Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Madam Chair. Just on that point to the Minister in the chair talking about the extensive consultation before coming up with these regulations so people shouldn't be concerned. Does he understand the feeling in this sector that they may not potentially believe him when he says that because of the process that we've been through with this bill? I'm sure that the Minister has read some of the submissions that we received but the feedback from this bill in the select committee was that people were pretty furious. The sector was furious; 95 percent of the submissions were against the bill. They felt aggrieved because they didn't have time to properly submit on the bill. They felt aggrieved because there was no consultation and no proper process. They felt aggrieved because they felt this bill was dropped on them. They felt aggrieved because they feel like it's a Trojan Horse bill. So I guess the point is that the sector are listening probably sitting there feeling like why should they believe the Minister that there's going to be some sort of extensive consultation process now. I guess in terms of questions to the Minister one of the things that we noted in the regulatory impact statement (RIS) was that MPI commissioned Forme Consulting Group and Scion in early 2019 to examine the log supply constraints" but that study was only undertaken in Northland. So it's understandable that when the select committee were listening to the feedback from the sector everybody outside of Northland was saying to us "Why do we have this bill? There's no problem. We don't have a problem with supply. We don't have problem with the mills. There's no problem of getting supply." And actually they didn't even agree with needing to regulate the industry. But there was this overwhelming feeling that there was no problem and that yes there might be a small pocket in Northland that was a problem but in fact nowhere else. So does the Minister think that perhaps the study that was undertaken wasn't fully representative of the whole of New Zealand—in fact that this bill is putting in place something potentially that is going to affect the whole country when in fact the problem is only in one small pocket where that Minister in fact lives? I'd like him to respond to that. I do note in the RIS as well they keep going on about the fact that there wasn't a longitudinal study that there wasn't enough evidence to in their opinion warrant this bill. And if the Minister could respond to that as well.I just want to point out that it was tough sitting in that select committee firstly because we felt that this bill shouldn't have been rushed through so quickly under urgency—Budget urgency! Why there was a reason to put this under Budget urgency we don't know. But the overwhelming feeling from the sector was anger and they don't want this bill in. And the purpose part the very first thing it says is "to support continuous predictable and long-term supply of timber and equity of access to timber." But in fact there's nothing in this bill and what they were telling us is it's going to be hidden in regulation. They feel like this bill is a Trojan Horse that what's coming they're not going to be consulted on and that it's all hidden. They're all very worried that they're going to be dictated to about where they have to supply their logs to and they're very aggrieved about that. So there's a number of things there that I'd invite the Minister to respond to.Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): I'd like to thank the member for those remarks. I do want to pay attention to the contributions that are being made. I direct members' attention to the purpose of this legislation and it is forward-looking. It is not stuck in the past with any provincial spats. It's dealing with the fact that if we are to make the most of our endowment in New Zealand and the post-COVID environment then we need to secure as the Act and the purpose said—and I want to acknowledge the good doctor the honourable member shall I say Dr Webb from Te Wai Pounamu who under the leadership of so said member added in new section 63A(1)(a): "support the continuous predictable and long-term supply of timber and equity of access to timber". Far be it for me to admit that I may have been less than fulsome or thorough in my original analysis of the bill but that has strengthened the bill and it addresses the matters that the member has raised. This is an attempt to lay down a statutory platform that will cause growth in areas of investment into forestry and its ability to contribute in the future that we fully have not canvassed. But investors in the domestic manufacturing context will now have a greater level of confidence that over time after the regime has been implemented through regulations the purpose of the Act will be given effect to. Now the notion that somehow it should not have been passed and the sector did not understand what the Government's agenda was—I don't really want to continue the quarrels that emerged between my officials and the industry as this bill was developed other than to say our Government has had a clear volume to value strategy from the day we were empowered and this bill is a small and relatively uncontroversial step towards that outcome."