Bayly Andrew; Rurawhe AdrianANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I've got to say this was an embarrassing process to be involved in for the members on the Finance and Expenditure Committee which heard the avalanche of submissions from such a wide range of submitters and to hear the continuous chorus of statements saying how this would be bad for New Zealand—would be bad for New Zealanders—was actually somewhat daunting and also sobering. And naturally we do oppose this bill and we oppose it on many counts.The first question is: why on earth would you be implementing a bill such as this just when we need new houses to be built in New Zealand? The second issue is that I think there's a general lack of understanding among the New Zealand First Labour and Greens members of Parliament about the need for businesses whether they're one- two- three-people businesses right through to your big corporations to be able to access foreign capital. And a bill like this doesn't provide for that. And also what it has done a bill like this in the way it's been presented is sent such a poor message to the international community that effectively says New Zealand is off limits for foreign investment and that is at a time when we need to be continuing to ramp up the investment in infrastructure in New Zealand. And that is probably the most damning thing about this bill: the international message that it sent to our friends around the world.Now I just want really to turn to the issue around residential building and apartments. And again I just note—and I use this word advisedly—the naivety of Ministers and Government members about the need if you are building and developing new houses and apartment blocks in New Zealand. One of the key requirements is the need to be able to access bank funding. And all banks impose—and it doesn't matter whether they're international banks or New Zealand banks; whatever the case may be—a requirement around pre-funding which requires the element of pre-sale. One follows the other as night follows day unless you're incredibly well resourced and you can fund an entire development off your own financial resources. And very few developers are in that situation.So what we ended up with was an absurd situation where we had last-minute changes to recognise this fact which was blindingly obvious to everyone—namely that if you're building more than 20 homes or apartments a foreign person doing that could get a dispensation to allow up to 60 percent of those homes or apartments to be sold to foreigners. And so here we have the logic which is: the foreigner can build the house but we don't want them to live in it. We don't want them to own it even though the foreigner has built that house in New Zealand. But we are also very happy that that foreigner land banks and makes all the money out of the development. So we think that's fine and in fact the last-minute change allowed for that specifically catered for that. And so we think it's fine for foreigners to be land bankers and developers and make the money but not to own the house once they've built it. And I think that logic train is somewhat missing in this whole bill. And anyway there's a way of getting around the issue. All you have to do if you're a foreigner is build the house and then rent it to your daughter or son on a commercial lease for at least three years and get around the commercial arrangements that way.And then there was the issue of the existing foreigners who have built very expensive homes in places around Queenstown who are now facing substantial loss because they will not be able to sell their new homes to other people. And I think just this whole bill—Mr McKelvie said it was sad; in my view the process was bad and the bill itself is not only sad but it's bad. It's bad for New Zealand.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call—five minutes. I call Dr Deborah Russell.