Dyson Ruth: West Coast Wind-blown Timber (Conservation Lands) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is subject to correctionDyson Ruth: West Coast Wind-blown Timber (Conservation Lands) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 26 June 2014. Volume:702;Page:18941. Text is subject to correction.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I found that a really muddled speech from the Minister of Conservation and it does lead me to the conclusion that actually this is not a serious consideration about the needs of West Coast people. By crikey do I ever hear that representation regularly from Damien O’Connor as he tells me and other colleagues about the battering that the West Coast has had to endure under this Government which is totally out of touch with the needs and the realities of people. The Minister of Conservation I think is playing a cheap political stunt game with this legislation the West Coast Wind-blown Timber (Conservation Lands) Bill. He had the audacity to ask the House why it would let fallen trees rot on the ground. Actually it is because that has been in the Conservation Act for 27 years it has had enduring support from this Parliament and he is the Minister of Conservation who is responsible for implementing the Conservation Act so that question just made a nonsense of him and his position.But that is not the first time actually. That Minister has stood alongside his colleagues and said that we have to balance the economy with the environment. We always have to have this balance. That is why when the Minister of Conservation is making decisions about mining on conservation land he no longer has that authority himself—he has to share it with the Minister of Energy and Resources. What nonsense! That dual decision-making puts the Minister of Conservation right out of the loop in the traditional role as being an advocate for conservation and his speech confirmed that today.If this was urgent legislation to give a commitment to West Coast people that they would have better employment—good jobs well-paid jobs—in their local community we would certainly back it but that is not what the Government is proposing. The Minister of Conservation actually confirmed that when he answered a question from Damien O’Connor in the House yesterday. The Minister started talking about a sawmill in Nelson that could benefit from this legislation. That was a little different—a total flip-flop—from the commitment he gave to the West Coasters that this was about them and their jobs. No such commitment is in the legislation.I want to talk about the other points that Labour has raised with the Government. Oh and by the way we have not had a response. This legislation is so urgent that the Prime Minister cannot even be bothered responding to another political party on the points that it has raised about it. Let me go through those points. I am sure that the Leader of the House Gerry Brownlee who is going to take the next call will respond to some of them and explain why we have not even had the courtesy of a response from the Prime Minister. The first point is that 3 months after this event which caused such terrible results for the West Coast not just for the forests but for individuals’ homes and properties—it was just the most destructive force that we have seen for many years other than the earthquakes obviously—Nick Smith says that we are going to have this bill not just introduced not with a truncated select committee process and not with any consideration of the actual time that is required to get logging permits out but that we are going to ram this bill through all stages under urgency.I know the National Party conference is starting on Friday night so the National Party members do not care if they are stuck in Wellington. It might actually be a very generous way of saving taxpayers’ money by not enabling them to commute home tomorrow and come back on Friday night—Mike Sabin: It could just be to stop the timber from rotting on the ground while we stand in here postulating.Chris Auchinvole: The timber would rot.Hon RUTH DYSON: There is no need for urgency on this and if there was some time constraint we put it in writing that we would support a truncated select committee process. If West Coasters are so important Mr Sabin and Mr Auchinvole give them a chance to have a say. Give them a chance to have a say through a select committee process. This is a cheap political stunt not a serious commitment to the West Coast. That is the first point. Justify this outrageous use of urgency through all stages without anyone having an opportunity to have a say. There is no commitment despite what the Minister of Conservation said to make sure that any jobs that are a result of this legislation go to West Coasters. That was the second point that we made. There is no need for the 5-year time frame of this and we proposed a 2-year time frame which would be more than adequate. This bill does not say that there will be a truncated process of consideration under the Resource Management Act. It says that the Resource Management Act does not apply—it does not apply. There could be wholesale environmental degradation with no comeback—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Rubbish!Hon RUTH DYSON: —because the law says those specific sections of the Resource Management Act do not apply. It is in the legislation and if you are arguing about it Dr Smith read the bill. It is in your name. It is a total embarrassment to have the Minister of Conservation charged under statute with protecting our most precious land and surrounds saying: “Oh but don’t worry about the Resource Management Act. Destroy the environment destroy the rivers and do what you like because it’s so urgent and so important.” We said that it was not appropriate to absolutely remove any provisions of protection under the Resource Management Act.We wanted some consideration given to the people whose livelihoods currently depend on the legal milling of indigenous trees. They are not doing all that well. We know that there are stockpiles. We know that they have not got booming businesses. What does flooding the market with trees under this legislation do to people who have a legitimate business already? What does it do to them? I know that the National Party is all keen on market forces but this changes the rules totally for those people who already have a legitimate business and they are very unhappy about that. What about the people who worked so hard to get their rights under SILNA finally determined? What does it do to them? Ah there is a bit of silence from the National members; it is a pleasant change. They do not give a toss actually about the livelihoods of the existing West Coast business people who fought to get their businesses going who have been acting inside the law—Chris Auchinvole: No come on. You shut them down. You forced them to go exotic.Hon RUTH DYSON: —and who are struggling for both beech and rimu. There are existing businesses—Chris Auchinvole does not even know who they are. That is extraordinary. There are existing businesses that have permits that will have their market flooded as a result of this legislation. Existing businesses will be threatened rather than having their workforce enhanced.The final point I want to make is that the maps that are supposed to describe the areas on the West Coast that will be available for logging under this bill should be included in the legislation. If you are going to go through all stages of a bill under urgency—and gosh we have seen some problems from Nick Smith in terms of legislation rammed through and with inappropriate use of ministerial powers before; this would not be the first time by any means—then we want to try to make a bad bill better. It should have the scrutiny of a select committee. It should have the maps that describe the areas from which logs will be able to be taken as part of the legislation not as an add-on.There are some quite fundamental problems with this legislation. I saw the pretty picture in the paper. The Department of Conservation paid $6500 for the picture of Peter Dunne Te Ururoa Flavell and Dr Nick Smith sitting surrounded by felled trees. I think they should ask for a refund. It was pretty awful actually. You could have done a better one on your smartphone Dr Smith. You could have done a selfie. It cost $6500 for a photo opportunity just 3 months out from an election. What does that say about the cynicism of the National Party? What does it say about the desperation of the Hon Peter Dunne and Te Ururoa Flavell from the Māori Party that they will travel all that way in order to get a photo op with the Minister?Mr Brownlee when you take the call please give us the courtesy of responding to the letter. We have had no response at all from the Prime Minister and it is not good enough.