In the alternative, in practice, a lower threshold applies to lower quality of land—I don't want to criticise the land, but different productivity classes of land—where forestry has a range of benefits to New Zealand. This flexibility is baked into the Act, and it will mean that investors now have incentives to target their investment into land that is best suited to forestry and to avoid land with high productive, environmental, or cultural values. The alternative would have been to apply the Act's more restrictive "farmland benefit test". The Government considers the "farmland benefit test" would have not been appropriate for forestry investments. It would have had a negative impact on the forestry sector's access to foreign capital and could have posed, and would have posed, a disproportionate burden in some cases. The approach taken in the bill is like other exemptions from the farmland benefit test, which the Act provides for, when that test would provide an undue burden.