McKelvie IanIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm quite surprised to get a call—Rt Hon David Carter: Wind him up Ian.IAN McKELVIE: Well no. I'm not going to do that at all. I think from the last speech we just heard if you inverted that and directly attributed it to the forestry industry that is exactly what this bill is doing: it's allowing the richest people in the world to come into New Zealand rape and plunder our land and take the profits home without paying tax which is exactly what Minister David Parker was talking about a minute ago.But I want to talk about a couple of other things with respect to the forestry industry and the clauses in this bill that I think are particularly concerning to New Zealand and that is that there is this great potential for this to lead to land aggregation. There's also great potential for this to preclude the use of classes 2 3 and 4 land which is way beyond the requirements of forestry from being used for other things. I think that is a tragedy for New Zealand's future. It also leads to depopulation and if we run the risk of aggregating land and planting trees all over it it will lead to depopulation of provincial New Zealand which is also not altogether in our favour and I'll explain that again in a minute.It is quite possible to manage the tree-planting and achieve the target of the Minister of Millions" in a much better manner than this bill proposes. I think if we looked at this and took some time over it—I don't have an issue with people buying land and planting trees; I think it's very useful. The issue I've got is that this bill enables them to buy land carte blanche in effect. They could even buy grape land for that matter and plant it in trees if you think about it in the extreme and there's nothing to stop that from happening in this bill. So I think that putting these clauses into the bill around forestry land is extremely dangerous for the future of New Zealand.We've seen throughout our history land use change frequently actually—sometimes for the better sometimes for the worse. If we plant trees on this land other than if you looked at some of the land after Cyclone Bola in the Gisborne area which was de-treed after being subsidised into trees—and it's quite possible that that will happen again in this case because that's the way I guess land use happens. So I think there's some risk with the land aggregation and the way that this land could then be used for trees and no longer be of any use for anything else. It will threaten our rural populations it will threaten the very best of our land and I don't think that's in New Zealand's long-term future. So that's the first issue I wanted to touch on. It concerns me greatly and I think there are already models in New Zealand where the type of land use can be influenced by the way it's able to be planted and whatever. This bill doesn't allow for that because effectively it enables those purchasers to buy land en masse.I want to talk about another issue which is a little bit the same. Michael Wood in his contribution earlier on talked about there being a shortfall of 40000 houses in Auckland. Well I'll lay odds that in 10 years' time there will still be a shortfall of 40000 houses in Auckland and there are two reasons for that. One is that the issue isn't in my view foreign buyers. The issue is the settings that the Resource Management Act and the Auckland Plan have put on the use of land and the way we need to build houses in that area. When you think about the Pukekohe potato land effectively they're replanting it in houses and I suppose that if you took that to the extreme you could liken it very much to the potato famine in Ireland. Some of you will be old enough to remember that—I am—and I mean that's the sort of thing that this kind of thing creates.The reason I am raising these issues is because I think throughout our history and throughout all the history of democracy in the world we've seen Governments with intention put legislation in place which has come up with perverse results. I think there's a very good chance that this legislation is going to lead to perverse results both as I mentioned earlier in the use of land for trees and where we get to with that and certainly I think given that the settings aren't right around building houses we're encouraging people to build out and not up effectively. Whether we like it or not wherever we live we just cannot keep on building out in the world because there will not be enough sustainable and decent land or good class of land left to provide the food that we require. I think that if you look at the Pukekohe area—and I don't want to pinch my friend Andrew Bayly's electorate and use it as a shocking example—that's very challenging for New Zealand and it could happen throughout New Zealand.So I guess my concerns about this bill relate primarily to land use and where it gets to in the future as a result of the legislation that we pass in this time. So that's my contribution to the debate."