Goudie Sandra: Forests Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Goudie Sandra: Forests Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12905] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 2 I think the concerns raised about compensation have been well covered. I would like to look at clause 26 which refers to specified contracts relating to the harvest and export of indigenous timber. This bill was introduced in 1999. It was an attempt to bring sustainable forestry on to a level playing field for all participants. Conservationists have felt that this bill has been too little too late. Current generic export controls in the Forests Act ban the export of woodchips and logs but allow the export of sustainably produced beech and rimu sawn timber finished products and personal effects. This bill as introduced would have allowed a broader range of products but the policy of this Government which changed that decision is to retain export controls on woodchips and that was not originally foreseen. 
This bill has a significant effect on SILNA forest owners. As Mr Peters pointed out the Act of 1906 provided for the allocation of about 57000 hectares of land throughout the South Island to more than 4000 named Maori who were identified as having insufficient land to support themselves. About 17300 hectares of forested land affected by this policy now remains which is pretty substantial. Although there are concerns around compensation clear-felling is still going on and I guess that is why conservationists were concerned about this bill being too little too late. 
Most affected SILNA forest owners are in the lower South Island and are the descendants of those who were granted land. They expressed concern during the submission process about the lack of consultation—as reiterated by Jim Peters—and about the lack of compensation as well. These export provisions significantly affect them. They affect those who wish to take that sustainable forestry management option under the SILNA forest policy. Many are concerned about the loss of export markets. I reiterate that just because there might not be a market for woodchip that does not justify a ban on woodchip. A broader range of products should be able to be exported rather than have the constraints this bill imposes. It is better to allow these people to fully maximise their opportunities. 
The provision in Part 2 on specified contracts relates to the export of indigenous timber harvested from specified Maori land. That all relates to the areas I am covering. Reimposition of export controls is counter to the principle of unrestricted economic benefit so that has been a major concern for the SILNA forest owners. The economic issues were fully explored especially with the likely impact of the restriction on exports from sustainably managed forests. The owners believe that the export controls would severely affect them. The advice received was that the extent to which the export controls were likely to materially affect the SILNA owners was not clear-cut—there was nothing very clear-cut about the actual effects in the final outcome. 
This bill has taken as long as that to be brought back to the House by this Government. One wonders what it did in the interim after the bill was introduced in 1999 by the Hon Nick Smith. If we look back at  
Hansard 
 we find that during the 1980s the Hon Jim Sutton had an opportunity to address these issues but they weretoo difficult and complex and so it was left. It was picked up in the 1990s by the Hon Nick Smith and an attempt made to address the complications around this whole issue in an endeavour to bring everybody under sustainable forestry logging regulations. This proposal was put forward but some very significant aspects have been changed by the current Government and there are some concerns around that.