Street Maryan: West Coast Wind-blown Timber (Conservation Lands) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeStreet Maryan: West Coast Wind-blown Timber (Conservation Lands) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 26 June 2014. Volume:699;Page:18975. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour):There is some common sense in retrieving windfall logs from the West Coast for milling for construction or for furniture. There is something sensible about that. When some macrocarpa trees came down in a storm in Nelson a couple of years ago they were very quickly chopped up for firewood. That was an understandable response. They were on council land and those bits that were still left when the council got to them were chopped up for firewood dried and sold.There is a common-sense approach in that respect to retrieving windfall logs. The trouble is that everything that Nick Smith does is done for political advantage. It is not done because it is the right reason because it is the right thing to do; it is done simply because it is expedient. He is the king of expediency for the National Party. This is the Minister of Conservation who is very keen to save dead trees but not so good at saving live dolphins.Another feature of Nick Smith’s bills is that they are invariably inadequate in one respect or another. They are either constitutionally out of order—and I do not have time today to enumerate the bills in this Minister’s name that have fallen foul of constitutional propriety—they are wrong in concept or they are wrong in process. This one the West Coast Wind-blown Timber (Conservation Lands) Timber Bill is wrong in process. It is this process that causes the Labour Party such trouble.There is sense in recovering some windfall timber. There is sense in that. But there needs to be a proper process so that the country can be assured that there are sufficient safeguards. So why does the Minister not put this to proper process? Why not put it to a select committee? Why not even have the Prime Minister agree to the suggestion from the Leader of the Opposition who said in his letter to the Prime Minister: “We are willing to assist in speedy but rigorous consideration of the proposal. We therefore ask first that a truncated select committee process be undertaken allowing for the views of New Zealanders particularly those from the West Coast to be urgently considered.”? What was the harm in that? Why not take 3 weeks instead of moving into urgency?Where is the harm in delaying this by a matter of a few weeks and going through a truncated select committee process in order to get the protections right? This is absolutely the hallmark of Nick Smith’s inadequate legislation. It is expedient. It is a political point. It is going to look good for the candidate for the West Coast coming up to the National Party conference this weekend.Hon Chris Tremain: Support it then.Hon MARYAN STREET: Those are the only reasons. We might support it Mr Tremain if the process was a respectful and an appropriate one. We might well have supported it.I started my speech by saying there is some common sense in retrieving windfall timber. There is some common sense in that but let us make sure that there is sufficient safeguard around the conservation estate that does not mean that this is a precedent that this is in defiance of 27 years of multipartisan agreement across the House on the Conservation Act and that it is not rammed through simply for the Minister’s own petty political advantage.This is the problem. That Government might have received some support from this party had it just taken a moment to think about the process. We wrote to the Prime Minister stating that in particular—stating that very thing. Not only have we not had an agreement; we have not even had to my knowledge an acknowledgment from the leader of that party to the leader of this party that there were some issues that needed consideration.I come back to the Minister’s hallmarks. The process of urgency denotes game playing and expediency. In this bill and in this process now Parliament’s Order Paper is being disrupted. There is no select committee process and there are no public submissions. Nobody from the West Coast is able to be heard with the exception of my good colleague the member for West Coast - Tasman the Hon Damien O’Connor. There will be no improvements made to this bill except by Supplementary Order Paper. So I invite the Minister or the next National Party speaker to say which of the Supplementary Order Papers they are prepared to support—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Where are they? I haven’t seen any.Hon MARYAN STREET: They are on the Table. They are available. As soon as they come back from the Clerk’s Office—Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek some clarification from the clerks. The member has said that the Opposition’s Supplementary Order Papers—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No no—that is not a point of order.Hon MARYAN STREET: Thank you. There are Supplementary Order Papers. As soon as the Clerk’s Office releases them I would like the Minister—but let me give the Minister an example of what the Supplementary Order Papers will involve just so that he can decide whether or not they are worth supporting.But just to finish my point on the process unless there is some change to this legislation by Supplementary Order Paper then the Labour Party will be compelled with the exception of a couple of members to oppose this bill. We will be compelled to oppose it with the exception of a couple of members. Ah look here come the Supplementary Order Papers now. I hope the Minister will look at them and consider them because otherwise this legislation has the same hallmark of Nick Smith which says: “I’m right and everybody else is wrong.”First of all I want to contrast one of the points and it is one that is contained in Supplementary Order Paper 475 and that is urgency being required now for something with a 5-year time frame—urgency now for a 5-year time frame. If the Minister cannot see a contradiction in that then he is limited. I was tempted to say something unparliamentary but I restrained myself.We have offered a shortened time frame in one of our Supplementary Order Papers. Take it down to 2 years. My preference would be for 1 year but let us take it down to 2 years so that we minimise the damage. If I understand correctly the rationale for 5 years is something to do with heart rimu—that heart rimu actually takes a long time to degrade and that the beech timber will degrade quite quickly and therefore it would be a good idea to get in promptly but not at the exclusion of proper consultation process Dr Smith.The risks have not been addressed adequately in this legislation. The Māori Party said: “Oh well at least there’s a protection that there should be minimal harm done to the environment.” That is all the bill says—keep harm to the environment to a minimum. So if a four-lane highway is required to go into the conservation estate to retrieve this timber quickly then one assumes that that is minimal harm to the environment. So where is the definition and where is the protection? Is this going to be a precedent? Every time there is a storm are we going to have another piece of legislation with another geographic title to it and just amend the purpose to refer to a particular area?But more than that this Conservation Act has been agreed to for the last 27 years. When Ruth Dyson referred to that in her speech the Minister of Conservation turned to a colleague behind him and said something to the effect of: “Oh well I suppose that means we can’t change it.”—the fact that it has been agreed to for 27 years. Dr Smith that simply goes to all the anxiety that we have on this side of the House that this is the thin end of the wedge and that this is the Minister of Conservation who will preside over the demise of conservation. We would be keen to support this bill if the Minister did anything about proper process. We will oppose this bill on those grounds alone.