Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Madam Chair thank you for giving me the call. I rise to support the amendment by the Hon Gerry Brownlee and I do so for six reasons. The first one is that we have listened to a Budget this afternoon where $50 billion has been set aside to help the country through the COVID crisis but I cannot understand how this piece of legislation hinges off that Budget and why as a result of the Budget this is so urgent. I haven't been able to understand that connection. Therefore I wonder why in the context of calling for urgency on this matter it is being done today. The reason I raise that is this House has sat for three weeks and if it was so amazingly urgent—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I'm really sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for the House to adjourn for the dinner break. Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House is resumed. When we rose for the dinner break we were debating the instruction to the Finance and Expenditure Committee and the Hon Gerry Brownlee's amendment to it. Andrew Bayly had the call and he has nine minutes and nine seconds remaining if he so wishes. ANDREW BAYLY: Thank you Madam Speaker and I must admit I compliment you on what you were wearing this morning. It was the same colour as the bright sunrise that we all faced on the morning of the Budget and I think very appropriate given the debt figure that was mentioned today of $50 billion of additional borrowing. So just turning back to the Hon Gerry Brownlee's amendment which was to extend the report-back date to give more time for a proper consideration of this bill I was speaking to this bill and I agree with it. In fact I think there are six reasons why we do need to have an extended time frame so that this bill can be properly considered. I talked briefly before the meal break but the first thing is in the context of the Budget that was discussed today I cannot see the relevance of this piece of legislation and how it links back to the Budget. I would've thought the purpose of today was to go into urgency to make sure that the Government is achieving all the most pressing issues that relate to the Budget. But this issue wasn't actually discussed in the Budget and I can't find reference as to why this particular bill needs to be even discussed today under urgency and secondly why it needs to be convened. Under the current proposal it would be debated over the next three days of next week and reported back to the House the following Monday which is a very very short period of time. The other reason why I think the Hon Gerry Brownlee proposed this three-week extension is that this bill is actually quite technical in nature. It's got a whole number of facets but two of particular relevance: one is the definition of what is now a foreign investor. Under the current rules if someone has a 25 percent investment that is deemed to be a foreign investment and it triggers a whole lot of clauses and requirements under the Overseas Investment Act. But there have been changes to those rules and they need to be discussed to make sure that we're actually coming up with rules that smart people cannot set about trying to work a way around them so that they don't come under the requirements of the Overseas Investment Act. That needs some time to think about that and make sure that it's appropriately drafted and the other one is quite a substantive change. Under the Overseas Investment Act currently if foreign investors are looking to buy a New Zealand investment they have to do what's called a counterfactual argument which is to say that this is what the best New Zealand investor would have done with this asset that they're proposing to buy and the foreigner has to then substantiate not only would they meet that test of what the best New Zealand investor with all the resources—no limit on that—would do but what in addition the foreign investor brings to that investment. That counterfactual test under this proposed bill is going to move to what is called a before and after test. Again if we do want to enshrine some legislation that has permanence around it and is long lasting and acceptable to foreigners as well as to New Zealanders I think that's a very substantive technical change. So those are two examples why I think the technical nature of this bill requires a lot more consideration than our hoping some people are going to turn up and our just relying on advice from officials which may be very pertinent but may not encompass all the various aspects. The third thing that has been talked about when we were talking about the previous Overseas Investment Office amendment is the possible need for security services to provide some input on this aspect. There has been no briefing provided to the Opposition on this issue which I think is a real mistake. That briefing would have to be undertaken next week and of course the availability of those people and how people actually hold those meetings—because it certainly wouldn't be done over the internet with the current Zoom arrangements. They would need to be held in person and I think there's a recess week next week. I think the logistical issues of that are quite significant as to whether in fact that can take place and be communicated in a way that it ought to given the sensitivity around some of those discussions. The fourth thing is a matter that was raised earlier as well and I think it's particularly pertinent. If we make these changes to the Overseas Investment Act what is the implication of that on our free-trade agreements? As many people in the House know we've got a multitude of free-trade agreements and actually we have different standards of free-trade agreements. Some are much more comprehensive—such as our favoured nation status with the Chinese Government—through to other ones that are less comprehensive. Now again that is quite technical and if you were to make these changes the implications on those free-trade agreements are a really really important consideration because potentially if we impose something that is outside the reach of those foreign trade agreements we could be taken to the World Trade Organization in some form of dispute. That would be the last thing that New Zealand needs at this point of the economic cycle where we're right at the bottom and we're wanting to further expand our trading relationships. The next issue is we actually need some submitters and if we're going to hold it next week even if we pass this bill tomorrow or late tonight the officials will have to do the logistical issue of working out who they're going to go and hear from provide those submitters with a copy of the bill—which literally has just come out today—and give them enough time for them to come down or to have a hearing sometime next week and that presupposes that all those people are available next week to make submissions. Whilst that may be possible with our domestic advisers and all those people involved one of the things I'd actually hoped we'd hear from is foreigners who are looking to invest in New Zealand to hear their issues with this bill and their context around it and whether it still works for them because I think that's a real test. If we are to tighten up the rules we need to make sure we don't do it in a way that people mistakenly take a view that this bill is actually anti - foreign investment. I think that is an important consideration. Again I'd just say to you: I just literally do not think there is sufficient time to actually get a reasonable number of submitters to make a high-quality submission in a matter of just two or three days. I just literally do not believe that's going to take place. The last thing is I just think we are treading on dangerous ground. If we get wrong this bill and the one that we discussed just before the related overseas investment bill the potential damage to New Zealand as a First World country as someone who welcomes the right type of foreign investment something that's going to support the New Zealand economy as we go forward from this incredibly difficult time over the next few years—if we get this wrong and if our trading partners and our potential investors in New Zealand see it in a different light then that is potentially incredibly damaging to future trade in New Zealand in export markets and I just think that is a risk we cannot take. That's why I strongly support the amendment by the Hon Gerry Brownlee that we extend the time frame to an extra three weeks to give us sufficient time to make a quality submission and report back to the House so that there's a proper consideration of the matter. Thank you very much.