Wood processors balk at review

By PAULA OLIVER forestry writer

Crucial investment in wood-processing and opportunities for regional growth could be stifled by a parliamentary select committee's decision to recommend only minor changes to the Resource Management Act, say forestry leaders.

Forestry, as one of the industries working closely with the act, was one of the most determined lobby groups for change during the review process.

The parliamentary panel's report on the Resource Management Amendment Bill has been greeted with disappointment by many business leaders.

The forestry industry faces a big increase in harvesting levels over the next decade, and many - including Deputy Prime Minister Jim Anderton - regard further development of wood-processing facilities as crucial.

Industry leaders said the Resource Management Act was hampering such development by tying up potential investors in red tape for so long and at such cost that they eventually walked away.

The chief executive of the New Zealand Forest Owners' Association, Rob McLagan, said the select committee's findings were disappointing.

"It hasn't tackled some of the fundamental problems and deficiencies in the legislation, and that could seriously impact on further investment in forestry processing in New Zealand," he said.

"That in turn would have an effect on the potential for the industry to improve regional development, and job growth in the regions."

The newly formed Wood Processing Industry Steering Group has targeted the act.

A group subcommittee is looking at ways of working within the act and investigating the idea of establishing emission standards for processing plants. One of its big concerns is that applicants get different consent verdicts in different regions.

The group says the problem is not the act, but the way it is applied.

It wants to single out local government representatives who best handle the act and highlight them for best-practice guidelines.

Weyerhaeuser NZ managing director Nick Roberts said the act was a hurdle for investment.

He had considered building a sawmill in the Tasman District in the late 1990s, but decided not to - partly because of the prospect of 18 months of consultative work.

"I know it's a hurdle. I know that in Chile, a similar process would take three months," he said.

"I'm not advocating that Chile's way is the right way to do it, but from an international perspective, if you're looking to invest in radiata sawmilling, you'd have choices. Chile grows radiata."

Both Mr McLagan and the Resource Management Business Forum said that the amendment bill should go no further in its present form.

"This was an opportunity that's been watered down, and watered down as it has gone on," Mr McLagan said.

"The concern we have is that if it is passed in its present form then the view will be that, 'We've now met a lot of the concerns and we don't need to address the issue for a long time again.' That would be a shame."

Mr McLagan said the industry did not disagree with the intent of the act but felt that the intent was not being met.