Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Well thank you Mr Speaker for an opportunity to speak on the Forests (Regulation of Log Traders and Forestry Advisers) Amendment Bill and at the outset I'll just give a shout-out to my dad actually whose company made debarkers and chippers that supported much of the central North Island logging industry. So like the member who just resumed his seat David Seymour—part of the former Under-Secretaries club of which we are elite members—I have some connection to this industry. I just want to say that I am very pleased indeed that the arguments made by the Hon Amy Adams and other members opposite did not hold sway in the mid to late 1930s when the Minister for Works the Hon Bob Semple and the first Labour Government were setting up New Zealand's forestry industry because if those arguments did hold sway and we accepted that it was inappropriate for the State to ever have any role in the structure and guidance of important strategic industries to New Zealand we probably wouldn't have a forestry industry in this country. What I also urge the members opposite to do is to actually—Hon Amy Adams: How arrogant—It wouldn't have happened without the Government."MICHAEL WOOD: There's little arrogance involved in that statement Miss Adams. It's a statement of historical fact. What I would also urge the members opposite to do is to actually read the bill closely. Now I do acknowledge it's a bill that's been brought to the House in urgency so there hasn't been that much time. But from the statements of the members opposite one might think that there is a significant burden that has actually been brought down on the forestry owners. That is entirely incorrect. What this bill actually seeks to do is to ensure that those people who supply incredibly important advice and support to forestry owners are properly regulated and actually have to supply advice that can be provided to an appropriate standard given the significance of the advice the valuation and the financial support that they provide to those forestry owners who are seeking to operate in a domestic and international market place. That advice that is provided by advisers and log traders is exceptionally important if you're a forestry owner so my question is a simple one to members opposite: when you take financial advice on your financial affairs do you think it's a good thing that the people that you take advice from have to be registered that they have to be fit and proper persons that they have to operate to appropriate standards that they have to have professional training? I rather do and I rather think it's good that actually the previous Government that those members were a part of did ensure that the financial advisers that each of us seek financial advice from do have to operate to a set of standards. And I've yet to hear a single good argument as to why it should be the case that a forestry owner operating in New Zealand shouldn't have access to advice that is held to the same standard as advice that those members would get for their financial affairs. And that quite simply is what this bill seeks to do. This is a sensible bill. It ensures that the good forestry owners of New Zealand can have confidence in the advice that they get from their advisers and from log traders. It's an important part of a multi-faceted approach to lifting value in our important forestry sector. It's an important part of this Government's plans to back our forestry sector. I commend it to the House."