WAIPOUA STATE FOREST

Press, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 25554, 23 July 1948, Page 3

WAIPOUA STATE FOREST

RECOMMENDATION OF NATIONAL PARK MOTION “TALKED OUT” IN HOUSE XP.A.) WELLINGTON, July 22. The House of Representatives epent all afternoon discussing the future of the Waipoua State Forest without reaching a conclusion. The Lands Committee recommended that petitions asking for the forest to be set aside as a national park be referred to the Government for favourable consideration. A motion for the adoption of the recommendation was “talked put,” a vote not being reached before the tea adjournment, after which, by Standing Orders, the House has to proceed to orders of the day. Mr E. B. Gordon (Opposition. Rangitikei) said the committee was by no means unanimous in recommending the Government to give favourable consideration to a request that the whole of the Waipoua area be preserved as a national park. Actually, the Minister in charge (Mr C. F. Skinner) had moved that the plan for Waipoua prepared by the State Forest Service should be approved and the petitions rejected. The Government’s plan was to preserve only 7400 acres intact out of an area of 39,000. Outside that 7400 acres dead trees would be milled, taking about seven years, after which mature and dying trees would be felled, taking another three years. After that period of 10 years it was proposed to conduct further milling. eventually taking all trees of a diameter exceeding three feet.

“Minister Uncompromising” Mr Gordon said it became clear to the committee that the Government wished to commercialise the Waipoua Forest. The Minister adopted an uncompromising attitude, leaving those who disagreed with him no option but to support the petitions. Mr Gordon personally felt that if an area of 14,000 acres, including the best blocks of kauri, could be set aside there would be no reason why the remainder of the forest should not be milled with caution.

Mr Gordon commended the planting of exotic trees in certain areas to protect the kauris. He said he did not favour the setting up of a separate body to administer Waipoua. He had confidence in the State Forest Service officers, but he wished to see the last primeval kauri forest protected by law for all time. Mr Ormond Wilson (Government, Palmerston North) said the access road which had been cut through the Waipoua Forest had not damaged the kauris, and it should be possible to give further access for tourists and trampers without damage to the trees, provided there was full protection against carelessness. While there was a natural wish to set aside the whole area for preservation, it could not be forgotten that at least 3000 acres of exotic trees would have to be milled at some t:me. Other areas of mixed native bush required to, be carefully nursed and developed. The Forest Service was best qualified to administer the area, but interested individuals and organisations might be co-opted to contribute from their knowledge and experience. Great National Asset

Mr R. G. Gerard (Opposition. Ashburton) said too much of New Zealand’s forests had been destroyed in a vandal-like manner, and everything possible should be done to preserve what was now a rare national asset. He hoped the Minister’s plans would bfc frustrated. He had been horrified at the uncompromising intention of Mr Skinner to commercialise the forest. If that intention were carried out the forest could be ruined in four or five years.

“This is avaricious Socialism in practice,” said Mr Gerard, who urged other members of the Cabinet to stand firm against the Commissioner of State Forests. Mr F. Langstone (Government. Roskill) said that Waipoua was the last large remaining stand of the great forests in the North Auckland peninsula, and the House owed it to posterity to see it was preserved. It would be a tragic disaster if that were not done. While the State Forest Service was concerned with the growing and sellins of timber, it could also be the custodian of the forest if it were put under its -jurisdiction.

Mr D. C. Kidd (Opposition, Waiiftgtei said Waipoua was the heritage of the people. If it were to be preserfr&l as a park he thought it could well be placed in the care of the State Forest Service. He hoped that 14,000 acres or the lot would be set aside. Mr A. C. Baxter (Government, Rag-

lan) said that, like other members of the House, he had received a telegram from the Whangarei Progressive Society urging the preservation of the forest as a national park. He objected to pressure groups trying to influence him at tfce time a matter of national importance was under consideration. He thought very few people who signed the petitions knew the facts, and it was not until members of the committee visited the forest and had the’position explained to them that they knew what was going on. Although he had voted for the recommendation, there was no doubt that the most capable organisation to administer the forest was the State Forest Service. Mr D. M. Rae (Opposition, Parnell) said he thought tile forest should be handed over to a national park board with sufficient funds to enable it to function. Voting in Committee Mr M. Moohan (Government, Petone) said that as a member of the committee he disagreed with the recommendation, which was against the weight of evidence and mo'st contradictory. The committee decided by four votes to three, with two members absent, to support the petitions. The committee had in fact declared itself in favour of three petitions, which in themselves were contradictory. His desire was to preserve the forest, but by the methods adopted by the State Forest Service, which involved taking out all dead timber and assisting in the regeneration of kauris and other trees. Mr R. M. Algie (Opposition, Remuera) said that in the view of two Auckland experts the kauri forest would not tolerate interference. If they were wrong not much harm would be done, but if the Minister’s plans were wrong the damage that would be created would be irrevocable and he would be remembered for ever for the damage he had wrought. Minister Defends Policy Mr Skinner said the present policy advocated by the State Forest Service had been endorsed by previous Governments. It was not a new policy as far as Waipoua was concerned. The Lands Committee was unanimous in its desire to preserve the Waipoua forest, but differences were expressed by members on the methods. Many local bodies in North Auckland and many other organisations had endorsed what the State Forest Service had proposed, and many people who were on the spot and who had the opportunity of seeing the situation for themselves were in favour of the State Forest Service scheme. Mr Skinner said there was a vast difference between the motion put to the Lands Committee and the version given by the member for Rangitikei. The Wainoua forest was not a primeval forest. Every one of the kauri had been damaged by “bleeding” for gum. His opinion was that the dead timber should be extracted and the dying trees taken out. Nor was Waipoua a healthy forest. If it was regenerated and nature encouraged, that would not only preserve the forest but also make it better. If it was not for the State Forest Service there would be no Waipoua to-day He could auote authorities to support what the State Forest Service had done At the same time he agreed that not a great deal was known about the kauri yet. One could see the good effects the treatment was having on kauri trees in the forest.

Mr E. B. Corbett (Opposition. Egmont) said the House would have no regrets in adopting the recommendation of the committee, but if the axe was put into the forest to the extent desired by the Forestry Department there would be scars left which would never be healed. Mr P. Kearins (Government, Waimarino) said h* 3 was convinced the Commissioner of State Forests was determined to conserve the timber re-

sources of the country and that the policy the Minister put forward for Waipoua was the best one for the preservation of the forest. Mr A. J. Murdoch (Opposition, Marsden) said that as the member who presented the petition containing 50,000 signatures he wished to thank the committee. Although differently worded, the intention of all petitions was the same. Mr C. Carr (Government, Timaru) said there was a big difference between a managed or regenerated forest and a primeval forest. He might be old-fashioned, but he had yet to learn of the department or man who could improve on what God and nature did. Forest management, might be possible with an exotic forest but certainly not with primeval forests. Attitude of Committee The Minister of Finance (Mr W. Nash) said he was satisfied it would be wrong to send the recommendation of the committee to the Government. Not one member of the committee was satisfied with the recommendation. Every member of the committee had expressed a different view from that of the recommendation. It was recommended that the forest be placed under a trust board, but every member had said it should be in the charge of the State Forest Service. The matter obviously required more consideration, and he suggested that the report be referred back to the committee. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. G. Holland): Why not let every member decide for himself. Let us take a vote. Mr Nash said the petitions themselves were in conflict with each . other. _____________