Adams AmyHon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Thank you Madam Chair. I've been looking forward to taking another call in this part because I do have two amendments on the Table of quite different natures that I haven't yet had a chance to speak to. The first of those follows on actually quite nicely from what my colleagues and the last speaker Shane Jones have been discussing.We heard from the Hon Shane Jones that this bill is about both protecting New Zealand and at the same time stripping away all the red tape. Well which is it? Are we making it easier or are we making it harder? The answer interestingly is both because if you happen to be forestry this bill does everything it can to roll out the red carpet and say Come on in. Seventy-two percent foreign ownership isn't enough for the New Zealand First Party. We won't stop until it's pretty much all foreign-owned. We're going to do everything we can to make buying New Zealand land and forestry rights as easy as possible if you are a foreigner because we don't stand for red tape. Oh but by the way if you're in any other sector we want a lot more red tape."This is what has been wilfully misunderstood by the Minister in each of his responses to my colleagues' contributions in this debate. This is around the introduction of profits à prendre—forestry rights for forestry profits à prendre in other sectors—and why there is an entirely different set of rules for those profits à prendre from forestry than for any other use of land. That question has not been answered. Mr Parker has continued to try and assert we just don't understand it. We do understand. Both are now in. Forestry with the most lenient possible set of conditions—a pre-approval checklist not the counterfactual and a thousand hectares—Hon David Bennett: Because they're going to get paid under the ETS.Hon AMY ADAMS: That's exactly right. You get paid under the emissions trading scheme (ETS) as my colleague Mr Bennett says—but a thousand hectares per year before it even counts. Yet what my colleagues are raising is why it is a thousand hectares and no red tape for forestry but suddenly viticulture horticulture avocados kiwifruit and pipfruit are all in the regime and no explanation has been given for that point.I want to make an important point that hasn't been made and that is this: at the moment if a foreign buyer wants to come and acquire a kiwifruit orchard let's say or a viticulture orchard or any of these profits à prendre currently they have to go through the Overseas Investment Office. Actually National supports that. We've never pretended that there shouldn't be a process to ensure we're getting that balance right. Now by bringing profits à prendre in a foreign investor who might previously have taken a profit à prendre will now say "Well I may as well just own the land—same process same cost. Why take a profit à prendre? I'll just buy it." There's every chance we're going to see foreign investment numbers go up because those that are going to invest might as well own it outright. So rather than giving foreigners a pathway where they can invest in the production potential of our land without owning it this Government has said "No no; you may as well just buy it outright." and that is ridiculous.Now I want to talk about my particular amendment in this space first of all and that is around the pipfruit sector. Very much like what my colleague Stuart Smith was talking about in viticulture and what Nathan Guy was talking about with avocados pipfruit requires long-term investment and development of a block of land and you want to know you've got a secure return. Now when we come to vote on these amendments this is really important because in this case the Government themselves have said "One sector is very different. One of these sectors is not like the others." So I hope we don't see a repeat of the sort of argument that they can all be voted on en bloc because even the Government in this legislation has made the point that forestry is special it has particular interests and rights and it is very different. Well if that's the case it is vital that each of these amendments is addressed very very separately recognising that very same logic.Now the second of the amendments that I have in my name relating to this part is an amendment—"4:45 p.m." I think is the nomenclature we're using to relate to them—which is around clause 4 of schedule 3. Now this is an entirely different point. This is around one of the numerous carve-outs and botched quick repair jobs that the Finance and Expenditure Committee was asked to do to this appalling piece of legislation when the Government recognised that they did actually want to have some foreign capital coming into large-scale developments and created exemption certificates for off-the-plan sales.Now it was interesting because Mr Parker in the media was quoted as saying "Well we've now amended it so that you can have foreign capital coming in and sales off the plan if you're building a large-scale development." The Minister in the media said that would apply to any development of 20 or more dwellings. The media questioned that with him—"Isn't it just apartments?"—and he confirmed to them "No no; 20 or more dwellings." Well actually Mr Parker if you look in clause 4 of schedule 3 it makes it very clear that that is not the case. What clause 4 of schedule 3 says is that those exemption certificates that enable a number of sales off the plans only in fact apply where there are 20 or more dwellings in each building—in each building. So very clearly it only applies to apartments. Now I thought OK well perhaps the select committee hasn't properly interpreted what Mr Parker the Minister in charge of the bill actually wanted. So I have—very helpfully I think—come up with an amendment that changes the bill to say what Mr Parker said it said which is that actually it will enable sales off the plans to large developments.Unlike the Government I know from Ms Collins and others on this side that we do want to see the housing supply increased. So if Mr Parker is true to his media comments and wants to ensure that large-scale developments will still enable a number of sales off the plans then I am sure he will want to support my tabled amendment which just gives effect to that very wording and makes it clear that the clause applies in the construction of one or more buildings as one development where the total number of dwellings is at least 20—so not just 20 apartments in every building for it to qualify but at least a total of 20 new dwellings. That would be a very small step in the right direction and it would say actually the Government recognises that enabling a level of foreign buying off the plans helps the financing of large developments and will see more houses being built. That would be a good thing and as I've said that's certainly the way Mr Parker represented it to the media. I know that's the case because I rang the journalist and said "Well hang on. I was on that select committee. It doesn't talk about 20 or more dwellings; it talks about 20 or more apartments in an apartment complex." And the journalist said to me "No no no; I checked that with Mr Parker. He was very clear that it applies to stand-alone developments as well." Well that's very interesting I thought. But I'm happy to put it right and provide a tabled amendment to make sure the bill does say that. So Mr Parker I'm looking forward to you supporting my tabled amendment that makes it clear that the sales-off-the-plans exemption certificate is going to be available to large-scale stand-alone developments as you've told the media or if not certainly taking a call and explaining why your media comments are different from the wording in the legislation.But in closing—in this particular call on this part of the legislation—it is worth referencing the fact that when we're talking about this carve-out for forestry what we are talking about is the fact that there is a very different track for how a forestry profit à prendre is dealt with to a profit à prendre in any other sector. Now Shane Jones himself—the Hon Shane Jones—has just told this committee very clearly that to not have created that special pathway would have created all sorts of cumbersome red tape. Well that's absolutely right. But I want to hear from the Minister why viticulture horticulture avocado kiwifruit the pipfruit industry blueberries and a number of other very distinct industries don't deserve the same consideration from this Government.I certainly represent an area as a number of my colleagues do where those sectors fight very hard for their survival and their viability. They want the Government to recognise the impost of legislation and compliance cost and given that the Government has said it can achieve all it wants to with future positioning for forestry with this light touch why on earth is there such a negative prejudice towards other critical parts of our primary production industry?It's not because there is any particular analysis as to why it has to be one way for forestry and not for the rest because none was sought—none was sought. If nothing else tells you the degree of dismissal arrogance and lack of concern from this Government to our primary sector—that by the way pays the bills in this country. If the Government cares about nothing else it should care about the fact that these industries provide the revenue to build our schools and our hospitals and put police on our streets and to fund cochlear implants. Maybe if they didn't care so little about these industries and the compliance costs and could stand up in this committee just once and explain why they don't care as much about viticulture and horticulture and pipfruit and kiwifruit as they do about trees and tell the owners of those businesses that would be good."