Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Speaker and it's good to hear that the Opposition will be supporting this bill and for good reason because as it went through committee we could see it is a bill which really does try to make it easier to make high-quality investments in New Zealand. As the Minister said there were a number of submitters—and submitters who gave really high-quality submissions who had taken a lot of time and thought very carefully about how to improve this overseas investment system. Whilst the concept of encouraging high-quality investment that's good for New Zealand and is consistent with our security is simple to say it became very clear in committee that when you think about it and when you are actually trying to implement that policy it becomes very difficult because even the concept of exactly who is an overseas person is by no means straightforward when you've got large companies with shifting ownership. And that's certainly one thing we had to look at: there are companies listed on the New Zealand Stock Exchange whose ownership shifts on a daily and even hourly basis. So those kinds of things had to be looked at and also the assets we are protecting. Obviously we've just heard how important land is but we really did have to dig a bit deeper so to speak in respect of that land and identify why we were protecting particular land. Obviously farmland's important but it was a really useful discussion—and the Opposition contributed in a meaningful way to this discussion—to look at what was zoned rural land but was on urban fringe and the fact that in many cases whilst you might have stock on the land or some kind of crop it was really just being held there. It wasn't being used to its maximum economic potential because it was really development land and in fact foreign investment in that land may well be very useful and so in committee that was something that absolutely we looked at. But in respect of farmland it is really important to recognise that we have in New Zealand some of the best most efficient farmers and farming systems and so it's a high threshold to show that the sale of farmland to an overseas investor is going to bring greater benefits. An overseas investor who's seeking to purchase New Zealand farmland essentially has to show that they can bring technology or jobs or something which can't be obtained in New Zealand—so that's a high threshold. Also of course there was a lot of discussion around the need to publicly advertise that farmland because historically the deal would be jacked up and any notification or advertising would be an after-the-event matter and really there would be no fair opportunity. You know along with the kind of strategic interests of New Zealand farmland there's also a sense that New Zealanders—as with houses—should own New Zealand farms. They should be given the first opportunity to own New Zealand farms. So that was kind of one of those underpinning values as well. So that was a really important aspect.The other thing—well a number of other things came up of course but one of the important ones was just the benefit to New Zealand test. And there was some very useful—and the Greens contributed significantly to the discussion around the benefit to New Zealand test and whether it was a balancing of negatives and positives or whether it was simply showing that once you cross the threshold of qualifying as an investor to purchase something in New Zealand you could simply show that additional benefit. I want to just recognise the robust discussion that went on in committee there. I really want to recognise the sense of the position that ultimately wasn't adopted and I want to say why it wasn't adopted because I think that's important. The idea of looking at say environmental impacts against the benefit to New Zealand—the reason that balancing exercise wasn't adopted was because there's a whole area of law devoted to balancing environmental impacts for example. And that of course is the Resource Management Act and all of the associated mechanisms along there. So rather than kind of second guessing what the environmental impacts might be through a robust resource management process this looks at benefit to New Zealand; it doesn't contextualise it across all of the possible overs and unders if you like. It just says Let's look at the benefits. And if that's the case then the acquisition is permitted." But of course all of New Zealand law whether it be planning law whether it be employment law and so on and so forth will continue to apply. I've got to say that was a really useful discussion but one which ultimately fell on the side of that essentially single line test. So look it was a very good and useful select committee process but I do want to just recognise that it is a technical bill and one that committee members and submitters and officials worked hard to make sure we got our head around all of those complexities. I think we've done a pretty good job with it and of course this is now a bill which becomes really the last piece in the puzzle of making sure our overseas investment framework is fit for the future. I commend it to the House."