Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm going to change tack a little bit. I would like to speak to my tabled amendment which is amending clause 12 which reads: After clause 12(2) insert clause 12(3):"—which in section 17(2) inserts section 17(2)(h)—"These factors should be considered in light of any other offers received including international and domestic offers."Now I urge the Minister in the chair to read this amendment because it goes to the heart of some of the issues that he raises. I can give examples from my electorate of sales through the Overseas Investment Office applying for approval to get through putting the ad in the paper receiving offers—in fact in some cases they had offers before it went on the market officially anyway—and the Overseas Investment Office doesn't consider those offers. How can you have a market test on whether you're going to approve a foreign sale or not if you don't—because in fact it has to be that price doesn't come into it; it is about the net benefit to New Zealand. What's the benefit to New Zealand from a sale to a foreign owner? It has to be better than the status quo. How do you test that unless you test what the other offers are? Yet the Overseas Investment Office does not require the vendor to provide those other offers if there are any for consideration.Surely Madam Chair and surely Minister in the chair Mr Parker you should be reading this because this would dramatically improve the current situation. It's not good enough to say "Oh well we're going to have all these magic carve-outs here." I mean Te Ārai was just shameful. I really do think anyone in a constitutional law sense would be quite horrified by it. I think the Speaker was quite right to rule that out but I'm surprised it came to that. How did it get to that? I think the Clerk came to the committee and that was ignored. That's quite a blot on the select committee chair's record really. Has that ever happened before in the—Rt Hon David Carter: Never. Never.STUART SMITH: I don't think it's ever ever happened. I mean it's a shameful thing. Those people sitting around that select committee table on the other side really have to have a good look at themselves because what are you? Puppets? They're not all New Zealand First MPs surely? They don't just do the North Korea dancing—you know we clap loudly and smile all on cue and make sure you do it quite vigorously otherwise you get a political assassination! I mean it's just quite shameful to see that.This amendment Mr Parker would make a significant difference to this bill. It is a massive change from where we're sitting today. Have a look at it and consider it. You're not even looking at it. Just grab it; have a look at it. I think it's a very important step. I'm trying to be helpful here and it's just a shame that they're not getting it.Hon Amy Adams: "We're from the Opposition and we're here to help".STUART SMITH: Well I am from the Opposition and here to help but God knows they need it.Anyway I want to turn now to profit à prendre and viticulture—as the Hon Nathan Guy said I mentioned that before—and how this bill has carved out some things and not others. I think that it's quite a shocking indictment on this bill as well that they haven't had a good look at it. I asked questions before—it was actually Eugenie Sage in the chair—which I still haven't had answers to. What was the advice? On what basis were these decisions made in these carve-outs in Part 2? What are they?Hon Amy Adams: An economic analysis.STUART SMITH: Well an economic analysis would be great. It would be some basis at least for these decisions to be made. Normally you go through a process. You have papers put up. You take advice surely. It just seems to me that they have some sort of Ouija board or something where they come up with these magical carve-outs.Hon Amy Adams: Could New Zealand First tell us whether they do it?STUART SMITH: Well they don't seem to make any sense. You know there is a slippery slope—and it's quite a long gradual slope I admit—to where there can be a perception of corruption and I think we're going dangerously close to this with this bill. It is the very thin end of the wedge here and I think it's quite a constitutionally slippery slope that we are going down and I just really urge the Minister to think about it. He's better than that. I know you're trying to do the right thing Mr Parker but I think you have got yourself so far down the track that you really can't back out and I think that's quite a shame."