van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Mr Speaker. Now I'm happy to take a call on this bill because actually it is a long overdue step bringing the requirements for overseas investors looking to invest in the forestry sector closer back into line with overseas investors who are looking to invest in other areas such as our food and fibre sector—the amazing food and fibre sector that it is. It's been interesting just listening to the contributions we've heard from the Government who have put forward their views on why this is an important change to make why we need to look at tightening up the rules around those investors. We support this piece of legislation. Interestingly though it was only four years ago that the very same Government the Labour Party were standing up and saying exactly why they needed to put this rule in in the first place. So here we are now four years later and the Government is arguing the complete opposite to what they argued just four years ago.Hon Scott Simpson: Flip-flop.TIM VAN DE MOLEN: Flip-flopping all over the show Mr Simpson—absolutely. And suddenly this is now the right place to be and they're trying to rush it through quite quickly without too much debate about that hoping the public won't realise that they have totally flip-flopped on their position.Fortunately we I think have been consistent throughout and I'm confident the public will recognise this as well. We opposed the bill when the Government put it forward a few years ago because when we think about overseas investment—and here we are the Overseas Investment (Forestry) Amendment Bill third reading—foreign direct investment has an important role to play in New Zealand. We are a relatively small country. Access to capital can be challenging at times and job creation in particular the economic value that can be derived from that foreign direct investment the community benefit from it as well can be significant and there are many great reasons why we should support that sort of contribution to New Zealand. Unfortunately what we saw though with the rules that were put in place by the Labour Party four years ago was a significant skewing of the playing field as it were. The level was significantly different in terms of the bureaucracy the hoops you had to jump through if you were wanting to invest in forestry—a much easier and streamlined process compared to if you're wanting to invest in the food and fibre sector; a much more cumbersome process. In my mind that just shows how dangerous it is when you have a Government prepared to meddle in the markets like that. You get this negative or perverse impact as a result of Government interference in market processes. Ultimately it has in part contributed to a significant shift in the values paid for farmland and there are other factors around that too but we have seen in many cases over the last couple of years New Zealand farmers being outcompeted food and fibre farmers being outcompeted from forestry interests for the same piece of land. That's a real concern especially at a time of growing global food insecurity. There is a lot of concern around where our food is coming from. We have a very proud track record of producing top quality food and fibre products around New Zealand—some of the best of those coming from my electorate of the Waikato of course. But at a time when we really need to be focusing on how we can contribute internationally here we are with a Government providing the business community with a significantly skewed environment that meant it was easier if you were a participant in one particular area and much harder if you were a participant in another area. That simply is not right in our opinion.We do support this bill because it takes out that special forestry test and brings it back to a benefit to New Zealand" test which is as I say a good shift back down that spectrum making it more balanced. It still isn't totally balanced because there's still a more stringent requirement if you are looking to invest in land for agricultural purposes as a foreign investor into New Zealand. So there is still a disparity there and actually the Green Party did put forward a Supplementary Order Paper at the committee of the whole House stage to look at addressing that to even up for other reasons perhaps but the outcome was it would have evened up the playing field. Unfortunately the Government didn't support that and could easily have had that addition made as well. So ultimately we do support it as I said. One other concern I had that came up through the committee stage was around one of the amendments that had been put forward by the Finance and Expenditure Committee which sought to allow an exemption for accommodation on forestry land because effectively the rules said there can't be residential properties on the land; it's only for forestry purposes. But that was believed to create a risk for any investor or any landowner who had accommodation on a particular forestry block that would have supported the forestry activities from time to time for example: old shearers' quarters or something to that effect that the forestry workers would stay in carry out the pruning task for example and then head away again. Often these forestry blocks can be in quite remote areas and so having accommodation on site can be very important. So adding in that carve-out as was done at the select committee stage was a way to try and recognise and allow for that variability that is present on some blocks but not all forestry blocks. My concern that I raised in the committee stage was around whether that was still too restrictive in terms of not allowing for other uses such as shearers to use those same accommodation premises or school camp groups for example when they're not being used by forestry groups. The Minister didn't seem to understand that. He certainly didn't address or give an answer to the committee on that and so that is one area I will be interested to see how that is interpreted. My view is that there should be scope for a slightly more lenient allowance under that category to recognise that whilst the main purposes of that accommodation or neighbouring general curtilage group of buildings in that area is for forestry use there may be some additional uses that would also still be appropriate and wouldn't negatively impact on the ability to use that accommodation for forestry purposes. So I would hope that that would be looked upon favourably to allow those sorts of things to happen still in remote rural areas.So look overall we do support it. It is a good step in the right direction unwinding what was a horrible piece of legislation put forward by this Government four years ago. Thankfully they seem to have come to their senses or buckled to pressure I'm not sure which. Ultimately though we are in a better position with the passing of this bill shortly than we were before it. So we commend this bill."