Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Mr Speaker. Well the Minister who's just resumed his seat I think has given us the answer that we had been seeking for so long through the select committee process third reading the committee of the whole House through the second reading and now into the third reading and the answer that the Hon Shane Jones whose name this bill is in didn't answer. What we found from the member Stuart Nash is that we are correcting the market. That's what it's all about—we are correcting the market. This is what we said: we're correcting the market. Now we've got to the nub of it. Here we are in the third reading of this legislation and now we're at nub of it. He wants to correct the market. That was the challenge actually that came from all the submitters—so many of them that made submissions in such a short time because this bill was introduced under Budget urgency and then the Environment Committee had a very very narrow window of opportunity and a short time frame in which to consider the bill. It was clear right from the very first few submissions that there were major flaws with the bill. Big chunks of it were rewritten by the hard-working officials who had to try and make some sense of it and now we find out the answer to the question: it's all about correcting the market. That was the question that submitters were asking us at select committee—they were saying What's the purpose of this bill? What is it aimed to do? Why has it been introduced? What is the purpose?" Then halfway through that process we discovered actually that the intent of the bill is more to do with propping up a handful of inefficient maybe unprofitable sawmills mostly in Northland and that a better name for this bill would be the "Northland Inefficient Sawmillers Support Bill" because that's really what it sort of came down to. Loggers and foresters from the sector couldn't understand what the issue was and then there was the sense all the way through that there was some kind of Trojan Horse that there was some kind of purpose beyond what was stated on the label of this bill—what it was all about. Now the Hon Stuart Nash has given us the answer that we have been seeking for so long and that wasn't forthcoming. "We are correcting the market." he says.Erica Stanford: What could possibly go wrong?Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: That's the way that socialists work—that's the way they work. As my friend and colleague Erica Stanford from East Coast Bays says "What could possibly go wrong?" Well wait and see—just wait and see. When Governments dabble in a free and open market when they dabble in areas that are rightly and properly the preserve of property owners to make their own decisions about what they do on that property what trees they plant what varieties of tree they plant and what's more when and how they log them—well when they cut them down at what level of maturity. Those are commercial decisions and then decisions about who they will sell those chopped-down logs to those felled logs—"felled logs" is the right term. So these are all crucial matters that are properly and rightly the preserve of the property owner of the business person of the entrepreneur. This is not the realm of the State; this is not the realm of a clipboard-carrying registered adviser.There are provisions in this legislation that are very scary for property owners for foresters who feel very much that this bill will inhibit their freedom and ability to make commercial decisions on their own account on their own advice or from advice that they have received from people that they choose to seek advice from rather than those that are regulated and controlled and told what to say by this piece of legislation that this Government wants to use to correct the market. Well Erica Stanford is 100 percent right: "What could possibly go wrong?" Well years and years of experience have taught us that when Governments attempt to try and correct the market only ill will come from that. Actually the perverse outcomes of this legislation will not be a better outcome for the logging sector it won't be a better outcome for sawmillers and it won't be a better outcome for the economy of New Zealand—and we will all be the poorer for it. So a Labour Minister who comes to the House in 2020 talking about correcting the market—I thought that kind of comment went out back in well frankly about the 1970s it went out but no; it's alive and well on the Government benches right now.We don't support the bill. The very wise words of my colleague Ian McKelvie I hope the Minister was listening to—I hope the Minister absorbed the wise words of Ian McKelvie because he is a man that is experienced in these matters he understands it and I thought his contribution in this debate was well worthy of consideration by the Minister. We don't support this bill."