Peters Jim: Forests Amendment Bill — Consideration of Report of Local Government and Environment Committee 
Peters Jim: Forests Amendment Bill — Consideration of Report of Local Government and Environment Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:12610] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 If there are any South Island Landless Natives Act forest owners hearing the debate tonight I am not sure that they will be any the wiser. First of all we heard the Minister read from a prepared statement that had little to do with the issues as I understand them. I admit that I have come to this issue very very recently. Then I heard the Hon Nick Smith whose name appears over the latter part of the 1990s also making comments about the issues that he had not managed to wrought an understanding about and completion of in his day. 
I want to keep it in mind that in this bill there is not a fair and reasonable solution to the problems of those South Island Landless Natives Act forest owners in Southland. In order to do so I wish to briefly recap the facts of history as I understand them and recent actions in relation to the people their land and their forests. In order to do that we need to go right back to 1853 when first was set in motion the concept that reserves needed to be added in view of the land sales in the South Island. Then we come forward to 1888 when for the first time it was recognised that there was an issue with regard to landless natives in the South Island and in 1893 a commission was established which finally reached its findings in 1905. 
I want to read from that time because New Zealand First’s stance is based on its historical understanding of the South Island Landless Natives Act of 1906. When the Hon Mr Carroll spoke in September 1906 he said: “Generations have passed away with promises unfulfilled but we have reached the stage now when I think these matters should be settled.” He went on to say: “The natives of the South Island have great and just claims—that can be of no question.” And finally towards the end of his speech in the House he said: “But I do say that in view of the absolute necessity of bringing these matters to a conclusion and in view also of the fact that it has been a blot on our colonial reputation to allow these claims to remain unsettled and undetermined for so many years the best solution we can obtain at the present day no matter whether or not we reach the utmost bounds of what is just so long as it is considered fair and reasonable should be hailed with satisfaction.” 
Then the premier of the day Sir Joseph Ward said in this House on 17 October: “This means Maori in the South Island who are not in possession of sufficient land to provide for their support and maintenance.” I will say it again: “to provide for their support and maintenance.” 
 It is a rather sorry tale that in 2004 almost 100 years later the issue goes on. In fact it reminds me of my English II studies of the book  
Bleak House 
 Professor John Reid the  
Jarndyce v Jarndyce 
 case where decade after decade the same issues went on and on and were not solved. Is this therefore a time when we will come to a solution? I suggest not. In fact today if one went to meet with the thousands of South Island Landless Natives Act forest owners one would find no satisfaction in what the Minister has stated and no satisfaction with the Government’s policy. In fact there is a deep-seated fear about what the Government really intends. 
So firstly we have the situation that in the year 1906 what was largely wasteland allocated to landless natives becomes in 2004 a land that is now regarded as a scarce ecological and cultural heritage and therefore in the minds of this Government is suitable for impressed public benefaction on the part of the owners. It has become that because this bill does not answer all the numerous concerns that the owners have had over the past decades. 
Secondly when New Zealand First went into coalition with the National Government in December 1996 this was one of the issues that was expressly covered in the coalition agreement. Again I can say that at that time—and I will quote the language because it is quite important—it was specifically mentioned that there would be a need to negotiate to end clear-felling by consultation with South Island Landless Natives Act forest owners and to consult—and this is the issue I want to raise later on—on compensation arising out of the prevention of clear-felling of indigenous forest. The fiscal cost to South Island Landless Natives Act forest owners was clearly recognised was quoted by Doug McPhail in his notes and was a cost factor that weighed on the Government of the day. I am very pleased to say that a parliamentary colleague of New Zealand First in 1999—namely Tu Wylie—stated very very firmly to the Government of the day that following the second conference of South Island Landless Natives Act forest owners at Rehua in Christchurch he stood firmly by their demands. That meant that when this bill went in the transition period from Government to Government the issues were largely unresolved. 
So what are some of the issues there? The first one that appeared and was mentioned by the Minister is that the Minister skirted over the fact that that Government arrived in 2000 with a clear intention as expressed to the people of the South Island Landless Natives Act lands and it reneged. It reneged on the clear understanding that those people had with regard to the clear-felling of their forest. 
Secondly there has been no real attempt by the present Government to go to the owners to try to come to an understanding and an accommodation. I am suggesting that this issue is similar to that of the West Coast. In fact the Minister of Conservation recognised that in his piecemeal three attempts to take out of existence blocks of land already owned by South Island Landless Natives Act owners. He said expressly last year that there was no further money and that was the end of the matter. I suggest on behalf of New Zealand First that if there is to be this considerable and wholesome restriction on the owners with regard to their ability to manage their resources then that should be an issue as it was regarded on the West Coast for funding and the land would remain in a semi-used state because much of the timber had been milled already. 
For that reason as far as New Zealand First is concerned we believe that this bill should cease and have no further passage beyond the second reading. Despite all the fine words from the Minister this bill does not allow the owners of the land to harvest mill and sell on the international market indigenous timber products including sawn timber logs and woodchips as they would wish. It does not allow that and there is no sound reason why with management practices such as are practised today with regard to sustainable logging that should not be so. 
I mention expressly the fact that National New Zealand First ACT and United Future believe that export controls were not needed given that there are standards in existing legislation that now apply to promote sustainable forest management as well as the international recognition of a move towards third party forests certification. If recognised by those who should know that would have meant there was no need for the compliance that the Government is now attempting to force upon South Island Landless Natives Act owners. 
We agree with those submitters particularly those who came to Christchurch last year who were concerned that this bill would result in the loss of commercial opportunity. It certainly gives no recognition either from the Minister or I would say from the Hon Nick Smith of the current value of economic benefit that this bill if passed will deprive the owners of after all these years. 
The South Island Landless Natives Act is a unique Act. It is not a Treaty of Waitangi claim. It is a unique Act of this House and it needs to be honoured in this House. The Hon James Carroll said in September 1906: “We are coming now to a point where we have to settle. Generations have passed away with promises unfulfilled.” That is exactly what he meant. That is perhaps not the view of the Crown Law Office in its second opinion with regard to the Southland District Council case but that was to its disparagement. In fact the time has come when unlike  
Jarndyce and Jarndyce 
 unlike the  
Bleak House 
 of English literature the people of the South Island Landless Natives Act lands need justice and the promises that were made to this House with regard to their historical issues need to be honoured. This bill does not do that. New Zealand First strongly supports that there be no further passage of the bill.