Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I have some sympathy for what the member Maureen Pugh has tried to do with this bill. The intent of it is really about scaling up something that has been shown to work before and it is trying to get some economic benefit for people where she lives. So while the intention is pure I'm afraid I can't support it because the scale-up element of it simply doesn't work and that's for three reasons: firstly it's just simply not ecologically working in the same direction that we're going as a Government and that we know that we need to go with climate change; secondly the economic arguments don't stack up; and thirdly it's simply not needed. Look if we go back to what the original Act was which was alluded to by my colleague Tangi Utikere the Act that was brought in the West Coast Wind-blown Timber (Conservation Lands) Act of 2014 came at the tail end of Cyclone Ita and that was on 17 April 2014. There was wind damage to over 40000 hectares of indigenous forest. There was severe damage and there were mature beech trees near Westport and there was tōtara and mataī in Whataroa. But as has been pointed out the Act that worked in that case was very limited. It was confined to the events of Cyclone Ita. It excluded World Heritage areas national parks and the white heron sanctuary and it expired on 1 July 2019. It's true that Forest and Bird in Canterbury and the West Coast are opposing—very strongly opposing—the proposed scale-up of that bill because of what it would mean for the protection of conservation forests from logging which has already been traversed by the Greens. We know that wind-blown trees are some of the most difficult to remove they're hazardous they're dangerous and they provide ecological support for the forests that they fall in. That has all been covered. But perhaps looking at the economic case that has been put forward for this the approved operators spoken to for the report done by the ministry of conservation didn't identify any particular new business opportunities that came from that West Coast scenario. They also pointed out that adverse weather events are unlikely to supply the consistency that would be needed to make the economic case for a scale-up like this. It could also create winners and losers as an effect in the timber industry benefiting those that have an adverse weather event at a point in time. Also there are risks that aren't present when considering only West Coast forests. There's likely to be pressure and demand for access to other woods in Whirinaki Warawara and Trounson Kauri Park for example with kauri a particular target. There are biosecurity risks that would be harder to manage or control for potential impact in areas such as these especially where kauri dieback is concerned. There is also a risk that the bill would support the harvesting of swamp kauri. So in summary the Government could consider special legislation if a very significant weather event happened such as what happened in 2014. We could do that in a way where timber recovery was economically and ecologically viable. There is no need for a large scale-up of a piece of legislation that responded to a very specific event. We've traversed the arguments around the ecology around the economy and we don't need to take it to a select committee when in fact there is a much simpler mechanism which could respond to a severe weather event which would be to introduce a very specific and focused piece of legislation to deal with that. For all these reasons—while I have some sympathy for what the member is hoping to achieve and I commend her for working for her constituents to do that—unfortunately the logic doesn't stack up and I simply cannot support this bill.