Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Speaker. Well this is a strange little bill in many ways. It's not a huge imposition on the industry but the National-led Government has decided that it's not for them and in our view on balance we've got some concerns which we expressed in the committee stage about the health of the log industry. I asked the Minister as you may have heard a number of questions about what non-legislative measures he will be taking to support the forestry and log-exporting industry generally. To be honest I wasn't entirely satisfied with his answers but I would really suggest that that's something we should be looking carefully at because voluntary codes of conduct are all very nice—well and good—as are voluntary industry organisations. But we know that they struggle. They struggle for technical support they struggle for resources but they serve an important purpose. So if that's the road that this Government's choosing to go down I would suggest that that's really necessary. And of course the irony is that this was a New Zealand First initiative that Shane Jones pressed hard for. It probably shouldn't be called log trading"; it probably should be called the "Horse Trading Bill" because it sounds like that's actually what's gone on. Or perhaps the "Log-barrel Politics Bill".Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: What about "log rolling"?Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Yeah a bit of log rolling indeed. It could be any number of those things because clearly there's some deals that have been done on the other side of the House and we know how desperate they are to cling on to power. [Interruption] The fact of the matter is that these—well you know that's right that Northcote seat's at risk. And there you go Banks Peninsula. That'll be coming back home real soon.Hon Dr Megan Woods: Especially with her pro-mining stance.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Yeah that's right. The mines on Banks Peninsula—that'll go down real well. All those quarries. But the point back to this bill is that if the other side could have twigged we are actually supporting this bill because on balance we think it's probably the best thing to do. We do agree with the suggestion that we want as few costs associated in compliance costs as possible. For my own view I think a dispute resolution framework was a good idea. The fact that the Government provided a quick easy and effective dispute resolution framework for people in the industry seems to be an effective thing and it happens in a lot of other industries. But at the same time we have a much more comprehensive judicial framework and there are other ways to resolve disputes.My friend and colleague Peeni Henare has certainly outlined the overall concerns we have about the health of the industry and the need to support it. But we don't want to be an obstructive Opposition; we want to be a constructive Opposition where appropriate. And by a fine margin this is one of those situations.So the conduct of the industry is now in the hands of the Government. We'll be watching closely to make sure that it doesn't fall back because as has been said time and time again there were some rogue traders there there were traders who weren't doing the best by the industry and there was a real problem with local industries—local mills in particular—being squeezed out of the market by sharp practices by larger players. That's a concern. There's a competition concern in there. And we know that a market with no constraints or controls doesn't work. These were some controls and look perhaps they weren't working as intended. That seems to be the case put by the Minister. But what we want to make sure is that we don't see a market which isn't a balanced one where contracts aren't fair and reasonable where some players abuse their power or position or knowledge or where there's worse—there's outright dishonesty where people are just setting themselves up and presenting by a web page and a fancy ute that they're a lot more knowledgeable a lot more skilled and have a lot more credentials than they actually do.So there are the risks. But we're supporting this bill because we want people to get on with it. So we will support this bill through the House."