Forests Amendment Bill

I have been thinking as this debate has progressed about what the appropriate title for this legislation is. My first reaction was the “Voluntary Sustainable Management Bill”. If this bill had that as its major thrust, then I think that would be an appropriate title because the concept of sustainable management is something I can agree with. Anything that stops our last significant indigenous forest from being clear-felled must clearly be supported. However, and it is a very big “however”, how can we say that we have asked people to come into a voluntary sustainable management regime and then tell them what they can and cannot do with their property? That makes me think that maybe the appropriate title is the “Forest Export Control Bill”, because what we are saying to these individuals is that now that we have them agreeing to a sustainable management regime we will put in place export control legislation. That is where I really get lost with the Government’s thread on this. If it is sustainable, why can we not allow these forest owners to manage and sell their product in the way they choose, because, by definition, the way they are getting those products is sustainable?

That makes no sense to me whatsoever. So, on balance, I think “Forests Export Control Bill” is a better title than what has been proposed so far. The other component is the compensation—or, in fact, no compensation. That gives rise to another possible title, which is the “No Compensation Bill”.

Clause 25 is one that other speakers, as well as myself, have been taking calls on. This is something that I feel a huge disquiet over. How can we assume that there is no value to these forests, at all, to the owners of these forests? We can say to them: “You cannot manage your assets in this way any longer.” How can it be that we can affect their property values, the balance sheets of their businesses, the cash flows of their businesses, and not look at the aspect of compensation? I think the Minister in the chair, Pete Hodgson, is duty-bound to take a call and explain why he believes that this component of the legislation is fair and reasonable, because I am really struggling with this part to find an argument that enables me to support it.

That is why I say that the “No Compensation Bill” is a better title, on balance, than the others that have been suggested. The title “Forests Amendment Bill” is simply not representative of the key components of this legislation.

I want to go back to the issue of sustainable management. If we have a regime of sustainable management, are there not some inherent contradictions about how we then limit the way people will market that product?

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: That’s right. Once you cut it down it doesn’t matter.

Absolutely not. Provided it is done in a sustainable way, what difference can it make? I notice Damien O’Connor in the Chamber, a member who has been silent on this. I really thought he would take a call, because this is an issue that must be dear to his heart. I remember him taking a very strong position on behalf of constituents on the West Coast when they were told by the Government that they could not manage their forests in a sustainable way. He cried foul and said that it was not fair. I ask Mr O’Connor what the difference is. Why is he not on his feet now, rekindling the argument and fighting not only for his constituents on the West Coast, but also for people down south? That is why I come back to it again. The “Forest Export Control Bill” may be a better title, on balance, because, essentially, they are the two aspects of this legislation that are most bothersome. I know that Mr O’Connor will take a call, because I know he wants to respond.

I am wondering where the member for Te Tai Tonga is in the debate on the title of this bill. Where is the Māori voice with regard to that member’s constituents? As I said from the start on behalf of New Zealand First, I do not see this as a Treaty of Waitangi bill—that is, Waitangi claim 158, which has been partly resolved and will be further resolved yet. Having said that, one would expect during the course of the Committee stage that, at least, the member for Te Tai Tonga, who represents the area, would have shown a profound interest in, and deep understanding of, the real concerns of his people over the South Island. I am waiting to hear whether he will stand and speak in this debate. If not him, why not the other six members of Parliament who represent Māori interests? In recent days, they have said so strongly what they feel and understand about their Māori constituents in this city and elsewhere, who are also part of the widespread number of people who have affinity to the South Island Landless Māoris Act.

Again, though, with regard to the commencement date of the Forests Amendment Bill, which comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the royal assent, I bring to the Committee the fact that, after almost a century of indifference, at times, and inattention to the ability to realise the benefit of the lands, in this day and age there is an opportunity for the Government of the day, as in the case of the West Coast, to recognise that in its restriction of the individual landowning right of owners to best manage their economic resources there should come a charge upon the Government—namely, that of compensation. If I were to retitle this bill, I would call it the “Forests Amendment Compensation Bill”, because that would more fit what should be the mode of the Government at the present time. I look particularly at the member for West Coast - Tasman, who worked so sorely and hard for his constituents on what was formerly the West Coast Accord. I know that he, for one, would support any attempt by the Minister in the chair, Pete Hodgson, to give better remedy and more relief to the SILNA landowners.

I confess that I have a mokopuna who will be a beneficiary in days to come of any of this largesse, but that is not the reason why I speak. I speak because in actual fact, as I said at the beginning of the debate, a statute of the House from 1906 needs to be honoured still. The promises made by James Carroll and endorsed by Premier Ward remain unfulfilled. If the Government looked seriously at the remaining land and its value in terms of the forest cover and what it could mean to our future, it would find there is only issue: adequate and timely compensation under a “Forests Amendment Compensation Act”.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 1A agreed to.

House resumed.

Procedure

The bill was reported with amendment.