Ardern Shane: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Ardern Shane: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:648;Page:17473] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I thank the Minister in the chair the Hon Jim Anderton for giving me the opening line “a $22 billion industry”. He is right—it is the backbone of the country and I acknowledge the Minister for saying on many occasions that it is the backbone of the country. In fact I am absolutely surprised by the road to Damascus experience that the Minister has had in this portfolio. We have memories of a time when the Minister was not the Minister of Agriculture and at that time those in the primary sector were a bunch of bleaters whiners whingers bludgers and goodness knows what else that Mr Trotter and his ilk along with Mr Anderton could dream up to describe them. 
I want to speak briefly about Vote Agriculture and Forestry—because “Vote Forestry” does not exist; it is within Vote Agriculture and Forestry—and the amount of money relating to the flagship policy of the Labour Government. That has been of course to get New Zealand into a carbon-neutral position. When one looks at this vote one finds that the amount of money going into forestry is so minuscule that it is almost difficult to determine what the amount is. The same Government claims that forestry holds the key to the very key issue of climate change. I have analysed the figures and I see that one of the highlights in the Budget was that in the forestry part of Vote Agriculture and Forestry the Government was going to transfer Timberlands West Coast Ltd to a Crown forestry company. But there is no budget for that. So it will take out what was of course a sustainably managed large section of New Zealand Timberlands West Coast which was not only making a profit but also controlling the vector in the area in terms of the possum population and other vectors in terms of the spread of TB. It was also providing a market for some of our indigenous forests. 
It is the hypocrisy—I know that that is a word that is not allowed in the House—it is the duplicity of this argument I am aware of as I stand in front of a rimu desk arguing the point about the sustainability of Timberlands West Coast. I do not want to spend too much time on it but it is going now apparently to the Minister’s control into a Crown entity of some sort or another and there is no budget for it. We know that it will suck up funds and not have any possible outcome. 
One looks at that in the context of sustainable management of the SILMA forests—the South Island Landless Maoris Act forest organisation—down in Southland where $700000 was allocated. This is where the double standards that apply in this Government really hit the road. First of all we have Timberlands West Coast where any forestry is closed down. It is not allowed even to extract wind-blown forest for cabinetmaking or other such finery. But at the bottom of the South Island one is allowed to cut it down clear-fell it and do what one likes because of a historic Act of Parliament that goes right back to the beginning of the 20th century—and $700000 has been put aside for that. 
An amount of $100000 has been put aside for a forest sink initiative. Goodness knows what that means. I ask members to listen to these figures. In the context of the $22 billion industries that the Minister talked about we have $2.6 million for a climate change plan of action. That is interesting given that under the term of this Minister and this Government we have seen the highest levels of deforestation in this country in the history of New Zealand. Back in 1951 we had sustainable growth in forest plantations in this country and that was the case right up until recently. Now we are seeing clear-felling almost of our indigenous forest without any progress in terms of planting. Planting trees clearly does hold the future for getting this country out of its current environmental situation. 
I say to the Minister that I was interested when the Government set up the Forest Industry Development Agenda. I thought that was a good initiative. I thought: “At last! Here is a pan-industry group with the Government which clearly may have an opportunity to show some leadership and talking regularly with the Minister.” Within 12 months of that organisation being set up the forestry industry said it would not talk to the Minister. It said it would not have a bar of it. So that initiative fell over as well.