Dyson Ruth: West Coast Wind-blown Timber (Conservation Lands) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: West Coast Wind-blown Timber (Conservation Lands) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 26 June 2014. Volume:699;Page:18986. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills):I am not quite sure what the member who has just resumed his seat Chris Auchinvole was trying to say but I think it is probably better just to give him the charity of my silence in response to the contribution he made. Perhaps by the third reading of this West Coast Wind-blown Timber (Conservation Lands) Bill he will have organised his thoughts with a better structure.I was quite disturbed to hear the contribution to this debate earlier by the Minister of Conservation when I was speaking. I said that the conservation accord if you like—an interesting term to use in this context perhaps—between particularly Labour and National because it was prior to other parties coming into the House was forged in 1987 when the Conservation Act was first passed and native logging on all but the Timberlands area was stopped. That has carried on ever since. Then in 2000 14 years ago when the next round of decisions was made the extraction and logging of native timber was stopped. When I said that that first happened 27 years ago and it was a bipartisan agreement the Minister said to his colleagues: “So it’s 27 years old. Does that mean we shouldn’t change it?”. I was a little concerned about that because I did not think that this was a proposal to fundamentally change the Conservation Act. I thought it was a response to a one-off event.I will tell you what; I do not share Damien O’Connor’s view of trusting. I think that the Minister may well be using this bill as a stalking horse for opening up the extraction of native timber in the future and that would be such a massive step backwards. Cyclone Ita was something that was very hard on the West Coast. I lived there for over a decade. I understand the views of those communities—not nearly as well as people who have lived there their entire life but I lived there for long enough to get to know the place well. I understand the thinking about the resources that are within their own community. But it does not always mean that it is going to be the right thing for the future of New Zealand. If this is a step towards opening up extraction as the basis of sustainable employment on the West Coast then I think it is the wrong move.There have been a few gibes thrown at the Labour Party. I think that is a bit rich frankly given what is going on within some sections of the National Party at the moment. I just want to make it clear about our position on this bill. I did in the first reading actually but I will do it again because some members may not have had the opportunity to hear it. We put up a series of proposals to the Government in relation to our concerns about the process and the content of this legislation. The first was that there was no need for it to go through all stages under urgency. I heard the contribution that Gareth Hughes from the Greens made earlier in his point of order and I absolutely agree. It was our proposal to the Government that instead of having all stages go through under urgency that there be a truncated period of time for select committee consideration. It would be a little nonsensical for us to try to drag out this debate if we understood it was going to be passed anyway.But that was not the point. It was not to drag it out and it was not to have more beech getting beyond a usable position; it was because in a reasonably robust democracy the right for people to have their say should always be exercised unless there is some extreme situation where it need not be. In this case it would have been very easy to refer this bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee—or the Primary Production Committee; apparently they run not a bad little ship at that select committee I have heard—say for a period of 2 weeks and then require it to come back and then it could proceed at pace. It is not a very large bill. The debate is not going to go on for too long. That was the first request that we made to the Government—a truncated period not to delay the progress of the bill but to give New Zealanders a right to have a say including people from the West Coast. And we had a series of other proposals that we made which are outlined in our Supplementary Order Papers 475 and 476.I do think there is a greater concern at the heart of this legislation. Having listened to the contribution from the National Party members particularly the Minister of Conservation I no longer believe that this is an opportunity for West Coasters to have jobs. It is clear they have turned down Supplementary Order Paper 476 which is in the name of Damien O’Connor and makes sure that West Coasters get any jobs first. That is not of interest to National. I do think the disdain in which they have been regarding the Conservation Act and our significant step then as a Government requiring protection of our native trees gives great alarm to members of the public around the country. This is more likely to be a stalking horse for the future logging of our native trees.It is really frustrating—particularly in the week that we have had I suppose—that the Minister of Conservation can show such passion and concern for dead trees at the same time as he shows little regard for the 55 remaining Māui’s dolphins that we have. We have the International Whaling Commission’s scientific committee saying for the third year in a row: “This Government is not doing enough. That species will be extinct unless they take better measures.” Nothing has happened as a result of that. For 3 years in a row it has been just tinkering at the edges—not making substantive protections and certainly not enough to save the species. At the same time we have legislation going through all stages under urgency to do something that this House has said no to for nearly three decades.This bill is a puzzle. I think it is a stalking horse. It offers no hope of guaranteed jobs let alone sustainable jobs for West Coasters. That is why I will be voting against it.