McClay ToddHon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm not going to spend too much time at all speaking about the last speaker Dr Duncan Webb in this debate—otherwise why not a sport analogy: when you're nowhere near the ball you might as well play the mat. What we've just seen him do there is actually attack a speaker who has in the debate—David Seymour—stood up and actually made very relevant points about the uttermost confusion that we see on the part of the three parties in Government when it comes to foreign direct investment and the role it plays in creating jobs in New Zealand. Rather than an intelligent conversation about that the poor public who are only just today really out of lockdown—I hope they're not watching TV because they got 2½ minutes from that member.The real crying shame of the debate taking place today on this bill is that when this Government has announced a Budget that will mean that every household in New Zealand will be responsible for an extra $80000 worth of debt—and indeed when we look at the off-the-book debt that they're also creating borrowing for Housing New Zealand and others it equates to maybe $63000 for every single person in New Zealand.Hon Member: How much?Hon TODD McCLAY: Sixty-three thousand dollars for every child that's going to school on Monday of next week $63000 for every parent dropping that child at school and if you pick a home in my electorate of five people that is a generation or two generations of debt more than $300000—more than the affordable houses they said they would deliver and they've failed to.The reason I say this is because actually the first two bills we're seeing in urgency are not about how to create jobs they're not about how to help New Zealanders do better as they deal with the significant consequences of the economic impact of the lockdown from COVID-19 they're not about how to help them with their health they're not about how to support their businesses; they are about telling investors from overseas that they're either welcome here or they're not welcome here. So the point here is the first two bills we have in urgency in the biggest-spending Budget the country has ever seen a Budget that will mean there'll be $200 billion worth of debt more than 50 percent of GDP—this Government is rushing through changes to the Overseas Investment Act and I just think that's absolutely appalling because every single New Zealander has sacrificed over the last eight weeks. They've done their part and as they come out of their homes today to go back to their businesses to open them up to try and put them back together and make them survive as they're hearing about the debt will be incurred on their behalf by this Government—they're turning on their televisions and in urgency the first bill says it's actually harder for a foreigner to make a worthwhile investment in New Zealand that will create jobs.But that first bill actually was an absolute waste of time because actually it's only there was it for 30 days or 90 days?Rt Hon David Carter: Mere 10 days—Monday week.Hon TODD McCLAY: No no but my point is it will be 90 days. So for 90 days the Government has the right to veto an investment from overseas in a business they say is sensitive. Is there anybody in this country that imagines that actually an investment that triggers the Overseas Investment Act has ever taken less than 90 days? It's not possible. The system doesn't work that quickly and therefore that was a waste of time and it's virtue-signalling on the part of the Government to say they're protecting businesses in New Zealand but at the same time the current system would protect it because it is so very slow.And now we have another piece of legislation the second bill in a row under urgency of the Overseas Investment Act and actually it says that it's making it easier to invest by taking away bureaucracy and red tape but it's not doing that. If we look at the two pieces of legislation one makes it harder; they're saying the other makes it easier. If no one in the country can work out whether the Government believes that foreign direct investment creates jobs or not how can somebody that we hope to attract to invest in our economy to invest in the productive parts of our economy—how could they work out whether this Government wants investment or not? I think that's what the shame is. There was a huge opportunity for this Government today in urgency because we're here in the Budget the biggest-borrowing Budget of the history of this country to send a real signal to New Zealanders about what they really were going to do to protect jobs to create jobs to help businesses get back on their feet to help them with their debt to do anything for the tourism sector other than set up a ministerial group an advisory group to work out what the Minister should've been doing over the last eight weeks and will sometime in the future. They could've given more than hope to New Zealanders but sadly they didn't. They've brought this back before us.Here's a prediction: there'll be another bill straight after this one that won't do anything other than I don't know worry about a few people that may be smuggling a bit of tobacco into the country through the postal service at the same time they've dropped $130 million to help the post office keep delivering letters as they work out what to do I suppose. My point here is it's very confusing their approach in this Budget as to what they're trying to achieve.The final bit—I don't know what else would you do in urgency apart from this legislation to send a signal to New Zealanders about how serious they are about getting us back onto our feet? Why not a remuneration bill to give somebody the power to cut salaries for a very small group of New Zealanders? That could've been done two weeks ago under urgency in less than an hour if the Prime Minister delivered what she said to New Zealanders when she said she and her colleagues were giving up their salaries but no that didn't happen. They rushed through a tax bill in two hours and it was the wrong tax bill. We should be doing that.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Which would be great in a general debate but I don't think that's in the bill.Hon TODD McCLAY: Well I guess the point here is—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): So if you can reference that to something in the bill that'd be great.Hon TODD McCLAY: Yes well I guess the point here is that actually we are doing this bill the Overseas Investment Act change under urgency and the problem that we have with that is actually it's not fitting of urgency and neither are the other things the Government has brought forward. So my point here is that actually this is wasting the House's time and the reason it's wasting the House's time—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): The fact of the matter though Mr McClay is that we had the debate on the motion on urgency and the House agreed to it. So if you could come to the bill that would be appreciated. Thank you.Hon TODD McCLAY: Well in as far as coming back to the bill is concerned not all parts of the House agreed to it and so I'm making the case again that not all parts of the House agreed to this and the reason we didn't agree to it is this piece of legislation is not fitting for urgency straight after the biggest-spending Budget in the country. The previous one wasn't; the next three are not either.A couple of very important points here: the reason that I suppose the Government feels they have to do this is they need to send a signal that they are taking these things seriously and in taking them seriously it's evident to everybody that they made a mistake. One of the things they're tidying up or trying to with this legislation is looking at exactly the criteria required when farmland is bought because everybody now knows that it's extremely difficult to buy farmland in New Zealand unless you want to plant trees on it. And actually what that suggests is it's not about supporting the forestry industry or not; it's having clear consistent rules that actually bring the type of investment that we need to New Zealand. So if you are a foreigner who wants to invest in land in New Zealand you could buy the best dairy farm in the country and you couldn't milk cows on it but you could plant trees on it. That's not an efficient or effective use of investment or that land and therefore this bill actually doesn't help that.But I do notice that what it says is that actually one of the things it's clarifying—it wants to give New Zealanders equal opportunity as a foreigner to buy this land so they're changing the way you must advertise it. I don't know about you but the person in my electorate who's dropping their child at school on Monday morning and that child will owe $67000 as a result of the debt probably is not so happy that they're changing the way this is advertised. I think that's a ridiculous use of urgency when we should be actually seeing things pushed through this Parliament in urgency that will make a difference to that mother and that child and the business they own and their livelihood.The second thing this is doing is—I refer to the first bill that they went through the first stage of in urgency because it was only for 90 days but I see there's a clause here that says after the 90 days if this passes into law they can re-enact those provisions without coming back to Parliament. So on the one hand they're passing legislation under urgency that will give an opportunity for the Government to say no in 90 days and then to say no forevermore using those powers again under this. The problem with this legislation is it does nothing but tinker. It makes no significant change it is confusing it's not going to make New Zealanders better—if anything it will detract investment it will make them worse and we will have fewer jobs here. We should be using the time of this House on things that are urgent like creating jobs protecting jobs and reducing the debt of $60000 on that poor little girl whose mother will drop her at school on Monday of next week because that debt will be with her and her children for a very long time.