Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you Mr Speaker. Well that is the most threadbare and pathetic recommendation for a bill to a select committee that I've heard in the time that I've been here. I mean we sat last night listening to the Minister stepping through the rationale for this bill and he made some very clear statements that in his view he had been consulting widely with the sector and this would have broad support. As you've heard from my colleague Hamish Walker this morning and the contribution that I made to the House last night nothing could be further from the truth. This sector has no idea over the detail of this bill.They are framing this up as if this is legislation that needs to be heard in urgency and has to be sent now for a quick three-week turn-around when it has a fundamental reframing as we've heard from our side on the impact of forest traders and for forest advisers. This is a fundamental change in terms of how the sector is to be re-orientated. They have signalled that the sector's been well consulted; they haven't. The leading organisations haven't been told about the bill. It was made very clear last night that they're going to hear about it for the first time in detail this morning. It is outrageous firstly that they have not been involved in the way that the Minister has suggested and secondly now they've got only three weeks to report back on a piece of legislation which as we heard last night from the Minister in his mind has great fundamental resetting of the forest sector in this country.We hear from the Minister around how important he thinks forestry is and how it's important that we sit beside forestry right now as they recover through COVID. Well where was he when in level 4 they were completely locked down and every single one of them wanted to start safely and they said No no no. Stay at home."? I mean that sector's now on its feet. The export returns are the best they've been for two years as China recovers.The whole construct of this has been flawed from the start. To be able to put this bill through in urgency and argue that we need to assess it as quickly as we have this evening and this morning and now have the arrogance to suggest that three weeks—for a sector that hasn't been consulted a sector that hasn't seen the bill that does have profound impacts on the way they operate—is enough for them to have a considered assessment and have the confidence that this Government actually understands their sector and the details and the impacts it's going to have on them is a disgrace. From our side we reject the time frame.The fact that it is being sent to the Environment Committee when the Primary Production Committee has only one bill in front of it and has a history to be fair a cross-party history of pragmatism—we've just dealt with the dairy industry bill where we wrestled very difficult and profound challenging issues for a sector. We got it through and we got an agreement and a position that was better. It took us many months but the calibre of the contributions were significant. The idea that the forestry sector which is part of the primary industry our committee doesn't get the opportunity to provide rigour and assessment of it but it instead goes to the Environment Committee and then only gives them three weeks is a complete nonsense."