Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker and I just want to pick up on your comments. I thought that the Hon Gerry Brownlee's comments about civil servants and cardigans were most unfortunate and really damaging to the reputation of this House and I'd just like to redeem that by putting on record that a cardigan—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Mr Seymour that doesn't require you to repeat an insult. You could be better than that. DAVID SEYMOUR: OK. Well I was trying to redeem it by saying that it's actually a very practical garment more comfortable than a jacket more formal than a sweater and should actually have a place in everyone's wardrobe and there's nothing wrong with wearing a cardigan. Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Thank you Madam Speaker. I reflect on your admonishment and I do want to withdraw and apologise. I must also say that at a previous time dealing with a different much much smaller crisis for New Zealand we were very reliant on the work of State servants. I do appreciate that they do good work. My real point was that I don't think they're the sole repository of good ideas but I do apologise to them and the House for any reflection that might come from the House on them. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): David Seymour you do know the motion that we're referring to and debating? DAVID SEYMOUR: Oh very much Madam Speaker. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Excellent. So you'll speak to it? DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes I certainly will and I think it's unfortunate you'd insinuate that I wouldn't. It should have been clear that I was supporting you in not wanting this House to in any way denigrate civil servants. The motion of course as you know Madam Speaker and people at home know and people on both sides of this House know in fact is whether or not this bill making significant changes to the rules for foreign investment in New Zealand should go to a select committee for only 10 days or as amended by the Hon Gerry Brownlee for about three weeks. I'm speaking in opposition to that motion for a couple of reasons. One is that a select committee process of that length can't practically be a meaningful one—so that's the first point here. The second is that failing to have a meaningful process around making this law that affects the ability of foreigners to do business with New Zealand business people risks imperilling New Zealand's reputation at a time when we've had a series of legislative initiatives or I might say blunders that have done damage to our reputation. Let me just start with why it would be an inadequate select committee process. Asking the House to report back in 10 days or even three weeks does not give adequate time for people affected to consider their submissions. They've got to read the bill understand it get advice put their submission together and send it in. So in order to get public feedback you need at least a couple of weeks. Then those submissions have to come to the committee and be read by the members who have to understand them and then they have to bring the submitters in if they wish to make an oral submission in person. They've got to listen to that and contemplate and cogitate and then with the help of the committee officials deliberate and report and suggest amendments to the bill—none of that can happen. So the first point I make is that if we shorten the select committee process either to 10 days or to Mr Brownlee's 25-odd days we are going to have an improper select committee process. It will not be good lawmaking and that matters to this House. There's nothing to say New Zealanders have to follow the laws made by this House. They by and large choose to because they believe we have good processes that we listen and that we represent them and we erode that trust at our peril. But the second issue is that this legislation is happening in a context where there are already reasons why people in the international business community are having second thoughts about New Zealand as a safe destination to invest and to send capital. I'll just give you two examples. The recent oil and gas exploration ban: if you talk to people in that industry they look at the process under which it came about. The Prime Minister announced it. Allegedly there wasn't even a Cabinet paper and the legislation followed in a rushed fashion later on. That has sent shock waves through people in that industry when it comes to investment in New Zealand. Maybe that's what the Government wanted but even if it was what they've shown is that rushed and unexpected processes diminish the confidence of people who want to invest in New Zealand because they basically say that New Zealand's actually a very difficult place to find oil and gas and to extract it and once you get it out it's still in a very remote location in the global context. So it's hard yakka doing oil and gas in New Zealand. But at least when you invest in New Zealand you know it's a First World country with robust democratic processes very good institutions the rule of law and your property rights are safe so New Zealand's still worth it. We imperil that at great cost to ourselves. The second example—and ironically this evidence was presented to a select committee—was the Overseas Investment Amendment Act which happened back in early 2018. I as a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee heard from many people who came and submitted and they said You guys have no idea what's going on out there." These are people who are Kiwis who do business around the world in places like New York and Singapore and they said people are looking around and they are saying "WTF is happening in New Zealand right now? We thought this place was actually safe. We thought it was a great place to invest. We thought that this place welcomed foreign investment." They said "If you guys keep doing stuff like this it's pretty simple: people might still invest in New Zealand but they will add on a premium for sovereign risk. They will charge more to loan to New Zealanders because they see the risk of a country that increasingly legislates at haste and repents at will a country that does not uphold its own processes that rushes legislation and erratically imperils our property rights when we invest in their country." and that is what's at stake here. If this Parliament continues to legislate at haste and repent at leisure to rush legislation through with shortened select committee processes to try and introduce arbitrary ministerial discretion—as this bill does—into whether someone can invest here then what we are going to find is that people around the world are going to expect a higher premium when they invest in New Zealand a higher premium for sovereign risk and what I'd say to the House and say to the Government is that it can't be one or the other. If there truly is an urgent need to stop some sort of inflow of foreign capital—heaven forbid—and there is some sort of security issue that the Government knows about where perhaps some foreign power is seeking to overtake strategic assets—you know it's funny everyone loves saying "strategic assets". No one that's ever said that has been able to tell me what strategy they're referring to but I leave that aside. If the Government knows that there's an urgent security threat to New Zealand or that a foreign power wants to orchestrate a takeover of assets important to New Zealand's security and economy then they shouldn't be waiting. They should be doing it straight away. But if all we're worried about is some beleaguered hotels that are trying to keep their staff employed—might get a welcome source of capital from offshore investors—then there's no urgency required whatsoever. In fact we shouldn't be trying to impede that sort of activity at all. So the Government can't have it both ways. Either they should do a full select committee process where hopefully the complete madness of this legislation will be revealed and they'll back down as they occasionally have—I'll give them credit—once or twice in the course of this Parliament or if there's truly a serious and urgent threat to New Zealand they should be doing it straight away. But a 10-day bogus select committee process will damage our international reputation and make New Zealanders pay more for capital. I oppose this motion. Thank you Madam Speaker."