Forests Amendment Bill

Thank you for the call on Part 2, “Miscellaneous provisions”. I want to continue to develop the line of argument I was pushing before, and I am thinking now about clause 25, “Compensation”.

On the one hand, the Government is saying to the SILNA forest owners that it wants them voluntarily to come under a regime of sustainable management. Having got their agreement to do that, the Government then belts them with export controls that essentially say they cannot use their assets to their fullest value. But when I read clause 25(1) regarding compensation, I see that it provides: “No person is entitled to compensation from the Crown … by reason of the enactment of this Act, in—(a) the rights, or value of the rights, of that person under a contract relating to indigenous timber on any specified Maori land; or (b) the value of indigenous timber on any specified Maori land;”.

It appears to me that we are trying to have our cake and eat it too. We are trying to bring an end the last of the clear-felling of our indigenous forest because of a decision we took 100 years ago with regard to landless natives in order to give them some type of stake in our country. Now that that asset has some value, and now that the Government has changed its mind as to whether that asset will be managed in a sustainable way—in fact, it wants to keep it as a pristine environment—it is saying to those people that that land has no value, or that it will not pay for its principles. As far as I am concerned, that is just not fair. Notwithstanding National’s general thrust in favour of the sustainable management aspects of this bill, that is a component that we feel very uncomfortable about.

Mr Copeland has just described in some detail—and, I thought, very well—the aspect of import controls and what they are doing to the management of the SILNA forest owners’ assets, and the impact on their land values and cash flows. I have to say I can empathise with them. I want to give an example of when I myself owned a property on the West Coast of the South Island. In fact, I owned a number of properties, but on one in particular I had a stand of forestry that was valued at $750,000 one day, and the next day I was told I could not harvest that timber. I know that Damien O’Connor is interested in this, because he fought the good fight at the time. The next day I was told I could not use it, and my land values diminished accordingly. I was not entitled to any compensation. The Government was not prepared to pay for its principles then, and I see it is doing the same thing now. It is just not fair.

💬 Hon Damien O'Connor: Was that in 1992?

It does not matter when it was; the reality is that that was what was in place. Damien O’Connor is here. I know he wants to get on his feet, take a call, and rekindle the fight for the people of the West Coast, because he was very vociferous in his concern at the time. He rolled over, unfortunately, but I suppose that is politics; he was party to that Cabinet decision. But now he has the opportunity, as the legislation is being relitigated, to get up, fight the good fight for the people on the West Coast, and tell them that the decision was wrong then, and is wrong now, for the SILNA forest owners down south.

It is a matter that is deeply contradictory and deeply hypocritical. The hypocrisy of the argument is what concerns me most. The Government is saying to people who have legitimate title to an asset that the asset is theirs but it will tell them how they can use it. On the one hand, it wants sustainable management. Those people having abided by that and having agreed voluntarily to come under a regime of sustainable management, the Government then says: “By the way, you cannot sell some of the product.” That is simply not fair. The forests are either sustainable or not sustainable. If they are sustainable, then the Government should let people make their own decisions, without putting impediments in their way. That is what clause 25 should address. If the Government is not prepared to do that, it should compensate.

Looking at Part 2, “Miscellaneous provisions”, of the Forests Amendment Bill, I was reminded by the struck-out provisions that, as the last speaker has just said with regard to the West Coast, was a very costly reallocation—$120 million worth of reallocation of taxpayer funds—to prevent taxpayer-owned forests being milled. As I wish to move to the actual clause—clause 25, “Compensation”—that clause is a very appropriate place to start from.

At the present time, the forests that are the subject of debate are currently exempt from sustainable forest management, sawmilling, and generic export controls. If this bill is enacted, that state is about to be changed. At the time of the submissions in both 1999 and June last year, some submitters made a very strong call with regard to clause 25. As they began to look carefully at that clause, they saw that the demand for a sustainable forest regime was—as Mr Connell has already said—nothing more nor less than an appropriation of their inherent property rights, and they have maintained that position throughout. Historically, there is still a sense of grievance with regard to those lands, and clause 25 adds to that sense of grievance.

I have to say that that feeling is not shared by all, and that some owners who have benefited from the Department of Conservation’s uptake of their blocks feel otherwise. But there are a substantial number of owners out there who will still feel a real sense of grievance over the passage of this bill. As Mr Franks has already said, they feel that there is no sound reason why they alone, because they do not live on the West Coast, have become public benefactors.

Contrast the position, with regard to clause 25, of a SILNA landowner living somewhere in New Zealand but having a historical affinity to his or her land—in this case, not by an ancestral connection, but by a statute recognising his or her rights. How would he or she feel knowing that the West Coast was enhanced by $120 million of taxpayer money for taxpayer trees?

In this case, not one dollar can be found for what has been regarded by this Government, and past Governments, as part of a valuable national resource. I say again to the Minister that I believe the Government needs to give more mind to the matter of adequate compensation, such as was found in a very agreeable sense, and quite speedily, for those West Coast people who had no property rights, at all.

The Local Government and Environment Committee addressed the matters in clauses 26 and 26A, and particular provision is made for one of the incorporations. The main message I want to leave is that some owners have a sense of grievance that has not changed to this day. The issue of compensation remains, and the bill does not adequately provide for that. In the other part of this legislation, regarding the West Coast lands, the Government saw a way to reward a community that did not own the land—we did. It did not own the trees—we did.

In this case, there is an opportunity for the Government to consult with the owners and come to an agreeable, long-term understanding. It can thereby take out and give honour, at long last, to an issue that began to develop in the 1870s, continued through 1888 to 1890, until finally there was a bill in 1906. It should recognise as well that the historical passage of changes by Government administration in the years after 1906 was also quite deplorable with regard to the SILNA lands. On behalf of the whole community, the time has come to look to this matter and see whether the Government can do better than it has done.

In speaking to Part 2, I think the concerns raised about compensation have been well covered. I would like to look at clause 26, which refers to specified contracts relating to the harvest and export of indigenous timber. This bill was introduced in 1999. It was an attempt to bring sustainable forestry on to a level playing field for all participants. Conservationists have felt that this bill has been too little, too late. Current generic export controls in the Forests Act ban the export of woodchips and logs, but allow the export of sustainably produced beech and rimu sawn timber, finished products, and personal effects. This bill, as introduced, would have allowed a broader range of products, but the policy of this Government, which changed that decision, is to retain export controls on woodchips, and that was not originally foreseen.

This bill has a significant effect on SILNA forest owners. As Mr Peters pointed out, the Act of 1906 provided for the allocation of about 57,000 hectares of land throughout the South Island to more than 4,000 named Māori, who were identified as having insufficient land to support themselves. About 17,300 hectares of forested land affected by this policy now remains, which is pretty substantial. Although there are concerns around compensation, clear-felling is still going on, and I guess that is why conservationists were concerned about this bill being too little, too late.

Most affected SILNA forest owners are in the lower South Island, and are the descendants of those who were granted land. They expressed concern during the submission process about the lack of consultation—as reiterated by Jim Peters—and about the lack of compensation, as well. These export provisions significantly affect them. They affect those who wish to take that sustainable forestry management option under the SILNA forest policy. Many are concerned about the loss of export markets. I reiterate that just because there might not be a market for woodchip, that does not justify a ban on woodchip. A broader range of products should be able to be exported, rather than have the constraints this bill imposes. It is better to allow these people to fully maximise their opportunities.

The provision in Part 2 on specified contracts relates to the export of indigenous timber harvested from specified Māori land. That all relates to the areas I am covering. Reimposition of export controls is counter to the principle of unrestricted economic benefit, so that has been a major concern for the SILNA forest owners. The economic issues were fully explored, especially with the likely impact of the restriction on exports from sustainably managed forests. The owners believe that the export controls would severely affect them. The advice received was that the extent to which the export controls were likely to materially affect the SILNA owners was not clear-cut—there was nothing very clear-cut about the actual effects in the final outcome.

This bill has taken as long as that to be brought back to the House by this Government. One wonders what it did in the interim after the bill was introduced in 1999 by the Hon Nick Smith. If we look back at Hansard, we find that during the 1980s the Hon Jim Sutton had an opportunity to address these issues, but they were too difficult and complex, and so it was left. It was picked up in the 1990s by the Hon Nick Smith and an attempt made to address the complications around this whole issue in an endeavour to bring everybody under sustainable forestry logging regulations. This proposal was put forward, but some very significant aspects have been changed by the current Government, and there are some concerns around that.

As everyone is aware, the ACT party certainly opposes this legislation. I would just like to reflect on the principles that underpin Part 2, which deals with compensation regimes, and show what a nonsense this bill is. All owners of indigenous forest in this land lost their property rights with the passage of the Forests Amendment Act in 1996, without any compensation, whatsoever. That was bad legislation, based on the premise that New Zealanders could not be trusted to retain the remaining indigenous cover on our landscape.

Sure, through the 1970s and 1980s we had quite substantial clear-felling. The point is that it was driven by agricultural subsidies. Farmers were given subsidies to go out and clear beech forest. They were then given subsidies to bring the land into production. Subsidies drove the clear-felling.

When we think about it, we owned a precious resource—but the native forest was seen as just wasteland. One could not do anything with it. There was no international market for specialist timbers, as recently as the 1960s and 1970s. Farming was the only productive use of the land, so the Government gave subsidies to clear the forest. That all changed prior to this Parliament passing the Forests Amendment Act, which was driven by the Green movement, which was very concerned about forest clearance. The world changed and there is now a very great market for high-value specialist timbers—often associated with low volume. So the best asset of a landowner immediately became indigenous forest. Who would want to go out and clear-fell it and convert it to pasture when the standing timber is the value? That is sustainable forestry, and that concept became globally accepted through that same era.

My point is that this country’s entire indigenous forest policy is based on a stack of cards. It is foolish and stupid and those property owners who have had that right stripped off them by the indigenous forests Act receive no compensation at all. Beech is a very easy timber to grow on a rotational basis. It is a fast-growing species and can be harvested every 30 to 40 years. Ideally it would be done in coupes. The original indigenous forest plan had coupe sizes of five hectares. That is a very sensible thing to do because the natural situation is that the wind-blow goes through beech forest, and often a five-hectare patch is cleared by the wind-blow anyway.

Beech does not need replanting. There is a massive seed bank in the soil, and any clearing is sprouted over very quickly. Better-quality timber comes up in those fast-growing clearings. That is the natural cycle of beech forests. But what the successive Governments in this country have said is that the Government needs to step in and take away property rights. We got to the ludicrous situation on the West Coast, which relates to this bill directly, of this Labour Government saying that indigenous forest cannot even be cleared in a five-hectare coupe size.

The proposal was to have one tree per hectare extracted by helicopter on a 15-year rotation. No one could ever see where the tree came from. That was not good enough for this Labour Government. It said that even that could not be done. The West Coast forestry corporation said it had a viable business with high-value export products. It asked to extract one tree per hectare by helicopter on a 15-year rotation, but the green nutcases in the Labour Party, driven by their mantras, tore up the West Coast Accord—which the Hon Phil Goff had signed in October 1987—and totally reneged on the commitment in the West Coast Accord that said harvesting could be done on a sustainable basis in perpetuity.

I always thought “in perpetuity” meant forever—but not in the Labour Government! As far as Labour was concerned, it meant for only 10 or 12 years. Labour ripped up the accord—totally reneged on it—with no compensation, and now it is having the anguish of how to compensate the landless Māori who are covered by the South Island Landless Maoris Act. What an absolute nonsense! What I say is: yes, those landless natives do have a property right, and yes, it should be respected, but so should the property rights of every other indigenous forest owner in this country.

I would like to speak briefly on exactly the same issue—the issue of compensation that is in clause 25 of Part 2 of the bill. Brian Connell has already read it, but I will summarise: “No person is entitled to compensation from the Crown in respect of any diminution, by reason of the enactment of this Act, in … (b) the value of indigenous timber on any specified Māori land; or (c) the value of any specified Maori land.”

This is a very serious clause to have in legislation coming before this House. It is a breach, I think, of the Magna Carta, and it is obviously a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi—and I will come back to that in a moment. I think it is a crying shame that property rights in New Zealand are not enshrined in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The House will be aware that I have introduced a member’s bill to enshrine private property rights and full and just compensation provisions into the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

No less a figure than Sir Geoffrey Palmer, whom some regard as the father of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, has said that it was a mistake not to put those measures into the Act. If ever that had to be verified, then surely this clause that we have before us tonight is evidence of that.

The point that I also want to come back to concerns the Treaty of Waitangi. I thought, in fact I know, that the Treaty of Waitangi—which we all agree is the founding document of this nation, and which people say is a solemn document, a covenant, etc.—states clearly that we will not deprive Māori of their forests. So how come we can stand here in the House tonight and pass this bill with this clause in it?

The only reason I can go along with that is because, as I mentioned in my second reading speech, I have had a letter from the Waimumu Trust, which has lodged a claim with the Waitangi Tribunal seeking compensation for the removal without compensation of its property rights and forests. The trust has urged us to vote for this bill so that it can quickly become law, because only then, it is told, will the Waitangi Tribunal hear the trust’s claim.

So in making those few comments, the last I would like to make is that I wish the trust luck with its claim because it does seem to me that we are just repeating some of our sad history when we can, on this occasion, pass a bill that specifically says “We are taking away your property rights but we intend to pay you no compensation, whatsoever.”

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 211 in the name of Hon Pete Hodgson to Part 2 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.