McKelvie IanIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you Madam Speaker. This bill I suppose—to steal a phrase from Sean Fitzpatrick—is like a bill of two halves. The first half's pretty easy to understand and probably logical and will probably save—and I'll explain who it's going to save in a minute—some people from I guess not breaking the law but from some pretty serious penalties. The reason for needing that is I guess the awareness of the emissions trading scheme (ETS) and certainly the rules around it have been pretty vague in New Zealand—not because they're vague but because people don't necessarily think they need to understand them. So you could easily get people—probably the majority of them would be farmers—who've had pine trees planted on their farms for years and years who've cut them down quite innocently. And off they go with the cash only to find that they were either pre-1990 or had been registered by a previous owner in the ETS.So that's what the first part of this is about. It's effectively rationalising those penalties because it's a pretty serious issue and I think there will be a number of MPs in this House who've had constituents come to them on this very issue with this bill. It's not overcoming it because it still needs some penalty in place but certainly making it much less onerous. And with good reason because I don't think anyone deliberately undermines the law or deliberately sets out to break the law but none the less it is easy to do and you can see how it could easily happen. So it restricts the penalties on those I suppose forest owners—for want of a better word—and makes the whole system less intimidating for them.I listened to Simon Court with interest—some of which I didn't understand; some of which I did. But the second part of the bill is much more complicated and whilst it might be fine today it won't be fine in a year's time. The reason for that is the environment in which we operate in—in any country in the world—changes very quickly and business changes very quickly and product changes very quickly. The reason for this piece of legislation in my view running the risk of being outdated quite quickly is that those will change so quickly that we'll then need to account for a whole different regime in two or three years' time.That leads me to the issue that concerns me most about this and I spoke about it in the first reading: this is an extremely complex business the Climate Change Response Act and what's happened to it in the time it's been operating and the changes we've made to it. And we're seeing that quite clearly with the ETS right now where we've got I suppose significant uncertainty in the way it's going to operate in the future. I'm a supporter of the ETS. I think it needs to work from a New Zealand perspective. At what level it works—that's another issue because when you look around the world and actually look around New Zealand the cost that these types of schemes can impose particularly on our lower-income communities is significant.Some of us had the opportunity to tour to South America last year and see the extraordinary poverty in some cities particularly in places like Santiago Buenos Aires and Mexico City. The biggest concern they had was what I guess regimes like this are going to put on the future cost of food and the future cost of servicing those communities—electricity is a particularly harsh one. So all those things get significantly lifted in cost by what we're trying to address in the second part of this bill.Now to some extent it sets out to address that—and that's where I do agree with Simon Court. It sets out to address it but actually it's very difficult to address it in law. And so I think we've made this whole situation over a number of years extremely complicated. So this bill will have to come back—or the second part of this bill will undoubtedly come back. It will be reviewed next year anyway and it would undoubtedly come back for further change. I'm not criticising the bill because I think that given the circumstances we're in right now it needs to be pushed on with.So the first part of the bill I think is great. The second part of the bill I think will be back—long after I'm gone but will be back—and will need alteration. So the whole thing needs more consideration. I commend the bill to build the House.