Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora Madam Speaker. What an unusual treat it is to have a speech on this bill because I was the lucky chair of the Environment Committee when the original Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers) Amendment Bill was passed. I particularly enjoyed Mr Patterson's speech tonight because it was New Zealand First who pressed with utmost urgency that this was a critical piece of legislation to ensure that we had a robust domestic industry. And it's interesting because my own background is in professional regulation and this regime landed on the select committee table with a fully-fledged complaints and dispute resolution framework at incredible pace and with urgency because of the importance of it. We worked through all kinds of details of standards committees and what kind of code of conduct there would be and how we deal with commercial disputes. To be fair at the time this was very much a New Zealand First initiative. In fact it was of critical importance to them. It was a do or die" situation. And here we have it. They've flip-flopped. Someone in their coalition said "We don't like that." And Shane Jones said "Well you know maybe you know"—Mr Patterson said we tried it; it was a bad idea. Let's be clear it's not even properly enforced yet. It hasn't actually been fully implemented. So we don't know whether it was going to be a good idea or not. But even at the time certainly it was there because New Zealand First desperately wanted it. There was a sense from New Zealand First that some log traders would not be doing the decent thing with domestic growers and providers of foresters so there was this framework put into place. We do support this bill because we do have concerns that you can't go around and just because you don't like the way some people are behaving or you'd like to see a different approach and one of the questions here was the mix between logs that were being exported and logs that were being made available for domestic milling—and look the last thing we want is to be importing milled timber from overseas. But at the same time we don't want to be creating an entirely kind of false regime where local mills have some kind of preferential treatment and people who are buying logs for export are doing it on an other than commercial basis. And that's kind of through the back door essentially what this this regime was at least targeted at. So it in effect had an element of trying to interfere in the market in a way in which some would say was anti-competitive. So in so far as it's not landed well that's not entirely surprising. Log traders—the name pretty much says it all. I've heard a number of people who didn't know about this but talk about a guy with a ute or a person with a ute and a laptop. But that's what log traders do. They purchase logs and they broker them and they then supply them to third parties—a perfectly legitimate role. And as in any business there's going to be some rogues and scallywags out there but there's a whole system of commercial law for that. I think we've got to be cautious about imposing onerous systems and kind of fully-fledged regulatory systems like we do on lawyers for example where you've simply got two commercial parties with bargaining positions. I think the trigger for a kind of conduct system which is what this was and is at the moment but won't be for long—a conduct system really is only appropriate where you've got some kind of vulnerability or significant imbalance of power. A kind of historic origins of those were doctors lawyers and those traditional professions if you like who had a kind of special position and knowledge and therefore in respect of their clients they had to have these special conduct rules. Over time it's been expanded into kind of the consumer area. So we see the banking code of conduct. We see the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act regime and the financial market conduct regime all of which are good because of the imbalance of knowledge and power between essentially a seller and a buyer.Log traders don't quite fit into that. This is not a consumer contract. It's not some kind of fiduciary relationship. So in fact it was heavy-handed and that was always the concern. It is with somewhat of a wry smile when being pressed heavily by New Zealand First as to the critical importance and the fact that our local log industry depended for its life on this. So I think Mr Shane Jones is now hiding in the ditch he was about to die in before. So you know there you go.But it is good that we can look at this. You know the ACT Party has got this bee in its bonnet about regulation as if on this side of the House we just love regulation. Well it's not the case. We want appropriate regulation in appropriate places. And certainly in the forestry industry there is some appropriate regulation needed. I'm sure my colleague our spokesperson for workplace safety will have something to say about that. But in terms of regulating the relationship between buyers and sellers of logs it seemed a very odd place to do that.So yes we want responsible capitalism but we actually want capitalism that works. And we agree that where there is an unnecessary fetter on people making agreements and engaging in effective business then we want to get rid of them. I would say come over and have a have a yarn because we're very interested in this. As our position on this bill shows we're really interested in having a fruitful discussion but we think the kind of regulation bonfire approach is just a little unsophisticated and doesn't really serve us well. So in respect of this piece of legislation we think that the code of conduct framework was unnecessary. Of course the additional fees and levies that does have to be borne somewhere whether it's in the traders' profits or the price of the timber that ultimately gets milled and we don't want to see that.The commercial disputes resolution framework—you know there was something in that. I'm actually a real advocate of keeping disputes out of the courts as far as we can and providing people with a forum and a framework which is non-court - based is a good thing. But you don't actually need to do that by imposition in commercial situations. You can generally provide a framework and let people pick it up if they choose to do so. So once again that's a really good example of how you can provide the tools but not necessarily go down the road of compulsion. A lot of these disputes can be solved by mediation or by arbitration which was essentially the framework that was set out in this log traders framework here. But the fact of the matter is that a non-litigious approach is by far and away better. But at the end of the day what we're all interested in is a robust thriving and competitive forestry industry and one which has both a good export aspect to it. We do want to see our timber go overseas. Ideally it would be milled before it goes over but we know that's not always the case—but also a robust domestic industry. We don't think we need regulation to achieve that. We think that the industry's actually in good health. It's going to have its ups and downs. Industries and primary industries in particular always do. So once again good on you Matua Jones. You come to this House one day say something is absolutely important and the next day slink away with your tail between your legs saying "Well maybe it wasn't that important after all. Maybe it was all just a bit of a mistake." Kia ora Madam Speaker."