McClay ToddHon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Madam Speaker thank you very much. I start where the Hon David Parker left off where he says this bill reduces compliance costs and that will be a welcome thing. But we won't hear it that often in this House from this Government because this is one of the few pieces of legislation that comes close to doing that compared to all the others parts of red tape and bureaucracy and compliance that has been applied across the board on the business sector in New Zealand on households mums and dads and the costs that come with that.Minister Parker is correct: New Zealand needs to be open to do business and attract foreign direct investment. It is always important that the Government look to where it can be directed most productively. But in so doing what is just as important for those we seek to attract to bring to our economy to invest to grow the economy to partner to create jobs—because we have to remember there are very few paths of economy that haven't had foreign direct investment brought into them and therefore have benefited as a result of that—most importantly is for these investors to have some certainty. Often a no can be as good as yes if it comes quickly enough but in this case actually a very clear process that runs through quickly that they have sight of and can deliver an outcome.So there are parts of this bill that do that but I have to say that in the 3½ years since Labour first came to office they have done more than tinkered with the Overseas Investment Act; they actually at times have driven ideology through it without it directly being able to demonstrate that there was a need or a real benefit. And that is why often we've seen them come back and have another go and have to correct something or fix it. I'd like to stand here and say they were well intentioned but I am not sure that is necessarily the case.In particular in this legislation there are a couple of things that I think are a very good idea and I'm surprised that they have to be fixed as opposed to that this Government shouldn't have changed them to start with. And that is in two areas. If somebody has been deemed to be fit to invest in New Zealand and they have invested if they want to incrementally increase that previously that investment they've had to go back and seek additional clearance. And of course if nothing has changed all that is is dead time and it means the investment comes more slowly its investment in the economy takes longer to show benefit and the jobs that foreign direct investment create are further away—if indeed they get permission. Well of course that has been rectified here in this legislation which is important.The other one is removal of the screening requirements for the non-resident leases up to 10 years. In Opposition the Labour Party made a great deal a song and dance about the harm that foreigners do to New Zealand. They would from time to time qualify that in a particular area but generally they gave the voting public the view that actually foreigners are not good when they come to invest here.Ultimately if we look at the changes the Minister spoke about around farmland and so on: well actually if it's not productive land it's going to be used for something else then if it is of benefit to the economy then the decision-making process should be very quick; it doesn't need to take a long time. But in the case of non-resident leases the difference between what Labour said 3½ years ago around the changes they wanted to make to foreign direct investment and this is that you can't take the land away with you—full stop—and it would be even harder if they could make the case that you could if it was leased. So in this case for there to be a lease that is entered into the owner of the land is a New Zealander or could well be somebody from overseas that has been given permission to buy and own that land irrespective of where the person comes from that wants to take up a lease they have the ability to do so and I'm glad that's been recognised here in this legislation.There are many other things this Government changed—or need to be changed around foreign direct investment to give certainty so that investment flows to New Zealand appropriately and New Zealanders can benefit from it. I would say to Minister Parker that whilst parts of this legislation are a good start there are many other areas where changes are needed that are not being brought in this legislation which is a shame. I dare say that we will be back before the House with more legislative changes proposed by this Government around foreign direct investment. As an example the changes around the leases. If there is enough noise Mr Parker will want to come back and change that. The problem with that is it creates uncertainty. Whenever there is uncertainty or delay people who want to make an investment can't price or factor in that delay and so guess what! They will go somewhere else. There will be some in New Zealand there will be some in this House there will be many in the Labour Party that would say that's a good thing—it's not a bad thing. But actually as far as growing the economy and creating jobs we are a small economy. We do need to partner with the rest of the world. There are many many many examples of where foreign direct investment has benefited New Zealanders directly.We are supporting this legislation but we think there are missed opportunities in it. Thank you Madam Speaker.