Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Madam Deputy Speaker you know that when a speaker rises to deliver a speech on a first reading and then relies heavily on emotive and provocative statements either there is something very wrong with that bill or the bill itself is totally ineffective—and both cases apply to this bill today. In another time we might have described it as a Clayton's bill meaning that it is something that proclaims to do something that it doesn't. In this case it is a ban that's not a ban. The exclusions that the Minister has spoken of are extensive. The provisions the Minister speaks of that are supposedly to tighten up have existed for a very long time. Further while we know about Labour and New Zealand First having a generally xenophobic attitude to property ownership in this country the facts about who buys land in this country do not bear out the suggestion that that alone is the cause for rising property prices in New Zealand.Indeed we're now at a stage where many people throughout the country are finding that their equity was not quite as good as it was just a few months ago because of the sort of rhetoric that we've just heard from the Minister this afternoon. I think it's interesting to note that if you look at the last quarter's real estate sales in New Zealand there were only 3 percent of properties that were in part owned by foreign buyers. The vast majority of those were Australians who this bill carves out and will no longer be reported on. So that tells you immediately that the actual number is probably even lower. Then there are the carve-outs for people who supposedly are making better use of the land. The Minister mentioned residential retirement villages. Well why is it OK for foreigners to own residential retirement villages where New Zealanders buy occupation licences that give them so few rights that apparently the new Government is concerned about to the extent that they're putting up a member's bill to try and change some of those things? It just doesn't make sense. I think when you look further into the concerns expressed by Treasury when they were doing the regulatory impact statement that should start to ring alarm bells. While a lot of people like to sling off at Treasury—and I've been guilty of that myself only on one or two occasions and generally quite right to do so—they are intelligent people who do consider things on the broader scale and in the best interests of New Zealand and New Zealand's economy. When they say to a Government We have some concerns about this. We think the process is too rushed and we think there could be some unintended consequences." then it's important on an issue like this that the Government of the day listens. If the Government of the day won't listen as they aren't and they're simply boxing ahead and putting the bill on the Table of the House and expecting us to deal with it today then it becomes all the more important that there is a considered scrutiny by the select committee.What we're hearing is that they don't want that. The Government don't want that scrutiny. They want to turn around this bill by February. So the Parliament will only be back in session for a couple of weeks and the bill will be back in the House and no doubt rammed through its final stages. Well we're going to discuss that this afternoon. I think some of the other parties supporting this need to think very carefully about how they are going to present in that circumstance. These are parties that have long raged about due process being exercised in this country but so far have participated in a record of a Government that has very little regard for due process let alone transparency.I want to particularly express concern about the statement made by the Hon David Parker suggesting that this side of the House considered it an absolute right for foreign buyers to come into this country. Let me tell the House this afternoon that this side of the House has never considered it an absolute right for foreign buyers to come into this country and acquire land. The mere fact that this side of the House has been so assiduous in pursuing Treaty of Waitangi settlements is testament to the fact that we have never believed that there is an absolute right for foreigners to acquire land in New Zealand. The other side of the House appear to have forgotten that.I also think it's worth noting that this bill starts to put all the onus on people outside of the Overseas Investment Office for compliance. So people who are in conveyancing real estate agents any kind of land agency at all are going to be responsible for making sure that the person who is buying a property is qualified to do so. The fine for failing in that regard will be $20000. Why would anybody want to put themselves in that position of risk? So what that comes down to is that this is some kind of a pernicious action designed to frighten off people from either seeking to sell their property to a legitimate buyer or to discourage those agencies to desist from that process. It might be someone wanting to sell their family home because they're moving on to one of those rest homes owned by a foreign buyer which apparently is permitted under this bill. On the one hand they'll be able to do that but on the other hand not able to get that sale because potentially the support services for them being able to make that acquisition will be fearful of the pernicious actions that could be brought down upon them.I think the other thing that's very interesting that I'd just like to touch on is the fact that in this bill there is also a provision for what's referred to as a standing consent. Now that means that a foreign buyer can come in and tell the Government—because that's who they're really talking to—that they have these intentions for land that they're going to buy. It could be that they want to build the retirement village that I spoke of before. They might want to build some other kind of infrastructure asset. They might want to do some intensive farming. Who knows what that land use might be. If the Government of the day considers that that might be a good thing for New Zealand then they can grant one of these standing consents. That will mean that that applicant then does not go through this long process. They simply go out and make the purchases they want.So when the Minister comes into the House and says that it is a ban on foreign ownership of land and residential property in New Zealand because the Government believes that that's a right that should be exclusive to New Zealanders and New Zealand residents it is a load of rubbish to think that that will ever be achieved through the provisions of this bill. It's almost impossible for it to occur. So just for a moment imagine how many people might decide that these—what are they called again?—standing consents would be a good idea for them. Then they will go through and deal with the Overseas Investment Office at the moment and what we know is that it is apparently a long process. It's not something that gets rushed. It's a process that does have a high degree of consideration to it and we know also that not everybody gets through the hoop. So what that'll have to tell us is that this office will need to be substantially more resource demanding.We're told also that the initial estimated cost could be $3 million a year—that doesn't sound too much—but then it could rise to $10 million a year and then more and more after that. So if one was to assume that the Government was going to recoup the cost of applications from applicants that indicates an expectation that there'll be far more applicants to buy land in New Zealand who are of a foreign nationality or tax status than we have at the moment.This is not a good bill. It's a messy bill it reflects the fact that it's been done at high pace without consideration for everything that needs to go into it and worse still the Government's desire to push it through with only the remotest and slightest select committee consideration. National will not be supporting the bill."