Masterton District Council(Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill

Although I understand why the Committee would make that move in order to expedite matters, I am a little disappointed. I was hoping we would enter into a long debate about the title of this bill, and we might have been able to have a pretty detailed discussion about whether it truly reflected the intentions of the legislation currently before the Committee. It is my intention to take two very short calls on this matter—

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: On the title?

On the title, that is right—and then two on the commencement date, and so on, clause by clause. But, no, I intend to take two short calls—the first on the bill in general, and the second relating to the amendment tabled by Georgina Beyer, which, in my haste to take a call, I have been unable to get a copy of. So I hope to return for a quick second call on that point.

The substantive matters contained in this bill have been well canvassed by the member in the Chair, as well as by my honourable colleague from New Zealand First who is clearly resident in the Wairarapa. I did not realise that, but—

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: I did.

The Hon Ken Shirley said that he realised that. That is because he has a forest on the man’s land, does he not?

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Just down the road.

Is that right? Oh, OK—very good. So all we are doing here, from what I can gather, essentially in respect of some public afforestation, is allowing the areas outside what used to be, presumably, the Masterton County Council—is that right? [Interruption] The Chairperson is nodding at me, frantically. Presumably that was before Brian Elwood’s amalgamation in the late 1980s. He is a former senior partner of the firm I work for, incidentally—in case anyone in the Chamber is interested, while I try to kill 5 minutes. He is an interesting fellow, and a guy who did a great deal for the law in Palmerston North, as well as going on to be a long-serving mayor of that city before the amalgamations of local government occurred. But, I digress in this wide-ranging debate. [Interruption] Thank you.

Obviously the major point here, from what I can gather briefly, is to extend the powers of the trust, the trustees, and council, in order that matters outside the immediate jurisdiction of what was the county council can now be taken into account in respect of the administration of the various trusts involved. It seems to me to be legislation that nobody in the Committee would have good reason to object to. I look forward to a second short call, on the amendment tabled by Georgina Beyer.

Again, I take a very short call on behalf of New Zealand First. I note, for the benefit of the Committee, clause 5. The reason clause 5 is of minor importance is that it reflects the actual intention that was in the bequest and will of Dr Trimble, so many years ago. Clause 5 also, in this new unanimous subparagraph (vi), reflects the thinking of the Local Government and Environment Committee that a will or bequest ought to be carried through—no matter how many years ago it was stated—in the complete and comprehensive terms of the intention of that testator.

We had a suggestion made to the committee that the present council may have wished to have built a public stadium, a sports ground, or something else, which would have been far, far removed from the original intention of Dr Trimble. Bringing that to the minds of the Committee, or of any people in other councils who are contemplating a change from the original intention of bequests they are handling, I say that the integrity of the will and the integrity of its intention have been preserved here, with the addition of “amenity and protection planting and their maintenance:”.

I would also like to comment on clause 5 of this bill. As my colleague from New Zealand First Jim Peters observed, this clause, “Objects of Foundation”, is the key clause of this bill. I particularly refer members to clause 5(1)(a)(v), which is to provide for the conservation of native and commercial forests. But the foundation is also for the economic use of timber—both of native and commercial forestry. I think that that is a very good provision. It is all about the multi-use of forests, be they native or commercial, exotic, planted forests, but it contrasts dramatically with this Government’s policy in the way it has closed down the conservation and management of West Coast forests. The Labour Government reneged on its accord, by which we had the multiple uses of West Coast native forests.

Perhaps the member in the chair, the member for Wairarapa, could comment on that, because on the one hand we have here a trust being set up that is providing for the multiple uses of both indigenous and exotic forests—and I certainly support that; I think it is a very wise thing. But on the other hand how does she reconcile it as a member of the governing party that has closed down the commercial use of indigenous forestry elsewhere? Does she see an inconsistency in that? I think that this proposal is right and her Government’s policy is wrong. How does she reconcile the two? I would certainly like to have clarification from the member in the chair on that issue.

In that brief interlude, I have now had an opportunity to read the amendment proposed by the member in the chair. I understand it is the member’s first opportunity to sit in the Committee chair, so I cannot let this moment pass without asking a question, as my colleague the Hon Ken Shirley did, and at least give the member an opportunity to stand and answer a question. If she cannot answer the one that Mr Shirley posed about the slight philosophical inconsistencies between this legislation and other Government actions, perhaps she can answer this question. Presumably the proposed amendment in the member’s name is to address what looks to me like a drafting difficulty, in the sense that although clause 8(1)(b) has been struck out in the report back on the bill, a reference to “subsection 1(b)”—which would, of course, no longer exist—is still contained in clause 8(2)? I wonder whether the member would take the opportunity to—

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Explain the point.

That is what I thought, Mr Shirley. I just wonder whether the member would take the opportunity, while she is in the chair of the Committee, to explain whether I have got that right or wrong, and the implications if we left it in there and did not vote for her amendment. Through you, Mr Chairman, I now invite the member in the chair to address that issue.

I am delighted by the member’s request in offering me this opportunity to give an explanation. However, I am defeated because the honourable member has indeed answered the question himself. I can confirm that he is correct in his assumption as to why this amendment has been put. It is due to a drafting error, because of the striking out by unanimous decision of clause 8(1)(b) as it was. So this amendment refers to clause 8(2). It precisely states: “To omit the words ‘together with the amount of distributions made under subsection (1)(b)’—lines 14 and 15 on page 4 of the bill.”

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Are you going to answer my question?

💬 Simon Power: Answer Ken Shirley’s question about the inconsistency of the philosophy behind this bill.

It is my understanding that the Government does not perceive that there is an inconsistency in its particular policy with something that is a local bill and is a local desire. I think the Government agrees that ideally these kinds of bills would be decided at a local level, and given that the new Local Government Act would provide for less of this kind of legislation going before the Local Government and Environment Committee, for example. So, in answer to Mr Shirley’s question, I think the difference is something that he obviously perceives to be there.

I cannot let it rest there, because I thought the member had a grasp of the bill she has brought to the House, but it would appear not. I just draw your attention again to the clause 5, “Objects of Foundation”, which states that the objects of the foundation are “(a) to promote public afforestation by—(i) the production and care of timber for economic purposes:”. It also provides for the use of both native and introduced exotic species in that context. The point is this: people on the West Coast wanted to continue the sustainable management of their forests. They put a proposal to this Labour-led Government by which they were going to take out, by helicopter, only one tree per hectare on a 15-year rotation. That is considerably less than the wind blows down, yet this Labour-led Government closed that proposal down completely and overrode local wishes.

Here, as the member in the Chair observes, it is the local wish, and the local wish should prevail. I think that is what I heard her say, and I agree with it, but could she explain the inconsistency of that with what she is supporting in this bill. She has brought to the House a local bill that is at variance with this Labour-led Government’s rhetoric of not letting people harvest even the timber that the wind blows over, if it were an indigenous species. West Coast people talked of one tree harvested per hectare by helicopter extraction on a 15-year rotation, and this Government closed that down. It overrode local wishes and reneged on the West Coast Accord signed by the Hon Phil Goff when he was the Minister for the Environment in the Labour Government of the 1980s, which promised sustainable management of indigenous forests on a commercial basis in perpetuity.

The Labour Government reneged on that promise; it would not allow it, so my question is why is it being allowed in this local bill brought to the House by the member in the chair, when it is apparently at variance with the rhetoric of what this Labour-led Government has done?

I think the member might better direct his questions to the Minister who deals with those particular matters. However, I have to say that the foundation being established will not be dealing with native forests, which is what the West Coast Accord was about. It does not talk about the harvesting of native forest, as was the situation with the West Coast Accord, so, in my view, there is an inconsistency there with the member’s argument.

I intended to reserve my comments for the third reading, but the Hon Ken Shirley has alerted me to the issue I was going to raise then. I can make a very clear distinction for the member in the Chair between the issue raised by the Hon Ken Shirley and the issue I wish to raise. That distinction was added to, and I was so pleased—almost thrilled—to hear the member say that this was a local issue.

This House will shortly be looking at the South Island Landless Maoris Act lands, and those lands are a like situation. The situation in clause 6 of this bill—“In order for the foundation to further its objects”—is exactly as the Hon Ken Shirley has said. The member has helped us by saying that this is a local issue. The distinction, though, is that these are privately-owned forests—unlike the issue that the Hon Ken Shirley has raised. That involves State forests, which are up to all but 15 percent of the West Coast. The Minister’s encouragement to me is really tremendous. Now I have an inkling that the Government must have waited for the bill—thinking about the South Island Landless Maoris Act land as well—and put together the like situation of privately owned forest, incapable of being developed by the owners as they wished, which was the intention at the time of the language of the South Island Landless Maoris Act.

I am encouraged by the bill. I am very pleased to hear the member in the chair say that she supports local objectives. Clause 6(1)(a) states that the foundation “has full capacity to carry out or undertake any related business or related activity,”—namely, in this case, providing for the supply of timber for public wants, assisting the council to establish forests, and providing for native and commercial forests. For those reasons alone, New Zealand First gives this bill its enthusiastic support.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Georgina Beyer to clause 8(2) be agreed to:

to omit the words “together with the amount of distributions made under subsection (1)(b)”.

Amendment agreed to, and clauses 1 to 28 as amended and the schedules agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading