Smith Nick: Forests Amendment Bill — Consideration of Report of Local Government and Environment Committee 
Smith Nick: Forests Amendment Bill — Consideration of Report of Local Government and Environment Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:12608] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 This bill speaks volumes about the mess in resource policy under this Government. I want to highlight the absolute anomalies and ridiculousness of what is going on in respect of indigenous forestry. We need look no further than the beautiful timbers in this Parliament to recognise the wonderful resource we have if we manage it properly. 
Let us look at what has happened under the Government’s policy. The very first thing that this Government did was to shut down sustainable forestry on the West Coast despite the fact that it was world-leading technology—that we were able to sustainably manage the forests on the West Coast and enjoy all the wonderful timber products that came from it. The lunacy is that at the same time we have turned a blind eye to huge clear-felling of indigenous forests in Southland—not sustainably managed; just bowled over. I tell members opposite that this is a classic case of two standards of citizenship. If a group of people on the West Coast is trying to make a living out of properly managing a forest it is shut down by this Government but if one happens to be Maori in Southland it turns a blind eye. I tell members opposite that that is a disgrace. 
But it is even worse than that. Let me give members the figures. What has happened over the last 5 years of this Government is that the amount of timber imported into this country has increased tenfold. This country imports $150 million a year of indigenous timber products. How many of those forests do we think are managed sustainably? The timber comes from Indonesia and it comes come from Malaysia. The so-called environmentalists on the other side of the House turn a blind eye to the importing of timber exported from Indonesia Malaysia and all sorts of countries where standards are pathetic but still they claim hand on chest: “Oh but we saved the forests on the West Coast.” It is a con. It is joke. It is an embarrassment. 
Let us look at the changes that are made in this bill. What is proposed is to put on an export ban even if timber is taken from a sustainable forest. What is the logic for that? 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: There’s no logic there. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: My colleague Ken Shirley a previous Minister of Forestry and someone who has worked in the industry and been part of international negotiations thinks it is a joke. There is no intellectual rigour to this policy at all. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: We are the laughing stock of the world. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member is right; it makes us a laughing stock internationally. I was with Marian Hobbs at the Earth Summit in Johannesburg only 18 months ago. All the people there were arguing that we need to have consistent sustainable forest rules. Well hello! What this bill says is that even if forests are managed sustainably the Government will put export bans in place. This is the Government whose Minister of Forestry Jim Sutton only a few days ago was signing free-trade agreements. So why for goodness’ sake are we having legislation that introduces export bans? It really is something to believe that we are taking ourselves back in that regard. I am looking forward to hearing Damien O’Connor or Jim Sutton get on their feet as Ministers in this Government and justify the reintroduction of export bans to our forest regulations. It makes absolutely no sense. 
The real tragedy is that there are hard-working New Zealand citizens out there trying to make a sustainable forestry business through the permit system—the very detailed rules—of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry; they are trying to make a viable business out of indigenous forestry and doing it right and the tragedy is they are going broke. They are being driven out of the market because clear-felling of indigenous forests is going on in respect of South Island Landless Natives Act land. How can we expect people to helicopter-harvest their trees to go to extreme expense to protect the biodiversity of those forests—which is the rule for one group of New Zealanders—while down in Southland people can clear-fell take down the forest sell it on to the market and knock those other people out of business? There are good business people who are trying to do the right thing economically and environmentally and they are being knocked out of business because of the Government’s tardiness on this issue. 
When was this bill introduced? It was introduced in July of 1999 by myself and David Carter. What was Labour’s policy when it was elected to Government in 1999? It said it would deal with this issue urgently. What is the date? It is May of 2004. If it is urgent and it takes the Government 5 years to deal with it I would hate to see how long the Government would take to deal with an issue that it considered was not urgent! I say to members opposite that their tardiness on this issue is costing jobs and is costing the environment. We have a political mess because there are two different sets of rules for people based on ethnicity. We have an economic mess because businesses are going out of existence because we do not have consistent rules. Those who can clear-fell are able to bowl out those in the marketplace who are trying to do the right thing. And we have an environmental mess because forests in Southland continue to be clear-felled. Is it not interesting that Helen Clark the Prime Minister made a huge deal of stopping sustainable forestry on the West Coast but have we heard a whimper about the clear-felling of thousands of hectares of indigenous forests in Southland? There is an “h” word to describe it; I will not use it but I will say there is a double standard. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: It’s hypocrisy. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Order! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Mr Shirley uses a word that I am not going to say but it is my view that there is a double standard. It is absolute environmental lunacy. I want to know from Minister Rick Barker or from the Minister of Conservation—where is the Minister of Conservation? What has he been doing for 5 years as thousands of hectares of forests in areas like the Catlins areas on the south coast and areas all the way down through the lower South Island are being clear-felled? Where is this Government’s consistency in environmental policy? It makes absolutely no sense. 
There are some sensible provisions in this law. There are some sensible provisions that were introduced by National in July of 1999. They provide for a voluntary agreement system by which we can get the South Island Landless Natives Act forests under the provisions of the Forests Act. But they will not work without money. What this Government has failed to do is put any serious money into resolving the issue in respect of the South Island Landless Natives Act 1906 forests. That is a serious issue. The Government can pour money into buying up farms all over the South Island but it is not prepared to spend money to resolve this outstanding issue. I say again that that is a disgrace. Why does a country blessed with so many forests have to import $150 million worth of indigenous timbers from throughout the world? Why are we not sustainably managing our own resource? We are not doing that because of this Government’s warped policy and this bill represents a minor step forward and a big step backwards. I would love to hear from a Government member who can defend its disgraceful record in the management of indigenous forests.