Hudson Brett; Rurawhe AdrianBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Mr Chair. It's an absolute pleasure. I want to talk mainly about clause 10(1)(b) and its subparagraphs but before I move on to that I just want to reflect for a moment on the contribution from the Hon Shane Jones earlier in this debate which a couple of my colleagues have also touched upon today because I think it was really quite remarkable what he was really saying. In trying to justify why there should be exemptions and exclusions to allow large slices of land to be carved off for foreign-owned forestry investment he is really categorising and characterising what New Zealand First has become in Government. For a party that campaigned upon being all about New Zealanders it instead is all about foreigners because Mr Jones is talking about the ability to use the Provincial Growth Fund to help to provide incentives for foreign companies to invest in forestry in New Zealand. That is $3 billion of taxpayers' money $3 billion that comes from the sweat of the brows of hard-working Kiwi taxpayers and he wants to give a huge chunk of that to foreigners—hardly putting New Zealand first.But I do want to actually talk about—because this part of the bill is actually where the ideology that sits beneath this legislation shines through and nowhere is it more clear than in clause 10(1)(b) and its subparagraphs because what they show is the Minister responsible for this bill in his full Marxist flight. One speaker last night was accused of being socialist where they seek to grab the means of production. Well this goes so much further than this because this clause and the subparagraphs expropriate the property of New Zealanders without compensation and I'll explain how it does that. It expropriates the property by expropriating in part the maximal value that a New Zealander could realise on their property by introducing first a new category that didn't exist which means that all residential land not otherwise sensitive is captured under the provision and has a set of criteria that determines who that property can be sold to—criteria that does not exist for such land today.In a stroke of the pen and with the ink in creating this bill the Government is taking from hard-working New Zealanders—New Zealanders that work in some cases for 20 or 25 years to pay off the mortgages on their properties—their right to sell that property to the person who is prepared to give them the most for it and today they can. Today New Zealanders live and go to work and live on those properties knowing that they can sell it to the person that will give them the most value. Those members can't argue to oppose that particularly New Zealand First but other Government members—not only before they took those benches but since they've been in Government—have tried to tell New Zealanders that it's foreigners that are coming in and bidding up the price of houses.Now the stats actually don't show that. The data from Land Information New Zealand actually gives the lie to that statement but they'll make the statement none the less and what they're doing here is they are preventing New Zealanders from realising the full value of their property investments. That is an expropriation of that property. I ask this committee: where else in the world do they do that? Where? Where do they expropriate property without compensation? They've done it for years in Zimbabwe. This is a full-on Mugabe moment. But it's worse. It's not just Zimbabwe. If you were reading the news reports yesterday the Marxist faction inside the African National Congress—if you go to South Africa they're going to be doing this as well. So New Zealand's going to join the ranks—the illustrious ranks—of the new South Africa and Zimbabwe in this piece of legislation.Should we be surprised? Shocked yes but should we be surprised? No because immediately before this discussion we were discussing—and in fact passed a second reading of—another bill which is also shared by Zimbabwe the ability for a party leader to dismiss errant members of Parliament. We're going down that track very quickly—very quickly—and it's an absolute disgrace that members remain in this House. When they go back to their electorates where they're electorate MPs or list MPs look into the eyes of a constituent and say to them why it's good for them that you can expropriate their property because that's what you're doing.This is a disgrace. I actually welcome all of the Government members to go out and tell New Zealanders that what they're doing to them is a good thing because it most certainly isn't.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Before I give the next—Hon Member: Communist!CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Excuse me. Before I give the next call to the Hon Jacqui Dean I just want to remind members after that speech that we are dealing with Part 2 of the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill. Members have been drifting into other bills before the House and as the sole decision maker around relevance I'm advising members that if they have new arguments to this part they ought to bring them out now.