Fran O’Sullivan: Logging inquiry must be just the first step

Debris on the Napier shoreline raises the question: Has the logging industry outlived its usefulness to the region? Photo / Mark Mitchell

OPINION:

Chris Hipkins has forcefully stamped his mark on Cabinet by ensuring that his colleague Stuart Nash established a quick ministerial inquiry into land uses associated with the mobilisation of woody debris (including forestry slash) and sediment in Tairāwhiti/Gisborne District and Wairoa District.

Hipkins — who had seen the damage with his own eyes — could not ignore the scale of the devastation on the East Cape.

After earlier flooding, Nash had been reluctant to order a review, let alone an inquiry. In January 2020, he told RNZ there was no need for an inquiry into forestry practices in the aftermath of Cyclone Hale, which caused widespread damage in Tairāwhiti.

But what we have observed over the past fortnight simply puts New Zealand in the Third World category. It is questionable whether the damage from Cyclone Gabrielle — which was again exacerbated by the heavy downpours which took place overnight — wipes out any economic utility the industry has to New Zealand in that part of the country. That’s because the multi-billion-dollar damage suffered by the dairy and horticulture sectors due to the “runoff” of slash exacerbated the scale and impact of the flooding.

Hipkins is an experienced politician.

He would surely know that the scale of this disaster also demands a full-scale Commission of Inquiry with all the powers attendant with that. Not just the quick turnaround of the Hekia Parata-chaired ministerial inquiry, even if it results in Cabinet taking a courageous call to rule out further planting of exotic pine forests in vulnerable terrain and ordering the firms involved to fund a clean-up of the existing debris.

Forestry is a $6 billion industry — and one that is growing.

That’s particularly so as New Zealand continues to use it as an offset against making real inroads into our greenhouse gas emissions in other sectors. The upshot is that New Zealand has enticed foreign companies to grow more pine trees in unsuitable terrain and has failed to ensure they behave like good corporate citizens and clean up after themselves.

Offshore forestry companies have not always operated to best international practice in New Zealand. That has already been upheld in the successful prosecutions of five companies on the East Cape which resulted in fines after heavy rainfall caused significant runoff and substantial downstream effects.

As legal firm Anderson Lloyd said after the earlier prosecutions, the flooding had highlighted the need for careful environmental management and monitoring of forestry estates, particularly in areas where there is a high risk of erosion due to the underlying terrain.

The firm said one of the more high-profile cases highlighted the need for local authorities to proactively ensure that forestry activities are complying with consent conditions. It noted the court had considered that the failure by the relevant local authority to undertake compliance inspections over the preceding five years during which the consent had been in place was “reprehensible and irresponsible, to say the least”.

Anderson Lloyd also noted that many forestry estates are owned by international entities which may be subject to ongoing requirements by the Overseas Investment Office (OIO). The OIO’s good-character obligations could be frustrated by convictions for regulatory offending.

The District Court did deny an application made by an international entity seeking a discharge without conviction, partly on the basis of the likely impact of a conviction on their OIO obligations. “Overseas based stakeholders in primary industry therefore need to be particularly mindful of ensuring good environmental management practices are in place,” said the law firm. This demonstrably has not happened.

The Parata-led inquiry will be a simple two-month affair which the Government says will help address the impacts of weather events such as cyclones Hale and Gabrielle and earlier events. It will investigate past and current land-use practices and the impact of woody debris including forestry slash and sediment on communities, livestock, buildings and the environment. It will also look at associated economic drivers and constraints. As a short-term measure, this inquiry will produce a roadmap at best for Cabinet.

But this inquiry falls way short of those established in the wake of the two most significant recent disasters — the 2011 Christchurch earthquakes and the 2010 Pike River Mine disaster.

As the Department of Internal Affairs observes, ministerial inquiries are established by Cabinet, which initiates them with “agreement from the Prime Minister”. But these non-statutory inquiries have limitations.

First, they lack the powers to summon witnesses and take evidence on oath. Says DIA, “there may be public suspicion about the independence and transparency, but this could be managed by public commitments at the time the inquiry is established.”

Royal Commissions of Inquiry are reserved for the most serious matters of public importance. They are appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the Executive Council. The 2011 inquiry looked into building failure caused by the Canterbury quake.

The part the foreign companies, their managers and contractors and the local councils have played in contributing to this disaster are best explored there — along with hearing from those affected.