Xu-Nan LawrenceDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you Madam Speaker. There are a couple of things I would like to address regarding this bill and particularly I want to draw from the committee stage as we had some robust discussions around this.The first thing is that this bill comes in two parts and I kind of want to address the second part first which is some of the amendments to the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Act. One of the things that we do agree with is for Aotearoa to follow international standards and particularly some of our trade obligations. We're really appreciative of the Minister the Hon Todd McClay for highlighting some of the needs and some of the expectations that the Minister has set out in the process of this in order to delay that particular element by a year and some of the goals that we are hoping to achieve. That is a good thing in itself. But of course this particular bill doesn't depend on just that one section.I want to draw attention to the first part of the bill which is the amendments to the Forests Act. Again we're looking at the repeal of the log traders and forestry advisers. We have already heard from my colleague who again has personal experience when it comes to small forestry operations and when it comes to what it looks like for Māori forestry operators. This is something that has caught them by surprise. Part of the reason is as we were discussing through the committee stage and we were talking about some of the repeal there was no point where we were able to get some sort of reassurance that the urgency of this particular bill is needed. And the removal of the select committee stage and hearing from our communities and particularly in this case hearing from our Māori communities is to remove a necessary step. So that's something that we're kind of coming back to when we're looking at the principle of appropriate decision-making: those who may be most affected by the repeal have not had the real opportunity to feed into this. And I think it leaves a real question mark.We already heard our hopes and aspirations but in the current state it leaves a real question mark as to whether those small forest operators are going to be able to see the same level of robust advice and service they have come to know and appreciate over the last few years. So when we are looking at this we as the Green Party—and also what we heard from Te Pāti Māori—cannot support this in its current form. Again like many of the other pieces of legislation we're looking at when there is urgency maybe there would have been room for us to reconsider if we were able to take that appropriate decision-making step of going through a select committee process. So when we are looking at the broader implications of the forestry advisers we have heard—again from our colleagues from Labour as well—the aspirations we want to see. Hopefully this is going to work out. It hasn't worked out before which is why we had this scheme in the first place but hopefully this time it will be different. So again there is this idea that there is this uncertainty. And I too echo others in the sense that I hope we are going to be seeing something different this time around.Just to finish when we are looking at this bill the other thing that we haven't been able to get reassurance on is this idea of the levy. We understand that when we are looking at removal of this people who are currently paying for the levy no longer need to pay for the levy. But one of the questions we did ask—and we didn't get a full response from the general committee stage as well—was whether those levies needed to be refunded. One of the comments that you see again in the supplementary analysis report—this is something that we didn't manage to tease out—is that this is going to come under the Ministry for Primary Industries' baseline and it's going to be a baseline of $0.6 million. So that's another thing that we haven't been able to get any form of reassurance on. Why do we need to refund it when the service has already been provided?Unfortunately there is still a lot of question marks to this bill so we cannot support this in its current state. Thank you.