The Minister said that the benefit to New Zealand test has sufficient flexibility, and that the assessment would be in proportion to the sensitivity of the land. That still leaves a lot of discretion for the Overseas Investment Office, so we would have preferred that that stronger farmland test applied. We recognise that the bill doesn't bring permanent forestry for carbon farming into its regime, but there is quite a lot of concern that some overseas companies will buy land, convert it to pine forest, tell the Overseas Investment Office that they want it for harvesting later but then claim the carbon credits and not actually log it, not prune it, and not use it to supply wood processing in New Zealand. That was one of the reasons we wanted that stronger test, and in the absence of that I think it is really incumbent on the Overseas Investment Office to do much more monitoring to ensure that the promises that overseas companies make—that they are planting for plantation forestry to harvest—are actually implemented. 