Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you Madam Speaker and I note with interest how you're keenly observing this debate tonight which I must compliment you on.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Flattery will get you everywhere.ANDREW BAYLY: Yes that's correct. I just say to the member who's resumed his seat Tamati Coffey when he returns back to his electorate probably on Saturday morning I hope someone in his electorate and particularly on his marae might ask him the question: why is it that the Government which he is obviously part of pass legislation that allowed foreign investors to buy up to a thousand hectares of land without any Overseas Investment Act requirements? They were loosened under the bill that he was a select committee member on. And so when he talks about protecting New Zealand land the very Government that he's part of made it much much more permissive for foreigners to buy New Zealand farmland. This issue needs to be in the context of understanding that 72 percent of forestry land and forests in New Zealand is currently and already owned by foreigners. So why was his Government prepared to allow and open it up even more when he's just given a speech saying that he wants to make sure that land is better protected? There is a total contradiction.We know why it occurred: because one of his support partners required it. It is outrageous for the Government members to stand up and try and say that they are better protecting land when they are allowing thousands and thousands of hectares to be bought by foreigners and to wait—it may not even be planted immediately but eventually will end up in forest with all the downsides that then happens when already 72 percent of forests in New Zealand are owned by foreigners. I just think there is a lack of concurrence and clarity around what they are trying to achieve. This bill does some improvements; I accept that. But there is still that total illogicality of what went on last year. The other thing I find about this overseas investment bill and I've spoken on it a few times already—the thing I find about the Government's attitude to overseas investment is this paternalistic approach. So if I'm an entrepreneur and I decide that I'm going to set up a new business and I might have to buy a facility with a bit of land on it and I take all the risks of setting up a brand new facility all the financial risks all the market risks—I might mortgage my house to do it which is the normal way that people start—and I get over many many years to a situation where it is a substantial business and a foreign investor wants to come in somehow the members on that side the Government members think that they have the right to say Well you know that business that you took all the risk on and we as the Government didn't do anything about it or didn't support you you did it of your own right?" Somehow under certain circumstances you want to say that that business is so important that some Minister—and we don't even know who the Minister might be; it might be David Parker today and it might be someone after 19 September—probably with very few commercial skills sitting in Wellington now has the divine right and it is a divine right in the sense that he or she can decide whether or not you can sell that business to a foreigner. That paternalistic attitude around it I find slightly grating.So as I've said before we will support this but I find the way that the Government members talk about this bill and the righteousness that they've been espousing about these overseas investment bills when there are clear areas where you could drive a bulldozer through is not appropriate and I think if you want to do it do it properly. That's why it's important that all these bills should be heard and properly considered over time and not rushed through this House just because we think we need to do something under urgency."