Bennett DavidHon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. This legislation got its genesis in the New Zealand First coalition agreement with the Labour Party which required an exemption for overseas investors into buying land for the purposes of forestry and to get the billion trees. It's taken the Government many years to get to the position of tonight—which is a start. But do not be fooled. They will use this going around the farming communities saying Look what we have done getting rid of that foreign exemption." But it doesn't actually get rid of the foreign exemption because there are three tests. One is a general benefit test the second is a farmland test and the third is the forestry test. Now they're getting rid of the forestry test true but they're putting it into the general benefit test. They're not putting it into this more stringent farmland test.Now I can't for the life of me fathom why it isn't treated the same as other farmland. The Labour Party were elected and the Green Party supported them on the basis that they were going to stop overseas investment in foreign land. This bill still allows that. It's under a more permissive general test for forestry to buy farmland than for any other purposes to buy farmland in New Zealand. So New Zealand farmers need to be aware of that detail. This is another smoke and mirrors attempt by the Government. It does make a change in that area and we do support it because it is a step in that area. But if the Parliament and the Labour Party were genuine about treating farmland the same then why isn't it under the farmland test? Why is it under a general test that is more permissive? It's because they still want forestry to go ahead and they still want people to come in and buy forestry. Because the two requirements for a Minister to approve it are that the land is to be basically exclusively used for forestry—well those overseas investors are already doing that. The second test is that it has to be for plantation forestry. Well the 20000 hectares that my colleagues have talked about satisfy both of those tests. They're for forestry they're plantation forestry—generally not carbon farming that those overseas investors are coming in to buy. So I want to know why the Labour Party isn't consistent. This should be under the farmland test if the Labour Party truly believed in what it stood for.The only reason the Green Party—because I can't believe the Green Party actually agreed with this because they're all for the billion trees right? The only reason they've agreed for it is because they know it doesn't make a hell of a lot of a difference. They know that those two tests are going to be satisfied to any Minister. Is it going to be 20000 hectares that's now sold overseas that's going to stop tomorrow? I doubt that very much. It might reduce a little bit. But the Green Party is still clapping because they get what they want. The Labour Party's going to go into those rural seats and say look what we've done we've actually done something for you—which is not true. Because the test that is actually applied is the general benefit test.So if the Labour Party wants to be honest with those voters that they're worried about losing put it in the farmland test. Make it as tough as any other farmland to get. That would be consistent and that would be honourable from the Labour Party.So we will support this to first reading. It will be a step in the right direction. Personally I think that all farmland should have the same test. If the Government of New Zealand decides that that is a test that is more stringent and that doesn't want overseas investors to buy farmland—well so be it. But forestry still will get an exemption. It's just a watered-down exemption and it's the exemption which Ministers can approve and that is a result of this legislation.So I think farmers should be very much aware of what this legislation says. Don't be hoodwinked into thinking that this gets rid of all those foreign buyers that we've talked about in the past and they've been battering on the door of those rural Labour MPs offices. They're still going to be there they've just got a different regime to go through. And it's all going to be a year later before we see how many of their Ministers approve in all those sort of things after the election. This is just a smoke and mirrors attempt in some ways from the Labour Party to do that.Let's be honest guys. You know what you're doing here; you haven't really changed. Look the Green Party's voting for it—that's the guts of it you know. If you really change the Greens will be jumping up and down going "Well where's our trees?" And so we need to see this legislation go through a select committee and actually see what's in the guts of it. Thank you Mr Speaker."