Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. At this relatively late stage in terms of the legislative process for this bill and indeed this late stage in the parliamentary week I have probably only a short contribution to make and probably a small contribution to make as well. It's not an area in which I am particularly well versed but suffice to say like everyone in this House should I do recognise the significance of the forestry sector for New Zealand—most obviously we use its products ourselves. Obviously there is a significant export component. At the heart of this bill is an understanding that also we import timber on occasion. Mr McKelvie my friend and colleague has given a good explanation of the importance of the local industry in the sense that that will reduce our reliance on overseas-produced timber. Of course related to that point is that at the heart of the bill is our determination as a House to ensure that the reputation of New Zealand's forestry sector is protected it's upheld it's strengthened because we rely on that as New Zealand Inc." taking that broad view as Steph Lewis has just referenced in her own contribution which is important for the country as a whole.So we've heard already about how safeguarding market access for New Zealand forestry exports will be improved by the passage of this bill and the international reputation of New Zealand forestry also strengthened and of course the two are connected because as those overseas who might wish to have our products in their various dwellings and other buildings and so forth they need to be confident of the provenance and have the quality assurance that New Zealand timber is exactly that. If we can do our part in preventing also the international trade in illegally harvested timber then that's a very good thing too.So just thinking about what's at stake: obviously a large amount of employment—some 35000 people I understand are employed within this country and some $6.3 billion annually. I'd be remiss if I didn't note the importance of the forestry sector particularly for regions that were hit badly by Cyclone Gabrielle. The regions have taken a hit in that sense not only because of uncertainty about land use decision making around what happens next in the cyclone recovery and rebuild and resilience-related decisions that need to be made going forward but particularly in relation to slash or other wood matter that has clearly played its part in accentuating the destruction of—and indeed in some cases it seems to have been threatening to life and limb of New Zealanders or anyone actually for that matter; any human being who happened to be in the area at the time and had the misfortune to be swept away either themselves or physically encumbered or had property destroyed by timber or forestry by-product. So that is not to tar the whole industry with that brush. It's important that we understand exactly what has happened. There is a review into this matter ongoing; in fact it was already to have been completed some 11 days ago I think and with the 12-day extension having been granted it will be as soon as tomorrow we hope and expect that we will have some findings from that review as commissioned by the Government. So that's a side note I suppose given that this bill is preoccupied with more general matters and the importance of the reputation and so forth in that sense of establishing exactly where and what the timber is and where it's come from and so forth.I do note that earlier in the discussion—it would have been at second reading and then in the committee of the whole House stage—the House considered a point that had been made during the select committee process. I understand it was after submissions had formally closed perhaps for reasons of administrative oversight I don't understand that well in terms of what had happened process-wise. But in any case it appears though the New Zealand Law Society made quite an interesting constitutional point which was eventually considered by the Primary Production Committee and then by the committee of the whole House and that point was incorporated in the Government's Supplementary Order Paper which was duly passed. So the bill that we have in front of us reflects that valuable advice that the Law Society had given. Roughly speaking it was to do with the fact that clause 6 of the bill protects persons outside of the Public Service and the concern of the Law Society was that Parliament might inadvertently be giving protection from liability that usually attaches to the Crown rather than to individual persons or actors whereby that some of those functions were delegated. So I won't get into the detail of how that was mitigated suffice to say that was considered and I think that's appropriate and useful.So having no further concerns or other concerns or indeed any concerns we continue to support in this way the forestry sector the Government in putting forward the bill and we commend it to the House."