Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you Madam Chair. The Minister in the chair the Hon Shane Jones in reply to a question earlier in this debate made the note that this was a relatively uncontroversial" bill and I'd just like to explore that concept a little further in light of the number of submissions that we heard mostly via Zoom which painted a rather different picture from the one the Minister has just explained to us in the Chamber.I will start with the Forest Owners Association who told us and who directed their comments to the Minister's attention: "We strongly urge you"—and I'm quoting—"to reconsider this bill and look for other ways to facilitate the ongoing development of the domestic wood-processing industry." So that was I think a well-directed suggestion and comment and it was made in a very respectful way. And what the Forest Owners Association were saying to the Environment Committee and saying to the Minister is they were really questioning the regulation and the measures in this bill. Were they the right fit for the intention of the bill which was to improve the practice if you like of forestry owners and log traders? So that's really my first question and that comes via the Forestry Owners Association and I think they make a reasonable request. I know we've got the regulatory impact statement in front of us but that didn't give me any guidance on what other measures could have been considered so I am interested to know what other ways were considered by the Minister to facilitate the ongoing development of the domestic wood-processing industry. The other component of the questions I have is around registration and that was signalled to the committee and signalled through the bill. But there were a lot of submitters and I made notes as you do handwritten and every submitter practically—well first of all every submitter said that they had very little time to make a substantive submission. That was every submitter and I don't think there was an exception to that and we've rehearsed that in this debate. Many of those submitters raised questions around where the regulations were going to be directed. What were the regulations going to be? Now we all understand that regulation often comes after the legislation but there was expressed to us a degree of apprehension about what that regulation might entail on the basis that a number of the submitters simply couldn't identify in particular what the problem was to be solved. So I would like to know further: what is the problem that has to be solved that can't be solved in other ways?And finally I would like the Minister to address the issue of how much note he has taken of the many many submitters forestry companies large and small foresters associations 90 percent of whom—and I'm guessing but it's about 90 percent of whom—oppose this bill citing a lack of consultation lack of time to make consultation uncertainty around the regulation and no real sense of what the problem was to be solved.And lastly I would like the Minister to address his statement and clarify just what exactly he meant when he made the comment that this bill was "relatively uncontroversial" because that was not the experience that we heard through the select committee and it certainly wasn't the experience of the submitters."