Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): What a dark and sad day to have this bill before the House on a members' day when there are so many other worthwhile things that could be debated. On behalf of the ACT Party I rise in opposition to this Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill. This is an example of why politicians are so poorly trusted and have such a bad reputation in our community—worse almost than the journalists. The reason for that is simply that this bill promises to do something but it will not deliver. It is a promise by Winston Peters to his constituents that he will scratch some sort of concern or need and help them and somehow improve their lives when in reality this bill will do no such thing. The reason for that is that once you get down to the definitions who really knows what this bill is attempting to capture?Would a constituent of mine who happens to be Chinese who does not spend a lot of her time in New Zealand but owns property be counted under this bill? That is somebody who under this bill would be counted as a non-resident foreign landowner. What if I were to say that that person actually being a permanent resident does live in New Zealand and has bought lands with money that does not belong to them but is actually sourced offshore? What is this bill really trying to work out? Is it the nominal ownership of the land which in this case is perfectly legitimate and would not be captured as foreign ownership under Mr Peters' bill or is it the beneficial ownership the person who actually provided the money in order to ensure that the land was able to be bought in the first place? Are we trying to work out whose money it is or whose name is on the title? The fact of the matter is that this bill cannot tell you either of those things.What about my uncle who lives in Perth? He has not lived in New Zealand for 40 years. He still cheers for the All Blacks though. He is not a New Zealand citizen and might like to buy property in New Zealand. Would that be foreign ownership of land under Mr Peters' bill? Well yes it is but when we talk about a problem how is that more or less of a problem than the earlier example I described? I think we all know the answer that Mr Peters dog-whistles to his supporters and it is that the first person was Chinese. The reality of this bill is that it does not tell us anything about whose money is really coming to New Zealand. It tells us only whose name is on the title and that information in itself is not particularly useful for any purpose even the nefarious and dark purposes that Mr Peters likes to bring to this House from time to time.Worse than that it is not actually obvious why we should be concerned about inflows of foreign capital into New Zealand. I can give you examples from business. Take Lion an iconic New Zealand business that has enormous difficulty purchasing vineyards because technically Lion is owned by the Japanese—well actually Lion is owned by the Japanese firm Kirin Holdings Company. Why would we introduce more laws that make it more difficult for capital to flow into New Zealand when throughout the entire history of this country one of our greatest challenges has been attracting a greater flow of foreign capital? One of the reasons our productivity growth has been low is that we have traditionally paid about a 2 percent premium on capital all the way back to Sir Joseph Ward who was around in Mr Peters' early days. He took a delegation to London in the 1890s in an attempt to secure cheaper loans for New Zealand.It used to be something that the Prime Minister and the leaders of this House would do: actually go overseas to try to attract better capital so that New Zealand could invest and grow. Today we have these political stunt bills that will not actually have any effect on who really owns or who really funds property ownership in New Zealand but what we will have is additional red tape and bureaucracy that makes it less attractive to invest in New Zealand. Sadly that is the kind of politics that New Zealand First and Winston Peters bring to this House: high on rhetoric ineffective xenophobic populist stunt bills that will do nothing to make people's lives better but will make New Zealand a slightly darker place. I proudly oppose this bill on behalf of the ACT Party and I look forward to my colleagues voting it down. Thank you.