Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Chair. I know the Minister of Forestry was trying to placate the concerns of foresters and us on this side of the Chamber but I don't think he's helped. The prospect of a Green Party Minister being in charge of this legislation would only make people even more concerned than they are now—the prospect of a Green Party Minister being able to set rules by Order in Council that set standards relating to any matter relating to forestry operations including as he's mentioned under new section 63ZZC(2)(a)(ii) in clause 7 biosecurity sustainable land use biodiversity and emissions trading;". Well that will do nothing to placate the concerns of the people in the sector who are worried enough that the current Minister may be in charge of setting those regulations—perish the thought let alone that it may be someone even more perverse and unusually inspired than his good self. This is the section this is the piece of the legislation that has caused the most grief I think in terms of concern in the sector. So the assurance from the Minister that he's acting in good faith and doing the right thing I guess is good as far as it goes but that assumes that we take him at face value in his role acting in good faith. But it's the prospect of dare I say it a lesser Minister at some point in the future having the kind of power and influence that will be potentially wielded by this piece of legislation that is the really scary thing.I want also just to ask a question about some words that were put in at the request of the Environment Committee to try and ameliorate the concerns. That is in section 63ZZC(2A) and it says "However the rules must not impose any condition or requirement that is that is properly a matter for commercial agreement between the parties." Those words were put in because what we were worried about as a select committee was that there was a potential for inappropriate involvement in what are actually property rights—the rights of a property owner to produce an income from a piece of land in a way that they choose to having made prudent decisions that they've come to under their own analysis and research and their own thought about what kind of capital return or investment return that might make. So if they choose to grow trees should it be the purview of regulated advisers that they define for property owners what kind of trees what variety of trees should be planted on a piece of land or indeed at what point those trees should be harvested. I know the Minister has concerns about the potential for trees to be harvested before full maturity or before full market maturity and there is concern that actually these new regulated forestry advisers are going to advise landowners foresters—maybe against their will or their good judgment—when to harvest trees. So those are I think legitimate concerns that foresters have that somehow notwithstanding the extra words that we've put in there will still be a potential for influence—undue influence—about decisions that are properly made by people using their good judgment their own research their own nous and their own investigative powers as to what is the commercially appropriate outcome for their investment in the land that they are earning an income from. So I'm keen to know how the Minister is going to try to further placate the concerns of landowners that they're not going to be told when they can harvest trees at what point of the tree's maturity it will be harvested or indeed which tree variety is going to be allowed to be planted on their property and which not.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Can I just remind the committee that the House has agreed to a new process during the committee stage of debate where the members no longer target five minutes for their speeches but use the opportunity to ask the Minister questions. The expectation is the Minister will answer it not necessarily straight away but during the course of the debate."