Prosser Richard: West Coast Wind-blown Timber (Conservation Lands) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is subject to correctionProsser Richard: West Coast Wind-blown Timber (Conservation Lands) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 26 June 2014. Volume:702;Page:18941. Text is subject to correction.]RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First):I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take the first of as many calls as are needed in order for Parliament to deal with this urgent piece of legislation that we have before us the West Coast Wind-blown Timber (Conservation Lands) Bill. New Zealand First does not ordinarily support the passing of legislation under urgency. Governments riding roughshod over the established conventions of democracy is anathema to our beliefs and it is not something we view favourably or undertake lightly or often. However there are times when we realise as others realise and as we believe that the majority of the public realises that sometimes Parliament has to act swiftly.There are times when pragmatism trumps principle—not often not frequently not lightly. But there are times when people realise that although a given situation may not be particularly serious in itself the consequences of failing to act swiftly with regard to it may be more serious than the temporary sidelining of what would otherwise be due process. It was our initial reaction when the issue to which this bill relates came to the fore that this was probably going to be such an occasion.However on closer inspection of the bill we have before us we found ourselves coming to the conclusion that such an approach is not appropriate in this particular case. Digging deeper and deeper into the bill we found serious departures from what we had initially believed to be a reasoned and reasonable response to the consequences of a major meteorological event of the type that afflicts our country from time to time. It was for this reason that we chose to oppose urgency in this case.For reasons I will outline we are supporting this bill on condition only as far as the Committee stage. From then on our continued support will be dependent on whether the Government can agree to address the number of very serious concerns we hold about this bill as it is presented. It is apparent that the Government has a completely disingenuous agenda with regard to this bill. The intent of this bill—the stated intent the intent as advertised—is something that New Zealand First would like to support. Our principles and policies are completely in line with that intention. Allowing such a tragically serendipitous occurrence as this to go to waste is anathema to our philosophy.This is a windfall indeed. The storm that has brought us this wind-blown timber has been a tragedy for our forests but using this occurrence as an excuse to throw out our principles and protocols to put aside our hard-won environmental protections would be to turn a singular tragedy into an ongoing series of catastrophes. New Zealand First wants to see some changes to this bill and we want some honest explanations from the Government as to why it contains certain of the provisions that it does.Firstly I want to know why the Government went back on its word and made this bill the first item of business today rather the second as it had previously indicated. The final version of the bill hit the Table and straight away the debate began despite members on this side not having seen anything beyond the first draft. That is disingenuous.Secondly we want the process by which applications for extraction permits are issued to be fair honest and transparent. At the moment it is not. The Director-General of Conservation can invite people to apply by any means he or she chooses—by an advertisement in the public notices by the issuing of a tender or by simply getting on the phone to someone they believe is up to the job. Then they can engage in any sort of negotiation that takes their fancy behind closed doors. We want these jobs to go to New Zealand companies and preferably to West Coast companies.Thirdly we want the existing environmental protections under the Resource Management Act to be maintained. At present sections 9 13 14 and 15 are exempted for 5 years. Restrictions on the use of land restrictions on the uses of riverbeds and lakebeds restrictions on water use and restrictions on discharge to water are gone—all of them—for 5 years. For 5 years people—anyone the Director-General cares to give the job to—can go into the bush bulldoze a road dam a river dump whatever rubbish they like back into it and haul away wind-blown trees. If it is not the intention that this happens why is it allowed for?Fourthly we want the West Coast to be the principal beneficiary from this exercise in terms of jobs and processing. That is not in the bill now. Fifthly we want the prohibition on the export of native timber extended to this recovery operation. At the moment the bill says that sawn timber from beech and rimu can be exported—madness. Pardon my cynicism but it is madness for sawn native timber to be sent overseas to be made into furniture and then brought back here to be sold.Sixthly we want the royalty regime for native timber to be enshrined in the bill and for 25 percent of the royalties collected to go back to the West Coast. As it stands there is no provision for the Coast to be granted a cent from this wealth and the Director-General has the absolute discretion to waive or refund any royalties that are charged.To recap this is what can happen under the bill as it is presented. The Director-General of Conservation can get on the phone to a logging company from Australia or Canada or anywhere else and invite it to apply for extraction rights. The offshore company can negotiate its price behind closed doors then it can come in and bulldoze a track through a national park put culverts into the river beds dam the rivers for water for the operations dump their waste back into the rivers kill as many kiwi as they like and not be in breach of the Wildlife Act—Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s not true.RICHARD PROSSER: It is in the bill Minister. It can take out a truckload of prime rimu mill the trunks into logs send the sawn timber to China have it made into tables and Scotch dressers and send them back here to be sold as New Zealand native timber furniture—and then get a refund on the royalties it should have given to the Crown. The West Coast gets nothing and New Zealand gets nothing except shafted. If none of that is going to happen then why does the bill specifically allow and provide for it?We want to see this timber used. We do not want to see it go to waste. But we want to see the benefits go to the people of the Coast and to “New Zealand Inc.” and we want to see our environment preserved. We will support this bill only if those things can be agreed to and guaranteed. Thank you.