Yule LawrenceLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): The last speaker for Labour Deborah Russell said this was to do with New Zealand's birthright. In my view this has got nothing whatsoever to do with birthright and if members of the Government sat in the Finance and Expenditure Committee they would have heard a chorus of submissions and multitudes of carve-out provisions as this ill-thought-out ideologically driven piece of legislation made its way through this Parliament.I completely agree with the last speaker Mr David Seymour. There was hysteria created in this country in the lead-up to the election. The campaign about Chinese-sounding names" was despicable and the Government itself had done very little research to understand what was behind it how big the issue was how serious it was. But it captivated some people's hearts and minds as it related to housing. I found it offensive actually to our significant ethnic communities that are living in New Zealand that that was used to somehow bring this piece of legislation to this House.This is a terrible piece of legislation—a terrible piece of legislation—and I actually want to put it on the record that I'm proud of foreign investment in New Zealand and I'm proud of the things that New Zealanders have achieved using that foreign investment. As the first piece of significant legislation I came across after entering Parliament I was amazed that the Government had no understanding whatsoever of the reliance that the New Zealand economy has on foreign investment. It soon became abundantly apparent as carve-out clause after carve-out clause was brought in through the select committee process following the submissions to try and maintain a sense of proportionality for that foreign investment.This bill set out as a ban on foreign sales of residential houses and land. But it actually was more encompassing than that and that had to be reined in by the select committee process. It's easy to forget what the last National Government did in getting to this point. The last National Government required all foreign buyers to be registered for IRD and to indicate that they were foreign buyers when purchasing a house. They introduced regular monitoring of foreign buyers through Land Information New Zealand which showed that there was a small percentage of the market around 3 percent that was going in foreign sales and they introduced the first brightline test which was subsequently amended—with no notice—from three years to five years.I also want to talk about a carve-out provision which has been the subject of the time of this House. That was a Northland example where a carve-out was sought by the Government based on Treaty settlement claims for wealthy investors. At that time I as a junior member of the select committee asked the select committee for further advice: were there any other potential Treaty claim carve-outs and would this have any implications? We actually—our side of the select committee—couldn't even get advice. We couldn't even get it through and we were told by the chairman that that's our decision to make. We now subsequently know that the Speaker made a ruling to say that specific carve-out provision for an individual wasn't allowed.When I talk about foreign investment I want this House to understand why I support it. In my own part of Hawke's Bay we have been transformed by the use of foreign investment. Craggy Range is an Australian-owned company where the Peabody family have come from Australia and are significant investors. Elephant Hill—the Weiss family have come from Germany. Cape Kidnappers—Sir Julian Robertson has come from the USA. All of those people have entered my community in Hawke's Bay have been wonderful contributors—them their staff and their families—and they have transformed the tourism base of the Hawke's Bay economy. Yet this bill says that when they first arrive on our shores to do their property development they are not allowed to buy a house—not them their family or their staff. That's where I think this ideologically driven bill is so misplaced.I want to comment on what Mark Patterson said in his contribution. He said he's proud today. I want Mr Patterson to remember that in these things there are balances. Most of the nursing homes and rest homes in New Zealand have significant foreign investment in them. A significant investment in Silver Fern Farms was made by a Chinese entity.Mark Patterson: Shame!LAWRENCE YULE: I know Mr Patterson. I know you don't like it. But you go and tell the workers Mr Patterson. When Silver Fern Farms was in some difficulty if they hadn't had the foreign investment and they didn't have their jobs you know what they'd say? "We want the foreign investment."—as most people do. But you stand up here Mr Patterson—you stand up here in this House and you say somehow it's bad. If I was you I wouldn't say this is a proud day because I think actually you're missing the point. Foreign investment is a great enabler for the economy for the people that live in rural parts of New Zealand. Subcontractors contractors meatworkers nurses—many of them get their income from a foreign investment that's made.In this legislation we have also got some carve-outs where we pick and choose. So it's OK for Australians or people from Singapore to buy a house in New Zealand but it's not OK for somebody from the UK Scotland or America. Tell me how that's fair. When we go and negotiate free-trade agreements particularly post-Brexit with the EU or Great Britain I guarantee this issue will be brought up as part of the negotiations from their side. All we've said is "Oh we haven't quite thought that far through. We're just going to treat Australians like this and Singaporeans—we got a little bit of the deal a few years ago." Our mother country—they have expectations and I'm a proud supporter of the Commonwealth but I think this will make a big issue for us in the United Kingdom.In the area of housing I don't think this will make one iota of difference. I now know in Auckland—and I talked to a property developer the other day who had sold all but six of his apartments and was in the profit phase. All the apartment funding up to that point had largely been done by foreign investors. Since this legislation came in now he cannot sell to the last six investors because people have been scared off. He actually can't even get banking finance now for the last six properties and he's in a little bit of financial stress.So for all the reasons that this was done I think it's not going to achieve its outcome. As the last speaker on this side of the House I think we're going to look back at this legislation in five years and see a number of things. (1) it's made no difference whatsoever to the price of houses in New Zealand. (2) there will be unintended investment decisions made by foreign purchasers around forestry in particular where it will now all of a sudden be very appealing for them to go and buy properties—good farmland in my view—and plant it in pine trees because that's the only way they can make a foreign investment in New Zealand without going through the Overseas Investment Office.I also think something that hasn't been thought-out is that there is lots of land in New Zealand that's under 5 hectares that is still incredibly productive. Members opposite might know that the average size of a kiwifruit orchard is about 3.6 hectares—well under. So what we're saying is "You're welcome to New Zealand. Buy our kiwifruit orchards. Buy our farmland and put in forestry—no overseas investment approval." So what I am really surprised about and what I'm saddened about as a strong supporter of foreign investment is that we are saying to the world "We are closed for business. By the way we want your money. Please give us your money. We don't have enough of our own to fund these things. We'll have your money but you can't buy a house here." I think that is having and will continue to have a chilling effect on the New Zealand economy and that's why I think this bill is a travesty for the investment decisions in New Zealand. Thank you very much."