7. Hon DAVID CARTER (National) Link to this
to the Minister of Conservation
Does he stand by his answers in the House last week on the Bayly Trust Environment Court case?
Hon CHRIS CARTERWhy did the Minister say that the Department of Conservation pursued the case to the Environment Court because Bayley Trust was “not prepared to put the land into a covenant” when, in fact, the Department of Conservation never requested that at any stage?
The Department of Conservation is not the consenting authority; the Department of Conservation’s responsibility is as the guardian. In fact, it has a statutory obligation to be the guardian and advocate for New Zealand’s unique biodiversity. The district council, in its granting of the consent, made reference to the covenant but did not put it into the paperwork. Because the Department of Conservation challenged and appealed the decision, we got a good outcome in the end.
Lesley SoperWhat outcomes was the Department of Conservation seeking through its Environment Court action in the Bayly Trust case?
The Department of Conservation has had a longstanding and well-known interest in the regionally significant mature kanuka forest at Waikatea. Although the landowners said they would develop a covenant to protect those values, they were never prepared to make specific commitments. Attempts were made to resolve this issue, but the landowner remained unwilling to provide specific guarantees that could be incorporated into a legally enforceable covenant. The Department of Conservation had no choice but to appeal the consent to the Environment Court. Informing its view on the application, my department was also mindful that the Bayly Trust had already sprayed 600 hectares elsewhere on the property that had been identified as a recommended area for protection. As I told the House last week, as a result of the court action my department has secured the protection of approximately 280 hectares of mature forest through a legally enforceable covenant, incidentally saving the taxpayer $2 million in carbon credits along the way.
Why does the Minister claim that the Department of Conservation’s Environment Court action—costing the taxpayer over $100,000—was necessary when, in fact, the Bayly Trust offered to protect 280 hectares of mature kanuka forest?
I was reminded in listening to that question from the member of the wise old proverb: “Actions speak louder than words.”
Does the Minister think it is acceptable that the Department of Conservation’s primary ecological witness, Professor Clarkson, never even visited the farm; if so, why?
What I can say is that Department of Conservation staff, including Department of Conservation scientists, on a number of occasions visited the property. This is a simply story. The landowner made all sorts of promises, but was never prepared to put them in writing. By taking him to court, the Department of Conservation has ensured that this area has been protected, and has saved carbon credits.
Why did the Minister claim in the House last week that court action was necessary because the landowner walked away from mediation discussions, when, in fact, Bayly Trust, Wairoa District Council, and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council were all keen to mediate a solution but the Department of Conservation was not prepared to negotiate?
I am delighted to hear that. It does not really explain, though, why the landowners never turned up for meetings, it does not explain why they did not put the covenants into the deal, and it also does not explain why they still have not done that, in spite of being required to by the Environment Court.