Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you Madam Chair. I look forward to the Minister the Hon Todd McClay engaging with my questions about the forestry register but I have some further follow-up questions about the register if you'll indulge me. This legislation as I understand it—and this is a simple question for the Minister—doesn't repeal that definition of a forestry adviser but it does take away some of the regulations around their involvement. So my first question to him: is it his intention that forestry advisers will still be a regulated term and will still be a protected term?My second question is: is it his view that in situations where a small forestry owner or even a medium-sized forestry owner is seeking advice on their commercial arrangements—because the comparison here just to explain myself is that forestry advisers are people who under the Act are acting on behalf of another person in relation to the sale or purchase of timber or other forest produce. That person who was once regulated under these provisions—there would have been recourse if their advice was negligent or there was misconduct around their actions. Does he think that for small forestry owners and medium-sized forestry owners who are seeking that kind of advice for that advice to be protected they will otherwise need to essentially get their advice from lawyers?I ask this question because that is the capacity I was involved in in forestry ownership as the general counsel of that group. As the general counsel I was providing advice not only on the arrangements between the commercial forester and the commercial group holdings company but also on things like the stumpage and the arrangements to use the roads in a commercial forest because all of those things are complex commercial arrangements. Foresters essentially build roads in a forest to last only the lifecycle of when they will be harvesting. So I want to understand from the Minister whether he is really further pushing costs on to small forestry owners and medium-sized forestry owners who need that level of protection about the advice and to be able to rely on it in future.My further question and this is a different line of inquiry is specifically in relation to Crown forests that have been returned to iwi. Those are a patchwork of arrangements that basically change hands from the Crown to iwi over sometimes 20- sometimes 30- sometimes 50-year cycles where essentially you have blocks within the forest that are being harvested at different times and when one block is harvested it will go from Crown ownership to iwi ownership. My question there is that say in the Kaingaroa Forest at the moment you'll have a puzzle where some of the forests are owned by iwi and some are owned by the Crown. In those kind of scenarios you have pretty complex and heavy-duty commercial arrangements between one American forester who is backed by iwi and the Crown forestry entity which will be backed by another commercial forester.So I want to understand in those scenarios whether the Minister is opening up further risk to the Crown in those pretty complex commercial arrangements which are also backed by Treaty settlements where if an iwi is getting advice which is now not protected they will come back to the Crown where they have forestry advisers who have acted negligently and where their economic outcomes do not support their aspirations for that forest.