Prosser Richard: West Coast Wind-blown Timber (Conservation Lands) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeProsser Richard: West Coast Wind-blown Timber (Conservation Lands) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 26 June 2014. Volume:699;Page:19012. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First):I am going to take just a brief call. I have some questions that I would like members opposite or perhaps the Minister of Conservation to answer in relation to clause 11(3) in particular of the West Coast Wind-blown Timber (Conservation Lands) Bill: “Despite section 67C(1) of the Forests Act 1949 indigenous timber removed in accordance with an authorisation may be exported from New Zealand if the timber is—(a) sawn beech; or (b) sawn rimu;”. My question is why? We have had Government members earlier in the debate suggesting that timber removed could be stored and Mr Damien O’Connor also has suggested that timber could be stored once it is sawed. We agree with that. It is a very good thing to do with timber that is harvested but surplus to immediate requirements. I would like the Minister particularly to answer why the bill makes specific provision for this timber to be exported against the provisions of the Forests Act.Further to that clause 12(3) says: “The Director-General may in the Director-General’s absolute discretion refund or waive payment of all or any part of any royalty fee or charge paid or required to be paid under this Act.” Why? Surely we are harvesting a resource that is of great value. We are attempting to extract the greatest value that we can from this resource. Why does the bill provide specific provision for any royalties and fees to be waived or refunded? We want this wealth to go back to the West Coast and to stay in the economy of New Zealand. I wonder whether the Minister could tell us why this bill contains specific provision for these charges fees and royalties to be waived or refunded.Over the page is clause 17 “Permitted activity not an offence” which absolutely baffles me. I will read it. “A person who carries out an activity in accordance with an authorisation—(a) does not commit an offence against the Conservation Act 1987 Reserves Act 1977 or Wildlife Act 1953 (or any regulations bylaws or notices made under those Acts) in respect of the activity; and (b) does not require any authorisation…” etc. etc. We have not really touched on this but it baffles me as to why we are passing a bill that allows anybody who has an authorisation to go and collect wind-blown trees and wind-blown timber to do anything they like regardless of any provisions otherwise covered in conservation reserves or wildlife legislation. Why? Why are we doing this? Why are we allowing people to go into the forest do anything they like to the wildlife and do anything they like to conservation for the sake of taking out trees without so much as a “by-your-leave”?Lastly is clause 19 “Certain sections of Resource Management Act 1991 do not apply”. It states: “Sections 9 13 14 and 15 of the Resource Management Act 1991 do not apply to activities permitted by an authorisation.” So by a simple act of an authorisation to go and collect some wind-blown trees all the provisions of the Resource Management Act pertaining to land use type to water take and to putting rubbish back into the water do not apply. All the gains that have been made over 20-odd years are just swept away because—we do not know why. Can the Minister please tell us why? Thank you.