Smith Nick: West Coast Wind-blown Timber (Conservation Lands) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSmith Nick: West Coast Wind-blown Timber (Conservation Lands) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 26 June 2014. Volume:699;Page:18960. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation):I move That the West Coast Wind-blown Timber (Conservation Lands) Bill be now read a first time. When Cyclone Ita hit the West Coast on 17 April this year it did the worst damage to forests in that region for generations felling an estimated 20000 hectares of forest and causing very significant damage to a further 200000 hectares across the Coast. That was a conservation tragedy but it leaves a dilemma as to what to do with the millions of cubic metres of wood that now rest in those forests. No good purpose would be served by leaving that timber in the forest to rot whether it be the rimu the beech the tōtara or the mataī. As the Leader of the House noted it is somewhat ironic in this beautiful Chamber surrounded by native timbers for people to be taking a view that is philosophically opposed to any use of our native woods.Can I firstly address the very practical need for Parliament to take urgency in this matter. A good portion of the volume of the wood is beech particularly silver beech and red beech. Such timbers are very susceptible to both beech stain and to borer and if this Parliament delays or slows by spring that timber will not be recoverable. That is why I say to members from New Zealand First and the member of Parliament for West Coast - Tasman that to somehow pretend that you support recovery of this wood but to not be prepared to support urgency is really saying that you are not going to give the opportunity for that timber to be recovered before it spoils.After the storm caused the damage—Jacinda Ardern: Why are you doing it for 5 years?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The question from members opposite is why we are allowing the recovery for 5 years. Let me explain it to the member Jacinda Ardern who interjects. It is because although the beech will spoil quickly I am further advised that the rimu which is like the wood of our desks can be recovered from the forest for a period of up to 5 years. In fact the clear message I have had from both the sawmill industry and the indigenous timber industry is that it would be preferable to spread this wood over a number of years than to flood the market—a point that has been made by Damien O’Connor. I would suggest to Jacinda Ardern that she listens to that advice.I sought careful advice from my department the Department of Conservation which first raised the prospect of the recovery of this wood as to whether it could be done under existing legislation. The answer is that it could with a great deal of complexity. Yes it is true that for instance when the Department of Conservation grants a mining licence in an area where there is wood it is possible to remove that native timber and to use it for practical purposes but it is a complex slow process. I had been challenged by Eugenie Sage effectively in the media to say that to do it under the existing conservation law would create uncertainty and I came to the view that if you were to do this it was better to be up front with Parliament about the extraordinary event that occurred and to provide a robust and straightforward process to enable the timber to be recovered.The West Coast Wind-blown Timber (Conservation Lands) Bill confines the recovery of the usable wood to areas that have been affected by Cyclone Ita and specifically excludes the very high conservation areas of the World Heritage areas the four national parks across the West Coast the ecological areas and the white heron sanctuary reserve at Whataroa. It does include 100 forests across the Coast where there has been extensive damage and it enables the Director-General of Conservation to grant authorisations for the recovery of that wood. The bill requires that the director-general needs to satisfy himself that anybody proposing to recover the timber provides a safety plan to ensure that this can be done without risk to the workers or to the public. We need only to reflect on the debate that has occurred in this House over the last year about the dangerous nature of forestry work and the further fact that wind-blown timber makes it even more important for that work that we have restrictions and we have requirements for that to be taken into account. The bill also requires that the Director-General of Conservation in granting authorisations takes care to ensure that there is minimal environmental impact in the recovery of that timber. It is my expectation that the bulk of the timber is in fact recovered by helicopter given the remote areas that are involved.I want to rebut some of the concerns that have been expressed about this very practical bill. The first claim is that removing a portion of this wood will hold back the recovery of those forests. I would point out that only a small portion of the overall woody biomass would be recovered by this method. There will be oodles of wood for the bugs and the slugs to consume and to provide fertility for those forests to be able to recover. I have also heard criticism from members opposite that somehow they believe that the recovery of this wood should be restricted and available to only West Coast companies. I have heard some silly ideas in my day; that one would have to take the cake.Moana Mackey: That’s what you said was going to happen.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member from Gisborne is interjecting. Does the member really believe that in little New Zealand—4.5 million people—we are going to start setting up individual custom areas for the West Coast where wood cannot be moved? I assure the member whose party is split on this issue—Hon Maryan Street: No.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member says “No.” Well I have just read it on the wires. Maryan Street says Labour members are not split. Well can the member assure me that Damien O’Connor is not going to cross the floor of the House?Well one minute they say that they are not split and the next minute it seems that they are. Can I be reassured by Maryan Street that Labour is voting as one on this bill? I have heard from very reliable sources that the Labour Opposition members are completely divided on this issue as they are on the issue of oil and gas exploration and as they were for the reasons that Shane Jones left Parliament. That is a party that does not know what it stands for and I think that will become plain as this bill is debated through its stages.In publicly making the announcement for this bill—and I want to acknowledge the support of United Future and the Māori Party last Friday—subsequent to that there has been concern expressed from some extractors of high-value oil from native wood that the provisions of the bill I tabled last week will restrict that sort of high-value use. As part of being open and transparent with the House about the content of this bill I do want to draw to the attention of members of the House that there is a small change to the bill in regard to the purposes for which the timber can be recovered.It is right that this Parliament is passionate about protecting the forests that define this country but when we have a tragedy of this scale and we have millions of hectares of high-value timber on the ground it is my view that this Parliament should be pragmatic and should allow for that wood to be recovered where it can be done environmentally responsibly and where it can be done safely. To put it very quickly this country is not so wealthy that it can allow beautiful valuable native timber to be left to rot.