Connell Brian: Forests Amendment Bill —  
Connell Brian: Forests Amendment Bill —  
[Volume:617;Page:12948] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Here we are in 2004 this bill having been introduced to the House under urgency in 1999. If that is this Government’s idea of urgency then God help us if it ever decides to go on a go-slow. 
Essentially this bill deals with the issues of private property rights versus sustainable forest management and here there is a huge inconsistency on behalf of this Government. It was not very long ago that the Holy Grail of sustainably managed indigenous forest on the West Coast was held up as a classic example of where we wanted to go. What happened? Overnight this Government decided that no we would not do that that those products could not be sold and it closed the business down. But down south the SILNA owners are able to clear-fell their forests willy-nilly. We are now at the point of trying to tell people—and I agree with this; this is the thrust of the bill that the National Party agrees with—“OK let’s come under a sustainable management regime and then we’ll let you deal with your product as you see fit.” 
Well one would think that would be the argument but having got people to come on board what did the Government do? It turned round and slogged them with an export control component. This is the component I really struggle with. If we have sustainably managed forests does it matter how that product is used after the tree has been cut down? Does it matter when the tree is on the ground where the product goes? The point is that forests are meant to be sustainably managed. I find it a major contradiction that Jim Sutton is swanning around the world arguing for free-trade agreements with New Zealand at the same time as we are limiting free enterprise back here in our own country. To me that is a huge contradiction. 
I want to make this a relatively short call but there is one other part I want to address. We have spent something like $150 million in the last 12 months importing indigenous forest products. Is there not some hypocrisy in the argument that says one cannot export indigenous products from one’s own sustainably managed forests yetimport them from another country? 
This is the real issue. Those products are coming from countries like Malaysia and Indonesia—and we can bet our bottom dollar that those forests are not being managed on a sustainable basis. I bet members of the Green Party will want to stand up and take a call on this issue because it must be worrying them. Here in this country we are managing our forests on a sustainable basis yet we are importing from countries that are not managing theirs on a sustainable basis. We can drive people out of our high-country farms we can buy stations at hugely inflated values but we are told that we cannot use our own resources as we see fit even when we do so on a sustainable basis. 
The other issue I want to conclude with is this: if we are then impacting on the balance sheets asset values land values and cash flows of people who have legitimate private property rights why are we not stumping up with some form of compensation? This bothers me. The argument is—and I have heard it put by various members of the House—that when others lost their property rights or the value of their forests like farmers did in the 1990s they did not get any compensation. Well two wrongs do not make a right in my view. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Which Government did that? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: It does not really matter which Government did it—it happened. The point is that we cannot do much about our history but we can do a lot about our future. I know that when Mr Shirley gets up to take a call he will argue that point just as strongly as I have because it is simply not right. We need to stump up with some compensation for these people because it is the only source of income they have. They are forest owners. 
The great irony is that back in 1906 we could not give this land away to those people quickly enough. We did not think the land had any great value but now that it does now that we want to protect our heritage and our indigenous forests we want our principles but we do not want to pay for them. I think that is clearly unreasonable and unfair. Having achieved the Holy Grail of sustainable management we should let people get on and manage their assets. 
One other component occurs to me as well. Rather than ask for a voluntary regime to stop people clear-felling their forests I believe that this bill should have taken the ultimate step and simply said that it will be compulsory for people to manage these forests sustainably. But the quid pro quo would have to be that once they have managed those forests sustainably and to our satisfaction as a country then they can use and market those products as they see fit.