Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. It seems to me that there's been a discernible change in the dialogue around the degree to which we New Zealanders welcome foreign nationals. In days past I think Auckland would've been seen as an urbane welcoming cosmopolitan city and it was the regions—the provinces—that were probably a little bit cautious a little bit conservative about people that didn't look and sound like them. I think more recently there's been a complete flip-over. In Auckland they are terrified of having more people and yet in the provinces they are absolutely crying out—including for migrants. They're saying Come on in!" to places like Rangitata and Queenstown Lakes and Southland where we need those workers to help us out and we need their tourism.I would've thought that the parties of the left would've defined themselves as the progressive welcoming ones. But more recently we've had things like Chinese-sounding surnames and a number of other things like calls including from the New Zealand First Party to slash migration and residence. But I would've thought that one call wouldn't have come from one of the more thoughtful members on the other side and that's David Parker. Indeed he has the distinction of being the Minister for Land Information who approved more foreign sales—more foreign sales—than any other Minister or Government in this country's history. So my how the worm has turned.I think he also had a reputation for being a thoughtful Minister who passes sensible legislation. Well I'm sorry but that reputation is in tatters with this bill. But he did reveal that deep-seated envy of other people's wealth and initiative and entrepreneurialism. He couldn't help himself but refer to the 1 percent. It's an "Envy Bill". But he's also mistaken in a fundamental way in this bill. He said "They've got to be tax residents. They've got to be making a contribution." as if people who have been here for a very very long time but who are global citizens and travel a lot and are not tax residents aren't making a contribution—I think that's an insult to many of the wealth creators in this country. If they're investing in productive businesses if they're paying GST if they're paying income tax—excise—then they are making a contribution.Now he also said an interesting thing: that if you've got the right to live here you've got the right to buy here. Well again that is not correct either. It's not actually correct in respect of the Overseas Investment Act right now when it pertains to the current definition of "sensitive land". There are a number of people who have been permanent residents of New Zealand for years—25 30 years—but who are truly global citizens. Indeed as the Minister of Immigration in the last Government we attracted those sorts of global entrepreneurs through three different visa categories: the global impact visa which will bring in 100 of our youngest brightest entrepreneurs at the start of their business life cycle to set up businesses here in New Zealand and export them around the world. The chances are despite being absolutely committed to this country they may not spend 183 days here. We had the entrepreneur visa; we still do. We have the investor category visas which have made a significant contribution: billions and billions of dollars of net investment into this country which creates jobs. It creates exports and it creates the sort of tax base that the Government uses to provide the social services that this country needs. None of those people under this legislation when it's passed will even be able to buy a house without jumping through a plethora of hoops.Currently Land Information processes overseas investment applications in an average of about five months. The application fee is presently about $22000. That is the tip of the financial iceberg for anybody wanting to purchase land—sensitive land lakeside properties and outstanding landscape areas—if they are currently considered to be overseas buyers. But that's the tip of the iceberg because there's a heck of a lot of other consultancy costs and legal fees and they go through that. We obviously invested more in the Overseas Investment Office to make sure that that process was sped up. But when one is buying a 300- 400- 500-hectare property on the banks of Lake Wanaka it's probably appropriate that they do go through those hoops. These are the guys who will come set up their businesses invest millions into this country and can't buy a bungalow in Parnell without asking Eugenie Sage for permission.In fact the irony of this is that those people—those non-residents—would be able to go and buy significant landholdings that don't meet the current criteria for sensitive land but wouldn't be able to buy an apartment in Queenstown. It's ridiculous it's wrong it's rushed and ironically it's not even a ban. As Mr Joyce pointed out—Hon Shane Jones: It's politics.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —the reason according to the regulatory impact statement (RIS)—it is politics Mr Jones. That is the most accurate thing that member has ever said in his political career. This is politics pure and simple.It says in the RIS that the problem definition as Mr Joyce pointed out was that the proposal seeks to implement the Government's 100-day commitment to "ban overseas speculators". Well it won't do that; it will just put a massive massive hurdle in front of them. They're likely not only to not buy that house but many of them are likely to turn away and say "Well I'm not going to invest the millions of dollars I was going to in New Zealand in the forest that Mr Jones wants to plant in the hotels that the Minister of Tourism wants to build." They simply won't come.Now I don't think they care too much about that but what they do care about is urban development. The confusion in this bill and in the RIS about whether or not urban development is encouraged or allowed or disallowed is just that: it's completely confusing. On the one hand it says "Well if you make a net contribution to our housing stock we'll allow that." But they won't allow that unless you go through these massive hurdles—hurdles that aren't currently in place for non - tax resident developers who are developing special housing areas all around the country. But the thing about this that worries me the most is in relation to hotel development.The last significant hotel built in Queenstown is a unit-title development where the room owners lease back to the hotel managers but have a right to reside in that room for a few weeks a year. Now that's a reasonably common model for the development of hotels and we are short of—what I can't remember—8000 hotel rooms at the moment and climbing thanks to demand. Now for rating purposes those rooms are designated "residential". So it would be caught by this new law as it is written. Most sites in Queenstown on which future hotel development is being proposed are zoned "high-density residential". So presumably it would be designated "residential" for rating purposes and caught by the terms of this Act.Effectively what that means is that anybody wanting to come in and meet that massive demand for hotel development will not be able to do so if they are a non - tax resident without jumping through a massive number of hoops. Bear in mind that it won't be one application for the hotel; it'll be one application to the Overseas Investment Office for every single room in the hotel that is proposed to be owned by an overseas buyer. I don't think even the super cautious in the party of "the Chinese-sounding surname" intended that to be the case but here's the problem and we are going to debate this at the end of this first reading: the shortened report-back date gives us precious little opportunity to understand how many other hand grenades are deeply buried in this legislation.I have no doubt in the short time that I've had to analyse the bill and talk to people in the development industry in that part of the country that this is clearly an issue that has to be dealt with. I've got no doubt that there are many many more concerning aspects of this that are simply going to turn people away from investing in New Zealand. The house tail will wag the business investment dog if we're not very careful. These guys will take their cheque books and go somewhere else. They love this country but if we tie them up in red tape in the way that this bill will currently do we run the risk of completely undermining the very thing that we want to do and that is to make this country better for New Zealanders.The intent is flawed the thinking is flawed and simply wrong and this bill is bad. We must oppose it."