Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill

Members, the House is in committee on the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill. We come first to the debate on Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 8, “Amendments to Forests Act 1949”, and the Schedule.

Point of order. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As we look towards Part 1, it might be really good just to elaborate for the members across the Chamber what are the parts that are being repealed here is, which is the code of ethics. A code of ethics is really important, and if you look at the short list of the code of ethics that is there, one will see “professional responsibility”, “responsibility to clients”, “professional work standards by registered forestry adviser” and “maintaining professional competency”. I think these are all things we’d all look towards in the sector, especially in a sector such as forestry, which is important to our people.

The Minister, the Hon Todd McClay, in the first and second readings of the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill, talked about some of the safeguards. I think, when we think about the code of ethics and what is happening here with its repeal, there are going to be some assurances sought not just from the Minister—because I appreciate the Minister is the Minister of the sector. But the sector itself will need to make sure that they do act ethically and that they do engage the sector broadly and don’t take it upon themselves alone, in some of the organised bodies, to make the decisions on behalf of others, who might not get to be fully represented there.

The question I have for the Minister, with respect to Part 1, about those safeguards, which he did refer to in his speech—things that will give this side of the House assurance that those codes of ethics, in particular with trade, can be upheld; or a code of ethics can be upheld, given that we are repealing in this particular bill. I wonder—and I’m going to take just a small licence here—if that might also extend to some of the other matters that were raised through the speeches by my colleagues in the first and second reading of the bill, about making sure that there is a good code of ethics right across the sector. I think, if we’re going to do it, we want to make sure that we can have it right for exporters. We want to give confidence to the whole sector, as the international markets look toward New Zealand for the exporting of timber.

That’s my first question for the Minister, and I appreciate he’s got the advisers there and he’s writing some notes. So I’m going to shift to my second question, and that is with respect to the forestry practice standards. Work safety is paramount for our party. We want to know that forestry practice standards with respect to trade will continue—same thing: to look towards the safeguards for the sector, so the forestry practice standards—the practical application of what would be a code of ethics. So those sort of go hand in hand, and I’ll leave those as my first two opening salvos for the Minister as we go through this bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to take the opportunity to ask the Minister some questions about this piece of legislation. I guess, really, how he is going to ensure that there is a kind of respectable, cowboy-free log trade in relation to specifically Part 1, which amends the Forests Act 1949?

Obviously, a lot has changed in New Zealand since 1949, but this piece of legislation remains on our statute book. I just did a quick google, and I think Sid Holland was the Prime Minister in 1949, and I imagine that the forestry trade was also possibly flourishing at that time, but with not the same level of workplace regulations or rules to keep people safe as we had then. So this particular part—and I appreciate there are other parts that amend different pieces of legislation, but this is a Forests Act 1949. And so, if the Minister could just, kind of, let us know how we can be assured, with the repeal of this legislation, of a continued professional practice in relation to forestry and trade in logs.

I also want to emphasise a question by my colleague Peeni Henare, which was also touched on by my colleague Ginny Andersen as well. Professionalism does entail, even though this is not the purpose of this bill, a level of care for the community that the forestry is being undertaken on, the land, the environmental concerns, the workers’ safety. The original Act that this amendment to the Forests Act repeals was allegedly going to increase professionalism and get rid of cowboys, so how are we assured with the repeal of this code of ethics in this part—specifically, in clause 4—that that will occur? That’s all.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We’re looking at Part 1. I would like to take a couple of calls on this, but the first one is actually to do with clause 4, and again, later on, it is my understanding that the Schedule is also part of Part 1, which we’re going to be discussing—so please correct me if I’m wrong.

When we’re looking at clause 4 of this, there are a couple of concerns that I would like to raise in terms of the repeal of some of the definitions. I think we’ve already heard about this in terms of the definition when it comes to the code of ethics, but also some of these—you know, I understand, considering we’re repealing it, I say to the Minister, because I can see we’re repealing the log traders and the forestry advisers bit, so I understand the removal of some of these. Again, I want to express some concerns around the repeal of, specifically, the code of ethics and the forestry practice standards, and maybe just see if we can get some reassurance from the Minister that the removal of these means that we’ll still be able to continue to maintain the same level of quality that has come with the introduction of the log traders and forestry advisers legislation.

I think that in this particular case, as we’ve heard in the first and second readings—and I was really appreciative of the Minister talking in terms of the tabled amendments, in terms of some of the consultation that has been undertaken. I think that one of the things we’ve stressed in the first and second readings, because we haven’t been able to hear from small forestry operators—other than the speakers in this House—during those readings, is that it would be really good to know that what we are looking at doing in this will be to maintain that same level of equity.

I understand, when the Minister and other people are talking about that, that we want forestry to be an area that flourishes and thrives, but there is this latent concern that when we are removing some of the definitions as part of this repeal, we are seeing a further imbalance and not that level of diversification of the forestry operators that we could be seeing here in Aotearoa. Again, this is something we’ve heard before. These are locally owned, locally producing operators, and it would be a huge shame that by removing some of these definitions, what we would be starting to see is more centralisation and more conglomeration when it comes to the forestry industry.

I would like to draw attention in this case to the supplementary analysis report, at paragraph 23, and also paragraph 26, where it says, “The main beneficiaries of repealing the RTFA regime will be the forest practitioners, the logging companies, and trade entities, including wood processers and log exporters.” Although this particular point is something we might come back to because it might affect other parts of this legislation, I would like to draw attention to that in the context of the definition. The other part is that in paragraph 26, it says, “The main cost of repealing the RTFA regime would likely fall on small-forest owners.”, and, again, that is really concerning. So I ask if the Minister wouldn’t mind clarifying whether the repeal of any of these definitions would have unintended consequences as a result.

The second part is more looking at clause 4(2), in terms of the definition of “registered”. In this particular clause, it is to repeal paragraph (c) of that definition. I would also be curious—and this is a very minor point—in terms of the drafting over here, where I see inconsistency of the drafting, because it is my understanding that the paragraph (c) here is to do with the register of the log traders and forestry advisers. The main bulk of the questions I am looking at, to the Minister, is if the Minister could just provide some reassurance to the committee and to us that we’re not going to be seeing inequity as a result of the repeal of the definitions and that we are still going to be seeing the maintenance of the same standard.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My question for the Minister of Forestry is probably relatively short. I see that under Part 1, clause 10 of New Part 3 inserted into Schedule 1AA of the Forests Act 1949 says that in respect of commercial disputes, parties to a dispute don’t have to continue to comply with the dispute resolution procedure. It seems a little odd. It may be—and the Minister, no doubt, can take advice on this—that there are no disputes because it’s new, so in fact it’s just a kind of belt and braces approach. But if parties have entered into a dispute resolution procedure on a set of rules that both parties know and have been imposed, it seems very unusual, just as a basic principle, but also having an element of retrospectivity—that something has started and in fact you’re now retrospectively changing it because you’ve got into a set of rules.

It is a very short question, but it’s kind of a natural justice question about when you enter into a dispute resolution arrangement, and then you legislate to change the rights that have crystallised. That’s a concern to me because the rights of the parties to have a particular process seem to have kind of fallen into place and those rights now exist—because it does say “parties to an existing dispute do not need to comply”. Now, the fact is the rules about the dispute resolution process will have benefits and burdens, and one party will like them and the other party won’t like them. So I’m very interested to hear from the Minister whether there are any disputes, and, if so, has he taken advice on that retrospectivity point—if there is. If there’s none, then I don’t think we even need the clause and it’s not an issue.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for giving me my first call on this bill. I just had a few questions that I wanted to ask around it, but I wanted to preface it a little bit with some context. Forestry, as we all know, is an over $6 billion industry, and I had a look at what the actual costs of the registration were. So I had a look and the cost for the application was $510.60, with the annual levy set at $320 and the renewal being set at $444. There’s been an assertion that the rationale for this bill is that there have been undue costs and undue regulatory burden on business, but that fee doesn’t seem to be set all that high to me.

Considering that we’ve seen what the catastrophic impacts of under-regulation are, with the impacts of forestry slash in the aftermath of the extreme weather events in Cyclone Gabrielle and the sad stuff that happened in the North Island, it would seem to me that the forestry sector—and, you know, considering that some of the contributions that the Labour members have made are rightly pointing out that we do need to make sure that the forestry sector is safe, particularly for workers, particularly for owners, and particularly for communities that are around forestry, it doesn’t strike me that there’s under-regulation at the moment.

I guess my first question to the Minister is: what evidence, I guess, have you had in terms of over-regulation? I appreciate that this bill isn’t going to go through a select committee process, so we sadly will miss out on the chance to hear from submitters, but, yeah, I would really be interested in what evidence there has been on over-regulation. Particularly since I think there’s been an assertion that voluntary regulation and some sort of code of practice will kind of fill the gap that the withdrawal of regulation can have, but the supplementary analysis paper says that before the regulation was introduced there were 90 registered members under the voluntary scheme and that after the regulation was introduced there were 527 members. So it just strikes me that if less than one in five of the forestry advisers and of the forestry owners were members of the voluntary kind of regime that existed, won’t it just go back to that same old kind of cowboy country of under-regulation, as my colleague Hūhana Lyndon rightly pointed out?

It’s particularly important as well, I think, because I’m coming at this from a climate angle as well as the kind of regulation angle. Forestry will play an important role in meeting our kind of domestic targets and also potentially our international targets, so I would also be interested in hearing from the Minister whether there has been any analysis done on the impact of repealing regulations on the extent of forestry coverage. I think it’s kind of like the basics of supply and demand. I think members on the Government benches have asserted that if we withdraw regulation, it will lead to the forestry sector expanding, so what is the extent of that expansion that will happen and what can we expect from that?

This leads on to my final question, that obviously there’s an interaction between the forestry sector and the New Zealand emissions trading scheme. We’ve seen, in the past, carbon market auctions fail because they have failed to meet the reserve price, so is there a concern that—and this is the logic that I’m following—if the Government benches have asserted that withdrawing regulation will lead to a growth in the forestry sector, and a growth in the forestry sector means that there’ll be an expansion of potential providers of emissions returns and carbon units (NZUs) in their carbon market scheme, does that mean that there’ll be a flood of NZUs in the scheme? What will that do to the reserve price, and not only the reserve price but the overall price in the secondary markets in the emissions trading scheme?

We do need a carbon price that actually incentivises companies to avoid making pollution, and we’ve heard assertions from the Government benches that they’re relying on market-based mechanisms. So if you’re actually flooding the markets with forestry credits, what does that do to the incentives to actually reduce pollution? So I’m really curious to hear the Minister after the dinner break, perhaps.

Whilst there’s a very short amount of time, I thought I’d address some of these comments, and, of course, we’re back after the dinner break. Firstly, to most colleagues, the legislation is very, very narrow. So, in as far as the emissions trading scheme is concerned or environmental standards or what people can do in forest health and safety, it’s outside the scope of this legislation, and it is governed with many other parts of legislation, and that doesn’t change. In fact, I think we’ll see over the next three years in this House us having conversations about how we strengthen requirements on the environment, in the way we plant trees, and certainly health and safety, but doing so in such a way that doesn’t add additional burden.

In as far as the retrospective nature of saying any dispute would be dismissed, there aren’t any disputes we’re aware of at the moment. But, more broadly, when we say, “Do we need this regulation?” Well, the member’s right that the cost is about $500 per year, but that’s the cost to run the system of registration on the part of the Government, it’s not the cost to those who have entered into it or the obligation, the cost that they have on a daily basis to collect information, report, and do other things. That’s just the cost that we take off them to run the system. We’re giving that money back because we won’t have a system, but actually that’s not the cost to the sector. The actual cost is the things that the legislation imposed upon them and requires them to do.

I would say the New Zealand Institute of Forestry wasn’t in the space that they are today when the legislation first went through. They have a regulatory system they set up themselves. They are being very, very responsible. It is growing. Indeed, there are examples that I’ve been made aware of where they go and help people where there has been a dispute between a trader or somebody that has been registered or not registered, even though they may not be a member, and they’ve gone to work that out with them because actually they and many other parts of the sector have stepped up and are showing greater responsibility for themselves, and actually we’ve got to find ways to work with them.

With that in mind, I can stop here and can go into greater detail, but again, in many of the areas that members have raised questions, they fall outside of the scope of the legislation of what we’re changing. They are important, and therefore the requirements that are in place from the forestry sector to meet those obligations don’t alter at all as a result of the repeal of this legislation.

Members, the time has come to suspend for the dinner break. We will resume again at 7 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6.03 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Members, when we rose for the dinner break, the House was in committee and is in committee on the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill, and we were on the debate on Part 1. I will take some calls but I was watching before the dinner break and I do want to make it very clear that it’s a very narrow bill and there’s been a number of calls that have gone quite wide of the bill so I expect people to—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Madam Chair. I think it’s appropriate, given that observation, to note that we are doing all stages under urgency and there’s not many opportunities to have a wide-ranging debate on a bill or an examination that would be akin to a select committee examination, except for this committee. So I would ask—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I accept that, Dr Webb. All I’m saying is that we can have a wide-ranging debate on this bill. Some of the things I heard were actually not part of the bill.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Fair point. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to give what is my first call on this debate. As a former professional with experience in a large commercial group that owned a forest, the Woodhill Forest, I’m really interested in how the professional-practice expectations of those practising in the forestry sector work. So my first line of questions for the Minister are around whether he has considered some transitional provisions which would allow some of the good work that most people in this House would agree was useful at the time it was introduced to continue.

I want to come to Part 1 of the bill. It’s clause 4 under (1)(e). The Minister is proposing to repeal the requirement for a forestry register, and the questions I have for him are about whether he has considered some transitionary or savings provisions in relation to that repeal, or whether he is open to considering whether that particular piece needs to be repealed at all.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Sorry to interrupt that member’s speech, but I understand there’s a member in the Chamber who may be on the phone, and I’d ask them to put that down, and I will allow the member a little extra time.

ARENA WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair. So my question about the forestry register here is that this bill was introduced at a time when there was widespread concern from forestry owners about bad practice, rogue trading, in the industry. We believe, and the Minister obviously believes that those conditions have changed, but there was some good work there around registering practitioners in this area. My questions are about whether some of that good work can be saved. So the registration element is a system that assures anyone dealing with registered log traders and forestry advisors that they’re getting expert and impartial advice from people with the right knowledge and experience. That’s why it was set up at the time, because of this widespread concern that there were just a small number of operators that weren’t doing that and were offering terms of trade that, if they had been formally contracted, they would have been unconscionable and unreasonable at the time.

The registered log traders and forestry advisors would have then passed a background check, including a criminal conviction check. That will be done away with under these new provisions, and we accept that the Minister has had some advice on this and that he doesn’t believe that that is now necessary. The good work that has been obtained by that is having a register of people who have gone through those checks and who may be held to a high standard, and that is useful for the market to have access to that information. It is useful for small forestry owners in particular, and Māori forestry owners and Māori forestry blocks who have a governance structure which is unusual, where they have a number of lay people sitting on their governance structure, to have access to that information.

So the first question to the Minister is: has he considered making that information available in an ongoing way, given that work has been done and given that it wouldn’t require any change to the legislation necessarily to provide for that information to still be available and maintained going forward? The second question is: if forestry advisors and log traders chose to be registered in this way—which, you know, there are many professional bodies which provide this function—but given the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) is already set up to be able to provide a function like that and there is no professional body doing it at the moment, would it be appropriate for MPI to continue to provide that function and to continue to be able to provide some assurance around those people who are practising to a high standard?

My other question for the Minister is: once registered, those log traders and forestry advisors had ongoing obligations that they met. Now, I know that my colleague the Hon Peeni Henare has asked some questions around, say, that code of ethics, but there are other obligations there that they would be held to, and I want to understand whether the Minister is interested in a further amendment for some transitional provisions which would save those ongoing obligations then applying to people who chose to be on such a register, which would need a legislative change.

I also want to ask the Minister about the complaints process that this register allowed for. It created, essentially, a regime where a complaints process was set up to deal with complaints about registered log traders and forestry advisers, and anyone could make a complaint about unsatisfactory conduct or misconduct of one of those registered forestry advisors. The useful thing that that did is it created one place where small forestry owners could take complaints about the advice that they had received or about conditions and a commercial arrangement that later turned out to be unfair, and I want to hear from the Minister how complaints will be resolved under his proposed changes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Maybe the Minister just has to counterfactual to the previous member’s remarks. You could elucidate or illuminate or all of the above for the members of this committee, what the counterfactual looks like in the absence of a registration system, given that there are local bylaws, as you would be cognisant of, sir, I am sure, that a polluter pays, and if there are issues in and around slash or bad practice, those that are affording those poor practices in a regional community would otherwise be caught by council bylaws. Do you have thoughts on that, sir?

Thank you, Madam Chair. To Part 1, clause 6, “Section 13 amended (Protection of forestry officers)”—it repeals section 13(2). My question here is: throughout the progress of this bill, we talked about trust and empowerment of the sector. This one, if I recall correctly, gives the Minister the ability to delegate powers outside of what would be a forest officer, if you will, or a forestry authority.

I wondered, in this very brief question—it’s about whether or not the Minister had considered maintaining or retaining that power in order to be able to perhaps delegate that authority to a forestry body, another group that might look towards, as the Minister put it, future regulations that will put in place a system that will allow the export of forestry logs offshore to be in a system that is led, designed by the sector itself.

So just a very brief question to the Minister—just to repeat myself—whether or not the Minister considered whether or not he would retain that authority to be able to delegate that to somebody who isn’t a forestry officer or a forestry authority, perhaps to a sector or to a body of a forestry sector in order for them to be able to possess those powers and whether or not the Minister considered keeping it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Firstly, I just want to kind of pick up what our colleague mentioned before in terms of polluter pays. I’m mainly kind of interested to hear from the Minister regarding the interaction when we’re looking at something like slash and polluter pays and the interaction that will have with the bill that was recently passed in the House around the waste minimisation levy, and how that potentially—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Sorry to the member, but we’re not discussing the Waste Minimisation Bill. I want to keep this very close to the regulations that are involved with this piece of legislation, and it is also not the emissions trading scheme bill, either.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Thank you, Madam Chair. If I may, there are two questions regarding the relationship with Part 1 and also Schedule 1 with the primary legislation that I would like some clarification from the Minister on. So if I could ask sort of that relationship, but two separate questions. If the Minister wouldn’t mind responding, that would be greatly appreciated.

The first question is around, you know, we did talk about the repeal of the definition, but when we are looking at the primary legislation in the Forests Act 1949, under both the code of ethics as well as forestry practice standards, it talks about the definition in relation to another section within the primary legislation. So for the code of ethics, it talks about the relationship that that particular clause has with section 63ZZM and for the forestry practice standard, the relationship with that and also the definition in section 63ZZL. So the first clarification I want from the Minister is whether the repeal of the definition is just the definition or the subsequent clauses have also been repealed as a result. That’s my first question, if the Minister wouldn’t mind responding.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I look forward to the Minister, the Hon Todd McClay, engaging with my questions about the forestry register, but I have some further follow-up questions about the register, if you’ll indulge me. This legislation, as I understand it—and this is a simple question for the Minister—doesn’t repeal that definition of a forestry adviser, but it does take away some of the regulations around their involvement. So my first question to him: is it his intention that forestry advisers will still be a regulated term and will still be a protected term?

My second question is: is it his view that in situations where a small forestry owner, or even a medium-sized forestry owner, is seeking advice on their commercial arrangements—because the comparison here, just to explain myself, is that forestry advisers are people who, under the Act, are acting on behalf of another person in relation to the sale or purchase of timber or other forest produce. That person who was once regulated under these provisions—there would have been recourse if their advice was negligent or there was misconduct around their actions. Does he think that for small forestry owners and medium-sized forestry owners who are seeking that kind of advice, for that advice to be protected they will otherwise need to, essentially, get their advice from lawyers?

I ask this question because that is the capacity I was involved in, in forestry ownership, as the general counsel of that group. As the general counsel, I was providing advice not only on the arrangements between the commercial forester and the commercial group holdings company, but also on things like the stumpage and the arrangements to use the roads in a commercial forest, because all of those things are complex commercial arrangements. Foresters, essentially, build roads in a forest to last only the lifecycle of when they will be harvesting. So I want to understand from the Minister whether he is really further pushing costs on to small forestry owners and medium-sized forestry owners, who need that level of protection about the advice and to be able to rely on it in future.

My further question, and this is a different line of inquiry, is specifically in relation to Crown forests that have been returned to iwi. Those are a patchwork of arrangements that, basically, change hands from the Crown to iwi over sometimes 20-, sometimes 30-, sometimes 50-year cycles, where, essentially, you have blocks within the forest that are being harvested at different times, and when one block is harvested, it will go from Crown ownership to iwi ownership. My question there is that, say, in the Kaingaroa Forest at the moment, you’ll have a puzzle where some of the forests are owned by iwi and some are owned by the Crown. In those kinds of scenarios, you have pretty complex and heavy-duty commercial arrangements between one American forester, who is backed by iwi, and the Crown forestry entity, which will be backed by another commercial forester.

So I want to understand, in those scenarios, whether the Minister is opening up further risk to the Crown in those pretty complex commercial arrangements which are also backed by Treaty settlements, where, if an iwi is getting advice which is now not protected, they will come back to the Crown where they have forestry advisers who have acted negligently and where their economic outcomes do not support their aspirations for that forest.

Madam Chair, thank you, and I’ll try to go through some of these fairly succinctly and I’ll try to stick to the order. The first round of questions, around transitional provisions: no, haven’t looked at that. The reason for that is when things are repealed, they are not there anymore. So we’re not transitioning to something else; we’re, I suppose, going back to what was there before because the need for the register and the implications of that are now not necessary, firstly. Secondly, we’re seeing the cost is greater than any benefit that would have been there.

The member mentioned that there had been widespread concern initially. That wasn’t the case: we go back and look at the original legislation when it went through and the submissions and so on. There was some concern, but I wouldn’t suggest it was widespread at all. What we’ve seen subsequently since the Government announced the repeal of this is almost uniformly across the forestry sector—not just those who are consultants or registered consultants, but across the forestry sector—it’s been accepted because they have said very, very clearly that it hasn’t worked; it hasn’t achieved the things that it looked to four years ago that were needed; and there are a number of other things that have happened as the sector has matured over that period of time that mean the cost to the sector, not the cost of the regulation to the sector, is greater than the benefit they saw.

The member also mentioned where somebody has formally contracted, but, actually, you can have formal contractual obligations without a formal contract. With every other part of business and contract law in New Zealand, people are held to account and to a standard and they have to meet that. So that doesn’t change at all—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Sounds like you’ve been buying ferries.

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, that doesn’t change at all in this as far as forestry is concerned. There are still obligations there. I come back to what I said before the dinner break when I talked a bit about the New Zealand Institute of Forestry.

Indeed, I think one of the questions was, “Would we look to keep the register even though there may not be obligation upon that so people could see who had been registered?” Well, indeed we wouldn’t do that, but for anybody who is looking to work with somebody and give them advice in the forestry sector, the New Zealand Institute of Forestry has set up the equivalent of their own industry standards. They are robust—in some cases, I believe, probably more robust than what is held in this legislation—and they take their obligations very strongly. For a growing number of people involved in forestry, large and small, they look towards whether there is registration of that organisation and make decisions based upon that.

I suppose in most things that we do in New Zealand when you want to get advice, you know—I’m not suggesting “the buyer beware”, but certainly given the investment that people make in forestry is a very long period of time from a small forestry lot to a large one, they are wise and almost without exception look at the quality of the advice and look to reputation. As far as New Zealand Institute of Forestry and their registration standards are concerned around advisers and traders, they have been asked more often about their members than the system has been. We are not repealing so that there is a vacuum. In fact, the sector itself across the board is taking a greater ownership of the provision of service and accountability than was the case before the legislation came in—even though the legislation is there—and I think that’s a very, very good thing.

Then, finally, to my colleague from ACT: well, the answer to that question also is, though, there is a counterfactual. But, indeed, outside of the very narrow scope of this, as I said before the dinner break, anything to do with environmental standards, the National environmental standard for commercial forestry and so on, remain—doesn’t alter it; doesn’t change it. This legislation doesn’t make people who own land or own trees or plant trees do anything that they are not meant to anyway—have a legal requirement to—with a range of other pieces of legislation.

I know it hasn’t been raised now, but by way just of example, members were right before the dinner break: we need to continue to consider how we ensure people who work in forests are safe. This legislation doesn’t make them safer, doesn’t make them less safe—it has nothing to do with that. Indeed, it’s a separate piece of legislation work that we need to focus on.

The final point, I think, for my colleague from the Green Party—and he’s talking about definitions and so on. Well, indeed, the definitions of “registered forestry” or of a “trader” remain not in as far as Part 1 is concerned, but because we need them for Part 2—which we’re going to have an opportunity to discuss shortly, Madam Chair; we’ll have an opportunity to discuss shortly—so that when it comes to the legal harvest assurance, which we have obligations internationally, we use that to be able to prove that elsewhere. So that’s the only reason they remain.

In your question about the primary legislation a long time ago, it doesn’t have any impact upon that—they remain for other reasons. Because there is no provision within this bill once it’s repealed, we don’t have to deal with what was in the primary legislation. But we are keeping those only so we don’t have to go back and create something else for what is remaining in Part 2.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that this repeal bill has been prepared in haste and there’s no regulatory impact statement, but just looking at the supplementary analysis report, it does raise some good issues.

As the Minister just said, there were concerns which led to the original legislation, and we’re now removing the fix. Some of those things which were enhanced by the original framework which we’re now repealing, they’re at risk. So my question is given the repeal bill, what executive steps, essentially, are being taken to look after making sure that we can have confidence or participants can have confidence in the market—the log trading market. It’s on page 6 of the supplementary analysis report, where it talks about the need for—and one of the fixes was there were lax professional standards in some parts of the industry, so a code of conduct was imposed.

Now, we’re doing away with a compulsory code of conduct. It strikes me that the Minister now has an opportunity, and his department and agencies, to promote and to give support to the industry in their voluntary code of conduct. Similarly, in terms of things like one of the challenges was poor contracting terms and behaviour, and the code of conduct and the contractual dispute resolution framework enhanced that by giving a kind of a fallback vision. So I’m wondering what supports he is putting in place in place of a legislative framework.

I notice that the overall assessment in the supplementary analysis report says reverting to the status quo would mean not having mandatory registration, obviously, and has limitations for improving professional standards, transparency, and grower confidence. So the questions—a substantial one for the industry. In terms of those four things, what steps is the Minister taking to fill the gap created by this legislation?

Well, I think there’s probably a philosophical difference as to the way that we approach these things across the House, although I do recognise the members in the Labour Party are supportive of the bill. The philosophical difference, probably, is from the point of view of a belief that the Government doesn’t have to legislate or regulate everything. A sector has to take responsibility for itself.

In this case, we are seeing that the forestry sector has not only started to do that, are and looking to enforce it. Again, before the dinner break I gave the example of the New Zealand Institute of Forestry, where there has been a dispute or an issue between a forestry consultant who is registered or otherwise, not their member, to go and assist with that dispute, including the landowner or tree owner that brought the concern. So that’s the sector showing responsibility where they actually don’t have to, I suppose, as not a member of theirs to do so. I applaud them for that and encourage them to do very, very much more. There is a kind of factual of saying the industry is taking responsibility for itself.

Where it doesn’t, then, of course, there often can be a need for legislation or regulation. In the case of this regulation and legislation, the cost upon the sector is greater upon the benefit that they are getting for it. So it’s costing more than the benefit that’s been driven, particularly because they’re taking a lot of the obligation on for themselves. Ultimately, that might or might not have been the case four years ago, but it is today, and that’s the reason for the repeal.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister for his fulsome answer to that question. I think the Hon Dr Duncan Webb has some further points that are not clarified in the Minister’s answer, because the question is about the New Zealand Institute of Forestry’s ability to assist the industry with that and whether—to my previous point about that, that work has already been done by Ministry for Primary Industries. There is benefit to not only the sector but also to the participants in the forestry industry to passing on, I guess, that information and the learning that has already been done and exists. So, I guess, what we’re asking is whether the Minister would consider making available that work that has already been done to assist the sector with what they propose to do—yeah.

The other question that I have for the Minister is around those Crown forests. I want to understand whether in the Crown forestry licences there is this further risk opened up to the Crown who is the licensor, in the scenario where some land on a certain forestry block is owned by the Crown, some is licenced to a forestry provider, and then to an iwi that has received that in the settlement. I think the Minister did give a brief answer to my question where he explained that contracts are contracts in this area, but the issue that I’m going to is the settlement provisions, which are primary legislation that this House passes, where the Crown sets out its obligations in relation to a forest. So there’s not only a contractual obligation here for the Crown, both in a lease arrangement and an owner’s arrangement with another forester, but there’s also the relationship between the Crown and iwi in those scenarios.

The question here is: is there sufficient protection for iwi in the advice that they get on the commercial arrangements, which need to play out in these forests, when we know that there are ongoing commercial disputes in those forests right now between the Crown and iwi who have been settled?

In respect of that, if I think about the Central North Island (CNI) as an example, which is probably one of the largest settlements when it came to Crown forest licences, the relationship, in as far as the settlement and handing back and how those forest licences are treated, was done by statute, not by this. So statute set out very, very clearly rights and obligations, including the case of the number of rotations that people have the right of authority to licence.

Then, ultimately, if we see the way that has evolved over a period of time—because, from memory, there would be no Crown forest licence that has formed part of a Treaty settlement since this legislation came in. I could be wrong, but I imagine that’s not the case—that, in effect, what happened before and happens afterwards hasn’t changed as a result of this legislation being repealed. Ultimately, I think that before this legislation was put in place, there was a very short period of time it was there before it entered into force, and we’ve got to realise that it’s not that long since the obligation to register came about.

The CNI forests—that settlement—has shown how the sector responsibly can develop a very successful commercial relationship. There was a change of land ownership. The trees remained the same. There was a contract, and whatever was in legislation has evolved further between landowners and those who had a right of renewal for another rotation of trees. Actually, it becomes a commercial relationship that we didn’t imagine was likely to be the case, nor those who benefited from the settlement of the land going back.

So, in answer to the question, it doesn’t open the Crown to any liability that is obvious in as far as a landowner, or tree owner that has received trees back, makes a commercial decision as to who to get advice from in the future. If the Crown had an obligation as a result of the settlement, then that doesn’t change irrespective of what this legislation says.

I’m going to call Lan Pham, but I’m looking for new questions now. I think the Minister’s been very comprehensive in the answers that he’s given to Part 1. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to pick up specifically on clause 7; this is the aspect of the bill that repeals the log trading forestry adviser regulatory regime. The system assures that anyone dealing with these log traders and forestry advisers—it assures people that they’re actually getting that impartial and expert advice from people with the right knowledge and experience, and this sounds like what was a really positive part of this previous bill which has now been repealed.

I’m really keen to hear from the Minister what will replace this or be the interim measure? I’m noting that you’re saying that the sector is going to be taking, you know, much greater ownership of what this looks like, but I’m really interested as to what are the actual steps that they’re going through and the process that they’re going through to actually establish what that is. I’m noting that there were also some really key things, like about the forestry advisers actually passing a background check, including a criminal conviction check, and even evidence of their qualifications and experience—which seems extremely vital when you are someone out there in the public who is wanting to turn to the forestry industry, to contract or anything, and you want to make sure that they’re credible, they have that impartial advice, and they actually know what they’re doing.

I also want to pick up on the advice to Cabinet which came in the 2022 decision when they actually bought this in because they specifically identified—and I want to quote them—“Without specific regulation, there’s a risk that the practice of log traders and forestry advisers will allow poor performance to go unchecked.” So I’m really interested to know, Minister, in your conversations with the sector, are they taking this really seriously? What are the implications of this poor performance, from their perspective, and what are the checks and balances that they’re wanting to introduce to actually ensure that core performance is picked up within what you’re proposing that the sector’s going to undertake now?

I also wanted to know not only from, I guess, the operational perspective how they’re going to do that, but does it also include environmental poor performance and checks and balances around that—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It’s not in the scope.

LAN PHAM: —or the health and safety aspects?

Environmental is not part of the scope of the bill. It’s regulated—

LAN PHAM: Well, I’m asking about the sector and how they’re interpreting this.

It’s not part of the bill.

LAN PHAM: OK, thank you. Well, it was a question to the Minister and I’m hearing that the—[Time expired]

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Point of order, Madam Chair—point of order, Madam Chair.

The question is that the debate on this question now close.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I had already called the Ayes had it before I got objections.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Point of order, Madam Chair. I had a point of order before. Oh, that’s why—the mike wasn’t on. My apologies.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m sorry, I’ve taken a vote. We had a vote in progress. There was no party vote called for, and I have approved the vote and we are now going to move on Part 2. Thank you.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: OK. Can I please make sure that the mike is on next time?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah.