Peters Jim: Forests Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Peters Jim: Forests Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12904] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 Looking at Part 2 “Miscellaneous provisions” of the Forests Amendment Bill I was reminded by the struck-out provisions that as the last speaker has just said with regard to the West Coast was a very costly reallocation—$120 million worth of reallocation of taxpayer funds—to prevent taxpayer-owned forests being milled. As I wish to move to the actual clause—clause 25 “Compensation”—that clause is a very appropriate place to start from. 
At the present time the forests that are the subject of debate are currently exempt from sustainable forest management sawmilling and generic export controls. If this bill is enacted that state is about to be changed. At the time of the submissions in both 1999 and June last year some submitters made a very strong call with regard to clause 25. As they began to look carefully at that clause they saw that the demand for a sustainable forest regime was—as Mr Connell has already said—nothing more nor less than an appropriation of their inherent property rights and they have maintained that position throughout. Historically there is still a sense of grievance with regard to those lands and clause 25 adds to that sense of grievance. 
I have to say that that feeling is not shared by all and that some owners who have benefited from the Department of Conservation’s uptake of their blocks feel otherwise. But there are a substantial number of owners out there who will still feel a real sense of grievance over the passage of this bill. As Mr Franks has already said they feel that there is no sound reason why they alone because they do not live on the West Coast have become public benefactors. 
 Contrast the position with regard to clause 25 of a SILNA landowner living somewhere in New Zealand but having a historical affinity to his or her land—in this case not by an ancestral connection but by a statute recognising his or her rights. How would he or she feel knowing that the West Coast was enhanced by $120 million of taxpayer money for taxpayer trees? 
In this case not one dollar can be found for what has been regarded by this Government and past Governments as part of a valuable national resource. I say again to the Minister that I believe the Government needs to give more mind to the matter of adequate compensation such as was found in a very agreeable sense and quite speedily for those West Coast people who had no property rights at all. 
The Local Government and Environment Committee addressed the matters in clauses 26 and 26A and particular provision is made for one of the incorporations. The main message I want to leave is that some owners have a sense of grievance that has not changed to this day. The issue of compensation remains and the bill does not adequately provide for that. In the other part of this legislation regarding the West Coast lands the Government saw a way to reward a community that did not own the land—we did. It did not own the trees—we did. 
In this case there is an opportunity for the Government to consult with the owners and come to an agreeable long-term understanding. It can thereby take out and give honour at long last to an issue that began to develop in the 1870s continued through 1888 to 1890 until finally there was a bill in 1906. It should recognise as well that the historical passage of changes by Government administration in the years after 1906 was also quite deplorable with regard to the SILNA lands. On behalf of the whole community the time has come to look to this matter and see whether the Government can do better than it has done.