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

Oh, spoilt for choice—Ian McKelvie.

Oh, you’re kind, Madam Chair. Sorry, Erica. And I’m not that quick to get up. [Interruption] They didn’t have to laugh, did they? I’ve spent a bit of time watching the House today. I watched Nick Smith, and I’ve learnt something today. I’ve figured that if you could make that much of a game of the Public Service Act—and I thought it was quite well written—I’m going to have a field day with this one. So we could be here tomorrow, given the lessons I’ve learnt from Nick Smith, but I won’t do that to you.

I am new to this business, and, unfortunately, I didn’t get to sit through the select committee, which I would have certainly enjoyed. Forestry is a very important part of what we do in New Zealand, and I think will become an increasingly important part of what we do. Whilst I don’t always agree with the Minister’s aspirations for the industry or for the land and the people in it, he does none the less have an enthusiasm for the industry which I think is worthy of the cause. It is a very important industry for New Zealand, and it’s one that we must make sure works properly.

But I’m not sure that—we certainly don’t agree that this bill is the way that we should go about it. I do have a number of questions that I think I would like the Minister to answer initially on, and I know that the Environment Committee had some discussion on a lot of this stuff—a very brief discussion, unfortunately, but none the less they had a brief discussion on the bill. But what, I guess, concerns me initially about it—and I don’t know whether the Minister can enlighten us to the fact or to the point, and that is around the costs of the bill to this industry and the cost of the imposition of Part 1 of the bill to the industry. Obviously, that’s where all the—and I’m not talking about the regulation yet—I’ll get on to that in a minute—but, primarily, the costs of the levies and how it might be structured and what that’s going to cost the industry.

The other thing that I think is interesting is that it’s taken so long to get this bill to the House, and I wonder, having got it there right at this point, why was there such urgency to get the thing passed and get it into action? Obviously, the regulation will come first. So that was, really, my question of the Minister.

Thank you for relieving us of any tension we may have been suffering that you want us to remain here indefinitely and discuss this bill, because it’s self-explanatory. But can I direct the member’s attention to page 8 of the commentary, and there is a reference there under the heading “Cost recovery”. Can I also direct his attention to a new section 63ZK, where it completely imposes an obligation—and I have to acknowledge the mahi of the select committee in this regard—on the Minister to consult with people who would be substantially affected before regulating for a cost to be imposed. I just want to remind fellow members of the House, and, indeed, those from the industry sector who may be listening in, that this creates a regime that does not come into force until such time when regulations have been constructed. They will be the subject of an extensive consultation process, which will include all sectors, including the tangata whenua, and during the development of those regulations, I have every confidence, as outlined in 63ZI and 63ZK, that any anxieties that people may be suffering at the moment, or reflected by Mr McKelvie, can be dealt with during that process.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just on that point, to the Minister in the chair, talking about the extensive consultation before coming up with these regulations so people shouldn’t be concerned. Does he understand the feeling in this sector, that they may not potentially believe him when he says that, because of the process that we’ve been through with this bill? I’m sure that the Minister has read some of the submissions that we received, but the feedback from this bill in the select committee was that people were pretty furious. The sector was furious; 95 percent of the submissions were against the bill. They felt aggrieved because they didn’t have time to properly submit on the bill. They felt aggrieved because there was no consultation and no proper process. They felt aggrieved because they felt this bill was dropped on them. They felt aggrieved because they feel like it’s a Trojan Horse bill. So I guess the point is that the sector are listening, probably sitting there feeling like why should they believe the Minister that there’s going to be some sort of extensive consultation process now.

I guess, in terms of questions to the Minister, one of the things that we noted in the regulatory impact statement (RIS) was that “MPI commissioned Forme Consulting Group and Scion in early 2019 to examine the log supply constraints”, but that study was only undertaken in Northland. So it’s understandable that when the select committee were listening to the feedback from the sector, everybody outside of Northland was saying to us “Why do we have this bill? There’s no problem. We don’t have a problem with supply. We don’t have problem with the mills. There’s no problem of getting supply.” And actually, they didn’t even agree with needing to regulate the industry. But there was this overwhelming feeling that there was no problem and that, yes, there might be a small pocket in Northland that was a problem, but, in fact, nowhere else.

So does the Minister think that perhaps the study that was undertaken wasn’t fully representative of the whole of New Zealand—in fact, that this bill is putting in place something potentially that is going to affect the whole country when in fact the problem is only in one small pocket, where that Minister, in fact, lives? I’d like him to respond to that. I do note in the RIS as well, they keep going on about the fact that there wasn’t a longitudinal study, that there wasn’t enough evidence to, in their opinion, warrant this bill. And if the Minister could respond to that as well.

I just want to point out that it was tough sitting in that select committee, firstly, because we felt that this bill shouldn’t have been rushed through so quickly under urgency—Budget urgency! Why there was a reason to put this under Budget urgency we don’t know. But the overwhelming feeling from the sector was anger and they don’t want this bill in.

And the purpose part, the very first thing it says is “to support continuous, predictable and long-term supply of timber and equity of access to timber.” But, in fact, there’s nothing in this bill, and what they were telling us is it’s going to be hidden in regulation. They feel like this bill is a Trojan Horse, that what’s coming they’re not going to be consulted on, and that it’s all hidden. They’re all very worried that they’re going to be dictated to about where they have to supply their logs to, and they’re very aggrieved about that. So there’s a number of things there that I’d invite the Minister to respond to.

I’d like to thank the member for those remarks. I do want to pay attention to the contributions that are being made. I direct members’ attention to the purpose of this legislation, and it is forward-looking. It is not stuck in the past with any provincial spats. It’s dealing with the fact that if we are to make the most of our endowment in New Zealand and the post-COVID environment, then we need to secure, as the Act and the purpose said—and I want to acknowledge the good doctor, the honourable member, shall I say, Dr Webb, from Te Wai Pounamu, who under the leadership of so said member added in new section 63A(1)(a): “support the continuous, predictable and long-term supply of timber, and equity of access to timber,”. Far be it for me to admit that I may have been less than fulsome or thorough in my original analysis of the bill, but that has strengthened the bill and it addresses the matters that the member has raised.

This is an attempt to lay down a statutory platform that will cause growth in areas of investment into forestry and its ability to contribute in the future that we fully have not canvassed. But investors in the domestic manufacturing context will now have a greater level of confidence that over time, after the regime has been implemented through regulations, the purpose of the Act will be given effect to.

Now, the notion that somehow it should not have been passed and the sector did not understand what the Government’s agenda was—I don’t really want to continue the quarrels that emerged between my officials and the industry as this bill was developed, other than to say our Government has had a clear volume to value strategy from the day we were empowered, and this bill is a small and relatively uncontroversial step towards that outcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So the Minister in the chair, Shane Jones, just touched on some very interesting points there, because there’s really two parts to this bill—in fact, there’s now a Part 3, which is a different part altogether, but that’s come in as a result of the urgency this bill was rushed into the House under. I want to just talk about a couple of things that, actually, you could agree with if they weren’t going to cost the industry too much money, and that’s basically around the fact that the register of log traders and the register of forestry consultants and things like that certainly has some value to the industry, and there’s probably other parts of the industry that could’ve managed that.

I think what I want to really understand is the nature of what is now called—and I’ve forgotten its name, but it’ll come to me in a minute—the Forestry Authority. I want to understand the nature of that, and I wonder whether the Minister can give us an idea of whether that might just be a secretary, for example, which it sort of describes in the bill, but you don’t know how big the secretary is. I wonder whether that’s an operation that could be managed outside of the structures—in other words, it could be given to an outside entity to operate. That would be very interesting to know. So that’s the part of the bill that’s pretty simple and relatively easy to understand and probably has some value to the industry.

I notice a lot of the discussion around the structure or the setting up of this bill related to the fact that there were people in the industry that were, effectively, disadvantaged by the fact they didn’t either understand the industry or didn’t feel they were satisfactorily dealt with by either log traders or by people involved in the operations of the industry. That’s a bit of a challenge. The thing that really concerns the National Party, and certainly concerns, almost unanimously, the industry, is what the nature of the regulations that come out of this bill might look like. I think that’s one of the reasons that you can only oppose it. I’ve watched Ministers from both sides of the House plant regulations in front of select committees without having the regulations in front of the select committee, and it makes select committees very nervous as to what might actually be the end result of that.

In fact, just last night, or the other day, we had the DIRA—the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act—legislation through this House, where we’re seeing the impact of Parliament interfering in a business-related or an export-related industry, which had unforeseen influence on what happened in the industry, and that would greatly concern me about this as well. I think the potential for these regulations—and I’ve got no idea what they might entail, although I can imagine it—the danger is that I think they will cause distortions in the industry, and I think there are other ways of dealing with the issue the Minister just raised, which was primarily the ability for New Zealand to grow the added-value part of this industry, and the thing that’s constricting that is a lack of capital, basically. Until we can introduce capital and a return to those people that are adding value, no amount of regulation’s going to fix that, because all you’re going to do is flatten the market, I think. So I think that’s the big worry, but I would like to understand, as I sit down, just what the authority involves and how much bureaucracy might be involved in that authority as it comes into being.

Madam Chair, I thought the process was that the Minister would answer questions. Have we got to that point or not?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): There is no requirement for the Minister to answer questions as they are presented to him—he might bundle two or three. But the expectation of the House is that there won’t be five-minute speeches. There will be questions from members, and the expectation is that the Minister will answer them.

Thank you for your guidance, Madam Chair. But the quid pro quo on that is that if the Minister won’t answer questions, good, sensible questions posed by my colleague Ian McKelvie, then members on this side reserve their right to use five minutes if they choose, because the process is one that we thought was working pretty well.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry, Mr Simpson, just to say that I’m not sure that two wrongs have ever equalled a right. It’s quite unusual for you to, first of all, assume that the Minister’s not going to answer when I have just given you an explanation that there is no requirement on him to answer immediately after a question’s posed. He may well have thought, “Scott Simpson’s taking a call, he’ll have excellent questions, I’ll answer them at the same time as I answer Ian McKelvie’s.” The process that the House has agreed to is not that you will aim for five minutes for your speech; it is that you will use the time within five minutes to ask the Minister a question.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

There is an underlying concern and fear that came through so strongly during select committee submissions from such a wide and overwhelmingly large number of people in the sector that there is something deeply wrong with the motivation of this piece of legislation. The clauses that were most concerning—and there were lots of them—were the 63ZZ series in clause 4. These deal with the regulations to be made by Order in Council on the recommendation of the Minister, and they’re wide, and they’re comprehensive, and they are pretty scary, actually, to the sector. It’s the fear of the unknown, I think, that is largely at the root of the concern that the sector has. If it was just one submitter, one forester, one landowner, or one logger, then maybe the select committee would have felt that that was an outlier in terms of criticism or concern about this piece of legislation, but we had submission after submission after submission after submission. Then when we asked officials for their response to the matters that had been raised by submitters, frankly, we didn’t get the answers that were anywhere close to providing the reassurance or the safety that the submitters were seeking. That only added to the sense of concern and fear about what the real motivation and purpose of this piece of legislation is for.

On the face of it, the label on the front of the bill looks reasonably benign—it looks reasonably benign. On first glance, people would do as we did—having not had much of a chance to look at it because it was introduced under urgency. We supported it at first reading because on the front of it, it looked OK. The registration of advisers seemed to be a relatively sensible idea. It wasn’t until the committee and, indeed, members on this side started to delve into it in more detail, and then when we started to get submissions from the sector, that we realised that something was deeply wrong and flawed with this piece of legislation. So my questions to the Minister are really around what is the true purpose and the hidden meaning and plan behind this piece of legislation, because it’s not made clear. It hasn’t been made clear during the select committee process. It hasn’t been made clear by way of ministerial statement as the bill’s progressed through the House. There’s been very little comment from the Minister.

It seems pretty clear to us on this side of the Chamber that there is a potential that the Minister is hearing from one part of the sector, that may be relatively small in number and quantum, but the large silent majority, which is no longer silent but now quite forceful and vocal, has been sort of roused out of their slumber, if I can put it that way, and this piece of legislation has united them against it. So my question to the Minister is, really, what is the purpose of the regulations? How does he intend to make them operate? What confidence can he give the silent majority of people in the sector, traders in the sector, who are feeling very concerned about what they see as a Trojan Horse.

Can I first turn my attention to the honourable member McKelvie’s concerns about the delegation of any statutory functions to a person or an entity outside of the initial statutory body. I would direct his attention to proposed new section 63ZV, which clearly outlines that there are a host of standards and requirements that must be satisfied, and, indeed, the Minister must be satisfied. So there will be always a pin cushion, and politicians of the day wanting to hold someone accountable will have a target.

Can I now go to honourable member Simpson’s points, and I direct his attention—I’m assuming because he was on the select committee and he’s no slug when it gets to matters of environmental policy—to the rules governing forestry practice standards. I won’t repeat what I said, that this is a future orientated piece of legislation, which is building a platform for a host of investors, possibly unknown at this stage, who will derive more confidence through the quality of the advice they receive to expand the current size of the forestry sector, and change, perhaps, the types of trees that existing investors may seek to invest in. They will be able to sleep soundly at night knowing that the quality of the advice has a statutory process around it, and there will be accountability. The log mongers, I’m not surprised, given that they have existed in a frontier-like environment, and they have enjoyed the fruits of a laissez-faire environment which is now being bought, not before time, into a regime that will enjoy the lightest of regulatory touches. But where there are cases where their behaviour is not of a level that we should expect in forestry transactions, then they will be held accountable.

If I direct the members on the other side of the House to proposed new section 63ZZC, subsection (1) and (2), and they will see there what the rules, which will comprise the practice standards, are going to cover. Those rules, obviously, will enjoy full effect once the regulations are passed. Members on the other side of the Chamber know, as the select committee chairman reminded me, that any regulation that’s ultra vires will be struck down in the High Court.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Minister in the chair, the Hon Shane Jones, in reply to a question earlier in this debate, made the note that this was a “relatively uncontroversial” bill, and I’d just like to explore that concept a little further in light of the number of submissions that we heard, mostly via Zoom, which painted a rather different picture from the one the Minister has just explained to us in the Chamber.

I will start with the Forest Owners Association, who told us and who directed their comments to the Minister’s attention: “We strongly urge you”—and I’m quoting—“to reconsider this bill and look for other ways to facilitate the ongoing development of the domestic wood-processing industry.” So that was, I think, a well-directed suggestion and comment, and it was made in a very respectful way. And what the Forest Owners Association were saying to the Environment Committee and saying to the Minister is they were really questioning the regulation and the measures in this bill. Were they the right fit for the intention of the bill, which was to improve the practice, if you like, of forestry owners and log traders? So that’s really my first question and that comes via the Forestry Owners Association and I think they make a reasonable request. I know we’ve got the regulatory impact statement in front of us, but that didn’t give me any guidance on what other measures could have been considered, so I am interested to know what other ways were considered by the Minister to facilitate the ongoing development of the domestic wood-processing industry.

The other component of the questions I have is around registration, and that was signalled to the committee and signalled through the bill. But there were a lot of submitters, and I made notes, as you do, handwritten, and every submitter, practically—well, first of all, every submitter said that they had very little time to make a substantive submission. That was every submitter, and I don’t think there was an exception to that, and we’ve rehearsed that in this debate. Many of those submitters raised questions around where the regulations were going to be directed. What were the regulations going to be? Now, we all understand that regulation often comes after the legislation, but there was expressed to us a degree of apprehension about what that regulation might entail on the basis that a number of the submitters simply couldn’t identify, in particular, what the problem was to be solved. So I would like to know further: what is the problem that has to be solved that can’t be solved in other ways?

And finally, I would like the Minister to address the issue of how much note he has taken of the many, many submitters, forestry companies, large and small foresters associations, 90 percent of whom—and I’m guessing, but it’s about 90 percent of whom—oppose this bill, citing a lack of consultation, lack of time to make consultation, uncertainty around the regulation, and no real sense of what the problem was to be solved.

And lastly, I would like the Minister to address his statement and clarify just what exactly he meant when he made the comment that this bill was “relatively uncontroversial”, because that was not the experience that we heard through the select committee and it certainly wasn’t the experience of the submitters.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the Minister in advance for his engagement. So far, I’ve been listening and there have been good answers to the questions that we, Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, have been putting forward on this bill. We realise that the select committee did a pretty good job panel beating this bill, but we still have got some concerns, and I’d like to address a couple of those this evening.

We’re still concerned about, potentially, the trade implications of this, and I may have heard the Minister addressing it before I got into the House, so I guess my specific question is: has the Minister sought any advice from Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) officials about the implications, or potential implications, of this bill on any trade negotiations in the future? I know that the Ministry for Primary Industries have a trade team—they’re well respected—but I’m very keen to know: has the Minister reached out and sought any advice from MFAT trade officials who are typically on the front line and in the engine room trying to negotiate free-trade agreements? Right now, they’re working hard to try and get one across the line with the European Union, and we know that there’s a few stumble trips along the way there, and also with the United Kingdom.

The reason I raise that is currently the primary sector tell me that there’s about $6 billion of non-tariff barriers that our exporters have to deal with a year. That’s what it costs our industry, effectively—that money not flowing back to farmers and growers and foresters, and the like, so I’m keen to hear the Minister explain that one too, please.

I’m also slightly confused—page 36, new section 63ZZC(2)(a)(ii), inserted by clause 7. So what this particular part of this bill, clause 7 of Part 1, says is that registered log traders and registered forestry advisers, on the recommendation of the Minister, must meet some rules that are set, potentially by the Minister. It says the Minister may set standards. Then it goes on to say, “Biosecurity, sustainable land use”. So I’m interested to know: is the Minister giving a nod that the forest advisers will be the ones that will be held to account if they go and advise that class 5 land, as an example, is suitable for forestry? Now we’ve got a live example right now, where Tolaga Bay beach is tangled up in a massive slash, and I’ve heard the industry say, “Oh, well that’s the old rules. They’ve been changed now; shouldn’t happen again.” We all know that these weather bombs, these significant weather events, occur from time to time, so I’m curious to know that there’s some rules and some standards that the Minister and his officials may set, and in particular, the sustainable land use. We’ve heard the Minister refer back to fines and penalties in this bill that could be used as a threat. Hopefully, they aren’t used regularly, but I’m very interested to know what the Minister means around that, because that’s particularly interesting.

The other comment is that I heard the Minister, I think it was in his first reading, say that after the election, it’s likely that politicians will want to restrict the ability of forest investors to expand their holdings into productive farmland. We all concur with that comment on this side of the House, but it would be interesting to know what the Minister is thinking around that particular aspect. Thank you.

There’s a number of issues raised, but if I could start with the former Minister of Agriculture, the Rt Hon David Carter’s concerns, and if I could direct your attention to page 36 and isolate new section 63ZZC (1)(a)(ii)—the reference to biosecurity, sustainable land use.

So, obviously, the ongoing tension between landowners who are favouring forestry as opposed to those who favour ongoing pastoralism—it’s not in a happy spot in some parts of New Zealand, but we have every right to expect that people selling their intellectual services as advisers will be required to offer advice to a high quality of standard. It may come to pass that a future Government, wanting to rebalance the extent to which forestry creeps into farmland or, indeed, the opposite, as has been the case for the last 10 to 12 years, and to reference the fact that those standards will deal with matters such as biosecurity, sustainable land use, shows that a future Minister—and I know I did alarm some members of the forestry sector when I said, “Look, if you think that I’m a bit over the top, you could end up with a Minister from the Green Party, so behave yourselves.” I said that to them, sadly, and I have to apologise to Minister Sage, because I quoted her name, and at that point about a thousand xeroxed submissions materialised from the ether. But that was a political remark.

So the point that I’m making is that there will be an opportunity for standards to be promulgated. They will not usurp the rights of a territorial authority to exercise their statutory functions, or, indeed, the Crown through national policy statements. I think that that’s a very useful addition to the arsenal of opportunities that the receivers of advice can hold the givers of advice to.

There was a question raised about “Was there adequate consultation?” Well, we live in post-COVID times, and there is such huge, tremendous pressure confronting our export sector, our investors, and I think the fact that this bill is where it is tonight reflects the sense of urgency that grips the Government to build statutory frameworks that allow us to get more value out of volume, and many Governments have preached that.

The final point I’d say is that, obviously, this bill would not be in its current sophisticated form and state if there was any sense that it might compromise or undermine our international obligations, but the purpose of the bill makes reference to international trade and domestic processing. I’m very proud to have led this quality of advocacy, as the politician privileged enough to be the Minister. Look, I think that the gale of uncertainty that swept through the forestry sector—once this bill passes, it’ll all diminish.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I know the Minister of Forestry was trying to placate the concerns of foresters and us on this side of the Chamber, but I don’t think he’s helped. The prospect of a Green Party Minister being in charge of this legislation would only make people even more concerned than they are now—the prospect of a Green Party Minister being able to set rules by Order in Council that set standards relating to any matter relating to forestry operations, including, as he’s mentioned under new section 63ZZC(2)(a)(ii), in clause 7, “biosecurity, sustainable land use, biodiversity, and emissions trading;”. Well, that will do nothing to placate the concerns of the people in the sector who are worried enough that the current Minister may be in charge of setting those regulations—perish the thought, let alone, that it may be someone even more perverse and unusually inspired than his good self. This is the section, this is the piece of the legislation, that has caused the most grief, I think, in terms of concern in the sector.

So the assurance from the Minister that he’s acting in good faith and doing the right thing, I guess, is good as far as it goes, but that assumes that we take him at face value in his role, acting in good faith. But it’s the prospect of, dare I say it, a lesser Minister at some point in the future having the kind of power and influence that will be potentially wielded by this piece of legislation that is the really scary thing.

I want also just to ask a question about some words that were put in at the request of the Environment Committee to try and ameliorate the concerns. That is in section 63ZZC(2A), and it says, “However, the rules must not impose any condition or requirement that is that is properly a matter for commercial agreement between the parties.” Those words were put in because what we were worried about as a select committee was that there was a potential for inappropriate involvement in what are, actually, property rights—the rights of a property owner to produce an income from a piece of land in a way that they choose to, having made prudent decisions that they’ve come to under their own analysis and research and their own thought about what kind of capital return or investment return that might make. So if they choose to grow trees, should it be the purview of regulated advisers that they define for property owners what kind of trees, what variety of trees, should be planted on a piece of land or, indeed, at what point those trees should be harvested.

I know the Minister has concerns about the potential for trees to be harvested before full maturity or before full market maturity, and there is concern that, actually, these new regulated forestry advisers are going to advise landowners, foresters—maybe against their will or their good judgment—when to harvest trees.

So those are, I think, legitimate concerns that foresters have that, somehow, notwithstanding the extra words that we’ve put in, there will still be a potential for influence—undue influence—about decisions that are properly made by people using their good judgment, their own research, their own nous, and their own investigative powers as to what is the commercially appropriate outcome for their investment in the land that they are earning an income from.

So I’m keen to know how the Minister is going to try to further placate the concerns of landowners that they’re not going to be told when they can harvest trees, at what point of the tree’s maturity it will be harvested, or, indeed, which tree variety is going to be allowed to be planted on their property and which not.

Can I just remind the committee that the House has agreed to a new process during the committee stage of debate where the members no longer target five minutes for their speeches but use the opportunity to ask the Minister questions. The expectation is the Minister will answer it, not necessarily straight away but during the course of the debate.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, I’ll answer the questions for the Minister. That’ll solve the problem. I was very interested in the point he made about the Green Party Minister running this bill. We in fact used to have a Roundwood operation ourselves, and we used to use draught horses, which will please the Minister no end. That solves the problem of that. The other thing I was intrigued about, that the Minister said in one of his earlier answers, with post-COVID, is I took it to be cryptic for we no longer need to consult. In fact, that’s what his answer sounded very like.

But I wanted to ask an interesting question about the exemptions, because when you get into—well, I think it’s interesting—bills like this and you start to put exemptions in place, those exemptions are always kind of subject—because you get to a point where you’re a tonne over or a tonne under, and how do you work that out? But it’s interesting when you drive through the Rangitīkei electorate. There are two—and I invite the Minister to drive from Waiōuru to Ōhākune. There’s a very large firewood operator in that area, and, actually, in Marton also there’s a very, very large firewood operator. And when you think about 2,000 cubic metres a year, it’s not a lot of wood. It’s about 50 loads of logs, if you think about it in that respect, from those trucks that come down to the port here, for those people who want to know what a load of logs look like. So about 2,000 cubic metres a year, and I’ll guarantee, this legislation could well catch the firewood operators on that rate. I realise the regulations are able to specify different volume, and no doubt that’s how they’d work, but what interests me is how that would work and how it would be tested. So my question for the Minister is really around the thresholds and what triggers those thresholds and what would trigger a Minister to review those thresholds or the regulations to review those thresholds. So that’s one point.

I think pretty much every other point in the bill has been covered by our previous speakers and we’ve had answers to some of those questions. Some of them, of course, won’t have to satisfy us because we clearly oppose. We don’t oppose all of this bill because, like every piece of legislation that comes to the House, there are some bits of these bills that actually would be quite useful were they in a different form. So that’s my lot.

These remarks, especially from the member who has just resumed his seat, have been very focused. Now, on the question of exemptions, I direct his attention to new section 63H(2), set out in clause 7. At this stage, I have received no advice that the quantums referred to, 2,000 tonne—and there’s about 30,000 tonne on an ordinary international freighter taking the logs out of the country, to 35,000 tonne, and 47 to 50 tonne on a truck. If it comes to pass that the regulations need to be niftily crafted to overcome that problem, I’ve got every confidence, because Te Uru Rākau, the officials that will go forward and implement this bill, realise that centre of mind must be economic services and economic returns.

On the question of exemptions—I’m on page 36. I’m on new section 63ZZC(2A) in clause 7. I think in the future, the best answer I can give to Mr Simpson is that there may very well come to pass where legal minds far more acute than mine, not unlike the chair of the select committee, will give a definition as to what “properly” is. Does “properly” mean “ordinarily associated with a day-to-day, bog-standard commercial transaction”, or are we referring to “is the conduct properly considered to have belonged to a bog-standard commercial transaction?” When time comes for that debate to take place, they’ll go back to the purpose of the Act, and the purpose of the Act is very lucid. It addresses the need for us to maintain international trade, and it addresses the overdue need to give confidence for those investors who want to expand the size of the domestic manufacturing base in this particularly, in some cases, stressed industry but, in this industry, with an enormous amount of potential in the future.

So I would caution members on the other side of the House from delving too deep into apocryphal interpretations. Time will pass and they will find that this bill actually strengthens the entirety of the industry—in particular, those who are employers, employees, and investors in the processing sector. Sadly, no one from that side of the House has stood up to talk for the processors.

. Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, I think the Minister in the chair, the Hon Shane Jones, is—I accept that he’s trying to help, but I think he’s instilling only more fear amongst those who are concerned about that particular clause, because if the prospect of a lesser Minister than himself, perhaps a Green Party Minister at some future date, invokes fear and concern in the minds of foresters, then the next big scary thing is that judges, activist judges, should be the ones who determine who can log a tree and at what stage.

If we leave it to the judiciary, that may be all well and good, but some poor landowner, some poor forester, is going to have to go through a judicial process, go through litigation to have some kind of definition that the Minister’s assuring us will surely come if that is going to be judicially interpreted by a judge, maybe an activist judge, who is going to look at the purpose clause of the bill and say, “Well, I know exactly what the Hon Shane Jones meant by that but I have a different view. And it’s my view”—said the activist judge—“that actually these registered forestry advisers do have a capacity to tell landowners when a tree can be felled and at what stage of maturity and which type or variety of tree can be planted on which piece of land.” That’s even more scary to members of the sector than, in fact, probably even the prospect of a Green Party Minister having purview over this piece of legislation is. So my concern is that in trying to placate us with the prospect of long and expensive, potentially, activist litigation, actually this will only instil even greater fear in the minds of those people who are worried about it.

I want to ask a separate question relating to new section 63ZZD, the rules about the code of ethics, in new Part 2A of the Forests Act, set out in clause 7. Subsection (1) states, “The Forestry Authority may, on the recommendation of the Minister, make rules that set a code of ethics for registered [foresters].” And these rules may include—and then these are those worrying words—“without limitation, matters relating to—”, and then it goes through a series of matters that may be applied in terms of creating a code of ethics.

This Parliament has been grappling with issues of those sorts. And if parliamentarians can’t agree a code of conduct or a code of ethics, it seems hardly fair that on the recommendation of the Minister, a code of ethics is going to be forced without limitation upon these registered forestry advisers. I’m interested to know what the Minister’s thoughts and views are on that subject, please.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 543 in the name of the Hon Shane Jones be agreed to.