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 third time.

The Government has set ambitious goals to reduce Public Service spending through identifying and cutting wasteful spending while removing unnecessary red tape from being put on business. This bill will play its part in helping to achieve these goals for the forestry sector.

Whilst the administration of this regulation system was designed to be fully cost recovered, there has been a lower number of registrations than originally anticipated. This, along with the need to continue resourcing the delivery of the system, has meant the Crown has not fully cost recovered the registration system to date, nor does it look like it will be able to, under the current settings. It’s anticipated that the ongoing annual operating cost to run the system will be approximately twice as much as received from those currently registered. Therefore, the system is using Crown funds to remain functional. This does not align with the Government’s priorities, another reason the repeal has been a priority for the forestry portfolio.

As for the legal harvest assurance scheme, I want to ensure the full engagement with international trading partners and the sector is delivered so that we can ensure market access is achieved in perpetuity whilst making the system as simple and cost-effective as possible for the sector. Extending the commencement date will ensure this can be achieved in order to provide a durable, fully cost recovered system that does not cost the Crown and that benefits all participants.

Regarding any potential concerns that members may have around removing the registration system for log traders and forestry advisers, I want to make it known that I do support the intention of the registration system; I just don’t agree that more than self-regulation is required to achieve these ambitions. As I mentioned in my previous speeches in other stages of the legislation, I consider the New Zealand Institute of Forestry’s (NZIF) voluntary registration system for forestry advisers is a better pathway for people to register as forestry advisers, and for others to look for the expertise that they need. I encourage those already registered with the NZIF to retain their membership, and others to look towards joining the sector body.

Separate from this, but, as Minister for Trade, I’m committed to growing the export value of forestry, just as with every other part of the economy, supporting the growth of the wood-processing industry, removing unnecessary regulation, and providing certainty as a big part of enabling this. Ultimately, the repeal is one part of ensuring that we can get the policy settings right to support the sector, to expand, to innovate, to unlock investment, and to trade.

I intend to publicly announce our strategic direction—indeed, I have publicly announced a strategic direction for the forestry and wood-processing sector just a few weeks ago at Fieldays. It has the aim to help restore confidence and support investment that we need in forestry and in wood processing. Through supporting the sector to expand, innovate, unlock investment and trade, we can double the value of our exports, provide higher-paying jobs, help meet our climate change obligations, and support land-use resilience and adaptation. The registration system regulations do not support these outcomes, and, therefore, there is no reason for them to continue.

Can I thank all members in the debate on all sides of the House. Whilst not everybody is supporting the legislation, the questions that were raised and comments were reasonable. Can I reach out to the Hon Peeni Henare and thank him and the Labour Party for their support today. The House, by a very large majority, is supporting the New Zealand forestry sector.

The question is that the motion be agreed to. No, sorry—yeah, that’s right. That’s right. The Hon Peeni Henare—I was just making sure I had the words right.

Fantastic, Madam Speaker. It’s always important that we get things right—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Absolutely.

Hon PEENI HENARE: —which is why we’re here this evening. I want to acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Todd McClay, who reached out and, with the support of the industry, made it very clear why getting these things right is important.

To the Minister’s credit, we were very clear that we would still prosecute a number of matters; we will still continue to push the Labour position on forestry while also supporting this bill. That’s important because it is very clear, Labour’s position when it comes to forestry, and the Minister touched on a number of those matters in his third reading speech—that is that we do want to see more logs, more raw timber products processed and developed here in New Zealand.

I mentioned it earlier: that all members of the House have driven past the port and said, “Why are there so many logs sitting there in raw form ready to be exported overseas?”, and then thought, “We want to have jobs, we want to grow the economy here locally, and why don’t we continue to do more of that manufacturing and wood processing here in New Zealand?” The Labour Party has been staunch supporters of that. In fact, during our time in Government, we set aside quite a large amount of money in order to support those aspirations that small communities have to be able to process the timber that is around them.

I’m always reminded, when I think of forestry, about one example—and I’m going to be very careful about the names. I won’t mention the names, but it’s an example that I’m sure resonates with every member in this House. Not too long ago, in a staunch forest community by the way of planters, harvesters, and processors, a new community building was opened. All of the materials used to build that building were imported from Australia, and that building was erected in one of the biggest forestry towns in this country. To me, that’s ludicrous. To me, that doesn’t make sense. To me, we want to show the forestry sector that we support them.

I support the Minister’s push towards growing our exports and log value offshore—I think that’s a good thing. But I do want to highlight one of the things that came to my attention last year, in July, when the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins led a trade delegation to China and we noticed—and it was made very clear to us—that, in particular for Māori land owners who have forests, we are over-invested in this space, and that the risk that it exposes Māori land owners and Māori forestry owners to was great, it was significant, and couldn’t go without clear direction about where that particular sector is heading.

I believe that, in passing this bill this evening, we are providing that to the sector. We’re allowing the sector to create a registration system. As the Minister has already mentioned, there is another example that he favours, but we’re going to put that in the hands of the sector to say, “That’s fine, but let’s make sure that we get it right this time.”

What we’re also saying, though, is that in entrusting the sector to do this, we want to encourage the sector not simply to meet with the big owners—not simply to meet with the big operators—but to meet with the small to medium sized owner-operators, growers right across this country. I think that’s a really important step to make sure that we do have a system that works for the entire sector, not just for the big players. I respect the big players—the role they play in leading our industry—but we know there are a large number of small-forest owners, medium-sized forest owners, who are looking to be part of the action that is really important to the forestry sector as we export our logs overseas.

I do want to also reiterate our point for the Labour Party about the protection of indigenous species and making sure that we’re not feeding into a black market offshore. The Minister made it very clear that, in his role as trade Minister, he’ll continue to promote our forestry products offshore, and I totally support that. What we can’t support, though, is the illegal trade of indigenous species of timber from New Zealand into black markets—and I’m sure every member in this House will agree—and we want to continue, as the Labour Party, to reiterate that point through the passage of this bill.

The other point we want to make: the term “cowboys” was used regularly throughout the debate, we want to make sure that we have a good system that certainly doesn’t see the increase or the rise of cowboys in the sector, but that continues to support the growth in the forestry sector, to make sure that, in the future, no cowboys can come back. Others, as my colleague described it, someone with a ute and a laptop could go up and offer services to somebody who might not have the full expertise to be able to export their logs and simply be taken advantage of. We can’t tolerate that, and we want to make sure—and I’ve said it throughout the progress of this bill—that we want to support the Minister in what he said about how we can look towards having a robust system moving forward. But we will need to continue to ensure that those safeguards are in place so that people aren’t taken advantage of. I take the Minister at his word in his assurances that we will be able to make sure that those safeguards between now and the August 2027 date will continue to keep our sector safe.

The other point I want to make: the forestry sector relies on security and long-term vision. However, it doesn’t mean it isn’t impacted by the influx of the market. It doesn’t mean that it isn’t impacted by what is and has been a fair amount of instability in the log exports for this country. It has been challenging. What we’ve seen in places like China was best described to me by one forestry owner as “a turning down of the tap” or of the volume that they’re looking towards—knowing full well that we export large amounts of wood product into China.

So we want to make sure that we can actually look towards protecting those markets while also looking towards growing more markets, and doing so in the right way, knowing full well that those who do trade with New Zealand with respect to logs as we export them out of this country, come to New Zealand because they like our reputation when it comes to the way that we grow forests—the way that we trade in logs offshore.

I do want to, though, reiterate that as we do that, it would be remiss if the Labour Party didn’t mention the health and safety of those workers who work in the forestry sector. We are the Labour Party—it’s what we’ve stood for: protecting workers to make sure that the reputation that foreign buyers look towards our forestry sector, they know that they’ve got a strong reputation here in New Zealand that can continue to be protected into the future. We can’t see workers going to work and not coming home. That’s just not the way we do things in this country.

My final comment is to our families on the East Coast at the moment. They’ve been hit so many times over the past 18 months by huge weather events. We know the forestry sector is a big part of the economy on the East Coast. We hope that the bill that we’re passing here this evening may help the forestry sector—in particular on the East Coast, but right across the country—to be able to rebound from what has been a difficult time. Our thoughts and our hearts go out to those on the East Coast as they continue to be pounded by rain, and make sure that we in this House can support them to recover, and I believe the forestry sector is one of those sectors that will help them to do that.

We support this bill and we look forward to supporting the Minister in making sure that the safeguards that were mentioned by the Minister throughout the passage of this bill will continue to protect the sector—a sector this country needs.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I stand on behalf of Te Rōpū Kākāriki to maintain our ongoing opposition and our concerns, because, ultimately, it was our colleagues from Labour, and our Matua Shane, who brought the original legislation into this House. So I need to remind the House that, actually, it was brought in for a reason.

There was a call from our people, with widespread support within the pre-consultation and the consultation, for the register to be established to provide regulations and protections for the sector and for landowners, and to provide a credible register where we could go and find the smorgasbord of advisers available to us when we needed to purchase services. So, as I was sitting here listening in the House, I did a google, and I checked out, actually, how awesome the website is for the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), with nearly 500 pages of registered advisers. It’s quite cool. If you go on there, you can see their name, you can see their location, and you can see what they’re registered for, their hapū iwi affiliations, and how to contact them.

Now, I know that we’ve spoken tonight about “Let’s hand it back to the industry. They’ve got the model.”—yep, it’s the New Zealand Institute of Forestry, and I mihi to their many years of mahi. For us, in Tai Tokerau, we have nine registered New Zealand Institute of Forestry advisers on that list. But, certainly, it’s voluntary, and that’s the risk when we go back to it being voluntary, because, as I shared earlier in the piece, we had 10 to 12 percent of advisers within the sector registered in the voluntary system, and now we have over 500 through the regulations brought in by my colleagues from Labour and our good old Matua Shane.

So let’s reflect on the need for a sector to be strong, to be robust, and to be credible and transparent, and that was the original intent of this legislation. It was to provide regulation to support both the growth of the industry and to provide a record of who’s who in the zoo, and then also know their credentials and their experience to support us on the ground. We won’t have that anymore, so I’m looking forward to working with the Minister and seeing the consultation that takes place, because it can’t all be for the big players. You have to remember rural New Zealand. In the Cabinet advice in 2022, it said that “A well-functioning forestry and wood-processing sector supports rural communities to thrive.”—this was an in-confidence paper.

Māori also, during this process, in pre-consultation as well as the consultation, raised the need for transparency as to who’s trading our logs and who’s providing the forestry advice. Māori also said, “We need to see the disclosure of conflicts of interest.”—and that’s always important, eh, for transparency. The registration process that MPI was administering provided a robust system whereby we could put forward complaints and concerns, and see an external party then go forward and look to facilitate or mediate a process for the parties. Now, we’re going back to the centre to self-regulate, so we have high trust now, and I think that’s part of the disappointment. It is that we had only just started to implement this system to bring in a robust and rigorous registration process and provide additional safety and security to those of us on the ground to be able to inquire and look for those professionals who can support us in making robust decisions.

But that’s OK—we move forward, and we ask for the Minister to come to the North, and let’s have some more hui. Let’s have some more hui within the sector and landowners, because there are nine registered advisers through the New Zealand Institute of Forestry, but let’s grow those numbers. How do we transition those 500-odd on the MPI list across? What are those transition arrangements so that we can support them into an industry-led system, because when they go back to being voluntary, they may not register. So those are some of the concerns and the worries, I think, in terms of being a land administrator, as to how we can get robust advice in the sector and in our communities.

As my whanaunga and colleague Peeni spoke to, again, one of the key purposes was to save our value and keep our value within the kāinga—particularly for wood processors—and to see whare built from our wood. That remains a goal. So, in terms of the advice that we would receive, for those of us preparing for harvest, it would be my hope that through this new system and through the transition that we’re going to see and the consultation that’s going to roll out, we will know as to how we can get robust advice for landowners to ensure that they’re engaging the right people to do the work at the right time.

Finally, in terms of the Green Party position, we always think that it’s good to have a robust system in place—something that is well consulted on—and because this bill has come through in urgency, we are missing out on the voice of the people. We are missing out on the robust consultation and sending it into select committee to actually hear from the people on the ground. So one of the failures that we have in this urgency process is that’s it’s gone so quickly, we’ve missed the opportunity to hear from community, from landowners, and from the industry themselves.

We can only look to anecdotal kōrero, like myself, last night, sitting in Kawakawa and in Kaitāia, talking to Māori land owners about this proposed repeal—of which the feedback that I got from the land administrators, or the owners, that I spoke to was like, “Oh, why are they doing that? Is it needed?”, and I said, “Well, actually, that’s a really good question. I can’t tell you why they’re doing it, but they said it’s about red tape. So they’re taking away the red tape.” But, for us on the ground, whether we’re in Kaitāia, Kawakawa, Moerewa, or even in Whangaruru—where I’m from, and I administer a block—we want to get good advice. So my challenge is: will our advice continue to be robust, who is going to be the caretaker and the independent person who will be the mediator when push comes to shove and complaints are made, and how can we grow a good system that is industry-led—because that’s where we’re going—and ensure that there are protections in place for the time of harvest and processing?

Heoi anō tāku e mihi atu ana ki te Whare; ahakoa te tere hoki o ēnei mahi a te Kāwanatanga ki runga i a mātou, kei konei te Rōpū Kākāriki e whakahē tonu ana i tēnei pire. Kia ora.

[All I need to do is acknowledge the House; despite the incredible haste of these actions of the Government upon us, here the Green Party remains in opposition to this bill. Thank you.]

I enjoy these debates. Thank you very much, by the way, for the opportunity to speak in this third reading on this piece of legislation and litigate some of the points made by the Green member Hūhana Lyndon and sort of highlight the fact that I think they’re sort of Noddy-no-mates in this instance—they’re out on a limb. This is a good piece of legislation. I mean, they always seem to advocate for the little guy, and the little guy in rural New Zealand absolutely loves legislation like this. We would argue it’s making life in rural New Zealand a little bit less onerous. I, for the life of me, can’t reconcile a lot of the remarks that seem somewhat contradictory, given we are having a debate in this third reading about the premise of the legislation and who it actually helps.

The primary industry sector’s worth billions of dollars—I think we’ve all reconciled that. The forestry sector, as we sit here today, is the fourth-largest one. It is worth billions of dollars, and I think you would all agree—and Green members included—that we would like to see, as the Government has asserted, a doubling of revenue export earnings inside the next decade. Well, I make the point: in the absence of this legislation, should it not come to pass, what’s the Greens’ vision of the forestry sector?

I just want to touch on one point that Hūhana Lyndon did raise about the trust mechanism that would be needed for the sector to self-regulate. Well, I’ll just make the point—and I think some of the other members may agree with me in this House—I really trust Kiwis. They’re bloody good people. They work exceptionally hard in rural New Zealand to make a bread, to make a crust, to add a bit of coin to their community. For the life of me, I cannot reconcile why the Green member who’s just sat down, resumed her seat, wouldn’t support that reality. I think her arguments—respectfully to the member—are poor.

This is a great piece of legislation. We, as a Government, campaigned on reducing the red tape for everyday Kiwis. Our colleagues on the left—the Labour Party, by virtue of that narrative—they’ve seen the light; not always, but they’ve certainly seen it here. And this emboldens that outcome.

I just want to touch on the remarks from the Hon Peeni Henare when he did highlight that iwi Māori are big investors in this industry. Well, “Go them.” is what I say, because they are some of the hardest-working people in New Zealand—and how dare we stand in their way? The disestablishment of the registration system that puts a trust model back into the equation to me, to the ACT Party, to every other party, excluding our mates in the Greens who are on a limb, is a good thing.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Because we’re principled.

MARK CAMERON: Well, I would argue that your principles, in this instance, are flawed. This is great for rural New Zealand. We absolutely support iwi Māori, small communities, and the foresters that this bill enables. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to also support this legislation through the third reading. It’s legislation that’s obviously a little bit complex for us because we were part of bringing into play this piece of legislation that’s being repealed.

There were some issues within the sector that had been highlighted. There were some cowboys out there. It was a sector in need of a tidy up. But the solution that has come to pass, that we’re repealing now, has proved to be relatively ineffective as far as we’ve been able to ascertain, in regard that it’s actually costing more than we’re able to recover from it. There has been a tidy up, which has given Minister of Forestry McClay and the coalition Government the confidence to make a more voluntary, trust-based scheme available in terms of what’s already out there with the New Zealand Institute of Forestry (NZIF) and the registration system that they have. As Mr Cameron just alluded to, a key theme within this coalition has been about cutting red tape, getting unnecessary regulatory burden away from the primary sector, and indeed the wider economy as a whole. This is core to the theme of what we are doing here today.

The forestry industry is, as has been alluded to, a large contributor—I think, some $6 billion to the New Zealand economy. But picking up on the comments of Peeni Henare, we absolutely do need to grow that through more value-add in New Zealand, and a manufacturing base—regrowing that. There is some good stuff happening out there, as you get around. Indeed, it’s not just timber; it is things like biofuels and biochar, and the like, that are other uses for timbers—maybe not the premium cuts or slabs, but some of the offcuts and the slash, which is something, obviously, that’s been of some concern in terms of making sure we’d better do a job of tidying that up. So we are able to monetise some of that stuff as well. So Minister McClay and his—we’ll be keeping a very close eye on engaging with him on his plans to grow the sector, because we think there is a big swing back to natural fibres. There is quite a lot of flexibility in what you can do with timber beyond just building and framing.

Without further ado, I think that summarises New Zealand First’s position. We do recognise that the previous legislation had been ineffective and had added cost. We’re happy to support the Minister in repealing it, letting a higher-trust model, through the NZIF, be the industry standard, I guess. As someone who has sold forestry blocks before—as the Green member Hūhana Lyndon alluded to—when you’re doing that, you do have to get a trusted third party involved, or third parties, but that’s not that hard. In rural New Zealand, you know who the good operators are—you just talk to your neighbours, you talk to other people in the industry; they’ll give you a short list of people for who you can go out and engage and get quotes and the like. So, probably, we had a solution looking for a problem, in that sense. So New Zealand First is happy to support this legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. The next call is a split call, and I’ve been advised by the Māori Party that there’ll be two Green speakers with five minutes each. So I will call Steve Abel.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate having the opportunity to speak to this bill. I’m sad to have to disagree with my colleague Mark Cameron, despite him being the chair of the best select committee in the House—and my colleague Mark Patterson, as well.

Self-regulation looks like the original problem for which the registration of advisers was brought into place. The Minister said that the sector stepped up, and the sector stepped up because of the requirement of registration. It stepped up because it was made to step up by the laws that required them to fulfil the obligations of registration, to keep a track of the advice they were giving to small-forest operators. So the registration system actually protects the small operators.

It is not uncommon in this country for us to register professional advisers. We do it for very good reason: the reason your mortgage broker has to be registered and has to be bound by a series of obligations. The reason your real estate agent, your dentist, your psychiatrist, your electrician need to be registered is to protect people who are ignorant of their practice, who do not know who is a good operator or a bad operator.

In an instance of advice to foresters who are small scale in regional areas, that is exactly why it’s advantageous that the forestry advisers are registered, so that if they are giving poor advice—and this poor advice could come at some cost to a small operator if they’re advised to log their trees too soon, to prune them in an incorrect way, to plant them too densely or too far apart—these sorts of advice decisions could add up to thousands of dollars’ worth of lost value to a forest operator. The ability for that operator to have a recourse to a register that requires the adviser to have told that person—kept a record of what advice they’ve given—is a protection for the small operator.

I have some experience of the arboriculture industry in my efforts to protect urban trees, which is that when general tree protection was removed, arborists told me that the effect of that was to de-professionalise the industry, so you’ve got a lot more cowboy operators. Anyone with a truck and a chainsaw could clamber up your tree for a handful of dollars and cut it down in a dangerous way or prune it in an ugly way. So the actual requirement of a professional register improves the general quality of work in the industry. It causes the industry to step up.

What is the burden that it causes for a professional who’s serious about the practice that they offer, who has a profitable business, the $500 for registration? What is the burden for them? The burden is nominal, but the advantage to those small operators and those foresters can be quite significant. De-professionalisation of this industry is not a good thing. The reason that we will oppose this bill—and we might be Noddy-no-mates, as Mr Cameron called us—is because, on principle, we think that this is a way that we get a better-quality industry.

As our friends on the East Coast are once again grappling with the nightmare that is another massive weather event for them, they are no doubt wishing that the sort of requirements that might have seen better management of slash in the forestry sector over recent decades—had they been in place sooner, had they not been weakened further this evening in this Parliament, then perhaps there would have been much less damage by the floods and the extreme weather events that we’ve seen. So the Green Party will be opposing the repeal of this piece of legislation. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. There are a couple of things I would like to address regarding this bill, and particularly I want to draw from the committee stage, as we had some robust discussions around this.

The first thing is that this bill comes in two parts, and I kind of want to address the second part first, which is some of the amendments to the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Act. One of the things that we do agree with is for Aotearoa to follow international standards and particularly some of our trade obligations. We’re really appreciative of the Minister, the Hon Todd McClay, for highlighting some of the needs and some of the expectations that the Minister has set out in the process of this, in order to delay that particular element by a year, and some of the goals that we are hoping to achieve. That is a good thing in itself. But, of course, this particular bill doesn’t depend on just that one section.

I want to draw attention to the first part of the bill, which is the amendments to the Forests Act. Again, we’re looking at the repeal of the log traders and forestry advisers. We have already heard from my colleague, who, again, has personal experience when it comes to small forestry operations and when it comes to what it looks like for Māori forestry operators. This is something that has caught them by surprise. Part of the reason is, as we were discussing through the committee stage and we were talking about some of the repeal, there was no point where we were able to get some sort of reassurance that the urgency of this particular bill is needed. And the removal of the select committee stage and hearing from our communities, and particularly, in this case, hearing from our Māori communities, is to remove a necessary step. So that’s something that we’re kind of coming back to when we’re looking at the principle of appropriate decision-making: those who may be most affected by the repeal have not had the real opportunity to feed into this. And I think it leaves a real question mark.

We already heard our hopes and aspirations, but in the current state it leaves a real question mark as to whether those small forest operators are going to be able to see the same level of robust advice and service they have come to know and appreciate over the last few years. So, when we are looking at this, we as the Green Party—and also what we heard from Te Pāti Māori—cannot support this in its current form. Again, like many of the other pieces of legislation we’re looking at when there is urgency, maybe there would have been room for us to reconsider if we were able to take that appropriate decision-making step of going through a select committee process. So, when we are looking at the broader implications of the forestry advisers, we have heard—again, from our colleagues from Labour as well—the aspirations we want to see. Hopefully, this is going to work out. It hasn’t worked out before, which is why we had this scheme in the first place, but, hopefully, this time it will be different. So, again, there is this idea that there is this uncertainty. And I too echo others in the sense that I hope we are going to be seeing something different this time around.

Just to finish, when we are looking at this bill, the other thing that we haven’t been able to get reassurance on is this idea of the levy. We understand that, when we are looking at removal of this, people who are currently paying for the levy no longer need to pay for the levy. But one of the questions we did ask—and we didn’t get a full response from the general committee stage as well—was whether those levies needed to be refunded. One of the comments that you see again in the supplementary analysis report—this is something that we didn’t manage to tease out—is that this is going to come under the Ministry for Primary Industries’ baseline, and it’s going to be a baseline of $0.6 million. So that’s another thing that we haven’t been able to get any form of reassurance on. Why do we need to refund it when the service has already been provided?

Unfortunately, there is still a lot of question marks to this bill, so we cannot support this in its current state. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, as a small forestry block owner, I’m very pleased to support this bill through the House, and I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to rise and take a call in support of this piece of legislation, the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill.

Before I begin my contribution, I would just like to acknowledge those on the East Coast that are suffering with the severe weather events that we’re seeing unfold at the moment. And I know—we all know, I guess—that the forestry sector is a big part of industry on the East Coast, and I have no doubt that there’ll be some serious impacts there with these weather events. So I do just want to acknowledge all those folk who are being affected by these severe weather events, and I hope that everyone stays safe during this time.

Dan Bidois: Tautoko.

Hon JO LUXTON: Thank you. This piece of legislation is an interesting piece of legislation and Labour does support it, but we do want to ensure that there are certain provisions continued during the time between now and 2027 when it commences, and we are really keen, as a party, to work with the Minister to support him and work towards getting some really good systems in place where this piece of legislation is concerned.

This piece of legislation was introduced initially because it was something that the sector themselves were asking for. We’ve had some, as we’ve heard in the House tonight, terminology used around the word “cowboys” in the industry. I think it was a way of the industry to, I guess, professionalise itself and put some safeguards in place for the sector, because we do know that we want this sector to be a prosperous sector. We want to support exports and we want to support our foresters, our loggers, our traders in all aspects of this area. It’s really important for New Zealand because it brings in a large amount of money to the economy.

What we have seen since this legislation was brought into place is that perhaps it hasn’t achieved quite necessarily what it was intended to achieve. I note that the sector now itself, who had originally asked for this piece of legislation in the first place, are now asking for it to be repealed. I guess some of the reasons for that that we’ve seen is that perhaps the size of the problem , or perceived problem, wasn’t quite as large as it was anticipated. So I understand that it was initially thought that there was a huge amount, maybe thousands, of forestry advisers out there, but it seems that there’s only, from what I have seen, been about 500 that have registered under this piece of legislation. I also note that, within the first couple of years of this legislation coming into place, there has only been two complaints and both of those were not upheld.

When I come back to the terminology around “cowboys”, I’d like to acknowledge the point that Minister Mark Patterson raised, as far as when there are cowboys in the sector, they don’t tend to last very long in rural areas, because rural folk talk to rural folk, and you act as a cowboy at your own peril when it comes to those involved in the primary industries. You certainly—not you, Madam Speaker, but cowboys—will not last very long when it comes to that kind of behaviour.

I note that this piece of legislation also refunds fees or levies that have been paid under the system, and I guess that’s fair, because I guess they weren’t due to come into force until 1 July, and perhaps those that have been very keen or very organised may have already paid those fees. It is only fair that if this legislation is being repealed that they are refunded in that way.

The idea of voluntary registration is an interesting one. I do think that, given that the sector originally asked for it, the sector are now asking for it to be repealed because they’re not seeing the need or the necessity for it, as such, there is going to be a bit of an onus on the sector to ensure that those that are registered in a voluntary capacity continue to uphold the expectations and the professionalism that has been required of them should they have done it under the mandatory process. So I think that’s just something that we need to really bear in mind—that the professional responsibility is absolutely upheld, that there is a responsibility to their clients, and that there is professional work standards upheld by these forestry advisers, who are going to be doing this on a register on a voluntary basis. I mean, registering on a voluntary basis isn’t a new concept. There are those that do that on a voluntary basis and provided by such as those in the building industry or the meat industry.

We do want to ensure, though, that WorkSafe practices are completely upheld. We know that this sector has been one that has been fraught over the years with tragic accidents and we do want to ensure that we reduce and continue to reduce those as much as possible.

The other thing that I wished to talk about is—if I could just find my notes around this. Oh, yes, we talked a bit about the legal harvest assurances system—that was the next point I wanted to get to—because we do need to protect the industry. We need to protect our traders and those that are exporting the logs, to ensure that when they export, they can prove that they have legally harvested the timber, because it has been an issue for the sector for quite some time. I was part of the select committee that dealt with the legal harvest assurance system; it feels like it was quite some time ago now. But what we do know is that it has been a real issue in the past and we do want to ensure that whilst the reference to the forestry advisers in a registered capacity is removed from the legal harvest assurance bill, we do need to ensure that this is something that is still continued. I think that the Minister has said that this is an area that will still continue as it is, just simply with the removal of the advisers having been mandated to be registered.

One of the things that has arisen from this, the advisers having to be registered, is that there’s been the concern around the cost being passed on from that to the foresters and such. And that isn’t fair when you consider that not all foresters are big, large corporate forests. There are a lot of small players in the industry, and if we can do whatever we can to ensure that they are not burdened with additional costs, then I think that that is good for us to do, because it is good for the sector, it is good for the economy, and it is good for the primary industries overall.

So, without further ado, we do support this piece of legislation, but we want to ensure that some of the things that I’ve talked about, as far as concerns that we have as the Labour Party, on this side of the House, are taken into consideration, and I guess there will be the time to ensure that happens between now and the commencement date in 2027. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Forestry is our fourth-largest exporter. These changes will support the forestry sector to boost export growth, and they will help rebuild our economy. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, this is a strange little bill in many ways. It’s not a huge imposition on the industry, but the National-led Government has decided that it’s not for them, and, in our view, on balance, we’ve got some concerns which we expressed in the committee stage about the health of the log industry.

I asked the Minister, as you may have heard, a number of questions about what non-legislative measures he will be taking to support the forestry and log-exporting industry generally. To be honest, I wasn’t entirely satisfied with his answers, but I would really suggest that that’s something we should be looking carefully at, because voluntary codes of conduct are all very nice—well and good—as are voluntary industry organisations. But we know that they struggle. They struggle for technical support, they struggle for resources, but they serve an important purpose. So if that’s the road that this Government’s choosing to go down, I would suggest that that’s really necessary.

And, of course, the irony is that this was a New Zealand First initiative that Shane Jones pressed hard for. It probably shouldn’t be called “log trading”; it probably should be called the “Horse Trading Bill” because it sounds like that’s actually what’s gone on. Or perhaps the “Log-barrel Politics Bill”.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: What about “log rolling”?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Yeah, a bit of log rolling, indeed. It could be any number of those things, because, clearly, there’s some deals that have been done on the other side of the House, and we know how desperate they are to cling on to power. [Interruption] The fact of the matter is that these—well, you know, that’s right, that Northcote seat’s at risk. And there you go, Banks Peninsula. That’ll be coming back home real soon.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Especially with her pro-mining stance.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Yeah, that’s right. The mines on Banks Peninsula—that’ll go down real well. All those quarries.

But the point, back to this bill, is that if the other side could have twigged, we are actually supporting this bill, because, on balance, we think it’s probably the best thing to do. We do agree with the suggestion that we want as few costs associated in compliance costs as possible. For my own view, I think a dispute resolution framework was a good idea. The fact that the Government provided a quick, easy, and effective dispute resolution framework for people in the industry seems to be an effective thing, and it happens in a lot of other industries. But, at the same time, we have a much more comprehensive judicial framework, and there are other ways to resolve disputes.

My friend and colleague Peeni Henare has certainly outlined the overall concerns we have about the health of the industry and the need to support it. But we don’t want to be an obstructive Opposition; we want to be a constructive Opposition where appropriate. And, by a fine margin, this is one of those situations. The conduct of the industry is now in the hands of the Government. We’ll be watching closely to make sure that it doesn’t fall back, because, as has been said time and time again, there were some rogue traders there, there were traders who weren’t doing the best by the industry, and there was a real problem with local industries—local mills, in particular—being squeezed out of the market by sharp practices by larger players. That’s a concern.

There’s a competition concern in there. And we know that a market with no constraints or controls doesn’t work. These were some controls and, look, perhaps they weren’t working as intended. That seems to be the case put by the Minister. But what we want to make sure is that we don’t see a market which isn’t a balanced one, where contracts aren’t fair and reasonable, where some players abuse their power or position or knowledge, or where there’s worse—there’s outright dishonesty where people are just setting themselves up and presenting by a web page and a fancy ute that they’re a lot more knowledgeable, a lot more skilled, and have a lot more credentials than they actually do.

So there are the risks. But we’re supporting this bill because we want people to get on with it. So we will support this bill through the House.

I invite all members to venture to the “Riviera of the South”, because if you visit PrimePort Timaru, you will see logs for Africa. Except they aren’t for Africa; they are stuck on shore because bad rules and bad regulations stop things from happening. Red tape, green tape, insulation tape, sellotape, whatever kind of tape is jamming up the system, it has got to go, and that is what this bill does. It is a good bill. Shortly it will be a good Act. Let’s get it done.

That just summarised the ideology—or “idiology”—of the Government of the day. I’ll read out a couple of things here and one is from Dr Elizabeth Heeg, chief executive of the New Zealand Forest Owners Association. She says assurance schemes are important for maintaining integrity throughout the supply chain. She goes on to say that “the registration scheme was meant to improve information across the forestry and woods processing supply chain, improve professional standards, and build greater confidence in the sector. Unfortunately, it has achieved the opposite—delivering added cost rather than added value.”

Let’s have a look at the added cost. So what are we talking about? This is the fourth-biggest industry in our country—fourth-biggest export sector. As I say, logs everywhere in Timaru, Wellington, Gisborne, you name it. So there was a regime where anyone with a ute and a computer could roll up to a farmer, see a few trees, and say, “Look, we’d like to buy those trees and we’ll just put them into—”. The farmer might want a bit of cash and so they’d say, “OK.” No assurance; didn’t know whether the guy was a crook or not. Others could roll up and say, “Look, you should plant some trees there, you’ll make a whole fortune, 10 percent return on equity. Great deal.”

Hon Mark Patterson: Who’s the Labour whip? Tell him you’re supporting the bill!

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: You didn’t know whether that person was a crook or not. And, Minister Patterson, there is a classic because his mate Shane Jones had the wisdom and the vision to know that it should be tidied up—it should be tidied up. Indeed, that’s what he passed in 2022, and do you know what the cost—and I’ll come back to that, because all that regime did, according to the Government, was add cost. How much? For someone to register, $444, and $320 to renew—annual fee. That small amount provided assurance through the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) for biosecurity standards that the trees came from the right place, that the people were paid, that we didn’t have slave labour involved in the export of trees or the supply, because those requirements are core components of our right to export to many markets.

So the question I have for the Government—in trying to reduce, through the passage of this legislation, the $444 that it costs for someone to register as a log trader able to trade millions and millions and millions of dollars of logs into markets that are sensitive to biosecurity requirements, sensitive to slave labour, sensitive to deforestation requirements—and so we, the taxpayer, through MPI, will have to provide that assurance. We won’t be receiving any money for it and we won’t know who the person who’s traded the logs has done. “Oh, there’ll be a voluntary scheme.”; that’s what they say. Well, Minister Patterson over there, he knows how effective voluntary schemes—do you know why? Because he’s currently intervening in a wool industry that has had a voluntary contribution to its future and development. Do you know what happened there? So can I say that I reluctantly, personally, support this piece of legislation.

Steve Abel: You don’t have to—you don’t have to, Mr O’Connor.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I do. As a party, we have decided that we’ll side with the industry. The industry has asked to take away the huge burden of $444 to register as a log trader, and the $320 annual fee, to remove that huge impost for someone who might be trading millions of dollars of logs. Well, I asked the dairy owner or the person who’s got a licence to sell at a market and sell a bit of food what they’ll be paying for registration for the right to do that—probably about 300 or 400 bucks; relative to their income, a huge impost. Is the Government going to take those registration requirements away? Silence. So they’re happy to help the forest industry.

I did a quick survey. Half a million dollars was donated to ACT and New Zealand First from forest industry interests—half a million dollars. I wonder if that money was donated on the basis that this fee be removed. I can’t answer that question. It’s up to—

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Ah, here’s a sensitive Minister.

Hon Chris Bishop: Madam Speaker, the member is, I think, the longest-serving member of the House and he knows that to make imputations in the way he just made is grossly out of order and a breach of Standing Orders and he should apologise.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Speaking to the point of order, Arena Williams.

Arena Williams: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Appreciate the point of order from the Hon Chris Bishop. The member did not make an accusation in what he said; I was listening to that carefully. He raised a question and he hasn’t provided an answer to that question.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Madam Speaker?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Just before we move on—excuse me, member—I’m just going to take some advice on this from the Clerk. In response to the Hon Chris Bishop’s point of order: if the member took offence, that’s one thing. I think what the member Damien O’Connor said was probably close to the wind but not quite a slur. But it was very close so I do caution the member. But if Chris Bishop took offence to that, then that’s another matter.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Madam Speaker, I’m referring to publicly available information and anyone can go and look at that register and draw their own conclusions; I’ve drawn my own. I’m asking the question: what will other people think? Because one of the concerns that people have across this country is the robustness and the health of our democracy, and I have been here a long time, and one of the things I am most passionate about is that that remains robust; absolutely. So all I’m asking, in what seems like a strange proposition that for—after a wise piece of legislation introduced by the Hon Shane Jones in 2022 to tidy up a rogue industry, and I could go back and quote some of his astute quotes in the House to actually say, “Let’s tidy this up, that those with a ute and a laptop driving around the country seeing opportunities to buy, sell, or advise on forestry were undermining the integrity and the credibility of the forest industry.”

Therefore, registering those people and knowing that there was some accountability, particularly for the export trade, but also to ensure that people who had contracts for local supply could actually get their wood when they needed it—this is what it’s all about. So removing this and going back to the wild west of log trading will be something that this coalition Government regrets. I know Minister Patterson over there understands the flaws in a pure market ideology.

So, in supporting this piece of legislation, I leave the question, not about funding—people can make their own conclusions—how will a Government assure people who import logs from New Zealand that they were harvested from sustainable harvest regimes, because that’s what we say; that they are free of any pest or diseases, because the incoming market doesn’t want them; and that they weren’t felled or processed in any way by slave labour, because that’s also an assurance that has to be given to the international market.

MPI, funded by the taxpayer, squeezed by the coalition Government, will then have to step up and do that work with no cost recovery regime, because this piece of legislation takes away the registration and certification requirements and says anyone can go out and buy and trade logs, and anyone can go out and advise on forestry. I worked on behalf of a good, honest tradesperson who had bought into a forestry investment on bad advice and suffered a huge loss because of it. The legislation that’s in place at the moment, until this passes, of course, enables us to search back and find out who that person is and deregister them. That will no longer occur, so for those people looking to invest in forestry or trade in logs: beware—beware.

We have supported this on the basis of good faith. I’m very, very uneasy. I’ll say that and I’ll put that on the record. None the less, there’s quite a bit of unease over that side of the House as well. There’s enough pragmatic members, members like at the back there who sat on the one of the biggest companies in the country, understands the value of cooperation and of legislation and good regulations to ensure Fonterra operates properly. We don’t have rogue traders in dairy. We certify that and tidy them up. We’re going to have rogue traders in forestry and that potentially will undermine the integrity, the credibility of the fourth-largest export industry in this country. So we’ll support it, but beware—beware.

Steve Abel: Cross the floor, Damien.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Well, we’re a democracy here. We’re a democracy over this side of the House too, so, occasionally, I get outvoted. None the less, beware of the passage of this legislation and its effect on the forest industry.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m thrilled that the member over there—Damien O’Connor—is supporting this bill. That’s great news: $400 saved here, $300 saved there, all savings. As the member over there will know: if you look after the pennies, the pounds will take care of themselves. This bill will save unnecessary costs and I’d hope that some of those savings will filter down to forest owners and also to those on the tools providing relief—just like the tax relief this Government’s about to provide to hard-working New Zealanders. I commend this bill.