SpeechHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): I'm pleased to take a call on the Overseas Investment (Forestry) Amendment Bill at its third and final reading. I congratulate the Minister for bringing the bill to the House and to Parliament for expediting its progress.The Greens have got a strong preference for land being owned by New Zealand citizens and permanent New Zealand residents. As others have noted land is special. It's finite in terms of its quantity. It's the basis of our culture and identity and New Zealanders have a very strong association with place with particular landscapes. So any overseas companies and individuals wanting to buy land here have to recognise that it is a privilege and that purchase should deliver substantial benefits to Aotearoa New Zealand.Exotic forestry does of course sequester carbon but as the Climate Change Commission has noted if we have an over-reliance on planting that means a reduced emphasis on actually protecting the climate through reducing emissions. So the 2018 changes—and a note to National speakers: that was a Government where Labour was in coalition with New Zealand First and had a confidence and supply arrangement with the Greens. It is a different Government—it was New Zealand First which pushed for this special forestry test to encourage the planting of more forests as Shane Jones was the then Minister of Forestry. But some of the changes made in 2018 like that special forestry test were problematic. Others as the Minister has noted such as bringing forestry cutting rights under the Overseas Investment Act were because they've got a similar status to long-term leases an improvement on the prior regime because overseas companies were using cutting rights in the purchase of those to circumvent scrutiny under the Act. But the Green Party is very pleased that we are now shutting the gate on this primrose path for forestry in that the very limited discretion that Ministers and the Overseas Investment Office have had until now in terms of forestry applications by overseas investors because they haven't had to demonstrate a benefit to New Zealand meant there was really very limited oversight.When we've got 57 percent of plantation forestry in Aotearoa being overseas owned the Greens don't think we need to encourage any more land purchases by those overseas corporates. So we certainly welcome the removal of the tick-box test and the fact that overseas applicants will now have to comply with the general benefit to New Zealand" test. But yesterday Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 219 that was in my name sought to even the playing field and ensure that overseas investors wanting to buy land to convert it to forestry had to comply with the stronger farmland test and that stronger farmland test involves the seven general benefit factors like protection of the natural environment protection of historic heritage advancing Government policy but with a greater weight on oversight and participation of New Zealanders and a consequential economic benefit to New Zealanders.We were really disappointed that the National Party despite speeches from Tim van de Molen and others recognising the concerns of Federated Farmers and many in rural New Zealand about the intensive wave of forest plantations didn't support the SOP and I think that is a strong reminder to New Zealanders that National can be very loud on talk but does little to actually deliver. It didn't develop any SOPs to make the changes to avoid the bill being skewed as Mr van de Molen said. Nor did it support an SOP which would have levelled the playing field between overseas investors wanting to take land and plant pines and overseas investors wanting to buy land and plant kiwifruit orchards or grapevines to create vineyards.The Minister said that the "benefit to New Zealand" test has sufficient flexibility and that the assessment would be in proportion to the sensitivity of the land. That still leaves a lot of discretion for the Overseas Investment Office so we would have preferred that that stronger farmland test applied. We recognise that the bill doesn't bring permanent forestry for carbon farming into its regime but there is quite a lot of concern that some overseas companies will buy land convert it to pine forest tell the Overseas Investment Office that they want it for harvesting later but then claim the carbon credits and not actually log it not prune it and not use it to supply wood processing in New Zealand. That was one of the reasons we wanted that stronger test and in the absence of that I think it is really incumbent on the Overseas Investment Office to do much more monitoring to ensure that the promises that overseas companies make—that they are planting for plantation forestry to harvest—are actually implemented. Certainly in the last Government there was an increase in the funding for the Overseas Investment Office to do more monitoring and to take more enforcement action and it has certainly done that. But it needs to expand that into really looking at what's happening in the back country with these big forestry plantations. That was a concern of submitters—and I acknowledge the 24-odd submitters who've contributed to changes to the bill. It was a concern of submitters that the land was well managed that the trees were pruned that weeds were managed and that it wasn't just a case of plant and walk away and a reliance on carbon credits despite protestations to the contrary. So it is that real monitoring that's needed to enforce the claims that are made in the application for investment. So I just close by thanking our select committee staff for all of their work and the very good report they helped the committee draft and officials from both Treasury and the Overseas Investment Office. We really encourage the Overseas Investment Office to do much more monitoring to ensure that these provisions in this bill are enforced."