Seymour David; Rurawhe AdrianDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. What an extraordinary speech we just heard from the Green member the Hon Eugenie Sage. I can only speculate that she may have had a bit too much kombucha before she got up and gave that one. It's really nice to be back here on Friday morning in urgency and great to see the Hon Amy Adams back in the House again after not seeing each other and being away for quite a while. I should just reflect on a few comments that have been made. One is that this bill is being debated under urgency on a Friday after a Budget where the Government just committed to borrow $70000 for every household in this country and we're here debating the registration of people buying and selling logs. If that gives you a sense of this Government's true confidence organisation and urgency then I think New Zealand is in big trouble with this Government. But that's not in any way to diminish the importance of forestry and that's the first error in the speech we just heard from the Green member. The assumption throughout her speech is that if the Government is making rules and regulations for a sector then the Government must value the sector. But that's not right. The question should be: is the Government making quality rules and regulations for the sector? And the beginning of making quality rules and regulations is actually to define a problem.I have to say looking at this regulatory impact assessment having been Parliamentary Under-Secretary for regulatory reform in the previous Government that this is terrible. Under problem definition we don't have a problem to be solved given anywhere. All we're given is a list of the Government's intentions and aspirations. So that's the first problem. There's not actually a correct problem definition. If the Government doesn't know what problem it's trying to solve then it's not going to get very far in coming up with a solution. Then it says well what if the difficulty is that the solution actually creates more problems than it ever solved? In so far as I can tell all this bill is going to do—at a time when we need the forestry sector to be efficient and productive—is introduce yet another layer of bureaucracy that people in that sector have to follow. This is actually a problem throughout the New Zealand economy. Every time there's a problem—such as the Government feeling the need to be seen to be doing something—politicians come up with another set of rules. It works for them because they are seen to be active and they can say We love forestry because we're making rules." no matter whether they're good or bad or effective or ineffective.Then the people that actually do the work end up finding they spend more of their time getting permission to do work measuring if they've done work confirming work's been done complying with a Government department monitoring them doing work—leaving less time to do actual work. That is what makes this country less productive than it would like to be.I think we know the politics of this is that—and we heard it come out a little bit in the Green member's speech—the Government is trying to scratch the old itch of: why can't the logs be processed in New Zealand? Why are they going overseas? I've actually worked at a sawmill TDC Sawmills in Whangarei for 60 hours a week. I know a thing or two about it. What I notice is that the people that want more logs to be sawed in New Zealand have never actually worked at a sawmill. If they'd had that experience they might be a little bit less keen on it. But what I also know is that the Government has no idea whether a particular log should be milled here or overseas. There are so many variables and the people that know are the people that actually own the property rights. So the Green member said that this is going to make sure logs are milled in New Zealand. No it doesn't. It just means that there has to be an offer for each log to be milled in New Zealand. Then it'll go where it was going to go anyway with additional bureaucracy along the way. So this is a terrible bill. I'm not going to stand up and say I support it because people should have a say. It should just be gone. It's shameful the Government is introducing a bill of this poor quality in urgency after a Budget.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Five minutes—I call Michael Wood."