Clendon David: West Coast Wind-blown Timber (Conservation Lands) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is subject to correctionClendon David: West Coast Wind-blown Timber (Conservation Lands) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 26 June 2014. Volume:702;Page:18941. Text is subject to correction.]DAVID CLENDON (Green):We are debating Part 1 the purpose of this unfortunate piece of legislation the West Coast Wind-blown Timber (Conservation Lands) Bill. Of course as soon as one sees the statement of purpose it is to allow the Director-General of Conservation to authorise the removal of timber. The process that we are undertaking tonight to endeavour to embed this legislation is an offence to the democratic process. This is a significant shift in a country where we highly rate our conservation estate where the integrity of the public domain particularly our conservation and wilderness areas is very close to people’s hearts. Jamming this legislation through in one night with no opportunity for the public to make comment is an offence to the democratic process. It is also an offence to anybody with the most basic knowledge of ecology. The content and the propositions within the legislation are utterly offensive to stage 1 ecology students. No doubt they are laughing around the country when they read the provisions of this bill—the endeavour to rationalise it and the claims that are made within this legislation. It is an offence at many levels but I will confine my comments to the purpose for the time being.In terms of the purpose we have heard a number of propositions about why this legislation is going ahead—that it is ultimately a political act. It is difficult to refute that because if one looks for a sensible rational logical explanation it is extremely hard to find one. We hear a great deal from this Government about balance—needing to balance the economy and the environment. That is a false dichotomy at every level. Joined-up thinkers nationally and internationally know that environmental well-being and economic well-being are in fact two sides of the same coin. You degrade one; you degrade the other. If we cause harm to the natural environment it affects us not only as human beings but there will inevitably be a negative economic effect. Joined-up thinkers know this. This notion of this split that one must serve the interests of the economy or of the environment is such dated thinking as to be laughable. Unfortunately this bill embeds that sort of very dated thinking which probably was never right but certainly is not appropriate. It is not acceptable in the 21st century in New Zealand.So why then are we proceeding with this? We are told that there may be economic benefit. I wonder whether any members of the Government who have taken calls on this bill have actually read the regulatory impact statement. Anybody reading that document must realise that there is an underlying purpose to this bill which is not the one that is stated. It is not about an economic well-being or an economic boost to an area where undoubtedly the economy is and has been constantly under stress as a result of centuries of extractive industries. The economic analysis is very brief because there is very little work that has been done. I actually have some sympathy for the unfortunate people who were obliged to write this document because essentially they were obliged to make it up as they went along.The document tells us for example that there is an attempt to estimate what the income from the entire project may be. Essentially the question of what the income would be is virtually impossible to calculate because the information is not there. They have looked at the volume of timber the likely value of the timber the cost of extraction and the level of opposition to the extraction which will be significant and will drive up the cost. This is a Ministry for Primary Industries figure in fact. Its highest estimate of overall income is $8 million; its lowest is $810000—a tenfold difference in its guestimates. Essentially that is what they are. They are guestimates as to the likely income from this ludicrous project that has been proposed.The author of the regulatory impact statement goes on to say “I am not aware of any work that has been done to set a limit on what level of economic benefit would justify new legislation or new urgent legislation.” This is being made up as people go along. It is extremely unsatisfactory to propose that we intervene in a wilderness area in a conservation area in a way that we know will be destructive to the ecological values and the future economic value in terms of tourism. We know for example that the Ministry for Primary Industries has warned us. This is not the Greens or Labour making things up. The Ministry for Primary Industries has raised concerns “about the potential for a spike in supply to have negative effects on the sustainable forestry industry overall.” So the existing industry can be undermined. We have no idea what suddenly putting this volume of logs on the market would do to the price but we can make some pretty bold assumptions. In Economics 101 supply and demand dump an oversupply on the market and it will very quickly drop the price. It will drive down whatever economic value there may have ever been which we know in any case will not compensate for the substantial ecological value.We are told that this will provide a research opportunity. We will be able to research the effect of the removal of wind-blown timber from a forest ecosystem. What an interesting proposition that is! The research question would have to be one of how badly this ecosystem would be impacted on by the removal of these logs. It is not a question of whether there will be an adverse effect; it is how long the ecosystem will take to recover and whether it will be able to recover in fact to anything resembling the ecosystem that was there prior to the cyclone. It could if we leave it alone be restored in its own right. It is simply dishonest to suggest there is a need for such research. This document the regulatory impact statement flimsy though it may be has two pages of references and commentary about scientific research and some recent publications.We know very well that species as it tells us are resilient to wind damage. Although individual trees—and indeed many trees—can be knocked down the ecosystem can come back. That is the nature of resilience. If you have sufficient diversity in an ecosystem if you allow the system to work in its own way to recover in its own way it will restore itself. That is the wonderful thing about nature. It is self-restoring. An intervention of the scale that is proposed here will deny that ecosystem the ability to restore itself. You will be left with degraded land. We will take away the nutrients that are required for the regrowth. We will take away the areas where seedlings can be protected as they grow back. We will take away the habitat for the insects for the invertebrates for the bird species for the mammals which are many of them rare and possibly endangered. All of that we are going to take away for the spurious claim that it will derive or generate economic benefit. It is simply dishonest to suggest that there is any net economic benefit from such a bizarre undertaking.The industry tells us again that clearing wind-blown timber is an extremely dangerous proposition. You do not put untrained unskilled people into that environment because you will have serious injuries and you will have deaths. To carry through this task to get that timber out would require teams of extremely well-trained experienced and well-equipped people. This idea that I think people might have in their minds—because the Government is trying to sell this—of a very light-handed intervention large helicopters coming in carefully selecting logs and removing them is a nonsense. This would be a major intervention with heavy machinery on very fragile delicate ecosystems.One of the works in progress this consultation we are told with Ngāi Tahu—at the time that the regulatory impact statement was written that was a work in progress. We heard an unfortunate comment earlier this evening that Māori would understand the pragmatic practical benefit of removing this resource so-called. I find that quite offensive. I think cultural harvest has a long-term place. In the long term there is a place for cultural harvest in our conservation estate. That is a contested notion and I am willing to have that contest; I am not suggesting having it at this time. The idea that Māori would accept the notion that you can go in mob-handed and start tearing out massive volumes of wood irreversibly damaging a very fragile ecosystem denying it the right to regenerate naturally—to say that Māori would somehow be involved in that would tolerate that or accept it is simply offensive again. Yes I know that back in the day the tupuna after a major storm event might have taken advantage of fallen trees.