Connell Brian: Forests Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Connell Brian: Forests Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12908] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I have been thinking as this debate has progressed about what the appropriate title for this legislation is. My first reaction was the “Voluntary Sustainable Management Bill”. If this bill had that as its major thrust then I think that would be an appropriate title because the concept of sustainable management is something I can agree with. Anything that stops our last significant indigenous forest from being clear-felled must clearly be supported. However and it is a very big “however” how can we say that we have asked people to come into a voluntary sustainable management regime and then tell them what they can and cannot do with their property? That makes me think that maybe the appropriate title is the “Forest Export Control Bill” because what we are saying to these individuals is that now that we have them agreeing to a sustainable management regime we will put in place export control legislation. That is where I really get lost with the Government’s thread on this. If it is sustainable why can we not allow these forest owners to manage and sell their product in the way they choose because by definition the way they are getting those products is sustainable? 
 That makes no sense to me whatsoever. So on balance I think “Forests Export Control Bill” is a better title than what has been proposed so far. The other component is the compensation—or in fact no compensation. That gives rise to another possible title which is the “No Compensation Bill”. 
Clause 25 is one that other speakers as well as myself have been taking calls on. This is something that I feel a huge disquiet over. How can we assume that there is no value to these forests at all to the owners of these forests? We can say to them: “You cannot manage your assets in this way any longer.” How can it be that we can affect their property values the balance sheets of their businesses the cash flows of their businesses and not look at the aspect of compensation? I think the Minister in the chair Pete Hodgson is duty-bound to take a call and explain why he believes that this component of the legislation is fair and reasonable because I am really struggling with this part to find an argument that enables me to support it. 
That is why I say that the “No Compensation Bill” is a better title on balance than the others that have been suggested. The title “Forests Amendment Bill” is simply not representative of the key components of this legislation. 
I want to go back to the issue of sustainable management. If we have a regime of sustainable management are there not some inherent contradictions about how we then limit the way people will market that product? 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: That’s right. Once you cut it down it doesn’t matter. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Absolutely not. Provided it is done in a sustainable way what difference can it make? I notice Damien O’Connor in the Chamber a member who has been silent on this. I really thought he would take a call because this is an issue that must be dear to his heart. I remember him taking a very strong position on behalf of constituents on the West Coast when they were told by the Government that they could not manage their forests in a sustainable way. He cried foul and said that it was not fair. I ask Mr O’Connor what the difference is. Why is he not on his feet now rekindling the argument and fighting not only for his constituents on the West Coast but also for people down south? That is why I come back to it again. The “Forest Export Control Bill” may be a better title on balance because essentially they are the two aspects of this legislation that are most bothersome. I know that Mr O’Connor will take a call because I know he wants to respond.