Post cyclone Gabrielle Hawkes Bay is facing a massive and unprecedented clean-up mission.
A crucial component of this clean-up mission is the role government ministers and local MPs are required to play to ensure the region’s immediate and long-term needs are met.
That and recent events lead me to question if Napier is being adequately represented in parliament by its MP Stuart Nash? Where do his true loyalties actually lie?
Nash, by holding cabinet positions of Minister of Police and Minister of Forestry, determined he would automatically find himself in the vanguard of those assigned central roles ensuring actions meet needs.
But did he? As police minister, how well did he function in the early days post Gabrielle?
Facing overwhelming storm damage in Hawkes Bay, residents were faced with the dreadful situation of having to protect their shattered homes and businesses from gangs engaging in looting, standover tactics and blatant theft. Generators were prime targets.
Nash’s woeful response?
Step up our fearless Police Minister who asked gangs to “…stop this behaviour…”, “…it’s totally unacceptable…”, “…this is really, really bad form…”. He was not even prepared to cite the fact that it was Maori gangs creating the problem. Not good enough Stuart!
Ardern’s Government was soft on gangs; under “Chippy”, so it continues.
The more things change, the more they stay the same!
What about fulfilling his role as forestry minister?
With the forestry slash issue slamming itself into the region’s infrastructure and into the forefront of our minds, it is now we are seeing the exact level of Nash’s competence as Minister of Forestry and more importantly, possibly just where his genuine allegiance lies.
Nash holds master’s degrees in Law, Forestry Science and Management and has long-established links and networks in the forestry industry, having worked for Carter Holt and Fletcher Challenge and also in forestry in Japan.
In 2020, when he was appointed, Nash boasted of an “extensive network of contacts in the forestry sector”.
In 2021 concerns began being raised about Nash’s industry links and in particular, political donations received from the wider timber industry.
Nash raked in nearly $50,000 in big money donations for the 2020 election – including at least $25,500 from people who could benefit from decisions he might make as the Minister of Forestry.
One timber businessman explained his financial backing for Nash, saying, “It is important to the economy that government has politicians who understand industry.”
A leading academic at Victoria University, specialising in wealth and democracy, said the donations are “concerning” and “inappropriate”, and called on Nash to return the money.
In the last three elections, Nash declared large donations totalling $99,000, $27,500 and $49,504.
In January of this year, following Cyclone Hale and its accompanying slash havoc, Nash stated, “I don’t think there needs to be a government inquiry, or any sort of inquiry, but what I do think needs to happen is forestry companies need to sit down with key stakeholders.”
Wow! Now whose best interests do you think were front and centre in Nash’s mind with that statement?
The devastated local residents or the forestry industry?
Nash’s pro-forestry stance seems to have become untenable with Prime Minister Hipkins announcing a ministerial inquiry on forestry slash.
But that inquiry is already receiving a lot of criticism. Clive Bibby, a Tolaga Bay farmer and well-known political commentator, has labelled it a “Clayton’s enquiry” due to its limited scope. Bibby believes the review is unlikely to unearth the full truth of the problem “given the parameters surrounding the terms of reference and the limited time for submissions”.
It is suggested that the inquiry has been deliberately engineered to minimise what is exposed, as the Government itself could be implicated. Bibby said, “Nash will know that any enquiry worth its salt will implicate the Labour Government’s ideologically driven policy as one of the main culprits when apportioning blame.”
In 2018 Labour and its coalition partners NZ First and the Greens made some little known but hugely consequential, investment law changes. All part of their socio-political driven vision for planting 1 billion trees.
And by hell is the East Coast going to pay for that well into the future!
The usual Overseas Investment restrictions were able to be avoided under their scheme, thus creating a loophole for the wholesale overseas purchase of prime New Zealand farmland and accompanying transferrable carbon credits from which New Zealand accrues zero benefit!
Is the Labour Government wanting to avoid embarrassment from a slash inquiry because of the flawed 1 billion trees policy and is it part of why Nash has worked diligently to limit any opportunity for anyone to get to the bottom of the slash problem?
Post Cyclone Gabrielle Nash unbelievably invited more “pile on” by stating, “I need to see the final investigation into this debris, but my understanding is it’s about 40 per cent from harvesting operations and the rest is native trees.”
More evidence of where Nash’s true commitment lies?
Professor Anne Salmond, environmentalist, academic anthropologist and East Coast resident, said she believed that “for local people dealing with huge piles of forestry slash, deposited on their paddocks, wrecking crops, houses and farm buildings and taking out bridges and roads leaving many stranded”, Nash’s statement was an “outrage”.
“For a minister to attempt to mislead the public in the midst of such a catastrophe is unacceptable”, she said.
I am sure many will not be surprised if one of the recommendations to come out of the slash inquiry is that “…more hill country farmland is converted to permanent forestry”.
Why, because that is becoming a bit of a quick fix, simple solution for Nash. He is on record as stating a solution to the forestry slash problem is to “support a review of transitioning more land into permanent forestry, as opposed to harvested forest”.
Amazingly short-sighted, Stuart!
Nash seems to hold a strong view that most hill country farming is completely uneconomic from a farming perspective and that justifies converting it into permanent forestry. I bet there are many, many hill country farmers happy to debate that with Nash!
For Hawkes Bay, Wairoa and Gisborne, permanent forestry would see local forestry employment almost eliminated. After the initial planting, permanent forests produce no jobs in silviculture, logging, milling and further processing.
Finally, I think the Government’s desire to avoid embarrassment over flawed legislation and Nash’s possibly “incestuous” relationship with the forestry industry is laid bare by Nash admitting –
“…the Government won’t actually be bound by the recommendations of the inquiry.”