Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I think we can have a reasonably straightforward committee of the whole House. There are as far as I can tell no amendments by the Minister—is that correct?—coming out of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. The select committee I think made some sensible changes to the bill particularly around the application of the national interest test that the Minister just referred to.I think there are two objects for this bill. One is to appropriately manage our sensitive assets in a manner that doesn't undermine New Zealand sovereignty but also to make the process of applying for approval under the Overseas Investment Act more straightforward and more easy. I think largely we've done that—we've certainly made progress towards that—but I think there is more in that area that we can do. The particular issue I want to raise is in respect of farmland because there are three aspects of the bill that relate to rural land—farmland. One is a recognition that there are different types of farmland essentially—that some farmland is more equal than others if you like—that that which is designated from a zoning perspective is actually not very good land it's not productive it's not being used for farming but there is a quite significant test that needs to be met before it can be used for something else. I think these changes are really sensible. On the other hand for that which is genuinely farmland the requirements to advertise farmland transactions in New Zealand before the agreement to sell the land to an overseas person is entered into—to the degree that one might believe that there are significant risks in that area I think that is a safe enough amendment. What worries me and the National Party about this bill is that in our attempts to protect farmland we haven't addressed the significant change that was made by this Government in—I think it was—about October 2018 for farmland being converted into forestry if it was 999 hectares or less. We in our second reading speech and in the select committee report expressed our concern that that wasn't the case. Now I think it's really important to stress that our concern is not around forestry per se. Forestry is going to have a very important role to play as it already has and certainly from a climate change and net zero perspective there's no doubt that both native and exotic trees will continue to have an important role to play. The question is whether the market is distorted by the ease with which overseas investors can purchase farmland for converting into forestry and I think we've seen significant changes in that practice since the 2018 amendment was made. Where we're concerned about that—if the goal of this bill at least in part is to protect farmland then we should be considering an amendment to the bill to do just that. So I have just tabled an amendment in my name that effectively deletes the relevant section in the Overseas Investment Act that does that. I'll just let the committee know what that is—that is the insertion of a new clause 8A of the bill that effectively deletes section 16C of the Act—that was the Conditions for consents relating to sensitive land that will be used for forestry activities". That was the amendment that was made to the Act in 2018. If we are genuine about both ensuring that our very highly productive land is used in the best manner it can be and also providing the appropriate protections for New Zealand farmland from overseas investors—if that is indeed what one wants to do—then we shouldn't have this sort of carve-out for a transition of use from farmland to forestry. So with those comments as far as I can tell there isn't anything that I particularly want to amend and I want the committee to consider this because if we are as I say keen to protect farmland this amendment is necessary."