SpeechLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's my pleasure to take a call on this. I was expecting something from the other side but they've got very little to say clearly ramming this through under urgency.We're opposed to this bill for many of the reasons that the Hon Nathan Guy has just laid out for us and I'd have to say sitting in the House this afternoon and listening to comments from the Minister I can sort of understand really what he's trying to do but what he fails to understand and what this Government fails to understand is the absolutely chilling effect a policy like this and a piece of legislation like this will have on the post-COVID regime. In my previous commentary and speeches I've talked about what I see on the ground in my own electorate right now—right now. On Monday I spent the day talking to retailers and small businesses and they're stressed. It was my observation the staff are less stressed because they're in work at the moment they're being funded by the wage subsidy—and good on the Government for doing that and there is an ability for that to be extended. But the only way that can be extended is you've got to show you've lost 50 percent of your turnover for the last month prior to application. If you've lost 50 percent of your turnover most businesses will be in severe trouble and about to lay off their staff. And what I saw from fish and chip shops to hairdressers to small retailers small boutique shops was a very very high level of stress amongst the owners.Hon Nathan Guy: Plus you've got the drought too.LAWRENCE YULE: Yeah we've got the drought as well. We have the drought as well so we have a double whammy—triple whammy I'd call it: we've got the Government the drought and COVID. That's a triple whammy. But anyway moving right along—it's a triple whammy but we're tough in Hawke's Bay; we'll carry on through. But my point is this: they don't know what to do next and they don't have a lot of time. Some of them have applied for the small-business loans—some of them. But many of them are in such a predicament that the only thing they'll be able to do is lean on friends and family to get them through this really difficult time. Friends and family for many of them will include overseas interests. So what we've heard today is that this Government has set up a regime. It's an online regime. Apparently it's going to take 10 days for normal people to get through and it's really simple: a tick box of five things. According to the Minister—they actually haven't done the online thing yet—it'll ask the asset value income and expenditure and number of staff. That was pretty much what he said. You fill that out and then if the people in the Overseas Investment Office thinks that it's low risk then it's approved but if there are any questions that need to be asked another 30 days get added on to that. The Hon Nathan Guy knows this as most other provincial MPs will know: we have for years had lots and lots of criticism about how long it takes to get anything done through the Overseas Investment Office under both Governments—under both Governments—and it's because it's a bureaucracy. It takes weeks costs tens of thousands of dollars. We have no assurance that this regime that's being set up knows how many applications there's going to be knows how many people are going to be required at the Overseas Investment Office to process these and the net result of that is I believe a lot of small businesses in New Zealand who are looking for equity who may have overseas connections are going to be majorly disadvantaged. That's what I believe.Michael Wood: What a load of arrant nonsense.LAWRENCE YULE: No I believe—well you can say that. You go and walk down the streets Mr Wood which I've done and I see what they're doing. I see what they're doing and they're stressed. So we oppose this on the basis that the threshold used to be $100 million but now there is no threshold. So if an international person wanted to invest $10—$10 in a company—Hon Member: That's too much.LAWRENCE YULE: Well $5 then—it would still trigger this regime.We also know that as we go through this all this does is further show international companies and people that we're not really open for business. Personally I don't mind some regime that stops international corporate raiders coming into New Zealand and taking small assets that are distressed. I have no issue with that. But what this does is go—and the Stuff regime is used as the reason why we've had it limitless. Well there's other ways of putting a disincentive if you want to use that term in the way of this and that could be about the number of employees; it could be about a whole lot of reasons. So I have come from a district and I've largely supported foreign investment and I've seen some of the benefits of it. It's been hugely successful in my own region. I really worry that on a time-limited piece of legislation at a critical time in these businesses we are putting up an unnecessary roadblock at the very low end of the scale because what's going to happen is as we get into June and July and the current wage subsidy runs out and the new one is worked on—but understand how hard it is to get—a lot of these businesses are going to fail. Many of them are going to be looking at all sorts of ways of raising capital. Many of them I suspect will not be able to raise capital from normal commercial banking and other sectors. They're going to rely on families and friends. That's what I principally oppose in this piece of legislation. It's not the regime itself; it's the thresholds that have been set. I also know that this is only going to go for 90 days and then apparently it's going to be reviewed. Well it's actually going to be reviewed at 45 days. Let's be clear. This is going to stay for quite some time. The economic carnage that is being unleashed on New Zealand is going to be here for some time. So we are effectively sending a signal to the market I believe for at least six months that if you want to bring foreign capital into New Zealand at any level—and I repeat that: at any level—then you're going to have to go through this regime. Even before as the Hon Nathan Guy said New Zealand's got one of the toughest regimes in the world. Greg O'Connor chipped in and said Well talk about China." I understand that. He said "one of the toughest". I don't want us to be like China but we have great investments in New Zealand and we need to be really careful that we don't send long-term signals to the market that dissuade people to come and invest here.There are a lot of people that have made good investments in New Zealand. They can't take the land. They've done a whole lot of things to vertically integrate into markets overseas. And while this has been sold as a temporary measure so it doesn't damage free-trade agreements etc. let's wait and see how long this lasts. Let's wait and see how many applications there are how many people get turned down. Ultimately under this regime the Minister—in this case the Hon David Parker—has the final say the total final say on what is good for New Zealand and what isn't; what is in the public interest and what isn't. There are no big broad criteria around it. Fundamentally after it's been through the final analysis the Minister will decide on everything—not $100 million the Hon Nathan Guy not a big number but anything anything. I think Ian McKelvie talked about a motel in Bulls or somewhere—Hon Member: Greymouth.LAWRENCE YULE: —and there's another one in Greymouth. What are those motels meant to do? They've got no business. They've got no customers. The bank won't lend it to them so are they literally just going to be allowed to go broke lose all their New Zealand equity on the basis that somehow we don't want a foreign investment to prop them up for a while? Is that what we're saying? In my view the balance here is wrong. The balance here is wrong. In my view if somebody wanted to buy a motel in Greymouth and take an equity share of 25 percent what's wrong with that? What's wrong—Hon Member: Have you read the bill?LAWRENCE YULE: I have read the bill.Hon Member: Is it strategic?LAWRENCE YULE: Oh strategic—every single item any type of investment on any level that goes to 25 percent has to go through this process. I would argue that it's a bureaucracy gone mad. At a time when people want to make calls and investments—they're working out whether they're going to lose their whole livelihood—suddenly they've got to fill out another form another form. And by the way if it's really easy it might go through in 10 days otherwise it'll take 30. You try telling a family somewhere in another part of the world who actually wants to give $10000 or $20000 take a bit of a share in the short term that they've got to go through some process that's going to take a month. They'll just laugh at you.So that's why we're against this bill. It's not the high-level stuff we're against; it's the effect on small businesses and the chilling effect on those same businesses."