Connell Brian: Forests Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Connell Brian: Forests Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12897] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I rise to debate this legislation with passion. I note that this bill was introduced when the House was in urgency in 1999 and now in 2004 we are just getting to the Committee stage. I would hate to see what the Government would consider to be putting something on the slow track if that is an example of “urgency”. This bill deals essentially with private property rights versus sustainable management. There is a huge contradiction on the part of this Government: it has closed down sustainably well-managed forests on the West Coast but allowed SILNA landowners to clear-fell their forests and this bill will enable that to continue. That is just another example of the two standards of citizenship this Government fosters. I am not supporting this Government—unlike Dail Jones from New Zealand First. I forgot for a moment where he comes from—I am used to him supporting the Government; that is the problem. Mr Dail Jones in referring to me said that I had a seat somewhere in the South Island. Well I can tell the Committee that Dail Jones does not have a seat anywhere. That is the difference between us I suppose—and he should not look forward to getting one because that will not happen. 
Notwithstanding some significant concerns I have regarding this bill its general thrust is supported. The voluntary mechanism for SILNA landowners to abide by the Forestry Act—that is to come under the sustainable management regime—is appropriate. My concern though is that it should not be voluntary but compulsory. Notwithstanding that having got some of those owners to come under that regime voluntarily the Government has then turned round and done something stupid: it has introduced export controls as per clause 4. That is important and I want to read from page 6 of the commentary on the bill where it states: “It affects those SILNA owners who choose the sustainable forest management option under the SILNA forest policy. Many submitters are concerned about the loss of export markets especially from non-sawlog hardwood which has previously been exported as chipwood. Others saw the re-imposition of export controls as counter to the principle of unrestricted economic benefit from SILNA land.” That seems to be the crux of the problem. 
I notice that United Future’s Mr Copeland is claiming some victory with regard to manuka and kanuka wood-chips on behalf of some of the owners and I agree with him that it is progress. But I wonder why he stopped there because this issue is depriving Maori of legitimate income from their assets and we should be concerned about that. There can be no doubt that it is having a significant impact on land values. That is why I said it was an issue regarding private property rights and sustainable management. It simply does not make sense. Forests are either sustainably managed or they are not. Why introduce restrictions? Why interfere with private enterprise? The West Coast forestry owners argued that but did they get support from the Prime Minister? No they did not. She abandoned them and when this Prime Minister is put under pressure her true colours come out. Do members remember the insults—that Coasters are inbred and feral all because they had the courage to stand up and fight for what they believed in? I am looking forward to Damian O’Connor taking the opportunity to get on his feet and rekindle the fight on behalf of his constituents. The latest insults from the Prime Minister were the expressions “haters” and “wreckers”. It certainly does not pay to cross her. 
While this Government is steadfastly putting in place export controls Jim Sutton—the Minister of Agriculture who is also the Minister for Trade Negotiations—is swanning around the world trying to sign free-trade agreements. There is an inherent contradiction in saying it is OK to have trade deals overseas but we cannot have free enterprise here in this country. Jim Sutton is the “Minister of do as I say not as I do”. 
Clause 4 has another contradiction in it. Last year New Zealand—and we are a very rich country in terms of our forestry resources—imported a huge amount of indigenous forest products. I wonder whether anyone would like to hazard a guess at how much in dollar value that was worth to this country. How much did we spend on bringing indigenous forest products into this country? It is too hard I admit. The answer is that $140 million dollars of indigenous forest timber products were imported into this country when we have sustainably managed indigenous forests of our own. That seems like a stupid stupid thing to have done. It is one of the worst types of contradictions I can think of. We got those imports from countries like Indonesia and Malaysia. One could bet one’s bottom dollar that the forests in the two countries I have mentioned are not managed on a sustainable basis. I will not use the big word that starts with “h” because I know it is unparliamentary but it must come into other members’ heads as well as mine. 
This is a head-in-the-sand approach. We have limited natural resources in this country but the one we do have in abundance is our forestry resource. Yet here we are even though those forests are being managed sustainably spending money on importing forest products. We do not have so many natural resources that we can take that type of approach. We have good soils a good climate and abundant water coal and forest products but the do-gooders in the Government are saying that we cannot use our resources in a sensible way. We can drive folk from high-country farms and we can pay inflated prices for stations but we cannot use our own sustainably managed forests to produce forest products. It is no wonder that New Zealand is going backwards in terms of any kind of growth measure one could care to mention. 
We agree with the central thrust of the legislation which is that all indigenous forestry should be managed on a sustainable basis. What we object to very strongly—and we send this as a very clear message to the Minister in the chair Pete Hodgson—is having two sets of rules. Why can some forest owners in this country not manage their forests on a sustainable basis and clear-fell—and that is what is happening—and why do others have to abide by the Forests Act? This is the contradiction that I am having trouble rationalising. The Government will simply have to attend to that issue. The Minister in the chair may want to take a call and explain that inherent contradiction. Why are two standards of citizenship being applied around this specific issue? The general public of this country simply will not tolerate that. The export controls provided for under clause 4 will deprive legitimate owners who are engaged in legitimate enterprises of getting the true rewards from their assets. That is an interference in private property rights. 
I hope that Dail Jones will get on his feet and take a call on the issue of the export controls because it is significant and one that the New Zealand First Party should be taking very seriously. I note in the commentary on the bill that New Zealand First is not going to support the bill—or New Zealand First stated in its minority report it would not support it. However knowing New Zealand First it can change its mind. It has been known to change its mind before on these sorts of issues even when it has stated its position in the commentary on a bill. This is an issue of significant importance and I hope that the member will take a call because the issue is driving the owners of the forests down south to distraction—and I do not blame them; this is a significant issue. As this debate progresses I hope that Stephen Franks who is a very cogent and an able debater will explain why he thinks this bill is an interference in private property rights. 
With those few words said I look forward to taking a further call in the debate on this bill as it progresses but I am very mindful that those are the key issues that have been canvassed.