So, in conclusion, removing these dead trees, or what is defined very imprecisely as "irreversibly damaged trees", which says, "in relation to timber means—(a) dead due to an adverse weather event"—and so I say to that: how are we supposed to understand and have the evidence that says that a tree is dead just due to an adverse weather event? The member has already said that she is not sure exactly what an "adverse weather event" is. Then there is an "or", it is "(a), [it's either] dead due to an adverse weather event, or [it's] … damaged to the extent that it is not possible to recover naturally." This paragraph (b) does not relate to an adverse weather event, whereas the bill's name is the Adverse Weather-affected Timber Recovery on Conservation Lands Bill. So that is another problem with the bill. 