Connell Brian: Forests Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Connell Brian: Forests Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12903] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Thank you for the call on Part 2 “Miscellaneous provisions”. I want to continue to develop the line of argument I was pushing before and I am thinking now about clause 25 “Compensation”. 
On the one hand the Government is saying to the SILNA forest owners that it wants them voluntarily to come under a regime of sustainable management. Having got their agreement to do that the Government then belts them with export controls that essentially say they cannot use their assets to their fullest value. But when I read clause 25(1) regarding compensation I see that it provides: “No person is entitled to compensation from the Crown … by reason of the enactment of this Act in—(a) the rights or value of the rights of that person under a contract relating to indigenous timber on any specified Maori land; or (b) the value of indigenous timber on any specified Maori land;”. 
It appears to me that we are trying to have our cake and eat it too. We are trying to bring an end the last of the clear-felling of our indigenous forest because of a decision we took 100 years ago with regard to landless natives in order to give them some type of stake in our country. Now that that asset has some value and now that the Government has changed its mind as to whether that asset will be managed in a sustainable way—in fact it wants to keep it as a pristine environment—it is saying to those people that that land has no value or that it will not pay for its principles. As far as I am concerned that is just not fair. Notwithstanding National’s general thrust in favour of the sustainable management aspects of this bill that is a component that we feel very uncomfortable about. 
Mr Copeland has just described in some detail—and I thought very well—the aspect of import controls and what they are doing to the management of the SILNA forest owners’ assets and the impact on their land values and cash flows. I have to say I can empathise with them. I want to give an example of when I myself owned a property on the West Coast of the South Island. In fact I owned a number of properties but on one in particular I had a stand of forestry that was valued at $750000 one day and the next day I was told I could not harvest that timber. I know that Damien O’Connor is interested in this because he fought the good fight at the time. The next day I was told I could not use it and my land values diminished accordingly. I was not entitled to any compensation. The Government was not prepared to pay for its principles then and I see it is doing the same thing now. It is just not fair. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Was that in 1992? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: It does not matter when it was; the reality is that that was what was in place. Damien O’Connor is here. I know he wants to get on his feet take a call and rekindle the fight for the people of the West Coast because he was very vociferous in his concern at the time. He rolled over unfortunately but I suppose that is politics; he was party to that Cabinet decision. But now he has the opportunity as the legislation is being relitigated to get up fight the good fight for the people on the West Coast and tell them that the decision was wrong then and is wrong now for the SILNA forest owners down south. 
It is a matter that is deeply contradictory and deeply hypocritical. The hypocrisy of the argument is what concerns me most. The Government is saying to people who have legitimate title to an asset that the asset is theirs but it will tell them how they can use it. On the one hand it wants sustainable management. Those people having abided by that and having agreed voluntarily to come under a regime of sustainable management the Government then says: “By the way you cannot sell some of the product.” That is simply not fair. The forests are either sustainable or not sustainable. If they are sustainable then the Government should let people make their own decisions without putting impediments in their way. That is what clause 25 should address. If the Government is not prepared to do that it should compensate.