Tisch Lindsay: Forests Amendment Bill — Consideration of Report of Local Government and Environment Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Forests Amendment Bill — Consideration of Report of Local Government and Environment Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:12792] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 It is interesting that this bill had its genesis back in 1999. At that time a number of submissions were heard by the Transport and Environment Committee. When we read through the bill it is interesting to see that many of the same issues that were identified in 1999 have resurfaced again in 2004. While the Labour member can say that this situation came about only because Labour made amendments to the bill it was National that actually set this thing up in order to give an opportunity. We now have the Government claiming credit for that. The Government could have kicked this legislation out for touch but it realised how important the bill is. That is why we are debating it today. We could have debated the bill 4 years ago when it first came to the select committee. What has happened over the last 4 years? I read here on the front page of the commentary on the bill that the Forests Amendment Bill was referred to the Transport and Environment Committee on 13 July 1999 and here we are nearly 5 years later tidying up legislation that could have been tidied up over the last 4 years at least. 
It is important to identify what the bill does. The impact of policy decisions since its introduction is that the Crown’s West Coast indigenous production forests were transferred from Timberlands West Coast Limited to the Department of Conservation in 2001-02. Also the South Island Landless Natives Act policy package which is commonly referred to as the “SILNA” policy was announced and the Cabinet decided to drop a proposed amendment that would have widened the list of products that could be exported to include sustainably produced wood-chips and other sawn timber from species other than rimu and beech. 
It is appropriate at this time to look at the area the indigenous forests actually cover because it is not until we understand how significant a contributor they are to the economy that we realise how important this bill is. The commentary on the bill states that about 24 percent of New Zealand remains covered with indigenous forest. That is quite a huge area. Of that area 83 percent is held in Crown-owned national parks and reserves and 17 percent is privately owned. Land covered in the South Island Landless Natives Act totals about 57000 hectares. That is a huge area of which 35000 hectares is forested. If we look at the total forests that we have in New Zealand we see that the 35000 hectares of forest covered by this legislation is a very significant land area. Although there were some exemptions made earlier on it is interesting to note that the previously exempted forests are brought under Part 3A of the principal Act by this bill. The bill removes the exemptions but provides for specific controls and exemptions for specific categories of forests and has various other clauses. 
The bill seeks to ensure that the export and milling of indigenous timber will continue to be linked with sustainable forest management practices. The Government member stood up and said that that was the sort of amendment that the Government was looking for to improve this bill yet those were the sorts of things that in 1999 the committee would have been very much focusing on. To claim credit for something 4½ years later is an absolute nonsense when the Government could have expedited the passage of this bill over the last 4 years. I want to comment on the customs regulations. They were found to be unlawful so it is interesting that that remedy has been tidied up. The bill re-establishes export controls over indigenous timber and wood-chips from South Island Landless Natives Act land making those lands subject to the same export provisions as all other indigenous forests. 
There was a question about compensation which is always a very important point for the submitters on this legislation. One felt that they may be disadvantaged by it. Many submitters were concerned about clauses 25 and 26. When the Committee of the House starts to look at this legislation no doubt those clauses will be debated here and the rationale behind them will be thrashed out. Some people felt that to rule out compensation was an appropriation of existing property rights. It will be interesting to see how that progresses. In relation to the South Island Landless Natives Act forests some submitters were concerned that the bill does not provide for compensation for loss in forest value as a consequence of the removal of the general exemption for their lands. We will be interested in the Committee stage to see what transpires. 
Some amendments have certainly been favourable and we have supported them. The commentary on the bill states that the export controls under the principal Act are retained. I think that that is significant. If we were to look further down in the commentary we can see that changing international markets the scale of operations and the prospects for changing domestic markets and values all affect current and future prospects for commercial forestry. The interesting point that is not mentioned is the changing exchange rates. Over recent times one would have had to consider what impact the changing exchange rate of the dollar would have had because forestry companies not only in this realm but forestry companies in general have found it extremely difficult to compete internationally given the changing exchange rates. We see that at the moment the New Zealand dollar is dropping against the US dollar and other currencies which will certainly help the export sector. 
National did not have a minority report on this bill but along with New Zealand First ACT and United Future we believe that export controls are not needed given the standards that apply under the existing legislation to promote sustainable forest management as well as the increasing worldwide recognition of the move towards third-party forest certification requirements. 
To summarise the points from National’s point of view the genesis of this debate goes back to 1999 when National was in Government— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: It goes back much earlier than that. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Mr Shirley knows that it goes much further back but I am just referring to what is in this bill. He may have already taken a call on this bill already but certainly in the Committee stage he can enlighten us on how far back it does go. However if we look at the submissions that were made back in 1999 and the submissions that came through in 2003 we can see the same arguments being progressed. The point that we make here is that it is important that we tidy this issue up and that we get on with it. However I say to the Government that it has had over 4 years in which to progress this bill and here we are in the fifth month of 2004 tidying up legislation that had its genesis as a bill back in 1999. 
National will support this bill. We are interested in what will happen as the bill progresses through the House but at this stage we are happy that it proceed on that basis. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Amendments recommended by the Local Government and Environment Committee by majority agreed to.