SpeechHon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to thank the Minister in advance for his engagement. So far I've been listening and there have been good answers to the questions that we Her Majesty's loyal Opposition have been putting forward on this bill. We realise that the select committee did a pretty good job panel beating this bill but we still have got some concerns and I'd like to address a couple of those this evening.We're still concerned about potentially the trade implications of this and I may have heard the Minister addressing it before I got into the House so I guess my specific question is: has the Minister sought any advice from Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) officials about the implications or potential implications of this bill on any trade negotiations in the future? I know that the Ministry for Primary Industries have a trade team—they're well respected—but I'm very keen to know: has the Minister reached out and sought any advice from MFAT trade officials who are typically on the front line and in the engine room trying to negotiate free-trade agreements? Right now they're working hard to try and get one across the line with the European Union and we know that there's a few stumble trips along the way there and also with the United Kingdom.The reason I raise that is currently the primary sector tell me that there's about $6 billion of non-tariff barriers that our exporters have to deal with a year. That's what it costs our industry effectively—that money not flowing back to farmers and growers and foresters and the like so I'm keen to hear the Minister explain that one too please.I'm also slightly confused—page 36 new section 63ZZC(2)(a)(ii) inserted by clause 7. So what this particular part of this bill clause 7 of Part 1 says is that registered log traders and registered forestry advisers on the recommendation of the Minister must meet some rules that are set potentially by the Minister. It says the Minister may set standards. Then it goes on to say Biosecurity sustainable land use". So I'm interested to know: is the Minister giving a nod that the forest advisers will be the ones that will be held to account if they go and advise that class 5 land as an example is suitable for forestry? Now we've got a live example right now where Tolaga Bay beach is tangled up in a massive slash and I've heard the industry say "Oh well that's the old rules. They've been changed now; shouldn't happen again." We all know that these weather bombs these significant weather events occur from time to time so I'm curious to know that there's some rules and some standards that the Minister and his officials may set and in particular the sustainable land use. We've heard the Minister refer back to fines and penalties in this bill that could be used as a threat. Hopefully they aren't used regularly but I'm very interested to know what the Minister means around that because that's particularly interesting.The other comment is that I heard the Minister I think it was in his first reading say that after the election it's likely that politicians will want to restrict the ability of forest investors to expand their holdings into productive farmland. We all concur with that comment on this side of the House but it would be interesting to know what the Minister is thinking around that particular aspect. Thank you."