Parker DavidDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. This is an industry where it's great to see investors taking a 30-year view in New Zealand. I wish this could happen in all major projects apart from forestry in this country because it would—the classic example of this forestry programme is that if you take a 30-year view you're not making money until later on down the line but you're prepared to make the investment. I think there's a model in here which is very effective for the rest of the country. As you know we're very pro foreign direct investment and we want to see more of it in this country. I mean the number of players in this sector—Anna Lorck: Sell off New Zealand.DAMIEN SMITH: I'm getting it as well—which are very limited; might be 20 or 30. They're the ones taking the risk. We feel comfortable with this test as it's been reported in the bill. But one of the things that does make me nervous and I'd like to ask the Minister a question is: they were all asking that the regulator should be required to produce clear guidance about the factors they'll have to have regard to and the way these will apply those factors when assessing an application under the benefit to the New Zealand" test. To me giving them that clarity was very important and I would like to ask the Minister why that specific requirement wasn't added to the primary legislation even though the Finance and Expenditure Committee decided that wasn't necessary.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Can I first agree with the member that the balance test here is appropriate that it's not as tough as the test that applies for farmland. Before I respond to his particular question I would say that for me and for the Labour Party there is something special about land. In a world where there are some—you know there's a lot of places overseas who've got more problems than we've got. We're not a perfect country; we're a pretty good country and we're a safe place to invest and we're a safe place to live. We've got to be careful in my opinion that with those attributes we don't allow the opportunities of New Zealanders to be distorted by the interests of overseas people when it comes to land assets. I remember reading an article by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in The Telegraph. He's a commentator on economic issues that I follow. He's a right-wing commentator but I agree with quite a few of the things he says and he says there is something special about land that is intrinsic to your sense of countryhood and self. We must be careful that we don't separate ourselves from one of those rights of being a local Kiwi to actually have some preference in respect of land assets relative to overseas investors. That's what drives this side of the House in respect of some of the restrictions that we've got on overseas investment be it in residential land farmland or forestry land. That said we don't think in general terms there's something quite so special about forestry. It's a bit different from the you know the farmland that's adjacent to a beautiful lake that is effectively just such a special place to be able to live in and own and control. So we think that whilst there should be controls on overseas investment in forestry they don't need to be quite as strict as they need to be in respect of farmland. That's why we think the balance is struck between facilitating investment on the one hand and managing the risks on the other hand by applying the general "benefit to New Zealand" test for forestry conversions. We're not applying that to on-sale of existing farms to another overseas buyer. One of the things that is important to an overseas owner is to be able to change the ownership of that either through changes in shareholding in their own entity or by selling to somebody else. In respect of whether there should have been more particularity as to some of the factors that are going to be taken into account by the Overseas Investment Office when they apply that criteria we did hear the suggestion from some members that there should be more detail in the Act. We thought that would be too rigid and we thought that that guidance should be provided outside of the Act rather than codified within it."