O'Rourke DenisDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): A very good choice. I wanted to make some comments on what Chris Hipkins said because I think it is very important that we clarify this a little. The issue is with regard to proposed new section 17A(1)(c)(iii) to be inserted into the Overseas Investment Act by proposed new clause 15. That is the section that would allow overseas purchasers to purchase land if the overseas investment will or is likely to increase the supply of housing in New Zealand as determined by the relevant Minister …". I do not think that the comments made by Chris Hipkins were realistic. He particularly referred to do-ups. I think those would be an excuse for overseas purchasers to buy valuable property on the basis that they wanted to invest in them and make them more valuable. I do not accept that Kiwis could not do that just as well or that there would not be a very long list of Kiwis wanting to do this if only they could afford the property.In addition to that I think there is a lot of merit in simplicity. Proposed new section 17A(1)(c)(iii) and the whole of section 17B are far from simple and would therefore create a wide opportunity for overseas purchasers to drive fleets of buses through this particular amendment. They would find ways through that of being able to purchase land in New Zealand without much restriction. The reason I say that is if you look at section 17B(1) you will see that "the relevant Ministers must determine whether the requirements [set out below] are fulfilled." There may be some Ministers whom I would have faith in to do that well and to do it genuinely. But I can tell you right now that if the current Minister were in that position there is no way that I would have any confidence at all that the policies set out in section 17B would actually be followed with any genuine purpose whatsoever. So there is a huge problem with such wide ministerial discretion. The second point is this. Look at section 17B(2)(a)(i) (ii) and (iii). In every one of those—in fact in four places—the words "committed to" are used. What on earth does "committed to" actually mean? Nobody has said. Perhaps one of the Labour people could stand up and tell us with precision what they mean in each and every one of those four places where the words "committed to" are used. I do not think that is clear at all and that is why I say that with this particular proposal a fleet of buses could be driven through it without notice. It is therefore going to compromise the whole piece of this proposal. That is a great shame because New Zealand First desperately wants to stop overseas purchasers from buying New Zealand residential land. That particular proposal the one in section 17A(1)(c)(iii) that I read out is the only one that compromises this otherwise very good proposal. I would very much encourage other members of the Committee to vote in favour of my amendment to the amendment which would simply delete that. It would simply delete section 17A(1)(c)(iii) and consequentially the very complex and meaningless section 17B and make this a piece of legislation that New Zealand First could support. It would then be a clean and simple and effective method of stopping overseas purchasers from buying New Zealand land stopping the speculation that they indulge in stopping the land banking and stopping all the negatives that they do. This is such a let-out that that particular provision really does have to be removed. I do not think Chris Hipkins was at all convincing in his attempt to justify it. I would again say that if people in this Chamber actually do want in an effective way to stop overseas purchases of New Zealand residential land then please remove that particular provision from this part. There is no good reason for it. It would achieve nothing and the rest of it could then be effective without being compromised in any way whatsoever."