SpeechRt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): As I listened to that speech by the Hon Shane Jones my thoughts considered a future political science student studying that valedictory speech from the Hon Shane Jones and suddenly wondering what decade it was actually said because that is the sort of speech I would have expected in the 1970s and the 1980s when this Parliament sat and put price controls across all sorts of products. I thought we'd moved past that and I can tell the House today that National will continue to oppose this ridiculous legislation. We will stand up for common sense in the forestry industry something that the Labour Party should be doing today. But instead they'll sit there and they will swallow yet another dead rat from New Zealand First insisting this legislation be passed before the election. I say that this legislation will be just another nail in the coffin of the New Zealand First Party. I speak today on behalf of our member for Clutha-Southland Hamish Walker who is down doing his constituency work in his home patch. But he asked me to take this call on behalf of National and certainly say that we will oppose this legislation not only in the second reading but through the committee stage and for the third reading because we are highly suspicious as to why this legislation is before the House. In the dying days of this Government I suspect Labour should stand up and actually also be opposing this legislation. I cannot believe that the Labour Party truly believes we should be putting in place legislation that when you sift through the words involved in this legislation comes down to one thing: the ability of the Minister of Forestry to control the log price to ensure that domestic processes—Dr Duncan Webb: Not accurate.Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: —get logs supplied to them. That's what it's about and Duncan Webb chaired the select committee. He knows that's what it's about—Hon Nathan Guy: Shame on him.Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: —and yet I suspect shortly he'll take a call and shame on him. He will support this legislation. I want to start by considering the process of this legislation because that in itself has been a shambolic process. It was put into an urgency motion on the Budget of 14 May. It was rushed off to a select committee the Environment Committee whereas for the time that I've always been here forestry legislation has gone on to the appropriate select committee the Primary Production Committee. But there was an issue there because maybe the Government didn't have the numbers to control the legislation so they shifted it off to the Environment Committee where clearly they have the numbers to control it. Then the next thing they did is they shambolically restricted the process by which submissions could be heard. Hon Nathan Guy: How long were submissions open?Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: They opened for submissions on 15 May and—would you believe it?—they closed that submission date six days later. The standard process in this House Dr Duncan Webb is six weeks. It could have been done because here we're talking about the second reading today many months after this but they gave it six days. So did they get a few submissions? I respect the forestry industry—650 submissions flowed into that select committee of which 640 were absolutely impeccably opposed to this legislation.Clayton Mitchell: Because of the big multinationals.Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: Clayton Mitchell says it was big multinationals. Well the submissions I saw were actually mum and dad investors—mum and dad investors—in woodlots farmers with their woodlots. They're not big multinational investors. In fact for Clayton Mitchell to interject suggesting that I tell him to go back and watch the news last night about big multinational investors. Have a look at Newshub at 6 o'clock last night Clayton Mitchell. I'll talk about that shortly at this time. I have been involved in the periphery as a farmer in the forestry industry. I've owned woodlots; I've milled woodlots and for Shane Jones to suggest the industry is full of cowboys is an absolute insult to this industry. It is highly professionalised. There are good people in this industry. But then they put this legislation before the House and shortly you watch Labour will vote for it—Labour will vote for it. They'll swallow that dead rat yet again. Hon Nathan Guy: We'll remind them on the trail.Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: Oh they'll know about it on the trail. They'll know about it. They'll vote for this legislation and what does it do? It puts in a registration regime for log owners for log traders and for forestry advisers. And then it has the ability subsequently for Ministers to impose regulation. That's the bite Dr Duncan Webb. Dr Duncan Webb: I'll talk about that.Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: What that is—I know the member will talk about it but it won't help in talking about it because it's wrong. What it is is price control. What it is is making sure that the price of logs is controlled in such a way that potentially vulnerable or marginally economic processors get an opportunity to buy logs at a price that makes them competitive. I say to the member over there—Dr Duncan Webb—who continues to interject Argentina tried this. They tried it with the beef industry and it brought their economy to its knees. They were worried about the price of beef to domestic consumers so they restricted the price and brought it down and made sure that a huge quantity of that beef stayed in Argentina. It was an absolute disaster of a policy and that's exactly what this Government is doing—it's exactly what this Government is attempting to do. I say that we've moved such a long way with the economy as we've opened it up over the last 20 and 30 years whereby we have a market that's open to pricing and that's the way it should be. If the international buyers of logs are offering a price then if the domestic processors want to meet that price then they can. But to try and control the price and bring it down to make a few sawmillers who are possibly marginally economic anyway have the ability to process those logs is absolutely wrong. What this is about as I mentioned is the compulsory registration of advisers. What will that achieve? That is more red tape and more regulation. It's about the compulsory registration of log trading entities. Well that includes me when I mill my next forestry farmlet. Why should I have to register as a log trading entity? Then there is the issue which the Minister raised around trade implications. We suspect there are breaches with the World Trade Organization. Hon Nathan Guy: He said it's a falsehood.Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: And he said it's a falsehood. The National Opposition members asked for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) to come before the select committee and that chairman Dr Duncan Webb used his numbers to stop MFAT coming before that committee. So there is no information before the select committee that this doesn't breach World Trade Organization rules. I suspect it does and for a country like New Zealand that's built a reputation second to none around being free traders on international rules that in itself is a possibility. The question that should be asked as we conclude this debate is who benefits? Who benefits? Well I'll let Duncan Webb tell us that because I'm sure he knows. But I suspect it's one or two very large domestic processors. I know one of them to be the wealthiest man in New Zealand Graeme Hart. He just happens to be a contributor to the New Zealand First Foundation. That's in the public arena. I just hope we're not seeing a situation where again we're seeing big money determining policy in this place because we had the issue last night and I suspect it's true around the fishing industry.Dr Duncan Webb: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah I've anticipated the point of order. As you saw I was remonstrating with the former Speaker who I'm sure is well aware of the Standing Orders. He is traversing into a very delicate transmission—well transgressions in the Standing Orders as he well knows by implying that they are being influenced by outside—the Government's being influenced.Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: I would definitely not be saying that Madam Speaker. It would be dangerous to say that. What I am saying is that this House needs to examine very carefully who benefits from this legislation. There are two possibilities in my mind. One is the big investor in the New Zealand domestic forestry scene. They potentially benefit because their logs come in at a cheaper price. The other potential benefactors would be a few smaller sawmills—Erica Stanford: Whereabouts?Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: —marginally operative probably operating in the Northland electorate for example. They are the only two sectors in my mind who benefit from this ridiculous legislation. Let Duncan Webb prove that I'm not right.