Sage EugenieHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm pleased to take a call on behalf of the Green Party on the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill (No 3). Really as the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee said this is a technical bill and it's quite complicated. So I really acknowledge the changes to Standing Orders and the legislative statement which is now provided by the Minister because that and the select committee's report is a very good summary of the content of the bill and the changes.The Green Party does support the bill but has a few issues with it. Like others we really acknowledge the high quality of the submissions that came before the select committee for their very thoughtful analysis of the current regime some of the issues with that and the very practical suggestions for changes the work that was done by Treasury officials officials from the Overseas Investment Office and the select committee staff for their contribution. I acknowledge the work of Dr Duncan Webb as chair in overseeing some quite as he said robust discussions.So one of the key things that the Green Party really strongly supports is the stronger protection for farmland. Because one of the first things that the Labour-led Government did last term was to change the ministerial directive letter to the Overseas Investment Office around the benefit test for farmland to better protect that better recognise that an overseas persons seeking to buy farmland in New Zealand is a privilege. What this bill does is put into law that more stringent test around the benefit to New Zealand. It expands the Minister's discretion somewhat and as Minister Parker said it really entrenches that rather than just having it in a letter to the agencies.We're also really supportive of the greater recognition of Māori cultural values when that's being considered in terms of things like wāhi tapu when there is an application to purchase farm land. The bill makes a number of significant changes around the whole application of the national interest test because with the urgent measures bill which came before the House previously that was done at speed and there was a lot of feedback that that was too expansive in the way it operated. And therefore this is a much in the bill more proportionate in terms of the sensitivity of the land and the nature of the overseas investment.We're really supportive too of the provisions around water bottling increased consideration of sustainability issues and water quality issues when there is a proposed investment on sensitive land for bulk water extraction or water bottling.Another significant improvement is around the good character test which in the existing law is often too diffuse in the way it's applied. What the bill does it goes to factors like criminal offences civil offences whether there's been any issue of tax evasion and the bill also includes enhanced measures around tax disclosures by overseas persons when they are seeking to acquire significant business assets which can be a really useful fact for decision makers to consider.One of the issues that we have with the bill and agree with—don't often agree with Andrew Bayly. But the concerns around forestry—it is far too permissive a regime for overseas investors seeking to acquire land for forestry that resulted as Andrew Bayly noted from changes which New Zealand First promoted last term and we are seeing land going to forestry with a different and much easier test than applies to farmland with a lack of that need to really prove that there are benefits to New Zealand.So there is a real opportunity and perhaps we will see that in Supplementary Order Papers in the committee stages to change the provisions around that so that forestry is on a level playing field with other applications for purchase of farmland. Not the preferential position—the primrose path—that currently applies.One of the areas that the Green Party disagreed with the majority on select committee was the issue around what constitutes productive farmland. I'm reminded of the issue of Foulden Maar in Otago an internationally important fossil site which an overseas company Plaman Resources sought to purchase to mine diatomite. Now that was not productive farmland it wasn't returning much it was a very dry—I think it was formerly a sheep farm—but there was a huge opposition by the local community to this land being potentially sold offshore for diatomite mining because of the significance of the fossil sites there both internationally and because of the company for which geological epoch it was—but they were internationally important. So that wouldn't be considered productive farmland. So the narrowing of the test around productive farmland we think could potentially lead to rural land that is important for other values not being given the weight that productive farmland is when the Minister comes to consider it.The other issue is around the way in which the benefit to New Zealand test operates. The fact that the changes that the select committee is recommending mean that the Minister is not able to take into account negative impacts normally when a cost-benefit analysis is done you look at the positive impacts and the detrimental ones. Yes there was a High Court decision but the way in which the law is evolving here in the Green Party view is contrary to common sense and focuses largely on a very narrow definition of benefits which means that decision makers—Ministers—cannot weigh the negative and detrimental impacts which we don't think is commonsensical. And it's not just Resource Management Act (RMA) issues here but being able to look and make an overall broad judgment which is the way decisions have been made in other areas of the law such as the RMA but is being excluded from happening in terms of assessing whether an application to purchase farmland is to the benefit of New Zealand. You should be able to weigh the impacts of that as well as the economic benefits. So overall support the bill but still have some outstanding concerns with it.The House adjourned at 10.01 p.m.