3. Overseas Investment Amendment Bill—Te Ārai DevelopmentHon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Associate Minister of FinanceOverseas Investment Amendment Bill—Te Ārai Development3. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Associate Minister of Finance: What is the purpose of the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill?Hon DAVID PARKER (Associate Minister of Finance): There are three main purposes. The first is to ban foreign buyers of existing New Zealand homes; the second is to bring forestry registration rights into the overseas investment screening regime to ensure they're treated similarly to existing screening for freehold and leasehold forests whilst at the same time streamlining screening for forestry to encourage foreign direct investment in the forestry sector; and the third and equally important purpose is to preserve policy space for future Governments to protect the rights of New Zealanders to own their own land. This policy space would in practice have been lost for ever had this Government not acted to do these things before the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) comes into effect.Hon Amy Adams: Was it the policy intent of the bill for developers of multimillion-dollar homes targeted at foreign buyers such as the Te Ārai property development to be exempt?Hon DAVID PARKER: No. The transitional exemption that was put forward but has been ruled out of order was put forward with the intent of helping the iwi who had suffered long delays on the project. It was a time-limited transitional measure. There was advice from Treasury that this was procedurally appropriate to allow an exemption. However the Speaker has advised that the select committee's recommendation is not within the Standing Orders. The Government accepts the Speaker's ruling and therefore the transitional exemption will not proceed.Hon Amy Adams: Well is it his intention to promulgate regulations under the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill to exempt the Te Ārai development or any other development linked to John Darby from the provisions of that legislation?Hon DAVID PARKER: No and indeed the other regulation-making power in the bill—and the member will know this because she was on the select committee—would not allow such an exemption.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister: under this visionary and responsible policy what proportion of New Zealand homes will no longer be able to be purchased by a foreign buyer outbidding a New Zealander?Hon DAVID PARKER: There are currently 1.8 million homes in New Zealand and more than 20000 new homes will be built over the next year. Under this law foreigners cannot buy any of the 1.8 million existing homes and can only purchase a fraction of the 20000 new homes that would be built and would then have to either onsell them or lease them to New Zealanders. The bill as reported back from select committee ensures that more than 99 percent of New Zealand homes will not be able to be sold to foreigners.David Seymour: Was the bill's process subject to any time pressure due to the need to pass it before the CPTPP is ratified?Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes.David Seymour: Is that why it's such a dog's breakfast of inconsistent amendments now?Hon DAVID PARKER: It isn't. It's actually quite a complex bill. We don't want to in Auckland stop some foreign direct investment in multi-storey apartment buildings that are going to be onsold or leased. That is probably the most important change that has been made at select committee but it remains true that a foreigner will not be able to buy any existing home in New Zealand and as I said more than 99 percent of New Zealand homes will not be open to purchase.Hon Amy Adams: Since becoming the Minister responsible for the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill has he had any discussions about the bill and the proposed Te Ārai development exemption with the chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee Michael Wood; and if so when?Hon DAVID PARKER: Obviously on a number of occasions but I do that with every bill that I'm responsible for.Hon Amy Adams: Since becoming a Minister has he met corresponded with spoken to or texted John Darby or Ric Kayne as the beneficial owners of the Te Ārai development or any representative of their business interests; and if so for what purpose?Hon DAVID PARKER: No. I know thousands of people in New Zealand including Mr Darby. I have bumped into him probably once or twice in the last decade. The last time I can recall talking to him was when I bumped into him and it's so long ago I can't remember when it was.Hon Amy Adams: Well since becoming a Minister has he met corresponded with spoken to or texted any representative of John Darby and Ric Kayne's lobbying firm Thompson Lewis; and if so for what purpose?Hon DAVID PARKER: Everyone in the House will know that GJ Thompson actually was the acting chief of staff here so I've regularly spoken with him—unfortunately for the member not about this issue. Someone made me aware that Mr Lewis had some involvement in this. I have not spoken to Mr Lewis about this at all nor corresponded with him. The two meetings that I can recall having with Mr Lewis since we were elected were in respect of carbon rights and forestry and members of staff were present at those meetings to witness them as well.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister saying that notwithstanding his proximity and the Government's proximity to Mr Thompson this is evidence that the Government is not corruptible on this matter and would somewhat suggest that Mr Thompson was far more successful with the previous Government?SPEAKER: Order! I'm going to allow the Minister to answer the question. I am going to deduct two supplementary questions from the Opposition for the interjections from the acting shadow Leader of the House and the finance spokesperson.Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Accepting that punishment I should have perhaps taken the point of order quickly in order to—rather than try and draw your attention to what I think is a breach of the Standing Orders. It is certainly out of order in this House to suggest that something infers corruption. I would suggest that the opposite also applies—that a question can't contain a suggestion that something lacks corruption or corruptibility.SPEAKER: Well I totally disagree with the member. I think that the first part of the question was certainly in order. The second part wasn't. I was waiting to see if the Acting Prime Minister could use—what he sometimes does—his deft skills to bring things which are apparently out of order into order. He didn't and therefore I ruled out the second part.Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I'm not challenging; I just want to explain why I raised it in the way that I did. The inference is not in the way the Acting Prime Minister asked the question; it was in the fact that it inferred that the Hon Amy Adams could have inferred it in her questions.SPEAKER: It couldn't infer anything. It might have implied something; you inferred it.Hon DAVID PARKER: The involvement of either Mr Thompson or Mr Lewis in this had no effect on my decision. The advice we had received from Treasury to the select committee based on public submissions that were heard by all was that this was an iwi-based development that had suffered interminable delays and we had some sympathy for their position—Hon Amy Adams: Iwi-based?Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes that is as it was described to me Amy Adams and the paper trail will show that. The paper trail will show that. We had some sympathy for that position and so we were willing to agree to a transitional provision. We wanted it to be tight because we didn't want there to be exemptions up and down the land which is why the other regulation-making power is narrow so that if future Governments want to unwind the ban on foreign buyers they're going to have to do it by primary legislation and not sneak it through by ministerial discretion.