Parker DavidOVERSEAS INVESTMENT (FORESTRY) AMENDMENT BILLThird ReadingHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I present a legislative statement on the Overseas Investment (Forestry) Amendment Bill.DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you Mr Speaker. I move That the Overseas Investment (Forestry) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.The Government recognises that overseas investment supports a strong forestry sector and we continue to welcome it. We also recognise that it is a privilege for overseas investors to own New Zealand land. We therefore strike a careful balance: the New Zealand forestry sector must remain an attractive home for foreign capital whilst also having a system that provides oversight to ensure that investments benefit New Zealand.The special forestry test was introduced in 2018 to support investment into production forestry by creating a streamlined pathway whilst we also brought forest registration rights within the ambit of the overseas investment regime prior to the inception of the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement which closed down the ability of Governments to add new areas of screening. At the time the Overseas Investment Act (OIA) was itself highly complex—in fact unnecessarily so. Since then things have changed: the carbon price has more than tripled to upwards of $70—this is quite attractive to forests investors—and also the consent pathways generally under the OIA have been simplified with some of that complexity and some of the inconsistent criteria have been removed.Since then we've also heard concerns from amongst rural communities concerned about productive farmland being converted into forestry. So the streamlined process for forestry conversions in the view of the Government is no longer warranted. That's why this bill is in the House. It ensures that overseas investors wishing to convert land into production forestry must demonstrate benefits to New Zealand. The current test operates essentially as a checklist and doesn't give decision makers much discretion to determine the appropriateness of the investment and whether it benefits New Zealand. We're also making a range of minor and technical changes that will provide investors with clarity about the rules.Can I thank the submitters for their valuable submissions which have led to additional amendments to the bill ensuring the bill best reflects the Government's policy intent. Can I reiterate my thanks to the Finance and Expenditure Committee for their efficient deliberation on the bill and I'm pleased that the bill is attracting broad support in the House. That said some people would say that we should have gone further and made rules more restrictive. I would like to reassure anyone who shares this concern that the benefit to New Zealand" test has sufficient flexibility to manage proposed investments in land for forestry. The "benefit for New Zealand" test requires investors to show the benefit of their investment is proportionate to the sensitivity of the land. Proportionality in this sense means that overseas investment in our most sensitive land must demonstrate a higher degree of benefit than for land that is not so sensitive. This goes beyond economic productivity applying to land that's not just productive farmland but also land of high conservation values. The Government outside of this work is also looking at emissions trading scheme settings and Resource Management Act rules.To conclude production forestry is among New Zealand's four largest export earners. It's also a critical input for wood processing and manufacturing and of course is a key contributor to realising our climate goals. That said we understand that oversight of overseas investment is needed to ensure that investments do bring benefits to New Zealand which is why this bill requires overseas investors to demonstrate that forestry conversions benefit New Zealand. In doing so it will support our efforts to have the right tree in the right place. I commend the bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed to."