Ewen-Street Ian: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Ewen-Street Ian: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9288] 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 My colleague Mr Shirley will not be surprised to learn that I disagree with his stand and that of my colleague Dr Nick Smith. Section 21 of the Conservation Act describes an ecological area which the Card Creek area is as having additional protection requirements to general conservation land and that land must be managed in such a way as to protect the values for which it is held. The Card Creek ecological area was specifically described in a Forest Service report in 1983 as having a number of key natural features. 
These were that it was a sizable pristine area of dense valley-floor podocarp forest not found elsewhere in the ecological district. The second point is that it has an unusually high proportion of matai and kahikatea on the western slopes of the ridge. The third point is that it has a range of forest types from hardwood-dominated to podocarp-dominated forest. The fourth point is that it has a very high diversity and good numbers of native birds including tui bellbird weka yellow-breasted tit robin rifleman brown creeper fantail kereru grey warbler and silvereye. Kaka and parakeet are also recorded as being present. I know that my colleagues referred to large areas of gorse. In reality the gorse represents less than 10 percent of the total area. 
It is also pertinent to note that section 16A of the Conservation Act provides that the Minister may exchange any part of a stewardship area for other land where the exchange enhances conservation values and promotes the purpose of the Act. That is fair enough so far. But section 26 provides for the alienation of stewardship land. The problem is that ecological areas and that includes Card Creek are expressly excluded from stewardship areas and as such cannot be alienated or exchanged unless the Minister first revokes their special status under section 18(7). My understanding is that the Minister has not done that; therefore this bill is not the vehicle by which to change the status. [ 
Interruption 
] This is not the vehicle to do it. The Minister has to revoke it first. 
If the Dobson Valley dam scheme were to go ahead it would flood 394 hectares of public conservation land that lies under the Card Creek conservation area. [ 
Interruption 
] The history of this area is that it was first described in 1949 as having high ecological values. It was gazetted in 1983 by forestry Minister the Hon Jonathan Elworthy for—members have guessed it—National. Then it was extended in 1997 by the National Government by 64 percent. It was specifically extended because it was to add to the long-term viability of the principal reserve as a significant wildlife habitat. Guess who was the Minister of Conservation in 1997? It was the Hon Nick Smith. Dr Smith in 1997 decided to increase the Card Creek ecological area by 64 percent because it had highly significant ecological values. In 2003 it is a gorse-covered valley! I ask Dr Smith what has changed. It is just politics. He does not have a leg to stand on. 
It is interesting that Dr Smith and Mr Shirley referred to areas of gorse. As I said less than 10 percent of the area is covered by gorse. The remainder comprises “native forests and forest shrublands which contain mature and regenerating kahikatea matai rimu kamahi kawakawa pockets of red and hard beech and a number of other native species.” The gorse areas are found mostly on the former Timberlands area and will regenerate to native forests. It is likely that people flying over the recent addition from the Timberlands West Coast would see large patches of gorse and it is not possible to flood only the gorse area. 
It is also interesting to note that in 1983 when it was originally gazetted as an ecological area it was noted as one of the best examples in the Greymouth ecological district of forest on a wide valley floor. Of course since 1983 we have had 20 years of forest regeneration. 
This is a highly significant area and for Dr Smith to dismiss it now and say: “We need this for power generation.” is simply politics. In terms of the power generation both Dr Smith and Mr Shirley have said that we need more power. That is one way to look at it; it is the old “Is the glass half empty or half full?” question. Do we need to have more power because there is more demand or do we need to say: “Look the demand is getting ridiculous and we simply can’t continue to build more and more dams to supply more and more power because of people wanting to turn on their dishwashers or their heated towel rails in Auckland.”? Clearly the answer is no. If we look at power demand and say that it is increasing by say 5 percent a year— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could the member please come to the bill itself? 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: In terms of the bill itself I have no problem at all with it. It is a considerable step forward. It is a rationalisation of pieces of land from Gore from Picton and from Invercargill that have gone on to be used for other things. It is sensible legislation. It was discussed briefly in the select committee. I support its passage. What I will not support is Dr Smith’s proposed amendment to include the Dobson hydro scheme. The Greens will support the passage of this bill without amendment.