of high country stations were paying less than State house tenants were paying for State houses in Dunedin. 
Hon David Parker 
: One was $1200 a year plus GST. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: One was $1200 a year plus GST. Do we hear any stories about that situation from National members? No we do not. Instead we get from the Minister of Agriculture a vein-popping shrill and strident contribution that Labour is driven by jealousy and spite. That is not the case. The member to my right David Parker against whom the allegation was made does not have a jealous or spiteful bone in his body but he does believe in people having a fair suck of the sav. 
It is reasonable is it not for the Opposition to ask National members—themselves great defendants and guardians of property rights—to please defend and guard property rights where the property right is owned by the taxpayer not by the individual? All we want is a fair return which was the case during the time of the previous Labour Government. A fair return was secured except that an opportunity was given to leaseholders if they thought for whatever reason that the rental was not payable or not affordable. The leaseholders then had the opportunity to go to the Government and say as they might to any other landlord “Look this is too tough. It is too rough. We do not want to walk off the land. Give us a reduction.” And do members know what? 
Shane Ardern 
: They did time and time again. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I ask the member for Taranaki - King Country whether he would like to tell me how many leaseholders came forward to get a reduction in their rental when the opportunity was presented to them in a statutory framework. 
Shane Ardern 
: They came forward on many occasions and many of them. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Many occasions he said. The member for Taranaki - King Country says “They came forward on many occasions”. That is what the member for Taranaki - King Country says but here is the truth: the answer is none—diddly squat not a single one zero. Leaseholders were written to individually. They were written to individually three times so we cannot have an argument from National members that leaseholders did not know that the landlord was prepared to negotiate. 
The leaseholders decided to play the longer game. They decided to socialise their losses wait until they could get a change of Government lobby the Government for a change in legislation—which is what is in front of us now with this bill—and say to themselves that it was just as well they did not go cap in hand to that dirty rotten stinking Labour Government for a reduction in rentals because they have got a substantial reduction in rentals and a substantial increase in their property rights as a result whether or not they need it. 
You see some rich people from the US and Indonesia have bought up bits of the South Island high country as personal bolt-holes. That is the case and those people sit alongside real live ordinary iconic sheep and beef farmers. I know a few of those farmers; I used to be a veterinarian in the high country. I still wander into the high country in Otago from time to time. In fact when I was Minister for Land Information I met many many runholders in that capacity. I have probably met more runholders in my time than the member who has just resumed his seat who considers himself to be a cocky. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Oh rubbish! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: “The Orange Roughy” said that is rubbish. Well she would not know the high country. A good question would be to ask the low country farmer who just resumed his seat why he feels good about high country farmers getting a deal that would never be contemplated for the lowlands—never. 
You see there has been a cave-in by a Government that likes to think it can get away with giving a bunch of money to 231 people some of whom do not need it—in fact nearly all of whom do not need it. When we wrote to them three times to ask whether any of them needed the money none of them said yes. That is the size of the problem. We are accused of running the farmers off the land. We wrote to them three times asking whether they would like a reduction. 
Hon David Parker 
: Not one of them left. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Not one of them left. What they will do of course from now on when the legislation is passed is capitalise their gains. When the next lease changes hands it will be at a higher price than before. Should tenure review persist then the amount paid by the State to get back its own land will go up— 
Hon David Parker 
: Or the amount the State gets will go down. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Or the amount the State gets will go down but usually it is the former of those two options. The process will be expensive in any respect. 
What do we want for the high country? I think what New Zealanders want for the high country is this—[ 
Interruption 
] The member who just resumed his seat has had his chance to have a say and I did not interrupt him. I cannot hear him and he did not make any sense when I could. The people of New Zealand all enjoy the idea of there being some productive use of the high country. Whether we take a romantic iconic sort of Shrek Driza-Bone approach or a more informed understanding view of the value of fine wools depends on a person’s point of view. But all of us like the idea of a bit of high country production especially after tenure review when we have been able to see more of the productive land being used including for horticulture. It is great; it is wonderful. That is one thing we want the high country for. 
Another thing I think we would all agree on is that it would be very good for New Zealanders to have in perpetuity reasonable access to the high country. “Reasonable” means all that stuff about whether the sheep are lambing and on it goes—reasonable access to the high country. 
A third thing on which I think we could agree is that we would like the high country to be managed in such a way that there is not a whole bunch of unplanned activity especially in relation to waterways or a whole lot of buildings going up along Lake Tekapo let us say or whatever the next lake is that will come into the sights of developers as is happening in the Twizel area at the moment. 
Although we did not get this balanced view from the member who resumed his seat the member for Taranaki - King Country another thing we could agree on is that managing the exigencies of the high country whatever they may be—wilding pines or rabbits or anything in between—is hard work. It is hard work. We can say as the member who just resumed his seat—what is his name? 
Hon David Parker 
: Shane Ardern. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: —Shane Ardern says that the Crown is the landlord from hell. In some cases that will be true—undoubtedly. But I spent a bit of time in the area when I was the Minister for Land Information and I can say that some leaseholders are neighbours from hell. Some shocking mistakes have been made including mistakes made by people who really were trying hard not to make mistakes. They were really trying hard not to.  
Pinus contorta 
 might be an example of that situation. 
We can agree that there have been abuses of the land including abuses that people really really tried hard to avoid. But there is no point in getting into a blame game about it as Shane Ardern did. It will have to be managed by all folk. In the future the effective managers of the high country land will be a mixture of Crown leaseholders. That is probably what New Zealanders want and frankly if we do not charge leaseholders what the land is worth and if we give away property rights then we will see all of those aims reduced and we will go backwards in our management of the high country of this country.