Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 9 to 20, “Amendments to other legislation”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair, and thank you for the opportunity now to look towards Part 2. A lot of the contribution that’s already been made in the committee—certainly from this side of the Chamber—has talked about some of the nervousness amongst some of the Māori forestry owners. My question, with respect to Part 2, looks towards clause 11(3), where it says, “In section 4(4), repeal the new definitions of ‘misconduct’, ‘threshold volume’, and ‘unsatisfactory conduct’.”

I have read through that particular legislation, the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Act 2023, and I’ve got comfort with what it’s proposing here. What is also, however, in that particular section, though, is the definition of terms like “marae”, and when I think about the caution that has been expressed from this side of the House with respect to Māori land owners and Māori forestry owners, and the example and the interpretation given for marae and the way that forests actually grow up against marae—and my colleague and relation Hūhana Lyndon knows this particular example very well. The Matawaia Marae, for example, which is built in the Ngāti Hine forest, has the forest hard up against the marae. Now, I suspect that some might say it was coincidence, but the argument that’s being put forward by landowners and forestry growers in this specific area talked about it being more by good planning than by coincidence. The first question I have for the Minister is whether he can give an assurance that the interpretation of “marae” in respect to forests and the way that we harvest against marae will continue to be protected and that the interpretation won’t change.

My next question for the Minister is on clause 13, and, in part, this is related to my question in Part 1. New section 6(3)(1A), in clause 13, inserts these new terms into the legislation, and what it’s done here is it has got rid of what would normally be in paragraph (e), which is about acting under a delegation. Members might recall that I spoke very briefly about whether or not the Minister would retain the ability to delegate, and he addressed it in part. This one here, however, with respect to clause 13, continues to talk about the protection of forestry officers, etc., and it does offer the words that will be now inserted into the legislation, but I  ask whether or not the Minister would keep what is in there, which is section 6(3)(1A)(e), which is about those powers of delegation. I know one is a bit of the cart before the horse, and this is why I’m asking whether or not the Minister will consider keeping paragraph (e) in that particular piece of the legislation. Those are my two questions for the Minister at this point in time.

Thank you, Madam Chair. When we come to Part 2, it specifically looks at the amendments to the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Act, and I think one of the things that’s really important for this bill overall is the way that it crosses over with the primary legislation. In this case, with the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Act, it’s really important to tease out and get clarification from it, because I think that even for us, who are looking at this, we are constantly trying to do that level of cross-reference.

My first question on this is to do with clause 10(1), which replaces section 2(1)(a) with “1 August 2027”, and this is just going to be quite a straightforward question to the Minister. The primary legislation, and the principal Act in this part, says that section 2(1)(a) states, “3 years after this Act receives the Royal assent”, which would be 2026, and I guess I would like to know from the Minister the rationale why we are pushing it out for one more year as a result of the repeal of this system—I’m seeing shaking heads up there. This is why we really need that level of clarification, because there are so many cross-overs here. So let’s broaden it, and just say: could the Minister clarify why the date was changed from “3 years after this Act receives the Royal assent” to “1 August 2027”?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to ask the Minister a question on this. I have a question to the Minister around the definition of “practice standards”: “with ‘practice standards’ in relation to legal harvest, means the practice standards set under section 158”. With this new definition of practice standards, is it just simply bringing into line what was in Part 1, “Amendments to Forests Act 1949”, or under the amendment to the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Act, what are those new practice standards going to be? Why have we changed the definition? I’d appreciate if the Minister could give us an example of why and what the purpose of that has been.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Oh, Madam Chair, we were waiting for the Minister to answer questions.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: We were waiting for the Minister to answer.

There’s no obligation—

Hon Todd McClay: She didn’t take it.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, I haven’t taken the closure motion yet. But the member putting the closure motion was the only person standing on their feet, and I have—it’s up to the Minister, as he gets up to answer the questions, OK? So—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: OK. Apologies, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That’s OK. I’m going to call the Hon Dr Deborah Russell, if she still wants a question.

Oh, Madam Chair, I do want to ask some questions about Part 2 of this bill. Part 2 of the bill is actually the bit that has a whole lot of schedules that change other parts of the law. Now, as someone who is rather new to this, I think I can go to Subpart 2 of Part 2—excuse me, I’m sorry. I’m just struggling a little bit here—and in terms of—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Could the member please talk into the microphone?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Oh, I am sorry, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Could the member please move back to her seat so that the microphone can pick her up.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to go to Subpart 2 under Part 2—could someone just direct me to it? I’m just finding it a little hard to find it in the—

Hon Matt Doocey: It’s Part 2, just after Part 1.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Yeah, I am looking for it—I am looking for it. Oh, I’ve got it here, Part 2.

Hon Scott Simpson: On the wrong bill.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: No, I’ve got the right bill in my hands. We’re just trying to make sure we actually give the Minister an opportunity to reconsider whether or not he’ll actually answer any of the questions. So going to Subpart—

Hon Matt Doocey: It’s a good question so far.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: I know, I’m working on it—oh Subpart 2. Thank you, Peeni. Thank you.

There’s a whole lot of secondary legislation that is being revoked, and I noticed that sitting in there is an instrument, Subpart 2—so it’s clause 18 of this bill, and we’re going to paragraph (d). we’re going to the partial waiver of fees and levies for certain classes of applicants for registration as and registered log traders and advisers, and so on. It’s a partial waiver of the fees and the levies in this Subpart 2. I am interested to know exactly what is the partiality there—how much it was a partial amount. Clearly, some of those fees are remaining. So if I could just get some explanation from the Minister as to that amount, the division in the parts, and how they arrived at that amount.

Madam Chair, it’s lucky trees take 25 years to grow before we harvest them. The point that I guess I would make to colleagues is that this is the narrowest part of the bill, but I think it’s the most important part of the legislation—Part 2—and the reason for that is we’ve taken on obligations internationally, as well as under domestic statute, around legal harvest, and so we have agreements around the world and trade agreements and so on that we have to adhere to.

This is a part of the original legislation. Actually, it’s a system we’d set up so that we can give assurance to trading partners overseas that when logs are cut down and exported from New Zealand and sold, we’d meet the requirements we’ve taken on internationally, but, again, amongst our domestic legislation also, and, ultimately, the changes the member is asking about are not significant in the scheme of how we achieve this. But the one thing we are doing is pushing the date out by slightly more than a year, and the reason we’re doing that is so that, one, we can ensure that in establishing the new system in New Zealand, which the previous piece of legislation allows us to do, we get it right through consultation with all of the groups the members have mentioned, from iwi to landowners—across the board.

Secondly, we also want to have the opportunity to engage with a number of international stakeholders—countries we trade with—to make sure that what we stand up through regulation meets their requirements also. So we’ve said that we want to give ourselves almost another year to be able to do that, but we’ve also said that it is a year, or it could enter into force sooner, through Order in Council. So we’re not saying it enters into force on that day—1 August 2027—but we’re saying that it must be by that day, or before, by Order in Council. But we want to give ourselves time to be able to engage widely within New Zealand to make sure that, one, we achieve the obligations that we have and achieve the intention of the primary legislation, and then, secondly, that, actually, it will fit with what we’re doing elsewhere.

Although this isn’t part of the bill, by way of an example of the reason we want to do this, some members will know that the European Union has passed legislation previously about exports to their market and the impact that any exports—food, as an example, or trees—to the European Union has upon the equivalence of legal harvest. So we want to go through a process with them because what they are looking to do would place great cost on New Zealand, because the things they’re trying to stop are not able to take place legally in New Zealand, and so, actually, our standards are the same or better than theirs. But the legal harvest provisions of this, when the system stands up, will perhaps give us an opportunity to show them that, actually, they don’t need to check everything New Zealand does, because we take our obligations seriously.

But, again, this is the narrowest part of the bill. The changes here, where it allows us to consult more, and the other changes around wording, and so on, are to ensure that this legislation and—from Part 1—the bits that we are relying upon in as far as our definitions are concerned allow us to continue to do our work properly.

I move, That debate on this question now close.