Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. Yes it's a pleasure to be talking on this amendment that the Hon Gerry Brownlee has proposed which is to extend the report date from 20 February to 19 April to reflect reality I think. I think the first thing I'd like to talk about before I talk about a number of specific issues relating to this is that first of all I want to acknowledge the Hon Eugenie Sage from the Greens for actually having the courage to stand up and put forward the Green view—Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You can't talk about members having courage or lack of courage. ANDREW BAYLY: —for talking about the bill—yes. I've got to say that I just wanted to compliment her for taking that step because I think it's important that the Greens are on record. But from what I recall from the conversation just before the tea break the Hon Eugenie Sage was saying that whilst the Greens' view was that the whole issue is important and should be taken through as quickly as possible the big issue I have with that is that we've heard from the Greens many many times—even in this Parliament; the 52nd Parliament—around the issue of transparency and openness. I think that just cuts across that whole principle. I think that's a very important principle that we've talking about tonight and at least Eugenie Sage was up front about it and clear that she thought that we should be cutting across that principle. But the thing I found of perhaps more concern was the early conversations regarding this bill by the Hon Shane Jones. He started out by making a statement—I'm just reading it from the Hansard here—Now when the bill goes to the select committee no doubt people will endeavour to change some of the provisions. Some might say they're too restrictive. Some [should] say we [should] let the Aussies enjoy the privilege that we ordinary Kiwis have. That [will] all be teased [out] through … the select committee." So in principle that sounds fine but the bit I find very offensive—particularly being a member of the select committee that will be listening to this bill in due course—is that he went on to say "I say to the other side of the House"—and this is my side where I'm speaking from—"as they look for people who will continue to find reasons to oppose this bill—which will actually because of arithmetic and the coalition agreement pass irrespective of what select committee it goes to; irrespective of what mischief members of that select committee might get up to." I think that cuts across the whole principle of the workings of a select committee and no doubt the honourable Minister who has proposed this investment bill will want to make sure that this select committee takes the time to actually go through some of the provisions of this bill in detail to make sure that the bill when it is passed is in the best form it should be. Of course we are talking about Speaker's ruling 102/7 which says basically that if we truncate the select committee process we should be moving forward as quickly as possible. My issue with this is that if you want to truncate bills you've got to have a very good reason of course. But the biggest thing about this bill is that it is a very complex bill and I just want to highlight just a couple of issues in that regard. The first one—Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: As long as you do that in relationship to the timing of the select committee. ANDREW BAYLY: Yeah it's in relation to the timing—yeah. I just want to highlight some of these issues because this is why I think this does need due time. The first thing is that I talked about the process for how this bill is going to be operating. One is around the definition of lifestyle blocks and residential blocks and the lack of clarity around that definition and what that may mean in terms of how foreign buyers may want to use those provisions to get around the elements of this bill. The second one was around the process for people making Overseas Investment Office (OIO) applications. I did take the House through some of the process for that—very convoluted very long—and again the timing around that and the complexity and the obligations on the OIO. It is one of the considerations that the select committee is going to have to take into account in terms of the workability of this bill and that is another area of complexity. The third area is the liability of conveyancers how they are defined and the groups of people involved in that and the fourth was the definition of the mandatory conditions particularly around the definition of development land which in my view—when you look at it the definition around development land I think will be a potential area of a great deal of dispute and submissions from a number of parties. If you want to be a foreign buyer and you want to develop land and buy land in New Zealand you will buy it and use the definition in a way that you may say you're going to pull down a building but you've got no time commitments around it. I think that is perhaps a wedge that many foreign buyers—Dr Duncan Webb: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member is speaking to the substance of the bill not to the motion. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes that's fine but it is certainly in the Speaker's prerogative to judge that—I thank the member for his assistance. I would appreciate it if the member comes to the substance of the motion which is about the time—ANDREW BAYLY: Thank you. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: —that the bill will be in the select committee. ANDREW BAYLY: OK. So the reason why I'm highlighting those four issues is that if you start to look at who might have an input into that and who might want to come and see the committee and make proper representations I think you can start to go through them. There will no doubt be accountants there will no doubt be lawyers there will no doubt be financial advisers there will no doubt be real estate agents there will no doubt be immigration consultants and there will no doubt be banking representatives—because they will be funding some of this—and the seventh will be fund managers. I think that if you start to work through how many submissions you might get in each of those areas—Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I won't be working through. ANDREW BAYLY: Sorry Madam Deputy Speaker. If people sit down and actually work out how many potential submissions the committee might receive from these specific groups that adds up to a considerable number of meetings where the select committee is going to have to listen to very technical detailed submissions. I just put it to you that that alone justifies why the select committee needs proper time to consider these complex issues. Now the other one—I just want to go to Standing Order 195(1) which is: "The chairperson of a select committee may on behalf of the committee request any person to attend and give evidence before the committee." I think again by pushing this through in such a short period of time it is cutting across the right of the Finance and Expenditure Committee to actually operate in an effective manner and I put it you that that alone is one of the most serious issues with the requirement to bring this all forward well before what would otherwise be a normal length of period to hear complex arguments. I think we will as a committee no doubt be wanting to get some independent input particularly around the legal aspects from some of the Government advisers—as well as some of the financial aspects. I think that will all come to pass and to be pushing that through in late January or early February will be very very difficult and will actually lead to a piece of legislation that I don't think will be in the best interests of New Zealanders. Now the other thing with regard to the chair having the right to call people is around the sense of equity about better public engagement. Even if you accept the proposition that the professionals can get back from their holiday prepare adequate submissions and give the committee the time to review those properly and hear from advisers the issue is about the wider public engagement and I just think that this is a very very important issue. There will be a lot of public interest in this and during the course of January no one will be focused on this. I think we need to be in a position where the public can have significant input on this matter. I would just put it to you that not only is that in the public interest but actually it is about good government. Being a member of that select committee I'm in no doubt that all of us—the diligent members from both sides of the House on that committee—will want to take the time to make sure we are hearing all the evidence and advice from the people who have a proper interest in this aspect. So I just would like to resubmit that I don't believe that this is in the best interests of the House. I fully support the amendment by the Hon Gerry Brownlee that this report-back date be deferred from 20 February to 19 April. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker."