Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. It's an absolute pleasure to be rising on behalf of the National Party as the member of Parliament for North Shore to be talking on the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill's first reading.When I was reflecting long and hard about what I would say this evening in regards to this bill I thought back to my younger days when the way in which I funded my university study was through pruning pine trees on a number of forestry plantations in the mighty Waikato. So I have some connection to this important topic. Those were long and challenging days but I did my small part to contribute to what is a significant and very important sector and I hope those trees are still growing as strong and hard as they were many years ago. Anyway in regards to this bill National will be supporting this bill. That's important because of the fact that in our current environment we have a regime which is primarily voluntary. We have within a domestic sense aspects and considerations but the reality is as many speakers including the MP for Selwyn Nicola Grigg in terms of her comment and contribution—quite comprehensive obviously—said before there are some gaps that exist in regards to the importation aspect around timber product. That element in terms of risk absolutely has impacts in regards to not only environmental consequences but also commercial consequences and also the element of an unfair playing field as well in regards to when those products come into this country. So anything that we can do in regards to alignment around making sure that we've got robustness in terms of the regulatory environment that deals with the outcome which primarily is to ensure that forestry products that do come into this country are not from or sourced through illegal means will bring significant benefit in terms of the overall system—I think as I said providing that even playing field to our domestic providers as well.I was interested to hear also—it might have been Mark Cameron actually in terms of his contribution—the scale of the sector. I think he's right: $6 billion or so in terms of the forestry sector the fourth-largest sector as I understand. Yeah the thumb's up from down that end from Mark Cameron. He's right. It's a great sector. It employs a lot of hard-working Kiwis. And so the significance of the fact that the domestic portion is $6 billion but that international element in terms of what's imported is about a third of that just over $2.75 billion and growing—and I think in the region of what the bill says it's gone up 70 percent in the last decade. The importance of having a robustness in terms of our regulatory framework in play to make sure that what's flowing in is coming from appropriate sources is really really important. So that is probably one of the key elements around why National are supporting this bill.The other aspect I wanted to talk about is that with the impacts of COVID and it's referred to in the bill there that volatility within the international market space—and we're seeing this across the board at the moment but in particular the volatility in regards to the trade environment supply chain and costs in terms of supply chain as well—means that people are going to be looking for opportunities in terms of the importation of forestry products to be able to cut corners. And so in order to achieve that degree of margin and profitability if there's going to be an easier way to do things then they're going to be trying to find those opportunities. And so that opens us up more—so around the element around illegally harvested timber and the importance that we have as I said a regulatory environment that deals with mitigating the risk around that. And the contrast again is that New Zealand is seen as reasonably low risk in terms of our overall processes our risk profile is the stuff that's coming in and as I said quite exponentially growing as well in terms of the trajectory as well.I think one of the benefits that we can look to see in terms of this overall legislation—I sadly don't sit on the Primary Production Committee. I know there's pretty big competition within our caucus to get on to that team. And we've got a number of very astute members that will be sitting there going through this bill no doubt in significant detail and asking those good and proper questions as any select committee should. But the process around ensuring that we've got the balance right in terms of this legislation and the fact that actually is it going to achieve the outcomes that we need it to achieve in regards to mitigation of the risks around that illegally harvested timber and getting that balance between regulatory burden that that places on domestic providers—getting that balance between the two is going to be very important. I can imagine the select committee process that will follow this will go into that. And so I'm looking forward to having a little bit of a read through the select committee's findings in regards to this bill because I'm sure there's going to be a lot more that will come out of that process. I think the element that was mentioned before just referring to what clause it was but there was an element around establishing the due diligence in the systems and the processes. And people at home watching this at this hour of the night and I'm sure there'll be a lot of people sitting back—Hon Michael Woodhouse: Oh in their tens of thousands!SIMON WATTS: —particularly in the mighty Waikato no doubt the Hon Michael Woodhouse and maybe a few down in Dunedin I'm sure!—they'll be thinking Well crikey what are the processes and systems that they're going to put in play here?" and it's going to be "Geez this sounds complex." I think that's a reality which is going to be: how are you going to get that balance in terms of that register as it says that due diligence process trying to be able to record the source of where these timber products have come from be able to see that audit and flow through from source to once they actually land in New Zealand. And I guess the substantiation process around actually being able to evidence and substantiate the documentation around timber products that are being imported into New Zealand actually is legitimate because that's a big issue. I mean some of these countries that these products are going to come from—not everyone's operating under the same rules right? And so the risk around you know that not being robust enough or getting that right balance is going to be an important aspect. It doesn't matter if you've got a good law if you haven't got the processes and procedures and the systems in place in order to make sure that actually all those legal elements are actually implemented and we achieve the right outcomes then we're not going to get maximum value in regards to this legislation. The other element I think it'll be interesting to hear and see how the select committee deal with is around the scope of this legislation. So where do you draw the line in terms of requirements? And I think again my colleague Nicola Grigg talked about some of the domestic elements around timber production in the New Zealand context and where do you draw the line around the different types of trees. I won't get into a full detailed conversation around that but you can imagine there's a wide range of different types of trees. The scope of that bill will need to consider around that aspect as well and that will be important.Just in my closing comments—I've got quite a lot more to say but I'm running out of time so that's a shame. But anyway I'm sure there'll be other opportunities. The commencement of this bill was something that I was actually taking a look at and it's interesting—Nicola Grigg: Ha ha!SIMON WATTS: I'm getting a lot of support here! But the point that it makes here is it says that the bill will come into force around the earlier of three years after Royal assent or the date—there is a three-year lead-in process in regards to this. And I guess that's the challenge around again thinking about it three years being a long time. The points made during the Green Party speech before around the impact—you know this is illegal harvesting happening and is that period of time too long or too short? Probably more the former in regards to how practically we can get this legislation into play. I guess the challenge for the select committee process will be actually: where can we get that point at which we can get maximum value and outcomes from this legislation without having to wait three years in order to achieve it? But we'll see what the select committee come up with in that regard.I think that pretty much sums up what I wanted to cover in terms of this first reading. It's obviously a broad overview in terms of this bill but as I said National supports in principle the elements around this bill. We're really looking forward to contributing and hearing the submissions as part of the select committee process which no doubt will be very solid and robust and National supports this bill."