Adverse Weather-affected Timber Recovery on Conservation Lands Bill

I move, That the Adverse Weather-affected Timber Recovery on Conservation Lands Bill be now read a first time. I nominate that it be considered by the Governance and Administration Committee.

Back on 17 April in 2014, Cyclone Ita wreaked havoc along the West Coast of the South Island, and particularly hard hit was Buller. It battered property and cut northern Buller off. It took a couple of weeks to get power restored and roads open into Karamea. Punakaiki was also badly hit and then the cyclone moved further south to cause significant damage in the Grey and Westland districts.

The damage to forests was enormous, and although quite difficult to get an accurate assessment of the area of damage because there were pockets harder hit than others and to varying degrees, the best estimate by the Ministry for Primary Industries was about 40,000 hectares, excluding the national parks. Including the national parks, the figure would have been north 200,000 hectares. This involved some large mature trees being snapped off, tipped over, or stripped bare of leaves, causing the trees to die.

Our thanks must go to the Hon Dr Nick Smith for taking a very pragmatic approach to conservation. He introduced and passed legislation in this House to allow the harvesting of some of those trees, outside of the nature reserves, outside of scientific reserves, ecological areas, and national parks. Urgency was required because there was a time limit to how long the trees can maintain their integrity before the mould and the borer starts to degrade the quality of the timber. That particular legislation, the West Coast Wind-blown Timber (Conservation Lands) Act, was for a period of five years to allow time to harvest the trees for this one-weather event, and it expired in 2019. But then, in 2018, came Cyclone Fehi, followed a few days later by Cyclone Gita, which devastated the Tasman region. In fact, the repairs to the Tākaka Hill are still under way as a consequence. Further damage was done to other West Coast forests, but because of the legislation that was passed in 2014, which allowed only for the extraction of trees that came down in Cyclone Ita and it was time limited, no further extraction of any other trees could be made off Crown-managed land.

That is the reason that this permanent legislation is needed. It will enable the Director-General of Conservation to authorise the removal of affected trees from certain conservation areas, where they are irreversibly damaged by an adverse weather event. I anticipate that I would describe an adverse weather event as including floods, land slips, tectonic events, storm events, and the like, but I imagine also that the select committee will receive advice on the exact definition of this term.

I would like to address the great work that was done by the Department of Conservation (DOC) during the enactment of the temporary legislation passed in 2014, because it had to start from scratch and set up all of the systems for extracting timber. DOC had not previously had to manage anything like the scale of this event. They had to set up the tender process. They had to set up and define the areas that could be accessed. They had on-the-ground oversight of the operations, and health and safety, of course, was a major consideration because the way the wind had rotated had brought the trees down in all directions like Pick-up Sticks. So the potential for accidents was high. Every log that was approved for extraction was tagged, and those tagged logs were then tracked through extraction, through transport, though milling, and then on to the sale. The health of the forest, of course, was always a priority so DOC was always careful that the forest areas were not completely cleared. In fact, only a small percentage of the trees were able to be extracted and only a small percentage of each tree was able to be removed. There was always plenty remaining for the natural ecosystem.

It’s important to note, too, the value this operation brought to some of the small operators when this storm-damaged timber was able to be removed. About 100,000 cubic metres of rimu came down, and about 35,000 cubic metres of red and silver beech. It created employment and work for the small mills and the small contractors, and it also created this high-value raw material that went on to become high-value products. The regional economic benefits were very plain to see. In fact, one of the ironies of it was that because of that legislation some of that material went on to repair the damaged caused by another major event, which was the Canterbury earthquakes, when some of the old villas were able to use that rimu timber for their repairs.

I do recall in the debates that some members who were opposing that temporary legislation said that bulldozers would trundle into the bush, they’d push in all the roads and that would create silting and degradation of streams and rivers. This was, of course, part of the consideration that the Director-General of Conservation had to take into account, and no such degradation occurred.

Now, returning to those areas—and I have been back—it’s almost hard to tell where those extractions happened, because the bush recovers so quickly, but what actually happened was that some operators broke down the timber into slabs in the bush on site, so they were easily removed. But others were airlifted out by helicopter, so, actually, the damage to the forest was kept to an absolute minimum. Those areas in the back country weren’t even touched, and so already those trees are going through the natural cycle of breaking down. Hundreds of thousands of tonnes of leaves, of branches, and stumps are still decomposing into the ecosystem.

So the systems are in place and they have been tested. Enabling this permanent legislation would enable a timely decision to be made by the Director-General of Conservation on each appropriate weather event, without the need for passing special legislation. This is not an opening for wholesale access into our native forests. It’s an enabling piece of legislation which will give the Director-General of Conservation the ability to assess any adverse weather event, assess the scale of the damage, and then assess whether access can be invited to remove some timber. There is huge interest from small milling operations around the country, those with processing factories and those with portable mills. There are real job opportunities here at a time when we need to use every opportunity. This adds another practical tool to the tool box. Do not be influenced by the scaremongers who opposed the temporary legislation in 2014, because all the terrible things they said would happen did not happen. DOC managed it well. They managed it safely and efficiently.

The details in the bill clearly outline the considerations that the Director-General of Conservation will turn his or her mind to. Paramount, of course, is the safety of the people working at the site and the public. The adverse effects on the environment will be kept to a minimum, and the activities will not unreasonably affect conservation and will not cause soil disturbance. This is a sensible move to allow timely decisions to be made by the person who has responsibility for caring for our native forest—someone we can trust to have the oversight and systems to ensure there is a positive for the environment and for jobs.

This bill has been assessed as being consistent with the rights and freedoms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I certainly look forward to members opposite seeing the sense in this member’s bill and supporting it. It is common sense. I welcome the select committee process where the input of submitters will be welcome. Of particular interest to me is that we canvass the views of iwi, of the local communities, potential users, and businesses from around the country, who will have a strong interest in this enabling legislation. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh, and just to let the House know, we’ll be going past 10 p.m.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

💬 Matt Doocey: All-nighter.

All-nighter to talk about the Adverse Weather-affected Timber Recovery on Conservation Lands Bill. Now, when I just read out that, I did mean to give some emphasis to the word “timber” in the name of this bill, and that is because the focus of the bill is on timber; it is not on trees, it is not on conservation, and we are talking about the conservation estate here. So it’s for that reason that Labour is opposing this bill.

The member who’s introduced the bill, Maureen Pugh, talked quite a lot about the history of some other legislation. I’m going to focus on this bill before us today. As I said, in summary, this focus on timber on conservation land is not appropriate. The bill talks a lot about trees and timber, but “tree” is not defined in the bill, it’s not defined in the Conservation Act either, whereas, of course, “timber” is defined in the bill, but in relation to a tree.

Trees are part of their forest ecosystem, and they don’t lose ecological value by falling over or dying or becoming irreversibly damaged—that’s a hard wee phrase to say. I’m going to trip up on that, probably, quite a bit. These trees, whether alive or dead, but particularly talking about dead ones—they provide habitat; they provide cover for new trees. There’s recycling of nutrients and a decrease in erosion often, so we oppose.

Now, what I want to talk about in relation to the bill that we have in front of us is its relationship to the Conservation Act, because that’s key to how this bill works. So the first relationship to the Conservation Act that I think is relevant is that at clause 20(2) of the bill there’s a reference that says “In Schedule 1,”—Amendment to Conservation Act 1987—“insert in its appropriate alphabetical order:” the name of this Act. So what that does by linking to Schedule 1 of the Conservation Act is that then goes to section 6 of the Conservation Act, which is the functions of the department, and one of the functions of the department is to administer enactments specified in Schedule 1. So that’s one of the links to the Conservation Act.

The second is, of course, the title of the bill, the Adverse Weather-affected Timber Recovery on Conservation Lands Bill, and so we’re of course talking about conservation land. Clause 4 of the bill refers to designated areas. So that is “(a) … every conservation area and reserve that is owned by the Crown and administered by the Department other than—(i) a nature reserve; or (ii) a scientific reserve; or (iii) an ecological area; and (b) excludes any national park”. Now, these are all terms that we’ve just used that are found in the Conservation Act. So this is a clear link with the Conservation Act.

The conservation area is defined in section 2 of the Conservation Act as land held for conservation purposes. So this word “conservation” is coming up a lot, and that would of course include a dead tree as part of our protected areas. So protected areas are spelt out in Part 4 of the Conservation Act. These include conservation parks, in section 19, wilderness areas, ecological areas—which are excluded from that definition in clause 4 of the bill—sanctuary areas, watercourse areas, amenity areas, and wildlife management areas. Then, in section 2 of the Conservation Act, we talk about stewardship areas, which are other conservation areas.

Under the Reserves Act 1977, which also relates to this bill, Part 3 classifies reserves. So there’s recreation, historic, scenic, nature, scientific, Government purpose, local purpose. Local purpose isn’t relevant to this.

💬 Maureen Pugh: What’s that got to do with the bill?

Well, the bill excludes nature and scientific reserves. So I’m trying to work out here what does the bill apply to, and that is, under the Conservation Act, conservation parks, wilderness areas, sanctuary areas, watercourse areas, amenity areas, wildlife management areas, other conservation areas being stewardship, and then, under the Reserves Act, recreation reserves, historic reserves, scenic reserves, and Government purpose reserves. This bill, then, enables the Director-General of Conservation, as the member said, to approve the removal of trees that are irreversibly damaged on that land that I’ve just described.

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: Big pile of land, all over the country.

And it does apply to the whole country, so it is quite different from the previous legislation that applied to very specific areas. Of course, most conservation land is in the great South Island, and a lot of it is in the very beautiful West Coast.

💬 Maureen Pugh: There’s 850,000 hectares of stewardship land.

That’s right—lots of beautiful conservation land on the West Coast.

So the bill provides some limited terms and conditions, and we heard the member talk about those; those are found at clause 9(3). But it specifies that the Resource Management Act (RMA) sections 9, 13, 14, and 15 do not apply to this bill—so that’s at clause 18. This is rather curious, because section 4(3) of the RMA already can exempt conservation land from section 9(3) of the RMA. Section 9(3) of the RMA relates to land use consents, so it is what district councils govern. So I am not sure why this bill needs to say that the RMA doesn’t apply, first of all; and, second of all, I’m not sure why sections 13, 14, and 15 of the RMA don’t apply, and these relate to water.

It is also very strange that this bill goes about to create an entirely new regime, when the Conservation Act already applies for a concession scheme—you can get a licence if you meet various different things.

So now we go back to the Conservation Act. What is this Conservation Act for? What is the Conservation Act all about? Section 6 includes the functions. I read one of them before, which was relating to the scheduled land, but also at (a), right at the front there, it is to manage land for conservation purposes—all the land that the DOC has. So then what is conservation purposes? Conservation purposes isn’t defined, but conservation is “the preservation and protection of natural and historic resources for the purpose of maintaining their intrinsic values, providing for their appreciation and recreational enjoyment by the public, and safeguarding the options of future generations.”

So none of that definition around the protection of natural resources and their intrinsic value is consistent with removing parts of the ecology of those environments—those environments that are held as conservation areas for their conservation values. This is a total anathema to all that, and that is why we are opposing this bill.

So, in conclusion, removing these dead trees, or what is defined very imprecisely as “irreversibly damaged trees”, which says, “in relation to timber means—(a) dead due to an adverse weather event”—and so I say to that: how are we supposed to understand and have the evidence that says that a tree is dead just due to an adverse weather event? The member has already said that she is not sure exactly what an “adverse weather event” is. Then there is an “or”, it is “(a), [it’s either] dead due to an adverse weather event, or [it’s] … damaged to the extent that it is not possible to recover naturally.” This paragraph (b) does not relate to an adverse weather event, whereas the bill’s name is the Adverse Weather-affected Timber Recovery on Conservation Lands Bill. So that is another problem with the bill.

In conclusion, removing dead trees does not protect the natural habitat nor maintain intrinsic value—things that the Conservation Act requires. We oppose this bill.

Members, this debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Pō mārie.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10.03 p.m.