O'Connor Damien; Salesa JennyHon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you Madam Chair. I thought it was important that I come down through the middle and stick to the facts on this. There's enough misinformation outside of Parliament and I think we should stick accurately to the information and the facts in here.This piece of legislation—and I'll acknowledge the good work done by the Environment Committee on this and I acknowledge the previous Speaker who introduced this. Tenure review was a process introduced in 1997 actually early on and then went through to a 1998 piece of legislation. I was actually here which some might think is sad. I think it has some advantages because I can recall the objectives of the tenure review legislation. But the Land Act 1948—what that did was that land that actually wasn't wanted by many people and was being degraded had been farmed by people who had no secure interest in the land. So the Government of the day gave perpetual rights to pasturage in the high country through these lease arrangements. They have been upheld through court challenges over the years and I acknowledge that nothing in this legislation undermines their rights to continue to use this land for pastoral purposes and it enables them to make changes.We then move on to the piece of legislation that went through in 1998 actually and it made a few changes. It allowed discussion between the lessees and the Crown to work out what land might be freeholded and secured in their hands and what should go back to the Crown by way of for the most part conservation land. And that process has been under way since that time and we've moved through a large number of leases—in fact I should know the number; I don't—and that freeholding has occurred. But it has become harder and harder as the lease arrangements or the high country leases themselves are more complex and there's been more debate about how much should go into conservation and how much should be freeholded. To the point where the uncertainty hasn't helped the farmers on the land and many have said Look we just want to get on with farming. We don't want the uncertainty and the cost of this ongoing process. So just you know let us get on with it." And some want to complete their tenure review processes and some have and some still will before the passage of this legislation. But for those who remain on the land as lessees they want certainty.And so the piece of legislation has attempted to do that. One of the things was in the 1998 legislation that it firstly reinforced the fact that those lessees had rights to the land for pastoral purposes but didn't have any rights to the soil which seems rather strange but that was the reality. And it gave them exclusive rights to pasturage over the land but provides no right to the soil which made it kind of complex when it came to farming—digging a post hole all of those things. So at that time the legislation passed by the then National Government made all those activities subject to a consent—subject to a consent—which meant that actually all of them would have had to have gone to the Commissioner of Crown Lands and asked if they wanted to dig a post hole or do other things like that.What happened then was there was discussion between the lessees and the Department of Conversation at the time and they agreed that actually they would write a letter—and this is the letter. They'd write a letter to all of the lessees and say "Look we've granted you consent for all these activities." It was a letter. There's nothing more. Just a letter from the Commissioner of Crown Lands. Not very secure some might say but robust at the time and it remains robust. It was things like clearing of existing vehicle or stock tracks digging in posts anchors piles. Indeed it allowed some earth works tree planting tree felling but within the area enclosed by the fence around the homestead located on pastoral lease—the curtilage area; that's what it was. And I could go on and read all of the activities on farm that required a consent. And that was approved through one letter—a little insecure you might say.Well moving forward with the new piece of legislation that the previous speaker had put into the House there was a view that the certainty was important. So clearly all these minor activities that require the consent under the National Government's legislation in 1998 shouldn't remain like that. So indeed we've moved to have some permitted activities. It covers most of those things which most people would say are sensible. Then there are some other activities and technology has allowed us—with better bulldozers and with diggers and actually with things like centre pivot irrigators and things—to get on and develop that land. So there's a view that in some places that's appropriate but others it's not. So people should be required to apply to the Commissioner of Crown Lands for those permitted activities but still subject to a consent.Then there are some activities that are prohibited and those might have major impacts they might affect the landscape values or indeed be intensive farming in a very sensitive area that is deemed inappropriate. Most of those things are listed in the Schedules. Actually most people think it's a pretty fair balance.So the things that will be permitted—that is don't require consent which is progress for the high country lessees—gives certainty for them. That's what we're doing in this piece of legislation. All the rhetoric and the ranting from over there about stepping backwards—actually this is progress. The lessees did have some issues. They raised them and I have to say we listened and made adjustments to the legislation.Then at the last minute—and we've tabled a Supplementary Order Paper—we dealt with one of the remaining issues that was around access. These are sensitive pieces of land. They're also beautiful and a lot of the public want access to get out there and I don't blame them. I like that myself. As was stated most of those lessees provide access for the public subject to sensible behaviour which is absolutely what they should expect. There have been a couple of cases—not that many—where access has been unreasonably withheld. So after some discussion between the High Country Accord and ourselves we worked through to what was a fair balance between land that is owned by the taxpayer owned by the Crown leased in perpetuity for pastoral purposes by the lessees how we could find the right balance to ensure that unreasonable access was not withheld. So we said at the time of the transfer of a lease if someone decides to sell it—and indeed I hope we don't ever have another National Government because I'm suspecting that they will open the door. They will open the door once again to wholesale overseas purchase of farmland and most likely because these are quite expensive properties we will see what we had seen in under previous National Governments a lot of these iconic properties went into foreigners' hands.Now a lot of them are managed really well. I'm not saying that all foreign owners are bad owners. Some of them have invested huge amounts of money. But the issue of their values when it comes to privacy and access are sometimes different to those of Kiwis. In fact we go back to Tommy Suharto I think it was and a property up at the top of Lake Tekapō where he just blocked access quite unreasonably. That sparked I guess some of the tension that still remains today between recreational users people who enjoy the high country and those who own the property. That was an unfortunate incident. The vast majority and I say almost all New Zealand owners of these properties provide reasonable access. But if someone chooses not to then we should have some leverage. We said at the point of transfer so as not to undermine the value or the property rights of the lessee but to say to the new one coming in "There was an issue with access here. We haven't been able to force access"—[Time expired]CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! I'm sure the Minister will have ample time later on but I had already extended. So I'll come back to you. Thank you Minister."