Webb Duncan; McClay ToddHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Chair. I appreciate that this repeal bill has been prepared in haste and there's no regulatory impact statement but just looking at the supplementary analysis report it does raise some good issues. As the Minister just said there were concerns which led to the original legislation and we're now removing the fix. Some of those things which were enhanced by the original framework which we're now repealing they're at risk. So my question is given the repeal bill what executive steps essentially are being taken to look after making sure that we can have confidence or participants can have confidence in the market—the log trading market. It's on page 6 of the supplementary analysis report where it talks about the need for—and one of the fixes was there were lax professional standards in some parts of the industry so a code of conduct was imposed.Now we're doing away with a compulsory code of conduct. It strikes me that the Minister now has an opportunity and his department and agencies to promote and to give support to the industry in their voluntary code of conduct. Similarly in terms of things like one of the challenges was poor contracting terms and behaviour and the code of conduct and the contractual dispute resolution framework enhanced that by giving a kind of a fallback vision. So I'm wondering what supports he is putting in place in place of a legislative framework.I notice that the overall assessment in the supplementary analysis report says reverting to the status quo would mean not having mandatory registration obviously and has limitations for improving professional standards transparency and grower confidence. So the questions—a substantial one for the industry. In terms of those four things what steps is the Minister taking to full the gap created by this legislation?Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Forestry): Well I think there's probably a philosophical difference as to the way that we approach these things across the House although I do recognise the members in the Labour Party are supportive of the bill. The philosophical difference probably is from the point of view of a belief that the Government doesn't have to legislate or regulate everything. A sector has to take responsibility for itself. In this case we are seeing that the forestry sector has not only started to do that are and looking to enforce it. Again before the dinner break I gave the example of the New Zealand Institute of Forestry where there has been a dispute or an issue between a forestry consultant who is registered or otherwise not their member to go and assist with that dispute including the landowner or tree owner that brought the concern. So that's the sector showing responsibility where they actually don't have to I suppose as not a member of theirs to do so. I applaud them for that and encourage them to do very very much more. There is a kind of factual of saying the industry is taking responsibility for itself.Where it doesn't then of course there often can be a need for legislation or regulation. In the case of this regulation and legislation the cost upon the sector is greater upon the benefit that they are getting for it. So it's costing more than the benefit that's been driven particularly because they're taking a lot of the obligation on for themselves. Ultimately that might or might not have been the case four years ago but it is today and that's the reason for the repeal.