Guy NathanHon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you Madam Chair for the call. It's been an interesting debate this afternoon and this evening and I want to focus on Part 2 and really drill down into the detail because it's a very important part. Can I just say from the outset as a bit of a scene-setter this is a terrible bill. It's going to have a major impact on investment in New Zealand and in the particular area that I'm concerned about its primary sector. We've had numerous contributions from the side of the House—very reasoned. Those in the Finance and Expenditure Committee that have heard from submitters that—Simeon Brown: And listened.Hon NATHAN GUY: Exactly—and listened. I'm not sure that we've heard from the Minister for Trade and Export Growth enough this afternoon and this evening that he has listened. Where is the economic analysis?Hon Amy Adams: There is none.Hon NATHAN GUY: Exactly—Amy Adams says There is none." Where is the economic analysis of the impacts of this bill on the New Zealand economy? Zip nada nothing. Isn't that woeful that there's been no economic analysis done on what this piece of legislation when it's potentially passed is going to do the New Zealand economy?It's really interesting: earlier on this afternoon I heard from Mark Patterson who is the list MP—people probably haven't heard of him too much—from down south. He likes to portray himself as bit of a farmer and what he's lost sight of is that about 18 months ago he was a signed-up National Party member but now he's on the other side of the House talking about socialism.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Talk to the bill—talk to the bill.Hon NATHAN GUY: Now that's got them chatting away now. Look at him over there—he's a little bit pink; he doesn't know where to look whether to look down or up and he's really embarrassed about that. But his speech was I thought terrible. It was woeful. It was socialism at its best and what he forgot was that in the campaign his political party that he's now embraced as his wider family called New Zealand First—now in Government—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Come to the bill—Part 2.Hon NATHAN GUY: —they were rallying against the Overseas Investment Office and saying that things needed to be tightened up. Well I say to Mark Patterson and to New Zealand First that effectively now there's been a carve-out for forestry rights up to 1000 hectares—a bit of a sweetheart deal. We still haven't heard from the Minister as to why this has been allowed and he'll stand up and say "Oh I'm protecting it." Well the reality is why not go further? What about other parts of the primary sector? Why is there a sweetheart deal for forestry rights? I'll tell you why—I'll answer it for you Minister—that's because Shane Jones walked into the Cabinet room and said "I'm not going to get my billion trees planted unless we let these foreign investors come in and plant trees."What is lost on Mark Patterson—and he got it big time at the Red Meat Sector Conference in Napier earlier this week when people came up and kicked him in the shins and said "Don't you realise that this policy is going to harm rural communities and in particular the red meat sector?" Do you know why? Because these foreign investors will be allowed to come in and invest in run-down sheep farms in the back of beyond sheep stations and convert them into forestry—not own them but convert them into trees. Now Mr Patterson got it in the neck at the Red Meat Sector Conference and he is now conflicted because he considers himself a friend of farmers down south but the reality is as David Carter said when his Hansard speech is out there on social media in the next few hours when it ripples through Clutha-Southland they will get to see what Mark Patterson is all about.But importantly back to the substance of Part 2 which is all about exemptions carve-outs and deals. What I want to know from the Minister is: why is it just forestry? Let's pick an example. Pick a super-fruit like avocados. Dairy farms are being converted in Northland as we speak and you would think that this Minister would be encouraging—because he doesn't like cows he's worried about pollution hates cow cockies. You'd think that he would be aware that horticulture production creates a lot more jobs—so-called better for the environment. He's nodding his head; we're all agreed on that. So you would think that if you're going to have a carve-out for forestry an exemption why wouldn't you have a carve-out for avocados? You know they generate about $155 million of exports now—indeed they are a super-fruit: high in potassium higher than bananas; great for cholesterol; and high in fibre. They are a super-fruit. Why not give a carve-out for avocados? I could go on but I won't.I want to come back to a very important point that I haven't raised in the debate so far. I'm mindful of David Parker the Minister. He's sitting in this chair this evening as Associate Minister of Finance with oversight of the Overseas Investment Office and the Act. It's really interesting that this bill is going to restrict foreign investment in New Zealand. I've talked about the primary sector and what I haven't alluded to is that it's investment downstream and upstream. What I mean by upstream is the investment flows into market as well because these foreign investors often have networks and relationships in market. But this bill is going to impact particularly on one country that I'm really aware of our biggest export market and that's the country called China. Now exports to China are worth what about $12 billion? This is going to send shockwaves through the Chinese community—it already has. I don't want to get off message and be told to keep it constrained to Part 2 but remember back when Labour railed against Chinese-sounding surnames and now they're restricting foreign investment and that's been noted in China. Also what's been noted in China in recent times is the Government's defence strategy position their policy in the China southern seas.Then of course we have a trade Minister—here's a question for the Minister: has the Minister for trade visited China since he's been in his position? This is a straight yes or no question. You would think that David Parker would know. I'm going to make it simpler for him: has David Parker visited China since he became a Minister in 2017? All you need to do is go like this or shake your head—it's quite simple. I'm going to take the silence as a no—I'm going to take the silence as a no. So we have a Minister of trade 10 months into a new Government—the largest export market for New Zealand and he hasn't bothered to visit. I'll tell you here's a factoid for David Parker: there's been only one Minister that's visited China 10 months in.The reason I raise this important point is because at some point down the track—and it may not be too far away—China will flex its muscles and we will have product held up on the wharves in China. That is coming just around the corner in my opinion. They have noticed that this Government doesn't care about them—our largest export market—Kiritapu Allan: Relevance.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Actually that's for me—OK? That's for me to decide.Hon NATHAN GUY: —and this bill here goes further than anyone would expect. The Chinese community—the ambassador the President and high-ranking officials—have read this. They know what message this bill sends to them and that is "We don't want your investment here. We don't care about you." The Minister hasn't visited China in 10 months in his job as Minister of trade.I conclude by saying this is a terrible bill. We are going to feel the effects of this not only in the primary sector but across the New Zealand economy for a long time to come. There's a carve-out deal for New Zealand First and Shane Jones to allow foreign investors to come in and create forestry rights up to a thousand hectares. Why would you give only forestry a special carve-out? Why not other areas? Stuart Smith earlier on this afternoon talked about viticulture. That's obviously all going to go down the toilet as well. There's going to be no rights for them. This bill is a terrible bill. I'm really disappointed in the Government. We are going to feel the impacts and effects of this bill for some time to come."