Penk Chris; Salesa JennyCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you Mr Speaker—good choice sir if unexpected for a few people. I have great pleasure in speaking to the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill. As the MP for Kaipara ki Mahurangi I should take an active interest in such matters: there are a large number of forests covering a considerable area of that the most wonderful electorate in New Zealand—indeed the world.Obviously at the first reading we are interested in sort of general principles. We're also interested in the basic mechanisms of how it works. The relevant select committee obviously will have a really close look—I don't have the pleasure of being on that select committee but colleagues here no doubt will have great pleasure and apply considerable diligence to that task and I wish them well in it.But at a reasonably sort of high level it does seem to me that a number of different themes are palpable if I may. One is an environmental category and I refer to my colleague and friend Todd Muller's contribution which emphasised that along with the commercial imperatives that are important not only for those in New Zealand who are engaged in the trade but also those overseas.And of course it's the trade in that import-export sense that is so important for the balance. Again I refer to Mr Muller's contribution and talk about the importance of those being aligned such that we don't have a mismatch that ends up with an unfairness from the perspective of those in this green and pleasant land to engage in the activity but also in terms of a fair trading environment a level playing field—if that's not you know mixing my metaphors in terms of forests. Obviously that's really important so that we don't end up with distortions such that we unwittingly incentivise practises that are less efficient less environmentally friendly and certainly those that are not legal.So in that sense I would argue that there's a third main rationale alongside the environmental and the commercial which I might refer to as architectural. Not in the sense that the timber itself is used for building of physical dwellings and other buildings—of course it may be—but architectural in the sense of the rules-based order being held up by these principles that we're discussing tonight.The objectives of the bill obviously are very worthy as expressed within the legislative statement. I've had the benefit of reading that as well as hearing an oral presentation of essentially the same material by Minister Nash and it seems that combating the global trade in illegally harvested timber is actually a very real issue a live issue. Another friend and colleague of mine knows a lot about this actually Mr Speaker—and I can't bring you into the debate so I would just say that that member is not a million miles away from the Speaker's Chair as we speak. I'm hoping that he will smile kindly upon my contribution.Nicola Grigg: For Rangitīkei.CHRIS PENK: That's right. As my other colleague and friend Nicola Grigg points out that person may also be the member for Rangitīkei.The bill looks to strengthen the international reputation of our forestry sector and it looks to reduce the risk of importing timber into New Zealand that's not legally harvested. So it's really a combination of those two things I think that enables us to say that we will reduce international trade in timber that is not legally harvested. The outgoing and incoming both obviously need to be kosher and that's to the benefit of you know everyone engaged in the trade and obviously ultimately the consumers of the products which is everyone who has something to do with timber I suppose ultimately. And here we are surrounded by the stuff and what beautiful carved timber it is too in this House.I was actually quite struck by reading in the legislative statement the extent to which we import timber as well as the export. Again Mr Muller referred to that. So the balance of trade calculation is interesting. As an export earner some $6.3 billion worth in the year ending June of last year and in the equivalent period $2.35 billion going the other way. So we do win overall on that equation but it's not insignificant that we have timber from other nations coming in. And so of course we want to assure ourselves as to the legal provenance of that. Of course New Zealand has a reputation already as a high-quality exporter of timber products. We do trade on our reputation quite literally in the sense that we want those international markets not only to consider us 100% Pure" as the marketing campaign goes in an environmental sense but also in assuring the purity of our products in the sense that it is legally pure almost morally pure if we're talking about again the environmental aims that go alongside the commercial imperatives to protect the trade.It's interesting the way that the bill seeks to achieve these things. It's got a number of different mechanisms within it. One is that it actually requires certain compliance activities by those who are engaged in timber exporting for example and your administrative measures to help exporters furnish proof of legality. And that might sound like a burden on them—and no doubt to some extent it is—but the burden is designed ultimately to provide a benefit which is to provide the assurance to the end-user or the purchaser or the export market of the bona fides of the timber. And so to that extent it's actually for the benefit of the New Zealand market and indeed the New Zealand provider—the harvester of the timber if you will—to comply with those.We have mandatory registration therefore for those who are engaged to a certain level and we've heard about specified thresholds. I don't know what those thresholds are whether they're appropriate but no doubt again that's the select committee's work to determine whether those are set at an appropriate level. No doubt submitters who are actively engaged and knowledgeable in the sector will have a clear view on that. No doubt the select committee will hear and act as appropriate if amendments should be required.Also interesting a voluntary registration scheme for those engaging in activities on a smaller scale. Why would someone voluntarily register? Why would they go through that burdensome process? Well I think again the answer is that actually it might ultimately be for their benefit. And so the purpose of the bill—which as Mr Muller has explained we do support—is of course to enhance that reputation for "New Zealand Inc." as a whole and indeed those involved actively in the industry. The way it's achieved a legal harvest statement and declaration—and of course if that's to be relied upon then those who are making the statements and engaged in the industry must have some sort of credibility and weight behind them and so it is that there is a fit and proper person test. Lawyers have a fit and proper person test and if a lawyer can be a fit and proper person I suppose a forestry harvester certainly can be. I feel like I can say that—and my colleague and friend Harete Hipango seems to enjoy that. She's a very fit and proper person herself in every sense of that phrase no doubt. And so there's a due diligence system to maintain the standards and to minimise the risk that illegally harvested forests will be trafficked so to speak—or that they'll be illegally harvested in the first place I suppose more helpfully.And a bit of a mix of private and public where there's a certification scheme within the due diligence system actually that appears to be in the manner of self-regulation but which is recognised none the less in the certification. So I would say and I think those on this side of the House would say if there's an opportunity for the State not to duplicate processes that are designed well are followed in good faith and have credibility in themselves there's no need for that to be replicated. So I do give some credit to the Government for acknowledging that a private certification scheme can be part of that architecture as a whole in protecting the industry.There's a principles-based cost recovery framework we hear and to members of the Regulations Review Committee—and I just pause in case there are any in the House because inevitably there will be a roar of approval. There is none.Hon Members: Hooray!CHRIS PENK: There's a roar of some kind. I don't know that it's—Hon Member: Timber.CHRIS PENK: The roar is timber appropriately. That's right. That's right. [Interruption] Maybe Tāne Mahuta as the Reserve Bank Governor's about to fall. I don't know that wouldn't be within the context of the bill so I wouldn't suggest such a thing.Anyway so there'll be a set of principles that are founding or underlying a cost recovery framework so it'll be important that the regulations setting those up take due regard to the way that the system needs to be able to carry itself from a financial sustainability point of view—again mirroring the environmental sustainability imperatives that underlie this work as well. There'll be the ability for regulated parties to seek a review of the decision—again that's something that we will look at very seriously at that other select committee and want to understand that there are fair processes involved for all those concerned.I seem to have run out of time to the great disappointment of all except mine. So I shall leave it there but say—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! The member's time is up."