Xu-Nan LawrenceDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. We're looking at Part 1. I would like to take a couple of calls on this but the first one is actually to do with clause 4 and again later on it is my understanding that the Schedule is also part of Part 1 which we're going to be discussing—so please correct me if I'm wrong. When we're looking at clause 4 of this there are a couple of concerns that I would like to raise in terms of the repeal of some of the definitions. I think we've already heard about this in terms of the definition when it comes to the code of ethics but also some of these—you know I understand considering we're repealing it I say to the Minister because I can see we're repealing the log traders and the forestry advisers bit so I understand the removal of some of these. Again I want to express some concerns around the repeal of specifically the code of ethics and the forestry practice standards and maybe just see if we can get some reassurance from the Minister that the removal of these means that we'll still be able to continue to maintain the same level of quality that has come with the introduction of the log traders and forestry advisers legislation. I think that in this particular case as we've heard in the first and second readings—and I was really appreciative of the Minister talking in terms of the tabled amendments in terms of some of the consultation that has been undertaken. I think that one of the things we've stressed in the first and second readings because we haven't been able to hear from small forestry operators—other than the speakers in this House—during those readings is that it would be really good to know that what we are looking at doing in this will be to maintain that same level of equity. I understand when the Minister and other people are talking about that that we want forestry to be an area that flourishes and thrives but there is this latent concern that when we are removing some of the definitions as part of this repeal we are seeing a further imbalance and not that level of diversification of the forestry operators that we could be seeing here in Aotearoa. Again this is something we've heard before. These are locally owned locally producing operators and it would be a huge shame that by removing some of these definitions what we would be starting to see is more centralisation and more conglomeration when it comes to the forestry industry. I would like to draw attention in this case to the supplementary analysis report at paragraph 23 and also paragraph 26 where it says The main beneficiaries of repealing the RTFA regime will be the forest practitioners the logging companies and trade entities including wood processers and log exporters." Although this particular point is something we might come back to because it might affect other parts of this legislation I would like to draw attention to that in the context of the definition. The other part is that in paragraph 26 it says "The main cost of repealing the RTFA regime would likely fall on small-forest owners." and again that is really concerning. So I ask if the Minister wouldn't mind clarifying whether the repeal of any of these definitions would have unintended consequences as a result. The second part is more looking at clause 4(2) in terms of the definition of "registered". In this particular clause it is to repeal paragraph (c) of that definition. I would also be curious—and this is a very minor point—in terms of the drafting over here where I see inconsistency of the drafting because it is my understanding that the paragraph (c) here is to do with the register of the log traders and forestry advisers. The main bulk of the questions I am looking at to the Minister is if the Minister could just provide some reassurance to the committee and to us that we're not going to be seeing inequity as a result of the repeal of the definitions and that we are still going to be seeing the maintenance of the same standard."