Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I would like to again acknowledge the forestry sector and the amount of change they’ve experienced over the past six years. There have been, you know, different messages that have come from Government in the form of the emissions trading scheme reviews, and the piling on of additional rules and regulations have affected them. It’s made the investment environment very uncertain for foresters.

Forestry has a very long investment time frame. From planting to harvest, it can take over 30 years for individuals and businesses to capitalise on their investment. I want to send a clear signal that it is worth investing in forestry, and the Government supports afforestation to boost exports, grow, and to help meet our emissions reduction and adaptation objectives.

The problem we’ve had in New Zealand in recent years is that when we have a problem, even a perceived problem, we’ve often attempted to fix it through more rules or regulations. This is probably a case that is no different than that. Through the repeal of the bill, and the passing of other bills since the Government took office, we’re sending a very clear signal to the wider Government agencies and the general public that, actually, what we want is fewer rules but better ones, and to work with the private sector, where they’re able to achieve what Government tries to sometimes—they are often better placed to do so.

The introduction of a regulation system was not the only part of these regulations. On top of the regulation system, additional regulations came into force on 1 July 2024, which add yet more obligations on registered forestry advisors to record their activities and submit annual reports of those activities to the Government. Additionally, on the same date, a new levy year will commence and another annual levy will be required to be paid by the registrants. I don’t see that any value has been created as a result of the log traders or forest advisers, through the system, and, therefore, these levies are not justified, nor is there a fee that they should be paid in registration.

Given the new regulations would add further compliance costs on to the sector in July, we’re seeking to repeal this legislation as quickly as possible so that the sector avoids this duplication, additional cost, and, of course, more compliance. We are repealing this legislation as effectively and efficiently as possible to avoid these initial costs on the sector but also on the Crown.

This legislation has been supported by a very large majority in the House and by all of the coalition partners, including the Hon Shane Jones, who I’ve worked very, very closely with to ensure that we get the balance right, to be in the protection but not over-regulated and burdening.

I just wanted to point out, in the previous debate, the member from the Green Party asked what engagement we’ve had from Māori, as I think the member of the Māori Party did. I’d just like to read, and can perhaps table if necessary, a letter and email that we received from Ngā Pou a Tāne, the National Māori Forestry Association, that said, “Tēnā koe, Minita McClay. A short note from Ngā Pou a Tāne in thanks for making the practical decision to repeal this unnecessary legislation. We’re pleased our voice and that of the industry has prevailed. Long may this continue.” That was from the chair of that organisation. So there has been ongoing engagement and discussion, and this is something that is widely supported by the forestry sector. I commend it to the House.

So, just can I clarify, the Minister was saying that he would table that document if requested?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, I said what I’ve said: if necessary.

OK, so if requested—you’re not asking to table it?

Hon TODD McCLAY: No.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK. Thank you.

Point of order. Could I seek for the letter to be tabled?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, you can make a point of order and you can request that the Minister tables that.

HŪHANA LYNDON: I did.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah. You need to seek leave for—just a moment, I’ll just get the words right. I’ve just clarified that—I can’t seek leave for someone else to do something; the Minister will have to do that voluntarily. Thank you.

HŪHANA LYNDON: Thank you.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. I will just tidy it up so there’s not information that shouldn’t be in the public domain, in as far as contact details, and then I’ll table it.

OK. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Before we all join hands and pat each other on the back about support breaking out across the House, I sat here and listened to a number of the speeches, and I thought it interesting when, over the last six years, the ACT Party took a very clear stance—pro farmer—to say no more farmland will be put into forestry. And I remember my matua Shane Jones saying, “More forestry is good.” And so I wonder if later on in the debate, as we progress this bill through the House, we might get a far more honest view—or a far more open view, I apologise, Madam Chair—and a far more transparent view on whether or not—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Good choice of words.

Hon PEENI HENARE: —the relations between the coalition partners certainly indicate the words, or support the words, that were uttered by the Minister.

We will be supporting this bill. There are a number of things in the bill that the Minister spoke to that, of course, we’ll continue to look for safeguards on, and he mentioned the date August 2027. And I take his point that it is a long period of time when we look to the forestry sector for those that do the planning, those that do the planting, the growing, and, of course, the harvesting.

Of course, we’re putting a lot of trust into the sector to ensure that those safeguards will continue to be there for those that are small operators in the system, but also those who might wish to come into the system. And I think that’s an important thing to support the sector to make sure that they’ve got that system right. What we did find—and I speak as a former forestry Minister here—was that there was a lot of frustration with the burden that was placed on those particular forest owners, forest growers, and wood harvesters with respect to some of the legislation that was put in place to make sure that we have those safeguards. But I want to be very clear that those safeguards, with respect to international trade, looked to do a number of things. One of them was to protect indigenous species so that for those who might be selling indigenous species offshore illegally, we can keep a track of these things. We can make sure that through clear registration, knowing who’s who in the field, knowing who is brokering these deals as we export logs from New Zealand offshore, that they weren’t breaking the rules with respect to indigenous species, which are a very lucrative market right across the world in indigenous species.

In fact, I know of a number of traders from the Far North who have entered into swamp kauri or harvesting swamp kauri and have made a heck of a lot of money as they’ve exported that particular timber offshore. What we don’t want to see, though, is people going out and trying to raid paddocks or raid areas or raid land that they might think have those indigenous species like swamp kauri and look towards profiting offshore. That’s why it was important that we have checks and balances. We’re not simply saying, “Yes, we tried something, and it didn’t work in its entirety.”; we’re saying, “Yes, this is why we did it.” And it was to do a number of things, like I’ve already mentioned, about protecting indigenous species.

One of the other things, too, that what we tried to do with the legislation that this bill is repealing was to make sure that—we’ve heard the term “cowboys” in the sector here—there was a code of ethics in the way that they were operating in the field. Now, not only did we want to see that with respect to the trade and trade brokers that might be involved in the forestry sector; we want to continue to see a strong code of ethics across the entire forestry sector. The Labour Party most certainly have always been very staunch about workers’ rights, certainly staunch about the way that we can continue to protect workers in the field of forestry. We know that in forestry workers, the death rate is just far too high. In fact, I think it’s the highest in working professions in this country. So we were trying to do far more than just specifically what this bill is repealing.

It was about trying to set a good tone across the entire sector so that we have it from growth to harvest to export. And every single part of that machinery needs to be cognisant that these rules were in place for a reason. But I take the Minister and his word in our discussions that we had, and in the discussions that I too had with the wood councils, a number of them across the country who do have Māori representation on those wood councils. Recently, we were in Gisborne at the Te Tairāwhiti Wood Council Awards, where a number of traders, a number of growers and harvesters, had the opportunity to speak to my colleagues, and the following day, I caught up with them where they expressed an opportunity to do things better. And what we’re doing here is repealing a bill, repealing a piece of legislation, with the hope that they will get it right moving forward.

The Minister has offered some safeguards. We will continue to look towards supporting and making sure that those safeguards are adhered to. We acknowledge the time that it takes in order to make sure that these filter out across the sector. So, from my perspective, I think the Minister has the timing about right with respect to August 2027, which is the amendment that he’s made to his bill. And it’s the support of that sector that I think is going to make it even stronger for the future. Why I say that is because, as my colleague had already mentioned, at the moment, log prices are stable and low. As they rise, the market changes. And we want to make sure that everyone has an opportunity here to still be able to trade in what will be and has proven in the past to be a very lucrative export for our country.

And, in order to do that, what we don’t want to see is simply large owners taking over a small player in the field—in particular in places on Māori land, and it’s already been made clear by members across the House that Māori land under the stewardship of the stewardship of the former forestry Minister, the Hon Shane Jones, who went around to look towards land that was—I can’t remember the word exactly, but it was land that couldn’t be used for much more. And they were used to plant and to grow trees in order to create carbon sinks as well as make sure that there was opportunity for Māori land owners, trust-land owners to be involved in forestry exports into the future. And they look for those safeguards, which is why we put in place the legislation that we did.

The bill now is going to repeal that. The Minister has made clear some of the safeguards—and we’ve already expressed that, through the committee of the whole House, that will continue to seek those assurances to make sure that, as we go through the debate on the bill, we can come to a consensus certainly for the support that we offer as the Labour Party to this particular bill and make sure that it can be the best base for the forestry sector to grow.

In conclusion, I want to just continue to reiterate, though, that the Labour Party has always stood for manufacturing and processing wood locally. Well, I want to make that point clear. We want to, yes, support exporters—of course. We want to make sure that the regime is in place to support exporters, but, as my colleague had already mentioned, when we look to build in this country, when we want to build ourselves out of a housing crisis, when we want to build more schools, it just makes more sense to have the timber locally. I always found it odd, and most members in the House will come across members in the community who will say, “I find it odd we export our logs and then we purchase back processed timber.” I’m not the only one who says that in the House. I’m sure members have experienced their constituents or the sector saying the same thing. So I want to make it very clear: we, in our time as Government, invested in that particular sector, and those are more of the opportunities that will look towards this Government in hoping that they’re true to their word in order to support the forestry sector moving forward.

So, on this side of the House, the Labour Party will be supporting this bill, but we will continue to look towards the safeguards that the Minister outlined in the first reading of this bill.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Now, I’m reflecting on the purpose of this legislation that is to be repealed. It was to ensure that logs grown in New Zealand and bought and sold were handled in a way that was transparent and professional. So since 6 August 2023, it’s been an offence to operate as a log trader or provide forestry advice without being registered.

Now, if I can share some personal experience around the benefit as a small forest owner and administer on behalf of our shareholders, this scheme has been very beneficial for us, because we had the opportunity to engage with registered professionals to advise us on how to manage our forests, and then who to engage to finally execute the thinning that we need on our whenua. Now, we may not be big players, we may not be members of Ngā Pou a Tāne, but our voice matters and we are worried, because, certainly, we have seen others who have spent far too much in gaining advice and then seeking services which actually didn’t work out for them anyhow.

In Tai Tokerau last night and yesterday, I had the opportunity to sit with forest owners and other hui and talk to them about, “Hey, have you engaged with any forest advisers lately? Or where are you at with your thinning programme?” They said, “Yep, it’s good because we know tūturu that the person that we’re engaging has the right credentials and experience to engage to support our trust.” And we aren’t big players—no, no—but we are important in terms of the building blocks of the economy of New Zealand. And, as Māori landowners, our voice does matter.

In terms of the original intention of this legislation, it was to strengthen integrity; it was to provide continuous, predictable, and long-term supply of timber; and then to provide, of course, as I’ve spoken to, transparency and professionalism. But also it helps us to have confidence with those that we engage. And I was thinking about the consultation meeting that I did engage with when the Minister was making the rounds in establishing this legislation, and it was robust, because we had whenua Māori, we had members of our wood council, we had advisers, and we had some whanaunga who were in the sector. And some of our whanaunga in the sector raised concerns around registration and compliance and “This is just another added burden”. But, actually, in engaging with them recently, the professional learning and development that the advisers are required to engage with to keep up their registration has meant that we had confidence in the advisers, whether it be for log trading or whether it be for forestry advice in general meant that we knew tūturu that these people had the credentials and experience that we needed.

Now, in the process of consultation that Minister Jones at the time undertook with Te Uru Rākau, the wānanga, the webinars, the online hui, and also the face-to-face like I participated in saw submissions come back because we had a full process. This is really fast what’s happening here. But in that process we had the select committee, and the submitters came back and supported the need for continuous professional development for our advisers. In fact, 87 percent said that the records from this continuous professional development should be held centrally, and 93 percent thought that they needed to be lodged and held so that we could check the credentials of our advisers.

So I mihi to the submitters who supported the need for somewhere central—a bank—so we could check the credentials of these people, because there’s nothing worse than engaging a cowboy—nothing worse than engaging a cowboy—that turns up with their laptop on their truck, and then next minute it’s costing you more and more in the pocket. And when it comes to your annual general meeting (AGM), when you need to stand before your people, you’re held to account. I have seen many AGMs where we have been burnt as trustees who are inexperienced in the market, and we’re just doing our best to make a good decision for the use of our whenua, but we had confidence because of this legislation. So, yes, I do support my matua—Matua Shane—for this. And I do thank him for persevering in this space.

If we recall the need for this legislation, and thinking about the speeches we had that took place in the House by Eugenie Sage, she stood up and she shared that there’s a social licence that the industry really needs to gain back that trust within our communities. And we don’t have to think too far back to our whānau in Te Tai Rāwhiti, and then also for myself in the back blocks Ngāti Hine when our logs fall into the waterways or clog up our roads when they fall over and we have to figure out a plan because, actually, our planting plan wasn’t great. So, critical to this is good advice.

Now, I appreciate that the Minister’s going to share the letter he’s received from Ngā Pou a Tāne—great; kia ora. As a stakeholder, that’s great to see that you engaged with someone, because in the official records there was “No consultation has been undertaken on the policies within this bill.” So the more we learn around the consultation undertaken by the Minister and his officials for this legislation, the more we will learn in terms of what the product is that will be produced, because if we have to rely on the sector and we have to trust that they will come up with something, we know they didn’t before. There was only 10 to 12 of those forest advisers, those loggers, that registered—10 to 12 percent. So, Matua, Tama, Wairua Tapu—we’re going to have to trust that they’re going to come up with something. Kia ora tātou.

We know that forestry is a massive player within our economy. We know that our people benefit from the work and also there is always risk within this space. And I’ve spoken to my own experience in land administration and having to face the wrath of our people at an AGM. But ultimately what I understood back in the day four years ago when the sales pitch came into our kāinga was that this was about retaining the value back in our communities so that we could build our own homes from wood produced in our kāinga to support our local processors. I say this because that’s what I clearly heard on the day, and that’s what I saw from our local processors standing up and saying “Āe, tautoko, āe.” They were there. And I appreciated the way that the industry and us as landowners came together. That was the vision that Matua Shane presented: keeping the value in our communities and building up our own industry. He said the short-term issue is how we manage slowing down the volume of logs getting harvested in Northland and we need to protect the jobs of our local people.

Now, with this I keep thinking about building more homes, so I do welcome the discussion around what is the plan beyond here. Through this process, can the Minister present what is the vision, because from a whenua Māori perspective, we might be small players, but if we can keep our logs in Tai Tokerau or in Te Tai Rāwhiti, and then we can put them through local processing and build local homes for our people because we know we have a shortage of homes in our kāinga, then that would be a win. So I welcome the wānanga that we might have today, but continue to raise concerns around the exclusion of the people of New Zealand and the exclusion of our voice, whether we be large or small forest owners, whether we be just a subbie. Sometimes you’re only small harvesters, the loggers, or even I think of some of our matua who are around who try their best, and they put in tono all the time for jobbies for our people, and they got registered so that they could have a chance with our landowners to be able to demonstrate that they could harvest or they could thin.

So my tono to our Minister is to present the vision. What is the plan? Because the people of New Zealand deserve that, forest owners deserve that, whether we’re big or small. And for those that have made the effort to become registered and who have complied with the need for continuous professional development, I think they need to be celebrated. And by celebrating them, they’re important to the sector. And if they’ve been through the rigour of registration, let’s maintain that movement of getting the rest of everyone on board. So what is the solution? What is the plan? Because we can’t see it right now. Kia ora tātou.

Thank you. I stand in support of the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill, acknowledging the Hon Peeni Henare’s comments about forestry and ACT’s position on turning productive land into forest. Unfortunately, I’m unable to comment on my colleague’s positions on that, but maybe throughout this process you will get your answers.

Look, the ACT Party’s all about cutting red tape and making it easier to do business in New Zealand. So I think that this bill strikes a good balance between eco-activity and providing employment, and I think it’s a really sensible bill and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I find myself in a rather invidious position of getting up to support a bill that I was part of a party that helped bring into being. So that is politics for you. But I recall back in those, maybe, 2018-19 years when this piece of legislation came into being—it was, as the previous Green speaker alluded to, a sense of tidying up the industry, taking out some cowboys. But, also, there was concern and continues to be concern about the massive opportunity costs of seeing raw logs go out from the ports without the value being captured by further processing onshore. It was thought that some of these mechanisms could help to make sure that at least the local processors got a shot at some of that supply.

I guess the long and the short of it is that it’s a solution that didn’t necessarily deal with the problem. That seems to be the outcome of this. I think, sometimes in politics, you’ve got to be able to accept that you don’t always get it right, and if you haven’t got it right and you can try another way, then that’s what you should do. So we’ve taken on some wisdom from the Minister here—Minister McClay—who does not support this. We’ve been prepared to go with him on this and accept his worldview, I guess, in terms of cutting the red tape, getting out of the way, and letting industry take care of itself a bit. So we’ll see how that goes. But, I think, sometimes in politics, there’s some things you’re not going to die in a ditch for, and New Zealand First is not going to die in a ditch for this bill. It’s a bill that hasn’t probably reached its potential in terms of outcomes that we would have liked when we brought it in. So we will accept that. We will support the bill and we’ll commend it through to this next stage. Thank you.

Ngā mihi ki a koe, otirā tēnā rā tātau e te Whare.

E tū ana ahau hei taima tuarua i roto i tēnei Whare hei kōrero ki tēnei o ngā pire e kaha tāmi ana i ngā āhuatanga, i ngā uri o te wao nui a Tāne. E kaha tautokotia ana e au ngā kōrero a taku tuakana nei, a Hūhana, otirā i Te Pāti Kākāriki me ō rātou wheakoranga nui i roto i tēnei o ngā rōpū, i roto i tēnei o ngā mahi e hono ana ki tō rātou ake nei iwi o Ngāpuhi, i roto i ēnei wheakoranga i roto i ngā take ahuwhenua, i ngā take e hono ana ki ngā rākau, ngā uri o Tāne Mahuta.

E tāruaruatia ana e au ēnei kōrero nā runga anō i te mea kāore anō kia panoni ōku whakaaro, ngā whakaaro o Te Pāti Māori. E kaha whakahē ana mātou i tēnei pire nā runga anō i te mea e tūhono ana tēnei pire ki tō mātou mana motuhake.

E rongo kōrero ana i te Minita kua whakawhiti kōrero ia i te taha i te rōpū o Ngā Pou a Tāne. E mihi ana ki tērā. E tatari ana mātou mō te reta kia whakawhārikihia ki runga i te tēpu rā. E tatari ana mātou mō tēnā.

Heoi anō, ehake i te mea ko tētehi rōpū anahe. E kaha rangona ana e mātou ko wai ngā rōpū, ko wai ngā iwi, ko wai ngā tāngata kua kōrerotia e tēnei Kāwana, e tēnei Minita ki ngā tāngata whenua, ngā tāngata Māori ki roto i tēnei o ngā wāhi o ngā take e tūhono ana ki a Tāne Mahuta.

E kaha whakahē ana mātou i tēnei pire e hono ana ki te mana ōrite, nā runga anō i te mea ka whai mana ngā exporters, ngā domestic processors, ngā tāngata e whai mana ana i roto i te ao o te timber.

Waihoki e kaha whakahē ana mātou i tēnei o ngā pire e hono ana ki tō mātou mana mokopuna nā runga anō i te mea ko tēnei o ngā pire e tāmi ana, e takahi ana i te nuku o te whenua, i tō mātou nei pepeha, i te oranga whenua. Nā runga anō i tēnā, e whakahē ana mātou, Te Pāti Māori.

E kaha tautokotia ana e mātou ngā wheakoranga o Hūhana Lyndon i tēnei o ngā wāhi. Nō reira koinā aku takoha ki tēnei o ngā pire.

[Thank you, and, indeed, greetings to all of us in the House.

I stand for a second time in this House to speak to this bill that strongly oppresses the circumstances and the descendants of the great forest of Tāne. I strongly support the comments of my senior here, Hūhana, indeed the Green Party and their many experiences within this one of the organisations, within this particular activity that is connected to our own iwi of Ngāpuhi, within these experiences in horticultural issues, and the issues related to forestry, the descendants of Tāne Mahuta.

I am repeating these statements because my opinions have not changed, the opinions of the Māori Party. We strongly oppose this bill because this bill is connected to our self-determination.

We hear statements from the Minister that he has communicated with the organisation of Ngā Pou a Tāne. We commend that. We are waiting for the letter to be tabled here. We are waiting for that.

However, it is not as if there is only one organisation. We are hearing a lot about who are the organisations, who are the iwi, who are the people that have been engaged by this Government, and by this Minister with the people of the land, the Māori people within this area of the issues that are related to Tāne Mahuta.

We strongly oppose this bill that is connected to equality, because authority is afforded to the exporters, the domestic processors, and people with power within the timber sector.

Furthermore, we strongly oppose this bill as it relates to the authority of our grandchildren because this bill oppresses and mistreats the breadth of the land, our expressions of identity, and the health of the land. And due to that, we, the Māori Party, strongly oppose it.

We strongly support the experiences of Hūhana Lyndon in this space. And so these are my contributions to this bill.]

Kia ora, thank you so much, Madam Speaker. When we’re looking at this particular bill, there are multiple parts to this. So there are two major elements we’re looking at. The first of them is the repeal of the log traders and forest advisers, and the second part is to do with the legal harvesting assurance.

Before we talk about some of these, I just want to kind of give the broader picture that when we’re looking at something like forestry, we’re looking at an ecosystem, at multiple perspectives, and, in the context of this House, multiple portfolios that come into play. We have also already heard from our forestry spokesperson, Hūhana Lyndon, but also in this context we are going to be looking for engagement from the agriculture perspective, from the environment perspective, and, in this context, from me in a trade perspective when we are looking at the bigger picture of forestry.

The first thing that we were looking at—the intention that was introduced a few years ago around the log traders and forestry advisers is around the standardisation and the transparency that it will provide. We have already heard from my colleague Hūhana Lyndon that when we are looking at this, it is to provide small entities and small groups with the best opportunity to benefit from something like this; having that availability and the genuine personal stories that we have heard, that ability to hear and having that access and the confidence to the forestry advisers, and this is something that this particular bill will be removing. So that level of transparency is absolutely crucial.

The second thing I want to raise—and this is something that I’m sure we’ll tease out again in the committee stage in lieu of a select committee—is around this idea, as we heard before, of thinning and harvesting. This is where the environmental component comes in really handy, and it’s incredibly crucial because we have seen the danger and the harm both to our environment but also to people and to livelihoods when things are not harvested and when timber is not thinned correctly. Our heart goes out and we acknowledge every single person today who is currently suffering in the East Coast, and we also acknowledge the work that our colleagues in this House are currently doing within their respective electorates that are affected as a result of the state of emergency in the East Coast. For some of those, forestry is so important and the way that we harvest is so important for those regions, to ensure that healthy environment, that people across the board, that ecosystem we’re looking at isn’t going to be ruined.

This is, again, something that’s going to be really, really important, and to tie it into my portfolio around trade, and also in this particular case the Hon Todd McClay’s other hat, other than forestry, is looking at how this system, when we are looking at the transparency and the protection and everything that this particular bill that we are repealing has in terms of our current trade agreements and particularly some of our most recent trade agreements with the EU and UK—granted, these are not areas that, potentially, we are exporting some of those woods and we’re looking at other forms of exports, but within those agreements there are specific requirements for environmental standards, specific requirements to environmental and labour protection. This is something that is also going to be really crucial, and I am really looking forward to the opportunity to get some clarification from the Minister during the committee stage of how, without something like this, do we ensure that the same level of protection is in place and the same level of equity for our small forestry operators will continue to be in place?

So this is something that I am looking forward to continuing discussing during the committee stage, but, unfortunately, at this stage, with the lack of information, we cannot support this bill.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I stand in support of the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill. I was reading through some of the debate notes in preparation for this speech, and one of the things I came across was some comments actually made by the relevant Minister, the Hon Todd McClay—and I quote—“The current system fails to deliver outcomes and places unnecessary costs on forest businesses. The repeal will be delivered at speed, with changes coming into effect before 1 July.” Therefore, I’d like to get out of the way and get it all enforced. I commend it to the House.

Kia ora, Madam Speaker. What an unusual treat it is to have a speech on this bill, because I was the lucky chair of the Environment Committee when the original Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers) Amendment Bill was passed. I particularly enjoyed Mr Patterson’s speech tonight because it was New Zealand First who pressed with utmost urgency that this was a critical piece of legislation to ensure that we had a robust domestic industry. And it’s interesting, because my own background is in professional regulation and this regime landed on the select committee table with a fully fledged complaints and dispute resolution framework at incredible pace, and with urgency because of the importance of it. We worked through all kinds of details of standards committees and what kind of code of conduct there would be and how we deal with commercial disputes.

To be fair, at the time, this was very much a New Zealand First initiative. In fact, it was of critical importance to them. It was a “do or die” situation. And here we have it. They’ve flip-flopped. Someone in their coalition said, “We don’t like that.” And Shane Jones said, “Well, you know, maybe, you know”—Mr Patterson said we tried it; it was a bad idea. Let’s be clear, it’s not even properly enforced yet. It hasn’t actually been fully implemented. So we don’t know whether it was going to be a good idea or not. But, even at the time, certainly it was there because New Zealand First desperately wanted it. There was a sense from New Zealand First that some log traders would not be doing the decent thing with domestic growers and providers of foresters, so there was this framework put into place.

We do support this bill, because we do have concerns that you can’t go around and, just because you don’t like the way some people are behaving or you’d like to see a different approach—and one of the questions here was the mix between logs that were being exported and logs that were being made available for domestic milling. And, look, the last thing we want is to be importing milled timber from overseas. But, at the same time, we don’t want to be creating an entirely kind of false regime where local mills have some kind of preferential treatment, and people who are buying logs for export are doing it on an other than commercial basis. And that’s, kind of through the back door, essentially what this this regime was at least targeted at. So it, in effect, had an element of trying to interfere in the market in a way in which some would say was anti-competitive. So, in so far as it’s not landed well, that’s not entirely surprising.

Log traders—the name pretty much says it all. I’ve heard a number of people who didn’t know about this, but talk about a guy with a ute, or a person with a ute and a laptop. But that’s what log traders do. They purchase logs and they broker them and they then supply them to third parties—a perfectly legitimate role. And, as in any business, there’s going to be some rogues and scallywags out there, but there’s a whole system of commercial law for that. I think we’ve got to be cautious about imposing onerous systems and kind of fully fledged regulatory systems like we do on lawyers, for example, where you’ve simply got two commercial parties with bargaining positions.

I think the trigger for a kind of conduct system, which is what this was and is at the moment, but won’t be for long—a conduct system really is only appropriate where you’ve got some kind of vulnerability or significant imbalance of power. A kind of historic origins of those were doctors, lawyers, and those traditional professions, if you like, who had a kind of special position and knowledge, and, therefore, in respect of their clients, they had to have these special conduct rules. Over time, it’s been expanded into kind of the consumer area. So we see the banking code of conduct. We see the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act regime and the financial market conduct regime, all of which are good because of the imbalance of knowledge and power between, essentially, a seller and a buyer.

Log traders don’t quite fit into that. This is not a consumer contract. It’s not some kind of fiduciary relationship. So, in fact, it was heavy-handed and that was always the concern. It is with somewhat of a wry smile when being pressed heavily by New Zealand First as to the critical importance and the fact that our local log industry depended for its life on this. So I think Mr Shane Jones is now hiding in the ditch he was about to die in before. So, you know, there you go. But it is good that we can look at this. You know, the ACT Party has got this bee in its bonnet about regulation, as if, on this side of the House, we just love regulation. Well, it’s not the case. We want appropriate regulation in appropriate places. And, certainly, in the forestry industry, there is some appropriate regulation needed. I’m sure my colleague our spokesperson for workplace safety will have something to say about that. But in terms of regulating the relationship between buyers and sellers of logs, it seemed a very odd place to do that.

So, yes, we want responsible capitalism, but we actually want capitalism that works. And we agree that where there is an unnecessary fetter on people making agreements and engaging in effective business, then we want to get rid of them. I would say come over and have a yarn, because we’re very interested in this. As our position on this bill shows, we’re really interested in having a fruitful discussion, but we think the kind of regulation bonfire approach is just a little unsophisticated and doesn’t really serve us well. So, in respect of this piece of legislation, we think that the code of conduct framework was unnecessary. Of course, the additional fees and levies, that does have to be borne somewhere, whether it’s in the traders’ profits or the price of the timber that ultimately gets milled, and we don’t want to see that.

The commercial disputes resolution framework—you know, there was something in that. I’m actually a real advocate of keeping disputes out of the courts as far as we can, and providing people with a forum and a framework which is non-court - based is a good thing. But you don’t actually need to do that by imposition in commercial situations. You can generally provide a framework and let people pick it up if they choose to do so. So, once again, that’s a really good example of how you can provide the tools but not necessarily go down the road of compulsion. A lot of these disputes can be solved by mediation or by arbitration, which was, essentially, the framework that was set out in this log traders framework here. But the fact of the matter is that a non-litigious approach is by far and away better.

But, at the end of the day, what we’re all interested in is a robust, thriving, and competitive forestry industry and one which has both a good export aspect to it. We do want to see our timber go overseas. Ideally, it would be milled before it goes over—but we know that’s not always the case—but also a robust domestic industry. We don’t think we need regulation to achieve that. We think that the industry’s actually in good health. It’s going to have its ups and downs—industries, and primary industries in particular, always do.

So, once again, good on you, Matua Jones. You come to this House one day, say something is absolutely important, and the next day slink away with your tail between your legs saying, “Well, maybe it wasn’t that important after all. Maybe it was all just a bit of a mistake.” Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a great pleasure to speak on the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill. I think there’s widespread agreement across the House that this Act is unnecessary. I do have to take a little bit of issue with the previous speaker, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb. I think it’s a big person who is someone who can accept that they put something in that is not actually fit for purpose, with new information, and I think it’s really big of them to come forward and take it on the chin and move on. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be able to make a contribution to this Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill. I have to say it was a bill that I wasn’t that involved with. I wasn’t in the Parliament when my colleague Duncan Webb was involved on the select committee, so I had to look into the history of this bill.

To start with, I was thinking, well, this actually looks quite good, the fact that we have some constraints on one of our most dangerous work areas, which is forestry. But then when I looked at the content of the bill, I realised, obviously, that’s not the purpose of this bill. It was very much to do with regulating the sale and the trade of logs, which is not the biggest issue in my mind for regulation. And I thought a bit more widely about this and looked at the existing framework in relation to some of the health and safety provisions that we have in forestry. And the reason that this comes to mind in forestry is, as Peeni Henare indicated before, forestry is our most dangerous profession by quite some magnitude. So if you look at the number of people who are injured and the number of fatalities that occur, these are much, much greater in relation to forestry than they are in almost any other industry.

There is in the explanatory note an explanation of why this bill has been brought to the House. It’s to do with the National Party’s position in relation to the election. Fair enough. You win the election; you get to implement the policies that you campaign on. And I know that this was an important thing that the National Party has had a long history opposing. I didn’t agree with the focus, though, on lack of regulation. So that’s why it was really important to me, when I read this bill and we were considering our support for this bill, to go through the types of regulations which were actually included in this particular bill and just to assure myself that they aren’t ones that could be associated with having a safer regime for forest.

I am interested to hear and participate in the committee stage where we’ll have the opportunity to question the Minister more on the regulatory framework and just to tease out a little bit what was meant in the original legislation that this repeals, which actually talks about professionalising forestry. And, you know, I have a degree of sympathy with the idea that because it is such a hugely dangerous trade and a necessary one—obviously, we do need logs to be able to build, and it’s important for our trade. There’s lots of important things associated with forestry, and my contribution is not at all meant to cast any doubt on a lot of people within that sector who do want to have a robust regime in place, but the original bill did say that they wanted to kind of look at making sure they got rid of cowboys. And that’s something that I would agree with. So that was something that I was concerned about.

But when I actually looked at this particular bill, there’s obviously the repeal of the traders and forestry advisers. I have listened to the points that have been raised in the House, and it appears that the objectives that were meant to be achieved by that particular part of the bill, perhaps haven’t served the purpose or they’re not as necessary from the proponents in support of this bill. So I can accept that. And I did note that, also, there is still an aspect of this legislative change which will go ahead in terms of the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Act. And so this bill, as I understand it, takes the commencement date out to, I think, 1 August 2027. So there is a component still, and I’m sure the Minister will be able to go through this in subsequent readings and also on the committee stage, that is still maintained.

But, overall, I agree with my colleagues that we should support the repeal of this legislation, but also to note the concerning rate of injury and workplace deaths that occur in the forestry industry and not to accept wholeheartedly some of the language in this bill around the need for lack of regulation, because I think regulations that keep people safe, regulations that save lives, and regulations that mean that people come home at night to their families are really important. For all too many forestry families, that hasn’t happened. So this particular bill doesn’t go very far at all towards that objective, but I would encourage the House and the Minister to make sure that they are aware of those issues and work towards them.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Happy to rise and take a call in the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill. I think the case has been traversed quite well—the Minister put forward and outlined the clear reasons we need this. Ultimately, one of the biggest frustrations I hear from my constituents in the Waikato is the over-regulation; the burdensome red tape and compliance that just makes it hard to get stuff done.

On this side of the House, we are focused on unlocking New Zealand’s potential, on driving that economic growth, rebuilding the economy, and getting the country back on track. So I absolutely support this bill and look forward to the progressions of the next few stages this evening. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Thank you for allowing me to take a call on the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill, part of a suite of different measures that have been designed to reduce regulation. The changes that were brought in, led by Shane Jones in this space, are being wound back. I think it’s important to note that while we are supporting the bill, it is really important that the safeguards that have been undertaken to industry to make sure that those forestry exporters and forestry growers—that those safeguards are in place. That is the main caveat that we are placing upon the support of this bill today.

As it has already been noted, not only is forestry a significant part of our export market—fourth-largest, I believe—but it’s also an area where there has been a large number of workplace casualties and also fatalities. It has been a hugely unregulated place where workers are operating in incredibly dangerous situations. It is important to note that the way we do our business in New Zealand directly reflects upon our international reputation and our ability to continue and grow our trade market. So if we are serious about growing trade, if we are serious about growing our economy, we need to look after our workers.

I would just like to acknowledge the work of Helen Kelly in this space. She worked for a long time and fought for many families who had lost loved ones. She fought WorkSafe hard and long for poor-quality investigation where workers had been killed and did not come home, because of poor-quality safety practices right here in New Zealand—young men operating with dangerous instruments, and felling trees in areas that were just plain unsafe. So, with pulling back regulation, we need to be cautious that we don’t kill and hurt the very people that we are expecting to drive our economy further. That word of warning comes with taking away any form of regulation. We need to be doing that in a measured sense.

One of the things that’s always struck me living in the Wellington area is how many logs sit on our ports when you drive past. It always strikes me that we should be doing a little bit more of that processing here in New Zealand. We support local processing of those trees that we fell. It would be far better for our own economy to have value-add to be making more of those products here in New Zealand that we’re able to export at a higher price. There’s some really smart stuff going on in that sector in terms of composites and how we can do that in the building sector. I think this is an area that we could continue to work upon. Instead, we do send a lot of it offshore and then we bring it back in as finished goods from other countries. I think there’s some opportunities there for us to make more out of the produce that we grow right here in New Zealand.

I think it’s important to note, in terms of this winding back regulation, that we always take a good look at our supply chains—where are they starting off and where are they finishing and what are the industries involved along that process of supply chains? Regulation can be really effective at lining up our industries so that we get maximum bang for buck. Sometimes, just cutting staff and saying “Red tape sucks and we’re going to get rid of it.” loses sight of some of the bigger scope of how we plan and, for a small country, make the most of our resources, make the most of our skills, and grow our GDP as much as we possibly can. So I really hope that there’s further work going on with this Government to understand the bigger picture of our forestry sector and how we make the most of the opportunities that we have right here.

I’d like to also note that this bill defers the commencement date so we see it makes those amendments to the bill that was enacted in 2023. It’s to ensure that there are no regulatory gaps and that full engagement is effected with people and trading partners, that that can be delivered. It’s important to keep that in place. It also ensures that the secondary legislation for the legal harvest system is developed and implemented in a way that appropriately manages risk and does not add unnecessary compliance costs. That’s an important balance to strike—between making sure we manage risk but also managing compliance. It’s important to listen to the sector, and we believe, in Labour, that we want to work with our local sector and understand their concerns, to not only make sure their job is easier but also that they balance those risks that have been outlaid.

This is a bill that New Zealand First pushed forward and I see that they’re still OK with it now as it’s wound back and to reduce some of that regulation. Overall, I think it is an interesting time and I look forward to seeing not only how the Government but also the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) sees how we make sure this operates well. The bill specifically provides for MPI to refund any of those levies or any of those fees under the system and also to waive those levies or fees that are due but not yet paid as part of when this was meant to commence. It also stipulates here that all unresolved complaints and reviews will be extinguished and commercial disputes discontinued. Those consequential amendments made will make sure that when it commences, the Act does not include any of the provisions that relate to that primary piece of legislation.

For a sector that means a lot to New Zealand’s economy, for a sector that does a lot of good for New Zealand, a big part of our export market, but also a lot of workers out there, I really hope that this Government gets it right and I really hope that they strike that balance appropriately between reducing regulation but managing risk.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Another great bill that removes red tape—unnecessary red tape—and removes costs for the forestry sector, which, like the rest of the primary sector, are doing it pretty tough at the moment. I’m sure they’ll appreciate a reduction in cost. The old adage “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” certainly applies. The cost of the red tape is now a solution that has turned out to be a solution looking for a problem that didn’t actually eventuate. So, red tape—unnecessary red tape—bye, bye. I commend the bill to the House.

This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill.

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Forests Act 1949