Franks Stephen: Forests Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Franks Stephen: Forests Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12900] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 The Forests Amendment Bill is a matter of shame to the two major parties. Essentially as the New Zealand First member who has just resumed his seat said this bill will cement in place a disgraceful set of transactions—namely expropriation of property rights. 
I was not on the select committee and the detail of the bill is likely to be beyond me but I can look at Part 1. What underlies this legislation is a view that if one’s property has something on it that others in the community like they can simply decide to expropriate it for their use and pleasure without compensation. It is as simple as that. Although the SILNA owners had been given that land as compensation for earlier losses the community suddenly decided that it liked having native timber on the land it did not want it cut down so it would expropriate it along of course with the value of the forest held by so many others. 
What does that really do? It does not protect native forest. In the short term it may. But there is a scenario that is being repeated all over this country of refusing to allow native forest on one’s land. 
I know a person who had 10 acres of land in an area of very high scenic value. He had been gathering native plants for some time to recreate an environment suitable for birds. It was pointed out to him that if he allowed that forest to grow at some stage the local authority or the Department of Conservation or someone else would say: “You can’t cut it down.” and he would effectively be sterilising his 10 acres. He had no intention whatsoever of creating an eyesore. He would probably have put one or two dwellings in the midst of his new forest. What did he do? He ordered hundreds of eucalypts and planted those instead. 
That pattern is being repeated across this country because the idiots who think that expropriation does not matter do not take into account that humans react when they are treated unfairly. They will not tolerate it. Sometimes they even do things that are not in their own interests because of resentment. One of the resentments that a law like this—simple prohibition and expropriation of value—is creating is that instead of seeing native plants on one’s land as a blessing and something to be proud of they are seen as an asset that the Government might suddenly expropriate. Planting them becomes something to be avoided. 
It is a little bit like archaeological sites. What is the best thing to do if one finds an archaeological site? Run through it with a bulldozer and bury it or destroy it so that hopefully no one can find it! Why is that the best thing? Because the community is busy saying it has value to them but that they will not pay for it. That is exactly what this bill is cementing in place. It is a laughable idea that we can prohibit the milling of indigenous timber without full compensation or indeed any sort of adequate compensation and come to a very complex set of deals that involve tax benefits over a long period of time without changing people’s attitudes substantially as to whether they can trust the Government. 
This bill is another breach of the West Coast Accord. This was an opportunity for the Labour Party to look at what the National Party did in the early 1990s and say that even if National did not have principles then it had 10 years on them and would apply some principle now. This was an opportunity for the Government—especially given the gay abandon with which it will pay $10 million for an island or $40 or $50 million to look after a bunch of rich yacht owners—to say that it will use some of the surplus to restore respect for property rights and show Maori and other New Zealanders that if the community is going to regard people’s assets as being of public benefit it will not make them privately carry the full cost. That is what this Committee should be recommending—that the Government actually shows that it respects principle and that it respects common sense.