Forests Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Forests Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12897] 
Forests Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act 
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. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First took the position in both the first and second reading and does so again at this point in the Committee stage that this bill should not be passed. This bill does not allow SILNA owners to implement harvest mill or sell their indigenous timber including sawn timber logs and wood-chips. Contrary to the last speaker who talked about two different sets of circumstances I contend that in this unique case there is one circumstance founded in an Act of Parliament in 1906. In the whole discussion that backs into Part 1 there has been considerable discussion over the years on what that Act meant and on its implications. Whether the land given in 1906 was compensation is one of the major issues that has been discussed and teased out. One thing is certain if we ask whether the land given in 1906 was given with great economic advantage to the owners. The answer is yes. In 2004 those lands are of considerable economic advantage. As we know the wasteland of 1906 has now become a profitable resource in the export and domestic timber market at the present time. 
However the premise on which we stand in support of the SILNA owners—as in Part 1 with regard to that part where the Crown is bound—is the honouring of the Act of 1906. When we advance further to a debate on the title I shall go back to the historical basis of why the Crown should be bound with regard to the SILNA lands. It is not a matter of Maori nor of two peoples or two different kinds of decisions as was adverted to by the last speaker. It is simply a case of SILNA owners in Southland and Otago being able to do exactly as we said in our minority report—that is to be able to use their grant and their land with the full recognition of the current value in terms of economic benefit those landowners could enjoy. That is the assumption we have made throughout the debate on this bill. 
The whole of Part 1 reflects the fact that it was believed in 1999—and it was a very rushed decision by the then Government—that the owners would with little preparation accept sustainable management as a method of resolving some of the issues about indigenous timber. In fact the whole passage that has now become Part 1 is marked first by a serious lack of consultation in 1998-99 and second by an attempt by the then Minister the Hon Nick Smith to assuage the feeling of people in Christchurch by saying that he was sorry but that was the way it had to be done because of the domestic circumstances following the court case. Following that there has been no real clear understanding that I can gain from this House and in the minds of those who prepared this bill of the still intense feeling of SILNA owners with regard to their lands. 
I shall quickly go through why the options in Part 1 have been rejected. They were firmly rejected by submitters at the time. Last year one after another the submitters talked about the adverse economic impact of that part upon SILNA forest owners. They opposed the removal of the overall exemption for SILNA lands and opposed the export controls. They talked about the loss of economic opportunity from their forests and the lack of equity in their minds with regard to what had been a historical recognition of their rights. They talked about the loss of property rights as alluded to by the last speaker that allowed them to enjoy and maintain the full economic benefit of their lands. They were not averse to the concept of economic management. However they did say—and one particular submitter said this last year—that if so there must be a recognition that sustainable management as advanced in Part 1 was a costly method of extracting timber from their lands—and it is. Anyone who does forestry knows that if one goes down the sustainable management path as opposed to clear-felling there will not be the benefit of the return that could be. The forest owners felt intensely—and they still do in some cases and as recently as last night—that if we are to go down a sustainable management path for the benefit of this country another issue has to be addressed and I will come back to that in the debate on Part 2. Some owners were also concerned about the lack of flexibility that sustainable forest management has with regard to their schemes and so on. 
In summary New Zealand First opposes this bill. We find it very very strange—although understandable as the Hon Ken Shirley said last night—that both major parties had made a mess of this bill. The issue it addresses has been a long-outstanding matter and it should have been resolved in 1999. When I look at the record of that day I see it is a pity that it was not resolved then but sits here in residue. In conclusion I say this bill is unique. In fact the only other circumstance that is likely to stand where I could look at anything like it is the recognition that was given to Chinese labourers in the South Island. This is a similar situation in that it is a unique one-off situation. Part 2 has a solution for the Government to look at particularly with regard to clauses 25 and 26. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 The Forests Amendment Bill is a matter of shame to the two major parties. Essentially as the New Zealand First member who has just resumed his seat said this bill will cement in place a disgraceful set of transactions—namely expropriation of property rights. 
I was not on the select committee and the detail of the bill is likely to be beyond me but I can look at Part 1. What underlies this legislation is a view that if one’s property has something on it that others in the community like they can simply decide to expropriate it for their use and pleasure without compensation. It is as simple as that. Although the SILNA owners had been given that land as compensation for earlier losses the community suddenly decided that it liked having native timber on the land it did not want it cut down so it would expropriate it along of course with the value of the forest held by so many others. 
What does that really do? It does not protect native forest. In the short term it may. But there is a scenario that is being repeated all over this country of refusing to allow native forest on one’s land. 
I know a person who had 10 acres of land in an area of very high scenic value. He had been gathering native plants for some time to recreate an environment suitable for birds. It was pointed out to him that if he allowed that forest to grow at some stage the local authority or the Department of Conservation or someone else would say: “You can’t cut it down.” and he would effectively be sterilising his 10 acres. He had no intention whatsoever of creating an eyesore. He would probably have put one or two dwellings in the midst of his new forest. What did he do? He ordered hundreds of eucalypts and planted those instead. 
That pattern is being repeated across this country because the idiots who think that expropriation does not matter do not take into account that humans react when they are treated unfairly. They will not tolerate it. Sometimes they even do things that are not in their own interests because of resentment. One of the resentments that a law like this—simple prohibition and expropriation of value—is creating is that instead of seeing native plants on one’s land as a blessing and something to be proud of they are seen as an asset that the Government might suddenly expropriate. Planting them becomes something to be avoided. 
It is a little bit like archaeological sites. What is the best thing to do if one finds an archaeological site? Run through it with a bulldozer and bury it or destroy it so that hopefully no one can find it! Why is that the best thing? Because the community is busy saying it has value to them but that they will not pay for it. That is exactly what this bill is cementing in place. It is a laughable idea that we can prohibit the milling of indigenous timber without full compensation or indeed any sort of adequate compensation and come to a very complex set of deals that involve tax benefits over a long period of time without changing people’s attitudes substantially as to whether they can trust the Government. 
This bill is another breach of the West Coast Accord. This was an opportunity for the Labour Party to look at what the National Party did in the early 1990s and say that even if National did not have principles then it had 10 years on them and would apply some principle now. This was an opportunity for the Government—especially given the gay abandon with which it will pay $10 million for an island or $40 or $50 million to look after a bunch of rich yacht owners—to say that it will use some of the surplus to restore respect for property rights and show Maori and other New Zealanders that if the community is going to regard people’s assets as being of public benefit it will not make them privately carry the full cost. That is what this Committee should be recommending—that the Government actually shows that it respects principle and that it respects common sense. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 First I want to speak specifically on clause 4(1) which adds new paragraph (g) in section 67C(1) and is to do with the question of planted indigenous forests. Let me say straight away that I am delighted that the Government has seen fit in this bill to extend the opportunity to export indigenous timber to include that which is harvested from a planted indigenous forest. 
I think that if my experience is anything to go by there is an enormous amount of ignorance surrounding the state of indigenous forests in New Zealand. I say that because in the early 1980s in my consulting days I worked on a major project on the West Coast of the South Island that was looking to put beech timber beech wood through a process—which was actually developed by Sir William Pickering and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California—to create a biomass fuel which we were looking to export to Japan. That project did not go ahead but in the course of it I learnt some very interesting things about beech trees which are growing in our virgin forests in New Zealand. One of the things I learnt is that only about one in five beech trees in our forests if cut down is suitable to be converted into timber. One does not actually know that until one cuts the tree down puts it through a mill and saws it down the middle. Very often when the log flops open it is found to have rotted right down the middle. The reason is that those trees are way way past their optimum maturity date for harvesting. 
Therefore I think the Government really needs to give great encouragement now—with all that has happened with the West Coast Accord and all the other history which is well known in this House—to New Zealanders to begin to plant indigenous forests by way of plantation. I refer for a moment to the speech that was just made by Stephen Franks. I think the answer to his friend’s problem would have been to create an indigenous tree plantation on his 10 hectares of land and then he would have in fact had an asset that he would be free to mill and export. That probably would have made a huge difference to the circumstance the member outlined. 
Stephen Franks 
: If we trust them to do what this says in the future—that is the problem. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: Let us for the moment accept the fact that the bill does open up that opportunity. For the first time it makes that clear. I think we should be prepared to pay a bit of credit when something positive like that has been done that leads people in the right direction. 
The second part of clause 4 that I want to talk about is subsection (3) in subclause (2). There is a little bit in brackets. Subsection (3) states: “No indigenous timber (other than personal effects and any finished or manufactured indigenous timber products) may be exported …”. So the ban on the export of indigenous timber products from New Zealand actually has two exclusions. One of them is for personal effects and I assume that means souvenir-type products that we buy in souvenir shops and take out of the country in our luggage to give as wedding presents and the like to people overseas who are fascinated by our range of indigenous woods. 
But also—and this is very important—in working through the issue of the export of manuka and kanuka products for smoking food the officials were good enough to give some legal interpretation of what the words “any finished or manufactured indigenous timber products” actually include. They defined that exclusion as having three component parts to it. The first is that the products must have been manufactured—that is that one used machinery or something actually to change the essential aspect of the original wood into something else. Of course wood-chips come into that category. 
The second requirement is that the product has to have been put into its final shape and form. “Final shape and form” is a term I have some difficulty with from this point of view: although it is a very very neat answer to the problem of exporting manuka and kanuka based products for smoking food it does not seem to me to be very good when it comes to furniture for example for this reason. It seems to me—and the Minister in the chair Mr Hodgson may like to take a call on this issue; it is quite important—that if we were to use say beech to make furniture then to export it in its component parts to be put together again at the other end at the export destination that should be acceptable. But that furniture can hardly be said to be in its final shape and form. If one were to export chairs for example in their final shape and form then the cost of doing that would be prohibitive whereas if one exported them as component parts to be reassembled at the other end I think that would make a great deal more sense. Maybe that is something the Government should continue to look at because law should never just stay in one state; it should evolve. I think it would be useful for us to apply our minds to how to allow furniture products made of indigenous timber to be exported even though they are not in their final shape and form but are in the process of reaching that. 
The third condition is linked inextricably to that because it says the product has to be ready to be used for its intended purpose. Again that would exclude furniture exports in component form. 
So I suggest to the Government that it continue to think about that issue and maybe bring in a further amendment to the Forests Act at some suitable time to allow those exports to happen because I know and I am sure that the Minister in the chair and his officials are also aware that companies in this country are beginning to manufacture some quite superb furniture products out of beech. It looks good it is a hardwood it is a fabulous product and it is a very very high-value product. That is exactly the kind of thing that New Zealand should be doing; it should be using its indigenous resources to produce high-value products. But it seems to me that the law as written still prohibits the export of furniture components and I think that is a problem that the Government should address. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 211 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 97 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 22 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Miscellaneous provisions 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Thank you for the call on Part 2 “Miscellaneous provisions”. I want to continue to develop the line of argument I was pushing before and I am thinking now about clause 25 “Compensation”. 
On the one hand the Government is saying to the SILNA forest owners that it wants them voluntarily to come under a regime of sustainable management. Having got their agreement to do that the Government then belts them with export controls that essentially say they cannot use their assets to their fullest value. But when I read clause 25(1) regarding compensation I see that it provides: “No person is entitled to compensation from the Crown … by reason of the enactment of this Act in—(a) the rights or value of the rights of that person under a contract relating to indigenous timber on any specified Maori land; or (b) the value of indigenous timber on any specified Maori land;”. 
It appears to me that we are trying to have our cake and eat it too. We are trying to bring an end the last of the clear-felling of our indigenous forest because of a decision we took 100 years ago with regard to landless natives in order to give them some type of stake in our country. Now that that asset has some value and now that the Government has changed its mind as to whether that asset will be managed in a sustainable way—in fact it wants to keep it as a pristine environment—it is saying to those people that that land has no value or that it will not pay for its principles. As far as I am concerned that is just not fair. Notwithstanding National’s general thrust in favour of the sustainable management aspects of this bill that is a component that we feel very uncomfortable about. 
Mr Copeland has just described in some detail—and I thought very well—the aspect of import controls and what they are doing to the management of the SILNA forest owners’ assets and the impact on their land values and cash flows. I have to say I can empathise with them. I want to give an example of when I myself owned a property on the West Coast of the South Island. In fact I owned a number of properties but on one in particular I had a stand of forestry that was valued at $750000 one day and the next day I was told I could not harvest that timber. I know that Damien O’Connor is interested in this because he fought the good fight at the time. The next day I was told I could not use it and my land values diminished accordingly. I was not entitled to any compensation. The Government was not prepared to pay for its principles then and I see it is doing the same thing now. It is just not fair. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Was that in 1992? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: It does not matter when it was; the reality is that that was what was in place. Damien O’Connor is here. I know he wants to get on his feet take a call and rekindle the fight for the people of the West Coast because he was very vociferous in his concern at the time. He rolled over unfortunately but I suppose that is politics; he was party to that Cabinet decision. But now he has the opportunity as the legislation is being relitigated to get up fight the good fight for the people on the West Coast and tell them that the decision was wrong then and is wrong now for the SILNA forest owners down south. 
It is a matter that is deeply contradictory and deeply hypocritical. The hypocrisy of the argument is what concerns me most. The Government is saying to people who have legitimate title to an asset that the asset is theirs but it will tell them how they can use it. On the one hand it wants sustainable management. Those people having abided by that and having agreed voluntarily to come under a regime of sustainable management the Government then says: “By the way you cannot sell some of the product.” That is simply not fair. The forests are either sustainable or not sustainable. If they are sustainable then the Government should let people make their own decisions without putting impediments in their way. That is what clause 25 should address. If the Government is not prepared to do that it should compensate. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 Looking at Part 2 “Miscellaneous provisions” of the Forests Amendment Bill I was reminded by the struck-out provisions that as the last speaker has just said with regard to the West Coast was a very costly reallocation—$120 million worth of reallocation of taxpayer funds—to prevent taxpayer-owned forests being milled. As I wish to move to the actual clause—clause 25 “Compensation”—that clause is a very appropriate place to start from. 
At the present time the forests that are the subject of debate are currently exempt from sustainable forest management sawmilling and generic export controls. If this bill is enacted that state is about to be changed. At the time of the submissions in both 1999 and June last year some submitters made a very strong call with regard to clause 25. As they began to look carefully at that clause they saw that the demand for a sustainable forest regime was—as Mr Connell has already said—nothing more nor less than an appropriation of their inherent property rights and they have maintained that position throughout. Historically there is still a sense of grievance with regard to those lands and clause 25 adds to that sense of grievance. 
I have to say that that feeling is not shared by all and that some owners who have benefited from the Department of Conservation’s uptake of their blocks feel otherwise. But there are a substantial number of owners out there who will still feel a real sense of grievance over the passage of this bill. As Mr Franks has already said they feel that there is no sound reason why they alone because they do not live on the West Coast have become public benefactors. 
 Contrast the position with regard to clause 25 of a SILNA landowner living somewhere in New Zealand but having a historical affinity to his or her land—in this case not by an ancestral connection but by a statute recognising his or her rights. How would he or she feel knowing that the West Coast was enhanced by $120 million of taxpayer money for taxpayer trees? 
In this case not one dollar can be found for what has been regarded by this Government and past Governments as part of a valuable national resource. I say again to the Minister that I believe the Government needs to give more mind to the matter of adequate compensation such as was found in a very agreeable sense and quite speedily for those West Coast people who had no property rights at all. 
The Local Government and Environment Committee addressed the matters in clauses 26 and 26A and particular provision is made for one of the incorporations. The main message I want to leave is that some owners have a sense of grievance that has not changed to this day. The issue of compensation remains and the bill does not adequately provide for that. In the other part of this legislation regarding the West Coast lands the Government saw a way to reward a community that did not own the land—we did. It did not own the trees—we did. 
In this case there is an opportunity for the Government to consult with the owners and come to an agreeable long-term understanding. It can thereby take out and give honour at long last to an issue that began to develop in the 1870s continued through 1888 to 1890 until finally there was a bill in 1906. It should recognise as well that the historical passage of changes by Government administration in the years after 1906 was also quite deplorable with regard to the SILNA lands. On behalf of the whole community the time has come to look to this matter and see whether the Government can do better than it has done. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 2 I think the concerns raised about compensation have been well covered. I would like to look at clause 26 which refers to specified contracts relating to the harvest and export of indigenous timber. This bill was introduced in 1999. It was an attempt to bring sustainable forestry on to a level playing field for all participants. Conservationists have felt that this bill has been too little too late. Current generic export controls in the Forests Act ban the export of woodchips and logs but allow the export of sustainably produced beech and rimu sawn timber finished products and personal effects. This bill as introduced would have allowed a broader range of products but the policy of this Government which changed that decision is to retain export controls on woodchips and that was not originally foreseen. 
This bill has a significant effect on SILNA forest owners. As Mr Peters pointed out the Act of 1906 provided for the allocation of about 57000 hectares of land throughout the South Island to more than 4000 named Maori who were identified as having insufficient land to support themselves. About 17300 hectares of forested land affected by this policy now remains which is pretty substantial. Although there are concerns around compensation clear-felling is still going on and I guess that is why conservationists were concerned about this bill being too little too late. 
Most affected SILNA forest owners are in the lower South Island and are the descendants of those who were granted land. They expressed concern during the submission process about the lack of consultation—as reiterated by Jim Peters—and about the lack of compensation as well. These export provisions significantly affect them. They affect those who wish to take that sustainable forestry management option under the SILNA forest policy. Many are concerned about the loss of export markets. I reiterate that just because there might not be a market for woodchip that does not justify a ban on woodchip. A broader range of products should be able to be exported rather than have the constraints this bill imposes. It is better to allow these people to fully maximise their opportunities. 
The provision in Part 2 on specified contracts relates to the export of indigenous timber harvested from specified Maori land. That all relates to the areas I am covering. Reimposition of export controls is counter to the principle of unrestricted economic benefit so that has been a major concern for the SILNA forest owners. The economic issues were fully explored especially with the likely impact of the restriction on exports from sustainably managed forests. The owners believe that the export controls would severely affect them. The advice received was that the extent to which the export controls were likely to materially affect the SILNA owners was not clear-cut—there was nothing very clear-cut about the actual effects in the final outcome. 
This bill has taken as long as that to be brought back to the House by this Government. One wonders what it did in the interim after the bill was introduced in 1999 by the Hon Nick Smith. If we look back at  
Hansard 
 we find that during the 1980s the Hon Jim Sutton had an opportunity to address these issues but they weretoo difficult and complex and so it was left. It was picked up in the 1990s by the Hon Nick Smith and an attempt made to address the complications around this whole issue in an endeavour to bring everybody under sustainable forestry logging regulations. This proposal was put forward but some very significant aspects have been changed by the current Government and there are some concerns around that. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 As everyone is aware the ACT party certainly opposes this legislation. I would just like to reflect on the principles that underpin Part 2 which deals with compensation regimes and show what a nonsense this bill is. All owners of indigenous forest in this land lost their property rights with the passage of the Forests Amendment Act in 1996 without any compensation whatsoever. That was bad legislation based on the premise that New Zealanders could not be trusted to retain the remaining indigenous cover on our landscape. 
Sure through the 1970s and 1980s we had quite substantial clear-felling. The point is that it was driven by agricultural subsidies. Farmers were given subsidies to go out and clear beech forest. They were then given subsidies to bring the land into production. Subsidies drove the clear-felling. 
When we think about it we owned a precious resource—but the native forest was seen as just wasteland. One could not do anything with it. There was no international market for specialist timbers as recently as the 1960s and 1970s. Farming was the only productive use of the land so the Government gave subsidies to clear the forest. That all changed prior to this Parliament passing the Forests Amendment Act which was driven by the Green movement which was very concerned about forest clearance. The world changed and there is now a very great market for high-value specialist timbers—often associated with low volume. So the best asset of a landowner immediately became indigenous forest. Who would want to go out and clear-fell it and convert it to pasture when the standing timber is the value? That is sustainable forestry and that concept became globally accepted through that same era. 
My point is that this country’s entire indigenous forest policy is based on a stack of cards. It is foolish and stupid and those property owners who have had that right stripped off them by the indigenous forests Act receive no compensation at all. Beech is a very easy timber to grow on a rotational basis. It is a fast-growing species and can be harvested every 30 to 40 years. Ideally it would be done in coupes. The original indigenous forest plan had coupe sizes of five hectares. That is a very sensible thing to do because the natural situation is that the wind-blow goes through beech forest and often a five-hectare patch is cleared by the wind-blow anyway. 
Beech does not need replanting. There is a massive seed bank in the soil and any clearing is sprouted over very quickly. Better-quality timber comes up in those fast-growing clearings. That is the natural cycle of beech forests. But what the successive Governments in this country have said is that the Government needs to step in and take away property rights. We got to the ludicrous situation on the West Coast which relates to this bill directly of this Labour Government saying that indigenous forest cannot even be cleared in a five-hectare coupe size. 
The proposal was to have one tree per hectare extracted by helicopter on a 15-year rotation. No one could ever see where the tree came from. That was not good enough for this Labour Government. It said that even that could not be done. The West Coast forestry corporation said it had a viable business with high-value export products. It asked to extract one tree per hectare by helicopter on a 15-year rotation but the green nutcases in the Labour Party driven by their mantras tore up the West Coast Accord—which the Hon Phil Goff had signed in October 1987—and totally reneged on the commitment in the West Coast Accord that said harvesting could be done on a sustainable basis in perpetuity. 
I always thought “in perpetuity” meant forever—but not in the Labour Government! As far as Labour was concerned it meant for only 10 or 12 years. Labour ripped up the accord—totally reneged on it—with no compensation and now it is having the anguish of how to compensate the landless Maori who are covered by the South Island Landless Maoris Act. What an absolute nonsense! What I say is: yes those landless natives do have a property right and yes it should be respected but so should the property rights of every other indigenous forest owner in this country. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to speak briefly on exactly the same issue—the issue of compensation that is in clause 25 of Part 2 of the bill. Brian Connell has already read it but I will summarise: “No person is entitled to compensation from the Crown in respect of any diminution by reason of the enactment of this Act in … (b) the value of indigenous timber on any specified Maori land; or (c) the value of any specified Maori land.” 
This is a very serious clause to have in legislation coming before this House. It is a breach I think of the Magna Carta and it is obviously a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi—and I will come back to that in a moment. I think it is a crying shame that property rights in New Zealand are not enshrined in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The House will be aware that I have introduced a member’s bill to enshrine private property rights and full and just compensation provisions into the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
No less a figure than Sir Geoffrey Palmer whom some regard as the father of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act has said that it was a mistake not to put those measures into the Act. If ever that had to be verified then surely this clause that we have before us tonight is evidence of that. 
The point that I also want to come back to concerns the Treaty of Waitangi. I thought in fact I know that the Treaty of Waitangi—which we all agree is the founding document of this nation and which people say is a solemn document a covenant etc.—states clearly that we will not deprive Maori of their forests. So how come we can stand here in the House tonight and pass this bill with this clause in it? 
The only reason I can go along with that is because as I mentioned in my second reading speech I have had a letter from the Waimumu Trust which has lodged a claim with the Waitangi Tribunal seeking compensation for the removal without compensation of its property rights and forests. The trust has urged us to vote for this bill so that it can quickly become law because only then it is told will the Waitangi Tribunal hear the trust’s claim. 
So in making those few comments the last I would like to make is that I wish the trust luck with its claim because it does seem to me that we are just repeating some of our sad history when we can on this occasion pass a bill that specifically says “We are taking away your property rights but we intend to pay you no compensation whatsoever.” 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 211 in the name of Hon Pete Hodgson to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to 
Ayes 97 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 22 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 1A 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I have been thinking as this debate has progressed about what the appropriate title for this legislation is. My first reaction was the “Voluntary Sustainable Management Bill”. If this bill had that as its major thrust then I think that would be an appropriate title because the concept of sustainable management is something I can agree with. Anything that stops our last significant indigenous forest from being clear-felled must clearly be supported. However and it is a very big “however” how can we say that we have asked people to come into a voluntary sustainable management regime and then tell them what they can and cannot do with their property? That makes me think that maybe the appropriate title is the “Forest Export Control Bill” because what we are saying to these individuals is that now that we have them agreeing to a sustainable management regime we will put in place export control legislation. That is where I really get lost with the Government’s thread on this. If it is sustainable why can we not allow these forest owners to manage and sell their product in the way they choose because by definition the way they are getting those products is sustainable? 
 That makes no sense to me whatsoever. So on balance I think “Forests Export Control Bill” is a better title than what has been proposed so far. The other component is the compensation—or in fact no compensation. That gives rise to another possible title which is the “No Compensation Bill”. 
Clause 25 is one that other speakers as well as myself have been taking calls on. This is something that I feel a huge disquiet over. How can we assume that there is no value to these forests at all to the owners of these forests? We can say to them: “You cannot manage your assets in this way any longer.” How can it be that we can affect their property values the balance sheets of their businesses the cash flows of their businesses and not look at the aspect of compensation? I think the Minister in the chair Pete Hodgson is duty-bound to take a call and explain why he believes that this component of the legislation is fair and reasonable because I am really struggling with this part to find an argument that enables me to support it. 
That is why I say that the “No Compensation Bill” is a better title on balance than the others that have been suggested. The title “Forests Amendment Bill” is simply not representative of the key components of this legislation. 
I want to go back to the issue of sustainable management. If we have a regime of sustainable management are there not some inherent contradictions about how we then limit the way people will market that product? 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: That’s right. Once you cut it down it doesn’t matter. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Absolutely not. Provided it is done in a sustainable way what difference can it make? I notice Damien O’Connor in the Chamber a member who has been silent on this. I really thought he would take a call because this is an issue that must be dear to his heart. I remember him taking a very strong position on behalf of constituents on the West Coast when they were told by the Government that they could not manage their forests in a sustainable way. He cried foul and said that it was not fair. I ask Mr O’Connor what the difference is. Why is he not on his feet now rekindling the argument and fighting not only for his constituents on the West Coast but also for people down south? That is why I come back to it again. The “Forest Export Control Bill” may be a better title on balance because essentially they are the two aspects of this legislation that are most bothersome. I know that Mr O’Connor will take a call because I know he wants to respond. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I am wondering where the member for Te Tai Tonga is in the debate on the title of this bill. Where is the Maori voice with regard to that member’s constituents? As I said from the start on behalf of New Zealand First I do not see this as a Treaty of Waitangi bill—that is Waitangi claim 158 which has been partly resolved and will be further resolved yet. Having said that one would expect during the course of the Committee stage that at least the member for Te Tai Tonga who represents the area would have shown a profound interest in and deep understanding of the real concerns of his people over the South Island. I am waiting to hear whether he will stand and speak in this debate. If not him why not the other six members of Parliament who represent Maori interests? In recent days they have said so strongly what they feel and understand about their Maori constituents in this city and elsewhere who are also part of the widespread number of people who have affinity to the South Island Landless Maoris Act. 
Again though with regard to the commencement date of the Forests Amendment Bill which comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the royal assent I bring to the Committee the fact that after almost a century of indifference at times and inattention to the ability to realise the benefit of the lands in this day and age there is an opportunity for the Government of the day as in the case of the West Coast to recognise that in its restriction of the individual landowning right of owners to best manage their economic resources there should come a charge upon the Government—namely that of compensation. If I were to retitle this bill I would call it the “Forests Amendment Compensation Bill” because that would more fit what should be the mode of the Government at the present time. I look particularly at the member for West Coast - Tasman who worked so sorely and hard for his constituents on what was formerly the West Coast Accord. I know that he for one would support any attempt by the Minister in the chair Pete Hodgson to give better remedy and more relief to the SILNA landowners. 
I confess that I have a mokopuna who will be a beneficiary in days to come of any of this largesse but that is not the reason why I speak. I speak because in actual fact as I said at the beginning of the debate a statute of the House from 1906 needs to be honoured still. The promises made by James Carroll and endorsed by Premier Ward remain unfulfilled. If the Government looked seriously at the remaining land and its value in terms of the forest cover and what it could mean to our future it would find there is only issue: adequate and timely compensation under a “Forests Amendment Compensation Act”. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 1A agreed to.  
House resumed. 
Procedure 
The bill was reported with amendment. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 97 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 22 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Report adopted.