McClay ToddHon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Forestry): 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 The reason for that is when things are repealed they are not there anymore.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.So 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. So 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."