SpeechHon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): Why does the National Party want to sell off the birthright of all New Zealanders? Why does the National Party want to put on the international auctioning block the legacy of all New Zealanders? Why do they want to offer to people who do not have the same interests in the post-COVID environment as this Government does? Why do they want to use the COVID economic contagion as a further opportunity to pursue the privatisation of our legacy assets into foreign ownership?That is exactly the tone and the content from the other side of the House. Now of course this bill affirms sensible foreign investment in New Zealand. This bill introduces a host of overdue changes that will simplify the process. The ACT leader talked about weeds growing and analogised legislation to something akin to an acorn or a weed. This bill has the opposite impact. This bill will strip unnecessarily frustrating impediments from the road standing before foreign investors. It's going to actually de-weed the statutory process as we bring in sensible blends of foreign direct investment.But I say to the other side of the House: we remember vividly all of the big opportunities squandered by them where we let legacy assets in the South Island be hocked off. Not a single word said from that side of the House. Our side arrived and said as a part of the sovereignty of New Zealand some things are worth fighting for. Some things are worth taking right into an election coming out victorious and passing legislation. This bill represents that. This bill says that in the post-COVID environment growing food creating exports from the primary sector is essential. Therefore if you are a foreign direct investor hoping to swoop in for example like the Tai Poutini West Coast dairy factory those days are over. No more exploiting transitory distresses distressing times and denuding New Zealanders of these legacy assets. By all means make an application if you are an applicant out there but have no illusions: where farmland is concerned and its incredible importance for export-based activity you will go through a strong test.Now if the other side wants to change the law they have to come to this House and change the law in the future—no writing letters at quarter past 9 in the evening to the Overseas Investment Office (OIO) wink nudge and opening up vast swathes of the country and actually causing the next generation a state of despair as they watch the productive sector of New Zealand dribble away disappear into foreign ownership without any scrutiny. Those days are over.Of course I had a small contribution to make to the first phase of OIO reform and I recall liberalising the OIO. Because certain foreign direct investment is very positive—incredibly important to the manufacturing sector to the industries that will actually lift up the country out in our provinces and move forward. Now our very clever colleague Mr David Parker ascertained that forestry and the usufructuary rights associated with forestry rights associated with forestry needed to go through a screening process and two minds of great passion met—namely his and mine—and we decided that if land was under 1000 hectares then it should be allowed to pass through the regime of the OIO. And if you're bringing a proposal to expand the size of the New Zealand lung then that type of investment—subject to a suitable level of scrutiny—was very positive for the provinces.Now it's very sad that members on the other side of the House have exploited that. They've manipulated the facts and they've been a tremendously irritating source of misinformation up and down the East Coast and the West Coast. Fortunately every time I point out to them that when they were the Government in the 1990s 100000 hectares of farmland was turned into forestry—that wasn't this side of the House; that was the grand-uncles of the other side of the House. Then all of a sudden we get a mild change and that land that will probably create a greater level of public good by going into forestry land consolidation environmental resilience—that they now want to attack. Well who's actually selling the land? Who's actually putting the land up for sale? Garden variety Kiwi owners. Do you want us on this side of the House to actually trample upon those property rights of those owners as to whether or not they should be entitled to exercise it?Greg O'Connor: Sounds a bit communist to me.Hon SHANE JONES: Well there's nothing so straight nothing so recognisable as a capitalist who exploits a crisis to show how real socialism can be exploited to their private profit. Now we overlook these lapses and inconsistencies in the arguments put by the other side of the House which is why this bill will engender a great deal of support. It is not akin to some wild crazy—Hon David Bennett: $15 billion sold.Hon SHANE JONES: Well now we hear from Mr David Bennett over there. On the question of weeds he would know the famous one in the Waikato what's it—the broadleaf flea-brain or flea-vein or words to that effect anyway.Hon David Bennett: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Now that Minister has presided as the Government sold $15 billion worth of assets in his period of time and then he attacks members on the other side of the House? He should stick to his debate.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): And your point of order is? That's not a point of order. That is a debating point that members are debating.Hon SHANE JONES: Sir I do need to correct my contribution. The description of the hairy buttercup is more akin and more apposite for the contribution coming from that member from around Hamilton. However the House has rediscovered part of its mauri the liveliness. The Budget has well and truly been acclaimed up and down the country. And without a doubt Mr David Carter without a doubt spoke great truth. He said as this bill goes forward he won't be around. You can put money on that because a host on the other side of the House as I commend this bill after 19 September will definitely not be around.