Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Chair—excellent choice. I also want to address new sections 61B to 61E inserted by clause 33A but I'd like to first respond to Minister David Parker's point about his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 52. I think we're seeing this too often with the bills coming before the House from this Government where they haven't done the work before the bills are drafted and then we end up with an SOP that the Finance and Expenditure Committee didn't have an opportunity to actually examine and explore all because the work wasn't done in the beginning. We've got the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill as a great example where in fact the officials are very critical because there wasn't any consultation done and the bill's very badly flawed. I think we're in the same position here.Why are we rushing on this? Now I accept that the TPP—apparently there's another couple of initials—Hon Member: CPTPP.STUART SMITH: No the TPP it is and everything that it all started out to be apart from a couple of initials that went in in the beginning—that is not a good enough excuse. There could've been more work done and there should've been more work done and the select committee process should've been delayed to look at that. I don't actually believe that it will achieve what the Minister has just said. I still believe that we have essentially a Henry VIII" clause in here for the Minister to do some sort of a deal that is not out there for people to see. So I don't agree with that.What is driving this is this headlong rush towards getting some forestry in there and that's why these carve-outs have come in—and not very well-thought-out carve-outs. It was very interesting in select committee two weeks ago when Ian Proudfoot who is the global head for KPMG on agriculture came along to the Primary Production Committee and he said—and I think I might not get the quote exactly right—something like "The last thing we want is another central North Island forest because it kills rural communities." Yet that is exactly what they're aiming to do.Now we heard the Minister on his feet today extolling how many jobs they were going to get. That is one side of the equation. We like double-entry accounting here so what are the job losses? They'll be significantly more than that. On top of that issue we have the issue of particularly pine forests acidifying the land. Nothing grows underneath the pine trees. So we've got all these issues—quite significant environmental issues—because of this headlong rush into this forestry which is ill-thought-out.I can give you an example of where that goes wrong. In my electorate some years ago the old Forest Service and the catchment board saw the great wisdom of forestry and they got up in an aircraft and spread pine tree seeds out the door of the aircraft.Hon David Bennett: No way!STUART SMITH: They did—all over conservation land or what went on to be conservation land which is now infesting private property. That is making impenetrable pine forest choking out all the native vegetation completely changing the landscape spoiling the landscape value for trampers because they can't get through it—all these sorts of things because of an ill-thought-out policy that has really far-reaching consequences way beyond the today. When we're talking about forestry we are talking at least a 25- to 30-year rotation so we have to think about what's going to happen in that sort of a time-scale. Then to have something with that sort of time horizon that we can't have the select committee extend their time a little bit to consider a very substantial SOP that has far-reaching consequences is unbelievable and it's really poor process. I think we as a country deserve far better than that.I know the select committee were frustrated—at least half of them were; the other ones were doing as they were told—but I think that we deserve better than that in this country. We've put a lot of money and effort into getting our country moving in the right direction and on one Minister's folly we're going to wind it back many years with far-reaching environmental consequences. I think that is a huge shame for New Zealand so shame on the Minister shame on the Minister from New Zealand First. I think that rural New Zealand provincial New Zealand is far more intelligent than that. They don't like this one bit."