Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to concentrate on new sections 61B to 61F inserted by clause 33A of this bill because this to me is the part of the bill that the Government would be most happy to remain absent from the public mind. This is the part of the bill that I think the Government is probably quite happy to have not talked about tonight and that I think deserves thorough scrutiny and that probably hasn't had the degree of scrutiny that it deserves due to the rushed way in which this legislation has been progressed. If we look to the commentary on this bill what we are told is that the purpose of this bill is to provide that overseas investors could only obtain consent to buy residential land" in circumstances that are outlined. Three points are made—that they would be developing the land that they would be using the land for non-residential purposes and that they hold an appropriate visa. What is not included in that commentary is what we find in new section 61D which says that the Minister actually has completely broad discretion to decide that there are circumstances that mean that it's necessary or appropriate for him to deem an exemption. The Minister is able to do this and he's able to provide an exemption and in so considering the Minister "must have regard to the purpose of this Act" but other than that all the Minister—he or she—has to consider is that there are "factors that seem to the Minister to be relevant to the circumstances." So what we see here in these sections 61B to 61F are what I'd call the "get out clauses". These are what I'd call the "Shane Jones clauses". These are the bits that are there that rightly acknowledge that actually in New Zealand there are circumstances in which overseas investment aids the economic growth of our country that it actually assists people to get jobs and to get better incomes and that there are circumstances in which we should encourage that investment. But instead of saying "Let's lay it out clearly in law. Let's make that obvious. Let's have demonstrable regulations." what this part of the bill says is "Let's make sure we give a whole heap of discretion to whoever the Minister of the day is so that in the dark of their office they can have a quiet chat with a few people and they can decide that there are factors that 'seem to the Minister to be relevant to the circumstances.' " I would draw your attention to the way in which these sorts of clauses and sections could be abused by giving you a very recent example. That example is the disgrace of an amendment that was attempted to be brought to this House as a way of exempting a particular property from the application of this legislation. And what of course happened with that amendment? Well it is a moment of integrity for this Parliament that the Speaker rejected that and said actually that is not the means for which a select committee amendment can used. But of course members opposite weren't too concerned about that because what they know and what the Minister in the chair knows is that new sections 61B to 61F mean that any Minister of that Government can sit down with some people that they quite like—Hon Amy Adams: With their cousin for example?NICOLA WILLIS: —like their cousin or someone that they would like to invest with in the future or someone that's a good friend of someone else or someone that's been to similar dinners as they have and they can say "Hey look don't worry so much about the Overseas Investment Act in your case because I've actually got these powers and in fact Cabinet has powers to set regulations that can exempt whole classes or can exempt individuals from the application of this bill. And so we'll just do it the way we want to do it." I worry about this because I am a member of the Regulations Review Committee and one of the things that we think about is whether we're giving broad-brush powers that allow people to do things that are outside the will of Parliament. That is why I started this speech by referring you to the commentary because nowhere in the commentary on this bill does it say that this bill will apply in the circumstances that members were happy to talk about on the election trail but also wherever the Minister wants to use the Minister's discretion. So this is very concerning to this committee and I would ask the Hon David Parker to address to us the sorts of circumstances in which he thinks there might be other factors that seem to be relevant to the circumstances that would mean that an exemption would be granted. In giving that example Minister Parker I would encourage you to think that perhaps that example may have broader application to this economy of ours that there are others who may want to invest in this economy that would bring broader benefit and that the discretion shouldn't just lie with the Minister of the day. The discretion should be laid clearly out in law so that it is of benefit to all New Zealanders and not just those who have strong relationships with the Government of the day. These sorts of provisions are highly concerning when a piece of legislation is being rushed through Parliament. They should be brought to the attention of the Parliament and should be addressed."