McClay Todd; Williams PotoHon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Madam Assistant Speaker thank you. If the Overseas Investment Office was a brewery and they asked the Minister responsible Eugenie Sage to organise a party there I don't think that she could do it and that's quite worrying although—I do accept that she's not here now—the Hon Shane Jones would. Every single decision on every single house sale will have to go before that Minister and that too is very very concerning. But you see Madam Assistant Speaker the reason every decision must go before that Minister is because this is not a ban. If it was a ban it wouldn't have to. But in the case where these decisions do need to go before her it is not a ban. So when the Minister when he introduced this becomes flustered during the speech to introduce a bill and then wants to rush it through as quickly as he can during a holiday period with an extremely limited time for the public to have their say in select committee we know that we're in trouble. And when Treasury has significant concerns about the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of the bill and calls into question what it is trying to achieve and whether in fact it will do that—are there unintended consequences?—we know that there is real trouble.When the Government is more interested in delivering that feel-good factor that started a couple of years ago with the Chinese-sounding names saga—which was heavily discredited we know—and when they're willing to do all of this just before Parliament rises risking trade access and international relationships then that's reckless. All of that was David Parker in this House today. You see Madam Assistant Speaker this is not a ban; it's just more process. That's OK if the Government wants more process and more cost and to send that signal but when they dress it up as a ban it's David Parker who is being disingenuous.It does risk relationships and it does risk trade deals. We know that because of the backtracking over Singapore already and I'm going to come to that in a moment. But actually this is a badly drafted piece of legislation that comes from an ill-founded idea based on a preconception that the Chinese are here buying up houses everywhere and not living in New Zealand and nobody that moves here to invest is contributing and has been dreamt up in a back room by David Parker after receiving official advice which he also received when he sat on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee when the Korea agreement went through and when the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) legislation was put forward. The officials told him that a ban would ruin trade deals and put at risk our international reputation and harm New Zealanders overseas when it comes to the trading relationship that they had—well he's found a workaround. It's not a ban; he's found things that he thinks sneakily will be OK with our international partners and he's rushing it through the House because he said it needs to be done before the TPP agreement is concluded.So a simple question for Mr Parker as the trade Minister: just when is that TPP deal going to be done? Because one New Zealand First doesn't want that deal to be done—Hon Tracey Martin: CPTPP.Hon TODD McCLAY: They'll do everything that they can to get in the way of it and then they won't vote for it—the TPP. Now we hear Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership" but I ask the member opposite: if we put the words "comprehensive and progressive" in the front of New Zealand First are they progressive and comprehensive? Or are they just only a party that scraped over the line with 7 percent and couldn't even win a seat in New Zealand. You can rebrand you can change the name of something but I've got to say that ultimately when it comes to the reason that David Parker says he must rush this through and introduce it here because of TPP when is it going to be done? Because New Zealand exporters would rather see him fighting for better access overseas not finding a workaround because of the advice he's had from officials who say this is a very bad idea and would ruin trade deals and stands opposed to trade deals overseas. They want him over there fighting for better access for them.Why is it that Australia is exempt if it doesn't ruin trade deals? And nobody buys into this you know that we're treating Australians the same here as Kiwis are being treated in Australia. Because the first opportunity the new Government had and the Prime Minister had to treat Australians the same as Kiwis are in New Zealand she backtracked and ran away from it. We've seen nothing from this Government other than a bit of hyperbole that says "At the moment we're exempting Australians because they are so good to Kiwis." Well if it didn't cut across a trade deal they wouldn't be exempting them.Then we heard on the first day "Well Singapore may be a little bit of an issue but we can work that out." And last week in this House the Minister of Foreign Affairs—and day in and day out this Government—has been backtracking as fast as they can. If they point towards the South Island they're backtracking so quickly they could be in Singapore to explain it to them themselves because the one thing they didn't do when they made their great big bold announcement of the ban that's not a ban was tell Singapore they were doing it. And I know and this Government knows and the foreign Minister certainly knows the Singapore Government—a very good friend of New Zealand—is extremely angry with them and that's why we're seeing backtracking now and all of a sudden Singapore will probably have to be exempt but don't worry we'll work this through!Well here's a prediction: Korea will be next. And the reason Korea will be next is because if the Government says this is a ban the trade agreement with Korea says you can't have a ban. However that's the advice the officials would have given. The reason Mr Parker turns up to this House to sneak this through quickly is because it is not a ban; it is just process.After that what about China? Well here's another prediction: if this current Government is going to say "This is a ban and it's going to affect China as well." they're going to have to give something up during the free-trade agreement upgrade negotiation with China. And here is my prediction: if they're not going to change their position on China being included—and that's for them; that's their business—they'll have to give something up and I think that will be better dairy access for our New Zealand dairy farmers into that very important market. They won't get to have it both ways. I predict here today that they will have no gains on dairy and then they'll say "Well there's a very special or particular reason for that."We know in Auckland that the property market director of the Auckland institute of property said that foreign buyers hadn't been an issue for some very many years. The reason for that is that the last Government put in place a lot of measures that have had an effect. We know that of all of those measures—having to register with IRD having to get a bank account and going through the full money-laundering checks and balances—if you sell within a period of time you have to pay tax up front and then claim it back. We know this is having a big effect because only about 3 percent of houses sold in New Zealand are bought by foreigners—about the same more or less who are also foreigners selling during the same period of time.But when you take those Chinese-sounding names that the last Government spoke about and you look at the information that's being collected and you take out those Australians because the Government has said they will exempt Australians and you take out the New Zealanders who live overseas but are not tax residents who would be included in that the number of foreigners actually buying particularly from a country like China is extremely small. So the feel-good factor in this bill is something that the Government is pushing hard on running the risk of international relationships and also trade. But here's a question that needs to be dealt with in the select committee—but I think there will be no time—they've said that New Zealand citizens will not be covered by this legislation. So how about the New Zealand citizen who's living overseas and is married to a foreigner and they've bought a house in that country? They're selling it and they've decided to move home to make New Zealand their home with their Kiwi kids and that foreigner has not been in New Zealand for a year has not got residence yet—will they be able to buy a family home before they move back?The answer to that is "No." So what you're actually saying to Kiwis overseas in another country who want to move back with their Kiwi kids and their spouse who happens to be a foreigner irrespective of their name is that they can't buy a family home before they move back unless Eugenie Sage says so. And I say it to you again: if the Overseas Investment Office was a brewery that Minister couldn't organise a party in it. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call. Willow-Jean Prime."