Forests (Regulation of Log Traders and Forestry Advisers) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Forests (Regulation of Log Traders and Forestry Advisers) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Environment Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 5 June 2020 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193, and 194(1)(b) and (c).

I stand to explain to the House why we are proceeding with the forests amendment bill for the regulation of log traders and forestry advisers. This speech will begin by painting a picture of how incredibly important this third-largest export earner is for provincial New Zealand, for the manufacturers of New Zealand, and for the workforce of New Zealand. For far too long, this is an area that has existed with minimal oversight, and we have heard a host of very sad stories about the quality of the advice, the quality of the conduct, as is evidenced by some of the ways in which both advisers and logmongers have behaved.

Therefore, to complete the virtuous circle of forestry, this Government has introduced the billion trees kaupapa, dedicating nigh on $500 million over a period of time to achieve the outcome of having planted one billion trees, for a host of purposes. Purpose number one is to expand the size of the nation’s lung and to provide us with an option to manage the transitional costs of climate change. Purpose number two is to invest in biodiversity by ensuring that the trees that are planted under our Government’s programmes are a mix of exotic and native, and that such activities generate positive outcomes in terms of sustainability.

Purpose number three is to have decluttered the overseas investment regime so that those who already own the forestry estate in New Zealand—well over 73 or 74 percent of that estate is already owned by foreign interests. They approached me and requested that we declutter the legislation back in late in 2017, and the outstanding area is to give confidence that the manufacturers, the downstream processors, the domestic sawmillers, the owners of the timber processing sector have greater confidence that they can enjoy ongoing access in a predictable and consistent form to the raw material, so that their businesses can grow, their employees can stay on the job, and we do not see mountains and mountains of raw commodities disappearing overseas without us as a nation creating additional value from so said resources.

So this bill reflects considerable work out in the community by our officials, but it also shows that when we’re focused on creating a plan for an industry with the leaders of the industry, we can deliver. This bill will go through the airing process at the select committee, and where there are concerns, potential imperfections—hard to imagine—they can at least be addressed by the select committee, and the arguments rehearsed as to whether or not there’s too much forestry in New Zealand, not enough forestry, and whether it’s a reasonable type of investment. All of that can be trotted out at the select committee, and the bill then can come back and we can develop a registration system.

Now, why would you want such a system? Well, in a host of areas, the quality of advice being offered to our investors in the forestry sector has been substandard. My office and a host of other MPs can attest to this. There have been some very sad and egregious cases where dodgy advisers have been allowed to get away with dodgy conduct for far too long.

Now, some might say it’s the market—it’s the laissez-faire system; don’t interfere with it—but we as the Government have an interest in professionalising and creating a greater level of resilience and robustness into forestry, creating a system that ensures that the logmongers offer the raw material both to Kiwi processors as well as to international buyers. Now, this does not offend any World Trade Organization ruling. I did actually toy with the idea that there should be an export tax. Now, obviously, we wouldn’t head in that direction if it created an impression that not only were we taxing exports but it might invite retaliation. But I say to you that we are going to face up to 300,000 of our young people and our neighbours facing unemployment as we come out of the COVID medical contagion. Many jobs can be created in this forestry sector, but the investors need certainty and confidence that they can gain access.

What’s the point of continuing to plant trees in provincial New Zealand if those trees are not available for manufacturing and processing on a predictable, consistent, and calculable manner? This bill will create that. This bill will enable people to go through a registration process. There will be suitable exemptions, and it also will allow for complaints to be made. It will be run in a very efficient manner. We will not be tolerating excessive levels of bureaucracy, and, as a consequence of having an efficient system, once it’s established, it can actually be delegated outside of the core Crown into another entity. But the main point is that people receiving advice from forest advisers need to know that the advice has integrity and there’s a complaints process if they have been diddled. People that are logmongers must make the material available to both Kiwis and international purchasers.

Now, those international purchasers may or may not have subsidies buried in opaque arrangements overseas. This bill does not deal with that. But this bill makes it absolutely crystal clear to the people who are managing the logmonger business or forestry advisory services that you have to take account of climate change, you have to take account of the needs of domestic processors, you have to take account as to whether or not the land being used would be best suited for forestry. And, after all of that, if the advice is found to be egregiously defective, then there will be a complaints process. But there will be a clear obligation, as a consequence of this bill, for people to have demonstrated that they have made the raw material available to Kiwis.

There’s no guarantee Kiwis will buy it. There’s no guarantee that Kiwis will want it at all times, but they will have the option. They won’t sit watching large trucks taking all of our valuable raw material offshore while Kiwis become further unemployed and businesses cannot gain certainty in terms of gaining not only calculable but predictable flows of raw material. Now, who can dislike that? In a post-COVID environment, this is going to be absolutely essential.

So, to round up, forestry policy, the forestry industry, is now very robust. We have rehabilitated the reputation of that industry. We have put that industry on a far more secure footing. We have used the $500 million - odd over time to regrow both the status and the human capital. We are attracting financial capital into forestry. This regulates, this enables, a process to be in place where grievances can be dealt with, the integrity of advice can be relied upon, and those who are in the business of buying and selling logs can no longer turn their backs on their fellow Kiwis and chase the speculative spot price overseas only to come crying to the “First Citizen of the Provinces” when that spot price collapses.

So we’re going to achieve not only consistency but there are going to be legal obligations, and those obligations will be spelt out in the form of a practice standard, and those practice standards will impose enforceable duties on the people that are registered through this scheme. If they are not registered and they are circumventing it or trying to use it for money-laundering purposes, and the rumours are rife, they are going to be caught. That is why I commend this bill to the House. It represents fixing a neglected area in the forestry sector, increasing robustness, resilience, integrity, and ensuring that the owners of forestry resources can rely on the advice and that the owners and the workers in processing can have great confidence that the raw material will be made available. I commend this bill to the House.

Before I call Mr Muller, can I ask the members on the Government side to remove the red boxes, the green boxes—there’s one at the front there. If someone could grab that, please?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak to the Forests (Regulation of Log Traders and Forestry Advisers) Amendment Bill. What an extraordinary Government priority this is. I mean, with respect, we have had this afternoon a finance Minister speak to this House and say that the Budget deficit for this year is just short of $30 billion. In the same speech, he says that the deficits for the next four years will total $100 billion. And, in a moment of national crisis, he outlines the priorities that his Government will now put forward in urgency in front of this House, and apparently this bill, the regulation of log traders and advisers, is the third-most important bill facing this country in our time of national crisis. Well, get a grip. How on earth, Mr Jones, did you manage to pull that swiftie? Even Eugenie Sage can’t look at you. Mind you, she can’t anyway, but she particularly can’t now. What an extraordinary bill we’ve been served up. So, ladies and gentlemen at home, who I know will be wondering, after the two performances from my colleague across the other side, whether we have descended into Shakespearian farce; we haven’t. The National Party is here to put some rigour back into it.

So what does this incredibly urgent bill, as we look at a sea of $100 billion worth of deficits in four years—what does this do? It establishes a registration system for log traders and farm advisers. It allows the Ministry for Primary Production to set up a regulatory body. It sets up a registration process. It sets up a power to obtain information. It defines—Mr Jones would have spent years doing this—a log trader. That’s very important! It requires them to adhere to forestry practice standards. It specifies the application form—specifies the application form! That’s two pages. I’m glad Eugenie Sage is looking down again. It outlines the conditions of registration that can be imposed. It has a section on cost recovery. It sets up a regulation-making power for registration complaints and disputes, fees and charges and levies, and then the rules themselves. I mean, this is quite unbelievable that this Government has put this in front of us.

And what is interesting is that the speech the Minister gave was, as he has always given, a speech that is focused on his particular view that the sector is broken, that it’s inappropriate to respond to export market prices, that somehow the role of Government is to get in the middle of it and turn the market upside down and pick winners—that that is the best model—and he talks about how that’s going to get turned on its head by this bill. Of course, none of that detail is in the bill, Mr Jones. All it does is set up a framework, and what you’re doing is signalling to all the foresters that, actually, this is where you want it to go.

Well, what’s fascinating about this is that Mr Jones says this has been out in the field for a number of years, that he’s had close conversations with the forestry sector. Well, they haven’t seen it. In fact, they’re only going to get briefed on it tomorrow. And here he stands, saying that this is an urgent debate, an urgent priority, for something that hasn’t been seen by the sector—hasn’t sat down with the forest owners, hasn’t sat down with the contractors or the small-forest owners. He actually hasn’t sat with them and said, “This is what I would like to do in your sector.” And not only that; he has the audacity to come and say that all this now can be discussed, debated at a select committee, and reported back in three weeks. Well, that is arrogance in the extreme, and we are seeing yet again the fusion between a man with the particular view on a model—he wants to see an economic model that he controls rather than the free market, he has a view that it’s his way or the highway, and he creates this impression that somehow this has been worked through with the sector when it hasn’t.

Then the final ignominy, which of course is making my counterpart look down at the floor, is that he stands up here and says that this is the appropriate purview of the Environment Committee. Goodness me! Forestry, agriculture—Mr Jones, they’re the same industry. There is no reason for this to go to the Environment Committee. I mean, the Primary Production Committee, for a start, is superbly chaired. I don’t think there’s a better chair that we’ve ever seen in primary production. To be fair, there’s some reasonable contributions from the other side. Every now and then Kiri Allan gives us the impression that, you know, she’s on the same—

💬 David Seymour: She’s one of the smart ones.

Yes, one of the smart ones. Future leader there, probably. Hey, this really, from our perspective, is quite surprising.

Now, of course, the question is: do we support it through to first reading?

💬 Kiritapu Allan: Course you do.

And, from our perspective—a close-run thing—the reason we are supporting it through to the first reading is because, to all those forest owners watching, to all those contractors, to all those small-forest lot owners, when you are looking at this, at least you know that we will be able to facilitate with you a select committee process where your voice will be heard. He didn’t even want a select committee process; he wanted it in urgency, but we have at least an opportunity where the National Party will be able to hear your perspective. Now, it won’t be the Primary Production Committee; it will be the Environment Committee. It will be Scott Simpson. But you’ll get a good hearing, and you’ll get a National Party that will ask the right questions and expose what actually sits behind this, which is another Shane Jones crusade.

💬 Kiritapu Allan: It’s the economy, it’s jobs, and it’s regional provincial growth.

You’ll get your turn—you’ll get your turn, Kiri.

So I just want to conclude by saying: for all those watching, who are no doubt leaning into the television, wanting to say, “What, at our moment of national crisis, is the most important thing that the Government is focused on?”—half past nine, a few hours after the worst Budget, in terms of financial position, that we’ve ever seen in our lifetime—be assured that this Government’s view that the third-most important piece of legislation that should be prioritised above anything else is the registration of those who export logs and those who provide advice to those who grow trees. Thank you.

Mr Speaker, look, thank you very much, and I welcome the opportunity to speak after Todd Muller, the last speaker. There’s a saying “Be careful what you ask for”, and that member’s asking to be Leader of the Opposition. Indeed, I predict that he will get there, and he will stay there for a hell of a long time, because, if that’s an example of how he and the National Party, as the primary industries spokesperson for the Opposition and the National Party, completely discredits the third-largest export earner for this country, and an industry that he is supposed to be advocating for, I’m ashamed—I’m ashamed.

If ever there’s a difference between what this side of the House, this coalition Government, advocates for, and it’s for forestry—I congratulate my colleague, the New Zealand First member the Hon Shane Jones, because what he did was finally set up Te Uru Rākau, a ministry for forestry. I was in this House when Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith proclaimed huge savings—if I can remember, it was $4 million a year—to merge agriculture and forestry. He thought of all the efficiencies, and what that did was that forestry got lost from that time onwards. It got absolutely ignored, and so this coalition Government came in and set up Te Uru Rākau to advocate.

The other difference between a party that claims to advocate for the primary sector and the forestry sector, and a Government that works for them is that we are advocating for foresters, for producers, for manufacturers, and for the good people who work in those industries, and that party advocates for traders. They advocate for traders—that’s what John Key did—and this party, the National Party in Opposition, continues to advocate for traders over the people who produce the wealth, because they believe that, actually, the path to prosperity is clipping the ticket. What this piece of legislation does—just as last time in Government, we regulated real estate agents, other friends of the National Party, people who were not always committed to ethical practice and who needed proper regulation to ensure that their customers got a fair deal. Well, that’s what we’re doing now for the third-largest export sector in this country.

Good, well-meaning, honest Kiwis who seek advice and invest, often, their life-savings for some kind of superannuation scheme invest it in the forestry sector, hoping that, in 30 years’ time, or thereabouts, they will have proper, respectable, reasonable returns on their life’s work and their investment. Well, they go to people—because they don’t know a lot about forestry—and they get advice on how they should invest, and sometimes that advice is not always good.

Indeed, I’ll quote a tradesperson in my electorate, who came to me saying that they’d had advice. He has a successful business with his wife and employs a number of people. They had invested in forestry, and they’d sought advice on the emissions trading scheme and how that might affect the price of carbon and what they should do. They’d been advised that they could seek annual income from their forest plantings at a carbon rate—I’m not quite sure what it was—and that that was the best way forward and the most secure way for them over a 30-year period. Then, what they had not been told was that at harvest time, of course, they were liable for the carbon credits, and so this person was asking me what could be done. Well, I was tempted to say that Mr Jones and this Government are doing something about it, because the traders, who are the mates of the National Party, will just say what they like, do what they like, and clip the ticket, and good honest Kiwi investors lose out because of that bad advice.

So we’re going to have some ethical practices. We’re going to have some standards put in place. We’re going to ensure that people are fit and proper to offer advice, just as we have done for financial advisers and just as we had to regulate for real estate agents, because if we don’t, then, in fact, we will have too many hard-working Kiwis—the people that the National Party say they advocate for. They don’t; they advocate for the traders, over all else. We want to advocate for good honest Kiwis—the people who have the forests.

The emerging reality—and I guess the House has heard before of the high level of foreign ownership here now across the forest sector, but the profile of forest owners and the supply of wood, moving forward, is changing. It is changing quite rapidly, and I have to acknowledge Hamish Levack. He’s been a local person advocating for forestry for a long, long time, and he came to this House and was talking to a number of MPs, myself included, about what was the challenge with the wall of wood, the changing profile of forest owners, and how were we going to offer security to all those people who have invested hundreds of millions—or, in fact, billions—of dollars in processing across this country. How are we going to protect their supply of wood and, indeed, protect the small - wood lot owners when it comes to selling their trees? His proposal was, in fact, a cooperative. I support cooperatives, and I think, eventually, enough of those small-forest owners might work out the wisdom of coming together in some kind of supply cooperative that gives guaranteed volume to the manufacturers and the processors and gives them a fair return for their 30 years of investment.

In the meantime—

💬 Todd Muller: Well, they can do it now—they can do it now.

They can do it now—of course they can do it now. But the problem is that many of those small-forest owners go and seek advice. So why would a forest adviser tell them to go into a cooperative when there’s another old saying that says “Divide and rule”? If you can just feed enough information to people and make it look credible, sometimes you can carry them along. What this does is ensure that the people providing the advice—as I say, as we do across other parts of the economy—are fit and proper. This piece of legislation in a laissez-faire world, where there was fair, open trade and people had all the information, might not be necessary. The realities of this world are that it’s not always like that.

Today, we passed a Budget, or the Minister of Finance did, with the Government, that was about jobs, and the previous speaker, the so-called champion for the primary industries in the National Party—the so-called champion for the primary industries in the National Party—got up and said, “What connection has a piece of forestry legislation to do with the Budget?” Well, let me explain it really carefully to you: this industry is the third-biggest earner of export revenue in this country, and that is important when it comes to creating wealth and building our economy again. Don’t you get that? Don’t you understand that, over there? No, I don’t think they do. You can’t just create wealth out of trading. You can’t just create wealth out of trading; you’ve got to have people who commit real money to real production and create real things and export it.

Can I say that the 15,000, or thereabouts, of small-forest owners need a fair go. They need people who are going to give them fair and honest advice, and this registration process will do that. We also need to know that the people who have invested billions in manufacturing the logs that we cut down into more valuable products—we have to know that they get a fair chance of getting at wood supply. This is why we want traders who are honest, who commit to contracts, and who will supply the logs, because I get sick and tired of looking from the 19th floor of Bowen House down on to a wharf full of logs that constantly flow out of this country, when we need jobs in this country now. We need jobs, and in the third-biggest sector for export earnings—I have to say, why not start at forestry? Why not start with the job opportunities in forestry? So this Government is moving on it.

So, to the previous speaker, who could not understand why we would have a piece of forestry legislation in the House on the same day as the Budget: just go and look at the export revenue figures—go and understand what responsibility you have in your role as spokesperson for the primary industries, because, if you can’t do that job properly, you certainly won’t do the Leader of the Opposition’s job very well, either.

I’m proud to stand in this House and support this piece of legislation to support good honest Kiwis in one of the most important industries in this country.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Here we are discussing the registration of advisers and log purchasers—those who might want to purchase a log. That is the priority for this Government at this time on Budget day in urgency. I mean, I thought we had urgency for really important things; things that had to be done in a timely manner to kickstart a process because it was urgent. This does not qualify for any reason, to be urgent. This does not actually create any new jobs. We’re talking about a large industry. This is going to see those levels of exports that we’ve talked about being so important decline—the value of those exports will be declining because of the costs that are layered by this piece of legislation.

There is no need for this legislation. This legislation is telling the industry that they’re idiots. This piece of legislation is telling the associations in the forestry sector that they don’t know how to conduct their own business. This piece of legislation is telling small, medium size, and large-forest owners that they’re fools and that they are not capable of seeking advice from reputable advisers, taking that advice, and managing their forests.

This sector has been around for a very, very long time. The wall of wood that we are seeing now was planted in the 1990s—and, of course, we had a thriving forestry sector before that. These syndicates that are small-forest owners have been around a long time. They’ve trusted, they’ve had legal advice, they’ve had financial advice at the time, knowing the risks, aware of the commodity-based product that is a log—that is a log. The log is always going to be subject to commodity pricing because that’s what it is. It’s like orange juice. It’s like milk powder. It’s like wool. It’s a commodity. The price of it rises and falls with demand and supply.

If we’re going to register and direct logs, a commodity, into a processing facility because of the tax that Mr Jones talks about, we are in big, big trouble. If we start taxing our exports, that is only going to put our price of that commodity up to the international purchaser, and that international purchaser will go elsewhere. We will see less exports when Mr Jones introduces—

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Jobs, jobs.

—his export tax. He justifies it by saying there will be jobs as a result. He’s suggesting that we need more wood processing in New Zealand. Well, there’s a list of associations in New Zealand that, for some reason, Mr Jones doesn’t think talk to each other. There’s the New Zealand Farm Forestry Association: 27 branches around the country, been around for 50 years—that’s the New Zealand Farm Forestry Association. There’s the Forest Owners Association. There’s the Wood Council of New Zealand. There’s the Wood Processors and Manufacturers Association. Apparently, these guys are all idiots; they don’t really know how to run their business! They’re being told to work closer together—”Otherwise we’ll tax you.” There’s the Forest Industry Contractors Association, and there’s the New Zealand Timber Industry Federation. There are a lot of smart people out there. They’ve been in the business. They know what they’re doing. They’re not interested in having a layer of compliance, an obligation, to restrict their markets by being forced to put their logs in this processing factory or that factory.

Those processors are not asking for subsidies from the Government. They’re not asking for what Mr Jones is suggesting. They’re not asking for an export tax; that’s all his idea, and it’s ludicrous. Let’s put it on wool, shall we? To force the sheep growers to process wool in New Zealand—well, that’s a ridiculous suggestion. Why don’t we put it on milk powder? That’s a commodity. Why don’t we put a tax on milk powder to stop people delivering it as a raw commodity into the offshore market? Why don’t we tax it so that we can process it into cheese and yoghurt in New Zealand? Why don’t we do that? What a ridiculous idea that would be. And so it is with forestry. It is exactly the same argument. Taxing an export will only incentivise people to stay away from it. The cost will be too high, and they’ll walk away. Margins will be eroded, jobs will be lost, and the economy goes down the toilet as a result of the policy that Mr Jones is suggesting.

There is no need for this registration—registration for what? I mean, what are we going to do, register—OK, we’ve got financial advisers that are registered and real estate agents that are registered; that’s been mentioned tonight. Why don’t we register car salesmen? Why don’t we do that to make sure that they’re all satisfactory and of good character. Why don’t we do that? I’ll tell you what: why don’t we have a gun register, see if that works? Oh, no, that’s right—they’ve already tried that idea and that’s not going to work, either. Registration is a layer of cost that is totally unnecessary. It’s patronising to the industry. The industry do not and have not asked for this. They do not need it. The processors do not ask for it. The logging sector is not asking for it. The small foresters are not asking for it. And, in fact, the reasoning in this bill—that the small foresters will account for a larger proportion of logs coming to the market—is not correct. I’ve seen contradictory numbers to say that those small operators who planted in the 1990s are harvesting now and will not be such a large influence in 10 years, as the document in the bill suggests. So that’s the registering of the advisers.

Why on earth do we have to register someone who is buying something? Why do we have to register a purchaser of a log? So the purchaser who will process or export—well, you can’t do much else than either process or export. So every purchaser of a log has to be registered. Why logs and not, I don’t know, anything? Cars?

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Repetition.

Well, no this is about the purchasing side—this is about the purchasing; registration of the purchaser. I’ve spoken about the registration of the adviser; this is the ridiculous idea of registering someone who wants to buy something. I don’t even need to say any more, it’s such a ridiculous idea. Why would you want to or need to register someone who’s going to buy a piece of wood down at Mitre 10? Buy a log, buy a sheep, buy a cow; why don’t we register everyone who wants to buy something? This is a scary, lefty, sort of—

💬 Hon David Bennett: It’s communist.

—communist sort of policy that’s creeping in. We’re suggesting export taxes. This bill is a crazy prelude to something that seems to be coming our way, which is even more scary than this bill.

This is not an urgent piece of legislation; it’s not even useful legislation. It’s totally redundant legislation, and it is unwanted legislation. However, we will support it to the select committee to allow—

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Well, you’ll hear it from the people. We will hear it from the people, we will hear it from the advisers, we will hear it from the associations, and we will hear it from the processors that this is not a good piece of legislation.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m delighted to speak in support of this bill. As we are entering a very challenging post-COVID environment, we need to have robust legislation in place to support our industries and strengthen our third-most important export industry—the forestry industry: log, wood products. Can I congratulate our Minister of Forestry, the “First Citizen of the Provinces”, the Hon Shane Jones, son of the North, Tāne Māhuta-esque in his towering figure in this Parliament in support of his beloved forest industry.

This is a very, very welcome piece of legislation, and I’m surprised that the member that’s just resumed his seat, Alastair Scott—I’m glad that the National Party, despite all their moans and groans, are supporting this bill at its first reading. I know the member from the Wairarapa. I’m sure those great pioneers of investment forestry Charles Wallis and Steve Wilton, those great persons from over the Wairarapa, would have been whispering to him that, yes, we should get behind and support this bill. So this is a welcome piece of legislation.

It is needed because the fact of the matter is there are unscrupulous, dodgy traders that are operating in the forestry sector. They are distorting the market, and they are, basically, fooling a lot of the farm forest owners and they are denying the supply chain of an important harvest of crop. So this bill is all about ensuring there’s a consistency in the supply chain. Yes, the top dollar will be achieved in terms of the export markets, but this approach, this registration of the traders and of the advisers, is to ensure that there is an adequate supply that is available to the local processors, local sawmillers, and the important jobs that those small businesses and those larger businesses have, particularly in our provinces. So this is a very welcome piece of legislation.

I also want to congratulate our Minister for primary industries, because the Ministry for Primary Industries, Te Uru Rākau—they play a very important role in this legislation as the forestry authority, and they will be crafting and ensuring that the registration requirements will be in place and all the detail will be set out in regulations, which will be forthcoming as well, in discussions with the industry. And this has actually been requested by the industry. The industry actually have been engaged, have been working with the Government officials, and this has very wide support.

So it’s very important that we put this in place. It is about jobs. It is about ensuring consistency of supply, availability, to ensure that we have those sawmillers, those wood remanufacturers, those processors—they need to have that supply of wood, not denied that supply by a dodgy trader from South Asia, or wherever, who can come up with a price on the back of a cigarette pack. Those sorts of traders are not welcome in our industry. They offer no value, they have no investment, and they demean and they devalue and they actually deter investment coming into our industry. That’s why it’s important that we have that assurance across the industry, across especially the emerging sector of farm foresters and private, smaller landholding, smaller harvestable crop owners. It’s very important that they have certainty that the advisers that they will be seeking and the contractors and the ultimate sale of their logs—yes, they will be able to achieve a good price, but it will be benchmarked and it will ensure that a relevant portion is available to support our local industries.

So, with that, I once again want to congratulate the Minister of Forestry. This is a much-needed piece of legislation, and I’m really looking forward—I’m saddened that it’s not coming to the Primary Production Committee. We were all prepared for this particular bill, but I’m sure that the Environment Committee will be giving it due consideration as well. So, with that, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to take a little speech to start off with this, because this shows the idiocy of the New Zealand First economic plan. They are nationalising forestry and telling people how they have to sell their products. It is all because they want to see those products being processed in New Zealand. The reality is they are not processed in New Zealand, because of the requirements that that Government puts on industry, the costs it puts on industry, and the environmental costs that don’t make it profitable to do it here. The most profitable use of those logs is to send them overseas, just like our milk powder—the most profitable use is to send it overseas.

They are trying to nationalise a market. That is what they are trying to do, and it will not work. It will create inefficiencies in the forestry market. It will create a sense of inefficient investment, and it will hurt forestry long term. Forestry needs to be able to make commercial decisions as a business and not have Shane Jones tell them who they should sell their product to. He does not make the right decisions. He has not got that power. It is up for business people and planters to do that, not for Shane Jones to dictate what happens to their products. That is the nationalisation process that the New Zealand First Party and Labour Party and Green Party stand for, and it will not work, and it is a very good indication to the public of New Zealand. Do not let these guys run this country. They will destroy our economy. They will destroy our business base, because they will put inefficiency into business. They will make businesses make decisions to actually fulfil a Minister’s whims rather than making profit and actually delivering—

I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but it’s come time for me to leave the Chair for the evening. The House will resume at 9 a.m. tomorrow morning.

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Friday)