Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Mr Chair a wise choice. I want to talk about the title clause of this bill. I think the Hon Amy Adams had some very good suggestions there. I think The Overseas Carve-Out Investment Bill" would be a better name. What I can't understand about this bill is why we'd have a carve-out for forestry around profit à prendre when we don't have the same thing—on up to 1000 hectares there are no Overseas Investment Act requirements to go through other than a tick-box exercise—offered to something like the wine industry which actually uses profit à prendre up to now.Foreign-owned wine companies actually have access to New Zealand land without owning it and what they tell me is this bill will ensure that they go through a process to buy the land now rather than going through the quite difficult process—when you're doing that process to get a profit à prendre you might as well own the land and that's what they'll do. That is what they'll do. So this is having quite a perverse outcome. These carve-outs don't make any sense at all to me. I note that in the Finance and Expenditure Committee when I asked the Hon Eugenie Sage about this—you know why we are doing this headlong rush to plant forestry? I said at that time that the people in Tolaga Bay might not think it was such a great idea. She said "No don't worry. We're not going to allow planting on steep land." So what that means is this carve-out in the bill is going to ensure that forestry will be planted on New Zealand's best land. And in the words of Ian Proudfoot as I said earlier "The last thing we want out of this is another Central North Island forest because it kills rural communities." That may be New Zealand First's end game. I don't know what their end game is but that is a really bad policy—extremely bad.Forestry's already 72 percent foreign-owned and in the wine industry what we found is that foreign investment has led to further vertical integration from the vineyard floor right through to the end seller in the market which has a huge influence on the ability for New Zealand to gain more share up the value chain than would otherwise be the case. What do we see in forestry? Seventy-two percent foreign-owned Mr Parker 72 percent foreign-owned and yet we see huge stacks of raw logs on all of our export ports on the wharves waiting to go overseas. They are not processed. So we are seeing a failure there. Quite clearly that carve-out is not going to be helpful for extracting more value here in New Zealand.Now the stated purpose that's been bandied about quite frequently is to try and actually lower the house prices here in New Zealand. But if I could use a forestry analogy you're playing with fire doing this because effectively you're trying to undertake microsurgery with a chainsaw. You're having a very large potential impact and if you start to get the market going down it's very difficult to stop it. Then we'll end up with a whole lot of people—particularly in Auckland—with negative equity. Then we'll have—as Mr Bayly my colleague will know—quite concerned banks and in fact we'd have Adrian—Andrew Bayly: And what about the homeowners?STUART SMITH: Well the homeowners are going to be in serious trouble as you well know. Then we'll see a rush to the door and it will cause a further spiral downwards in house prices. Then we'll see the Reserve Bank Governor Adrian Orr wondering what to do. How useful were those stress tests that he has undertaken? I suspect not very when things start to go down at the rate that they will when you start taking such a really blunt instrument to try and deal with a market that you shouldn't be meddling in in the first place.In summary I think the name of this bill is not adequate. It doesn't cover the consequences that will come out of this bill. I think it would be far better called the "Overseas Carve-Out Investment Amendment Bill"—it'd be far more appropriate."