McKelvie IanIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you Madam Chair. So the Minister in the chair Shane Jones just touched on some very interesting points there because there's really two parts to this bill—in fact there's now a Part 3 which is a different part altogether but that's come in as a result of the urgency this bill was rushed into the House under. I want to just talk about a couple of things that actually you could agree with if they weren't going to cost the industry too much money and that's basically around the fact that the register of log traders and the register of forestry consultants and things like that certainly has some value to the industry and there's probably other parts of the industry that could've managed that.I think what I want to really understand is the nature of what is now called—and I've forgotten its name but it'll come to me in a minute—the Forestry Authority. I want to understand the nature of that and I wonder whether the Minister can give us an idea of whether that might just be a secretary for example which it sort of describes in the bill but you don't know how big the secretary is. I wonder whether that's an operation that could be managed outside of the structures—in other words it could be given to an outside entity to operate. That would be very interesting to know. So that's the part of the bill that's pretty simple and relatively easy to understand and probably has some value to the industry.I notice a lot of the discussion around the structure or the setting up of this bill related to the fact that there were people in the industry that were effectively disadvantaged by the fact they didn't either understand the industry or didn't feel they were satisfactorily dealt with by either log traders or by people involved in the operations of the industry. That's a bit of a challenge. The thing that really concerns the National Party and certainly concerns almost unanimously the industry is what the nature of the regulations that come out of this bill might look like. I think that's one of the reasons that you can only oppose it. I've watched Ministers from both sides of the House plant regulations in front of select committees without having the regulations in front of the select committee and it makes select committees very nervous as to what might actually be the end result of that.In fact just last night or the other day we had the DIRA—the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act—legislation through this House where we're seeing the impact of Parliament interfering in a business-related or an export-related industry which had unforeseen influence on what happened in the industry and that would greatly concern me about this as well. I think the potential for these regulations—and I've got no idea what they might entail although I can imagine it—the danger is that I think they will cause distortions in the industry and I think there are other ways of dealing with the issue the Minister just raised which was primarily the ability for New Zealand to grow the added-value part of this industry and the thing that's constricting that is a lack of capital basically. Until we can introduce capital and a return to those people that are adding value no amount of regulation's going to fix that because all you're going to do is flatten the market I think. So I think that's the big worry but I would like to understand as I sit down just what the authority involves and how much bureaucracy might be involved in that authority as it comes into being.