Edmonds BarbaraBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise as the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee who examines the Overseas Investment (Forestry) Amendment Bill and support the amendments on this side of the House. This bill seeks to amend the Overseas Investment Act 2005 and it is quite narrowly focused. The main change would be to remove the ability for overseas investors to rely on a simplified and more permissive consent process under the Act when they seek to convert land into productive forestry land. Again like the Minister David Parker and the previous speaker Ian McKelvie I'd like to thank the 25 submitters for their time on the bill. They were very varied in content but they were all considered greatly. I'd like to thank the officials for their time and their advice. There was never a question that was unanswered. To the member that just spoke I'd like to thank him in particular for his collegiality—that is Ian McKelvie. He spoke about the collegiality that was at the select committee and I think very much part of it is because he was the lead on it. His expertise was actually well used through the membership so I'd also like to thank our other members on the Finance and Expenditure Committee.As the Minister set out previously the Overseas Investment Act is New Zealand's principal tool for regulating foreign investment. It seeks to balance supporting high-quality investment with ensuring that the Government has the tools to be able to manage the risks. Right throughout the submission process and the committee deliberations the word balance" continued to be raised. Ultimately that was the policy question before the select committee: is the shifting of the current test for forestry conversion from here to here right or do we need to go further? The Minister set out the background to the changes and the context and it was a very good lesson on why statutory reviews—so reviews that are put in new bills and new tests—are a good mechanism for checking in further down the line. So the previous bill in 2018 had a statutory review and five years later that's how we've gotten to this bill. So anyway back to the bill and the balance the committee was required to consider. The bill ensures that the forestry conversions by overseas investors continue to bring broad benefits to New Zealand. These investments will now be considered under the same rules as other investments in sensitive land known as the "benefit to New Zealand" test rather than under the streamlined special forestry test. The removal of the special forestry test only means that conversions are now treated the same as other overseas investment in non-urban land. This will channel overseas investment into the right forests in the right place for the right reasons. As the member for Tukituki who will probably speak on the bill later—that was a key consideration for the select committee. It was making sure that we will channel overseas investments in the right forests in the right place for the right reasons—hence my emphasis.There were some changes that were recommended by the select committee. Generally they were to address minor and technical concerns that were either raised in submissions or by officials. I'll just go through a couple of them. One of them was that applicants of forestry standing consents must demonstrate a strong record of compliance with the Act or corresponding laws in other jurisdictions. However the common practice of creating a local special purpose vehicle for investment can also be a barrier to demonstrating a record of compliance so the select committee suggested that the bill clarify that when considering an application for a forestry standing consent the regulator can also consider the compliance record of the applicant's wider group of associates and individuals with control.Another amendment that the select committee has recommended is amending the special forestry test's existing restriction on using the land for residential purposes other than for forestry workers by replacing this restriction with a non-occupation outcome. One submitter—who was a very good submitter and raised such a good point which is why the select committee came to this agreement to amend it—raised that this change may create outcomes inconsistent with policy intent by restricting the ability for forestry workers to reside on the land because what's not unusual with these pieces of land is for there to be say some sort of temporary housing or some sort of infrastructure some improvement for the forestry workers to be able to live on. So the select committee agreed with that submitter and the bill now clarifies that forestry workers may continue to occupy land acquired via the Act's forestry provisions on the same terms as allowed under the Act's current restrictions on residential use. The Minister touched upon the 1000 hectares threshold and also there was probably the last amendment that the select committee suggested—and which I'll raise today—which is to access the special forestry test or the general "benefit to New Zealand" test for conversion the relevant land must be used and will continue to be used exclusively or near exclusively for forestry activities. There was a lot of debate around the words "exclusively" and "not exclusively" and officials assured us that there was quite a bit of precedent throughout the current Overseas Investment Act regime for them to lean on to be able to apply that test. One submitter though indicated that plantings might be staggered meaning parts of the land may at times sit outside of the cycle of "establishing maintaining or harvesting a crop of trees" in the definition of "forestry activities". To ensure these scenarios are captured the bill and the select committee recommended that we widen the definition of "forestry activities" to include maintaining the land between harvesting and establishing a new crop of trees. It was a very interesting bill to consider. I'd like to again thank the Finance and Expenditure Committee members for their work on it and again acknowledge Ian McKelvie the member of Parliament for Rangitīkei for his expertise and his collegiality at the table. I believe that we've struck the right balance and therefore I commend this bill to the House."