Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Madam Chair I thought the process was that the Minister would answer questions. Have we got to that point or not?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): There is no requirement for the Minister to answer questions as they are presented to him—he might bundle two or three. But the expectation of the House is that there won't be five-minute speeches. There will be questions from members and the expectation is that the Minister will answer them.Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Thank you for your guidance Madam Chair. But the quid pro quo on that is that if the Minister won't answer questions good sensible questions posed by my colleague Ian McKelvie then members on this side reserve their right to use five minutes if they choose because the process is one that we thought was working pretty well.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry Mr Simpson just to say that I'm not sure that two wrongs have ever equalled a right. It's quite unusual for you to first of all assume that the Minister's not going to answer when I have just given you an explanation that there is no requirement on him to answer immediately after a question's posed. He may well have thought Scott Simpson's taking a call he'll have excellent questions I'll answer them at the same time as I answer Ian McKelvie's." The process that the House has agreed to is not that you will aim for five minutes for your speech; it is that you will use the time within five minutes to ask the Minister a question.Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Thank you Madam Chair.There is an underlying concern and fear that came through so strongly during select committee submissions from such a wide and overwhelmingly large number of people in the sector that there is something deeply wrong with the motivation of this piece of legislation. The clauses that were most concerning—and there were lots of them—were the 63ZZ series in clause 4. These deal with the regulations to be made by Order in Council on the recommendation of the Minister and they're wide and they're comprehensive and they are pretty scary actually to the sector. It's the fear of the unknown I think that is largely at the root of the concern that the sector has. If it was just one submitter one forester one landowner or one logger then maybe the select committee would have felt that that was an outlier in terms of criticism or concern about this piece of legislation but we had submission after submission after submission after submission. Then when we asked officials for their response to the matters that had been raised by submitters frankly we didn't get the answers that were anywhere close to providing the reassurance or the safety that the submitters were seeking. That only added to the sense of concern and fear about what the real motivation and purpose of this piece of legislation is for.On the face of it the label on the front of the bill looks reasonably benign—it looks reasonably benign. On first glance people would do as we did—having not had much of a chance to look at it because it was introduced under urgency. We supported it at first reading because on the front of it it looked OK. The registration of advisers seemed to be a relatively sensible idea. It wasn't until the committee and indeed members on this side started to delve into it in more detail and then when we started to get submissions from the sector that we realised that something was deeply wrong and flawed with this piece of legislation. So my questions to the Minister are really around what is the true purpose and the hidden meaning and plan behind this piece of legislation because it's not made clear. It hasn't been made clear during the select committee process. It hasn't been made clear by way of ministerial statement as the bill's progressed through the House. There's been very little comment from the Minister.It seems pretty clear to us on this side of the Chamber that there is a potential that the Minister is hearing from one part of the sector that may be relatively small in number and quantum but the large silent majority which is no longer silent but now quite forceful and vocal has been sort of roused out of their slumber if I can put it that way and this piece of legislation has united them against it. So my question to the Minister is really what is the purpose of the regulations? How does he intend to make them operate? What confidence can he give the silent majority of people in the sector traders in the sector who are feeling very concerned about what they see as a Trojan Horse.Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): Can I first turn my attention to the honourable member McKelvie's concerns about the delegation of any statutory functions to a person or an entity outside of the initial statutory body. I would direct his attention to proposed new section 63ZV which clearly outlines that there are a host of standards and requirements that must be satisfied and indeed the Minister must be satisfied. So there will be always a pin cushion and politicians of the day wanting to hold someone accountable will have a target.Can I now go to honourable member Simpson's points and I direct his attention—I'm assuming because he was on the select committee and he's no slug when it gets to matters of environmental policy—to the rules governing forestry practice standards. I won't repeat what I said that this is a future orientated piece of legislation which is building a platform for a host of investors possibly unknown at this stage who will derive more confidence through the quality of the advice they receive to expand the current size of the forestry sector and change perhaps the types of trees that existing investors may seek to invest in. They will be able to sleep soundly at night knowing that the quality of the advice has a statutory process around it and there will be accountability. The log mongers I'm not surprised given that they have existed in a frontier-like environment and they have enjoyed the fruits of a laissez-faire environment which is now being bought not before time into a regime that will enjoy the lightest of regulatory touches. But where there are cases where their behaviour is not of a level that we should expect in forestry transactions then they will be held accountable.If I direct the members on the other side of the House to proposed new section 63ZZC subsection (1) and (2) and they will see there what the rules which will comprise the practice standards are going to cover. Those rules obviously will enjoy full effect once the regulations are passed. Members on the other side of the Chamber know as the select committee chairman reminded me that any regulation that's ultra vires will be struck down in the High Court."