Labour's reneging on Accord will be expensive: ACT
Labour's reneging on Accord will mean expensive compensation
The Prime Minister is deluding herself with her persistent claim that the government is not committed by the West Coast Accord signed by Phil Goff as Minister for the Environment in 1986, according to ACT Forestry spokesman Ken Shirley.
Mr Shirley says Justice Greg's ruling in the High Court in Wellington on 29th September 1995 stated on page 17: "I have no doubt that the West Coast Accord is a contract and that it was intended to be legally binding" (Greg J. CP476/94)
"The subsequent appeal only related to the so called podocarp overcut and in no way impinged on the beech scheme," Mr Shirley said today.
"The subsequent Court of Appeal proceeded on the basis of the High Court finding that the West Coast Accord was a binding contract.
"Signed contracts do exist with timber processors, and firm investment proposals are in place based on the sustainable harvest from these forests designed for production.
"Labour's reneging on the scheme will subject the Government to expensive compensation payments and the loss of many potential jobs.
"Jim Anderton's state subsidised possum plucking projects are no substitute for hundreds of real jobs based on the sustainable utilisation from these designated production forests of the west coast which comprise a tiny proportion of the total forested area," Mr Shirley said.