Forest assets bill ‘critical’

Press, 29 July 1989, Page 8

Forest assets bill ‘critical’

PA Wellington Legislation enabling the Crown to sell its exotic forests was introduced to Parliament last evening. The Minister for State-Owned Enterprises, Mr Stan Rodger, said the Crown Forest Assets Bill was a critical step in liberating the forestry industry’s enormous potential and in creating thousands of jobs. The bill also formalised the agreement between the Crown and Maori interests relating to the Treaty of Waitangi as affected by forestry sale issues, Mr Rodger said. The first part deals with the management of Crown forest land and the second enables the responsible Ministers to transfer Crown forestry assets. Where those assets are trees, it requires the granting of a licence over the land they grow on. Mr Rodger said every licence was to include “appropriate protective covenants” including

those covering archaeological sites, forest research areas, conservation areas and public access. “I think it is important that some public misconceptions about the thrust of this aspect of the proposed legislation be cleared up.... “The way these issues have been presented in the media by a certain vested Interest group has been misguided, misleading and, I would go so far as to say, downright untrue.” He refuted Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society claims earlier this week that the bill would negate soil and water laws, and wildlife, Maori and archaeological protections. "We have developed a comprehensive and sensible set of policies to ensure proper safeguards exist.” However, this bill was not the Government’s vehicle for detailing those key environmental issues. The Crown forestry

licences would contain the necessary conservation covenants. On the agreement between the Crown and Maori interests, dealt with in parts three, four and five, Mr Rodger said buyers would get a right to use the land for a term to be extended automatically by a year until notice of termination is given. This “evergreen” term and the termination period would be long enough to let any trees planted on the land reach maturity for felling, he said. If the Waitangi Tribunal recommended the return of the land and trees to Maori ownership, there would be a number of options for compensation from the Crown. The buyer of tree-cutting rights would neither be involved in compensation payment to the successful claimant nor require compensation from the Crown. This would minimise any discount in the transaction for

perceived risk of successful land claims. Land rental payments would go into a trust fund from the time of the forest’s sale until a Waitangi Tribunal recommendation. Final beneficiaries would be successful claimants or the Crowh. The Crown would pay the New Zealand Maori Council $1 million to cover the expenses of preparing and fulfilling the agreement. Without the agreement, the value of the sale might have been discounted as much as 20 per cent because of buyers’ concern about tenure, he said. But the Opposition Leader, Mr Bolger, attacked the Government for denying the public input on the bill and for coming to an agreement with just 10 per cent of New Zealanders. “They are avoiding the select, committee because they are fearful of the deal they have made with Maoris being shown up for what it is,” Mr Bolger said.