Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to our final debate. This is clause 1 and 2. The debate is on the title and commencement.

Well, Madam Chair, just because of the way that we’ve pushed this particular legislation through and the narrow scope with which Parts 1 and 2 were debated, I think I’m going to capture the energy in the room and the comments that were made throughout—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That would be good, because I was waiting for some.

Hon PEENI HENARE: —about the progress of this particular bill this evening. When I think of the title and I think of the process from whence the legislation was first put in place, or the regime was first put in place, and then where we are now today, repealing it, why don’t I offer a title for the committee to consider, and perhaps it could be the “Forests (Matua Shane Jones Changed Tack) Bill”—I don’t know. Now, I’ll just let that one sit there and let it ruminate amongst all the members in the Chamber, as what we’ve discussed here is reasonably small, but it has a huge impact on the forestry sector. So when we look towards and we explain why we’ve made these amendments to some of those—perhaps the small and medium sized forestry owners—that have been mentioned at length here this evening, perhaps that particular title might be something that can give them a bit more clarity about what’s happening here this evening.

The other part, of course, is clause 2, which is talking about the commencement date. The Minister made clear the programme ahead of us—August 2027, if I recall correctly. I do put to the Minister, though, that just for the sake of the committee of the whole House, and for those listening at home, whether or not he could just one more time make it very clear about the date that he mentioned in 2027, the time in between, and the process that will take place, and say why it is important that everyone understands when this Act comes into force, after the day of Royal assent.

Thank you, Madam Chair. When we’re looking at this, I appreciate what the Minister has mentioned before, which was that this bill itself has a very narrow scope. But, as we have heard through the committee of the whole House stage, this particular bill actually has much broader implications when it comes to the revocation of the log traders and forestry advisers regulations.

So I think a more appropriate title in this case should be the “Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal Without Considering Broader Context) Amendment Bill”, because in this case we have mentioned on multiple occasions the workers in terms of the health and safety component from the imbalance and the inequity we’re seeing with our forestry, going from small forestry—and, again, going back to the supplementary analysis report which said that the people who benefit are going to be log exporters and trade entities but that the main costs would come to small-forest owners. I think this has a much broader implication than what the Minister has mentioned, so I would really encourage the Minister to consider seriously, when we are looking at the title, broadening it out to the scope that is not just simply looking at this but it is looking at the complete ecosystem that it would affect.

With that, I genuinely think that we should be looking at, potentially, in terms of the title, something that is more along the lines of the “Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal and What is Going to Happen to our Industry?) Amendment Bill”. I just feel that in this case the Minister—

Hon Todd McClay: It’s like country—it’s quite a catchy one.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: And I really appreciate the Minister’s engagement and advice on a lot of these areas, but, really, we haven’t been able to get a straight answer from the Minister on the broader implications that the repeal of this will create.

I think we need to be careful—I’m going to call on the Hon Todd McClay, but I just think we need to be careful that the suggestions for the title don’t put the scope of the bill out of the scope of the title.

To the last speaker, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, the public had such great hope and expectation when he came here, and, so, we’ll work on that.

Look, I guess the point of this is, actually—and, to the Hon Peeni Henare, I did consider a change to the name and I thought it could have been the “Hon Shane Jones (Thank You) Bill”, because, actually, what Shane Jones did four years ago was send a very clear signal to the sector that they should take responsibility for themselves and, actually, there is a need for legislation or regulation where they don’t. In the intervening period of time, as a result of the great foresight of Shane Jones four years ago, the sector has stepped up. It has taken the responsibility and has said that they want to do that for themselves—firstly.

Secondly, we could also call it the “Shane Jones (Getting Rid of Additional Costs) Bill”. It’s not necessary, I suppose, because the cost of this legislation or regulation on the sector is greater than the benefit that’s being derived, and so that’s the reason that it’s coming away. So a heartfelt thanks to Shane Jones because he’s a man of great, great vision, and we should recognise that collectively in the House by unanimously supporting this bill.

The final point in as far as the entry into force upon Royal assent, the part that is being repealed happens straight away so we can give money back to those that have paid it and we can get absolute certainty and we don’t have to send out more invoices. Around legal harvest, we’re pushing the date out for the new system to enter into force to 1 August 2027 to give ourselves time, appropriately, to engage very broadly and widely with stakeholders in New Zealand and international stakeholders. But it could well come into force before that by Order in Council, should that work have been done, and in the third reading speech, I’ll be able to talk a lot more about that.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

This bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading