Shirley Ken: Forests Amendment Bill —  
Shirley Ken: Forests Amendment Bill —  
[Volume:617;Page:12951] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I find myself substantially in agreement with Mr Jim Peters the member who just resumed his seat. This is an affront to anyone who understands and respects property rights. The Forests Amendment Bill and the actions of the Government in bringing this bill here today really remind us that consistency is certainly the last refuge of scoundrels. 
The reason the Government wants to bring the bill in and address SILNA issues is an attempt to make it as best it can compatible with the Forests Amendment Act of 1993 when the then National Government stripped the property rights off all indigenous forest owners in New Zealand. The point is that the Government says it is trying to be consistent but it is trying to be consistent with something that is totally wrong in principle. 
If we look at the issue of the forests we see that in 1906 the settlers were very happily doing a deal with local Maori. They graciously gave them a block of land that was regarded as wasteland. It was in remote mountainous areas covered in dense forest. The Waitutu and those areas have some of the densest forest in the country. In those days the forest was the enemy. We were in our pioneering era. One had to clear the forest to convert it to farmland and the market was awash with timber. We used to build our houses out of heart rimu studs up until about 1950 or 1960 when treated pine became available. There was no value market for wood products. The forest was a challenge and a burden that had to be cleared. 
So those Maori owners essentially got what at that time was a wasteland but the world has changed. With the clearance of Sumatra Borneo and the Amazon basin we now know that the world is no longer awash with high-value specialist timbers and they have now assumed a scarcity that gives them an extraordinary value. People now do not use those timbers profligately as we did in the past with low-value high-volume uses; we now concentrate on high-value low-volume uses. 
That is good. That is what the market is dictating but what does the Government say now? It says: “Oh no. We were happy to give you compensation for this wasteland that we knew was no use to you.” But all of a sudden it is of value and of use so the Government is saying: “Oh by the way we are taking away your property right and we are not going to let you harvest it.” So now the Government has done this scramble-round brought this bill to the House and said that because the previous Government took away the property rights of indigenous forest owners elsewhere in the country it has to do the same—as best it can—to these owners and give them some sort of partial compensation. 
That is a nonsense in principle. If we look at what happened in the substantive amendments of 1993 to the Forests Act we see that it is an outrage. Generations of New Zealanders have cleared their forests often with Government taxpayer subsidies. But what is happening to some of the more responsible people who did not want to clear their forests but sustained them carefully managed them and husbanded them? The Government is now saying that they can no longer clear their forests and by the way they cannot continue to harvest any products from them. That is an outrage when for generations we have dished out taxpayer subsidies to people to clear their forests—often just to burn them off. It is an outrage to property rights and it is wrong in principle. It was wrong in 1993 when the National Government did it and it is wrong today when this Government is perpetuating that policy which is so lacking in principle. 
Of course we had the outrageous situation of the West Coast Accord where on State lands a substantial area—recognised by experts as one of the best examples in the world of truly sustainable beech forest management—would be harvested to the point where it was proposed that one tree per hectare would be extracted on a 15-year rotation by helicopter. One would never see where the trees came from—the wind blows down vastly greater areas than that. But what did this Labour Government do? It closed that forest down. Because of its mantra and because of its chardonnay latte-swilling set that had never been to the West Coast the Government aided and abetted by the Greens said “No”. It closed the operation down completely and said that not even one tree per hectare could be taken out by helicopter on a 15-year rotation. 
In so doing the Government was prepared to renege totally on another property right. That was the property right the Labour Government entered into in 1987 with the negotiated West Coast Accord which was signed by the Hon Phil Goff the Minister for the Environment of the day. He pledged that there would be forest management on a sustainable basis in perpetuity but the Labour Government just tore that policy up. It was an outrage another affront to property rights and a continuation of the very sorry story associated with the indigenous forest policy of this country over recent decades. 
We then come to another aspect of this bill that is absolute nonsense. Mr Connell has touched on it. What the Government is saying in this bill is: “Oh and by the way not only are we taking away your property right severely restricting you—though in extreme cases you can still harvest your forests—but we’re going to put an export ban on the product. The Government is going to dictate to you how you can export your product.” That is like saying to strawberry growers that they can export their product only as strawberry jam or telling woolgrowers that they can export their wool only as woolly jumpers. 
It is a nonsense when Government becomes that prescriptive and members should think about the illogical nonsense associated with it. The objective is sustainable management of our indigenous forests. Once we have cut the trees down— recognising they have been harvested within a sustainable regime—it does not matter one jot what we do with the product. The market will determine that. Given the global market today people can be very innovative. In an earlier stage of the debate Mr Copeland mentioned someone he knew who had beech barbecue chips which are specialist chips for smoking. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Manuka. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Manuka—but beech chips are also great for smoking let me assure the member. That is a high-value product yet because of the mantra and the silly nonsense we get out of the Green Party that influences this Labour Government it says: “Oh no. Chips are bad. You can’t export any chips.” As long as the product is harvested on a sustainable basis it does not matter a jot what it is. The market will determine that. The pressures on high-value sustainable wood products will ensure that the market gets the best value for them. 
So this bill is a nonsense and the ACT party will strongly oppose it. It is an affront to property rights and a continuation of the appalling policy of indigenous forest management in this country. It is another loony left policy.