Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership of Land) Amendment Bill

At the cut-off point I was pointing out that Governments around the world are buying up land to protect their national interests. We too should be protecting our national interests. It is not in New Zealand’s long-term strategic economic interests to approve large-scale purchases of our farmland to overseas buyers. Our land is the goose that lays the golden egg. We should sell golden eggs to the world, but we should not sell the goose to the world or our goose will be cooked.

This bill is about protecting family farmers in New Zealand. Small and medium sized New Zealand farmers are being priced out of the market by overseas buyers who purchase our farms. Overseas buyers looking to get a foothold in New Zealand can and do outbid local farmers. Shanghai Pengxin outbid Landcorp and Michael Fay’s group, in the process driving up the price of rural land, with the only beneficiaries being the Australian banks that had lent the Crafars the money. Those farmers who want to sell out love overseas buyers because they drive up the price, but the long-term effect is to drive out family farmers and replace them with overseas corporations. Those who care about the long-term future of family farming in New Zealand will support this bill. It is about keeping families on the land.

This bill is about cleaning up New Zealand’s shambolic and confusing system for approving overseas land sale applications. Currently the Overseas Investment Office is supposed to make a dispassionate assessment of whether applications by overseas persons to buy New Zealand land meet the tests set out in the Overseas Investment Act. In fact the Overseas Investment Office does no such thing. The Overseas Investment Office is a rubber stamp for approving the applications because that is what successive Governments have expected of it—nothing less.

As the High Court recently found in the judicial review of the Overseas Investment Office’s handling of the Crafar farms application, the Overseas Investment Office is not applying the law correctly. It is applying it in a way so that it can approve the applications. Figures released to the Green Party show that over the last few years the Overseas Investment Office has approved virtually all applications by foreign investors to buy sensitive land. But even so, it is a confusing system. This bill makes it crystal clear, with a clear guideline, that sensitive New Zealand land is for New Zealand citizens, permanent residents, and New Zealand corporate entities.

Technically what this bill does is use the existing definition of “sensitive land” in the Overseas Investment Act and then ensures that such land cannot be purchased by those defined as “overseas persons” by the Overseas Investment Act. “Sensitive land” is defined as farmland over 5 hectares in area, or land greater than 0.4 hectares on an island, or land greater than 0.2 hectares on the foreshore, and some other specialist definitions. “Overseas person” is defined as someone who is not a New Zealand citizen or ordinary resident of New Zealand, and, for companies, the definition is a company incorporated overseas or which is more than 25 percent owned offshore.

Let us protect our strategic economic interests. Let us protect our family farmers. Let us clean up our overseas ownership rules. Let us keep ownership of the golden goose. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

What a shocker of a bill! This Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership of Land) Amendment Bill would have to be the most stupid bill that will be brought to this House during this Parliament. I just cannot believe that the Green Party members have the audacity to bring this here as a member’s bill. It is like something that they have cooked up over a joint out the back of the Green Party conference. It is “spliff-onomics”, “dak-onomics”—that is what it is, “dak-onomics”.

💬 Gareth Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take offence at the allegation that the Green Party is engaging in criminal activities.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, no. The member needs to withdraw that comment. I call Jonathan Coleman.

I am sorry, what am I meant to withdraw?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): You made a derogatory comment and the Greens have taken exception. I ask you to withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, we are moving on. Dr Jonathan Coleman has the floor.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think there is also a convention that there is an apology. If anybody knows about blowing smoke—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): That is not necessary.

Well, I would just like to see the Green Party members go out to their core constituency and tell them that they are opposed to the smoking of marijuana, because that would be really, really interesting.

What I can say is that—I will not call it anything derogatory—what we will call this is “yokel-nomics”. Basically, if this bill were to be passed, we would be going back to the yokel economy of 11th century Europe, where people pulled ploughs with oxen, they ran around with pitchforks, and they farmed little subsistence plots. For these guys, the Greens, to think that you could seriously go into an international forum and say that we are going to ban land sales to all foreigners is a joke.

What is really interesting about this is that this is a vision of what you would get if we ever had the misfortune to have a Labour-Green Government. You would have Russel Norman as Minister of Finance—and obviously this is his pet project—and he would be rushing this through. This would be part of his first 100 days: to ban land sales to all overseas interests, and to ban all sales of sensitive land. Clayton Cosgrove and David Parker would have to sit there in that Cabinet with these Green crazies and go along with this stuff, because if they did not, they would be out of Government. So this is the price that New Zealand is going to have to pay. It will be the Luddite vision of the Greens, and they know it, and they have been badly embarrassed over this.

I do not know where Russel Norman cooked this up. I have given you my thoughts on it, but I reckon he would have been thinking ever since this went into the members’ ballot: “You know, I really do hope that bill doesn’t come out, quite frankly. I really do.”, because actually it was a pretty damn stupid bill and he is going to regret having put it in there.

What has been interesting over this debate—and we had the snap debate very foolishly called by the Labour Party yesterday, and it got completely thrashed in that, because the actual fact is that it has changed its position on overseas investment so many times that it has been an embarrassment. Do not forget that Labour actually introduced in 2005 the Overseas Investment Act, which this bill today, which Labour is supporting, effectively repeals. So it is completely over a barrel on this.

Poor old David Parker. He is really taking one for the team today—big time. He signed off the sale of thousands—hundreds of thousands—of hectares of land. It is absolutely incredible. When he was the Minister for Land Information—it is absolutely incredible. But I can tell you he is going to be the next speaker and he is going to get up and tell you that Labour is backing this Green bill. [Interruption] They are. They are. Those members are backing it and they are going to be getting up and saying that they do not support the sale of land to any foreign interests at all. It is absolutely true. That is what he will be doing in a moment. He is going to have to get up and all the National speakers are going to look to David Parker’s record as Minister for Land Information, when he sold hundreds of thousands of hectares of land.

The Labour Government sold 665,000 hectares of land in its time, and 380,000 hectares in 2006—most of it signed off by David Parker. It got in this very difficult situation yesterday when Clayton Cosgrove, I believe, was saying that Labour’s position has evolved over time. It has continuously evolved. It has evolved in the last 24 hours. Yesterday those members were saying in that debate that they were in favour of the sale of some sensitive lands but they just were not in favour of the sale of the Crafar farms, but today it has evolved further. They are now not in favour of the sale of any sensitive land—

💬 Hon John Banks: Xenophobic.

—yes, xenophobic—to any foreign interests. But that is what this bill is. This is blatant xenophobia. This is an embarrassment, a national embarrassment that Labour and the Greens are backing this bill in this House, and I really hope New Zealand First is going to see sense on this bill. I know those members have a different position to us, but actually they are sensible, practical people and they will see the madness of this absolutely ridiculous bill.

Look, Clayton Cosgrove does not agree with this bill. These guys are just laughing at it. They know that it is a joke. In actual fact, he is a sensible, centre-right man, Clayton Cosgrove. Actually, he is quite a cuddly little fellow, but, you know, he just hates this. He hates this stuff, eh? He is caught in such a terrible position, because he knows that if he wants to get back into Government he has to agree to rubbish like this.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I enjoy putting the sword into you, mate.

What is that—putting the sword into me? Well, if that is all you are living for. You see Clayton Cosgrove—look at the face of that man. That is the face of a man who truly hates himself. He does. He is torn apart with self-hatred. He has lost his seat, he is back here, he is in the purgatory of Opposition—

💬 Hon John Banks: Did he lose his seat?

Yes, badly. He lost it—he got the kick all right—to Kate Wilkinson. Absolutely. And now he is so desperate that the only leverage he can get in this Parliament is by putting bills in and out of the ballot and talking to people in the constituency who are not coming to see him as their electoral MP, and putting forward legislation of dubious benefit and then having to withdraw it. But that is another issue.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Oh! Shall we have a look at your return, or hers, or yours?

You can look at my return any day of the week.

Back to David Parker. This is what David Parker signed off: Hancock Natural Resource Group Inc. He sold land to an American company in October 2006. David Parker sold 240,000 hectares of sensitive forestry land worth $1.5 billion to Americans, and in a moment he is going to get up and say that he agrees with this crazy Green bill. He also signed off to Ernslaw One Ltd, a Malaysian company, almost 14,000 hectares. That was in March 2008.

💬 Hon Member: Was it sensitive?

It was $117 million of sensitive land. But I tell you what. We have got Raymond Huo over there. Raymond is a good guy, a sensible guy, and a good representative for the Chinese community. He has got to go back to his community over the weekend and explain why the Labour Party is supporting xenophobic, anti-Chinese legislation. I feel for Raymond, because he signed up to the wrong party there.

These guys here from the Green Party and the Labour Party are going to take us into a very difficult space internationally. They are going to take us into a space where New Zealand diplomats and politicians are not welcome in international fora because we will be the people, if this bill passes, who do not want foreign investment and who say that foreigners are unwelcome in New Zealand. I tell you what. The only losers from this legislation, if it were to pass—and, thankfully, it will not, but I will get on to that in a moment—would be the New Zealand people and the New Zealand economy. I can tell you what will happen if this goes through. There will be less capital coming into New Zealand. There will be less investment. There will be fewer people coming here to put capital into our economy, and the economy will not grow.

Russel Norman, the Australian who now does not want Australians to be able to buy land here, says that this bill is going to be defeated today by an evil coalition—an evil coalition. That is the National Party, United Future, and the ACT Party. Well, I have got to say that I am very proud to be part of this coalition, part of this Government, because we have got sensible economic growth policies that are actually seeing us get ahead. It is about looking outwards. It is about earning our income by trading with the world. You cannot trade with the world if you say: “Actually, you’re not welcome to come here and buy land.” We cannot go down the path of “yokel-nomics” that Russel “Green” Norman wants us to follow.

Russel Norman, this bill you are putting forward here is an embarrassment. There is no intellectual grunt or input that has gone into this. Russel Norman is a man who is better than this bill. He is brighter than this. He is severely misguided, an unreconstructed Marxist, but this is not his best work. He needs to get up and explain how the heck he came up with this, because he knows that this should never have seen the light of day. It is a big mistake and a political stunt. He is going to completely embarrass David Parker, who has to get up and explain that he now opposes land sales, having signed off hundreds of thousands of hectares of land sales to foreign interests. I just think this bill is a joke. It is actually a waste of parliamentary time. It should be dead and buried, and it is a very serious warning to the New Zealand public.

Of course, the National Party’s economic plan for this country is to flog everything off. There is no more depth to it than that.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: That’s right. At any cost—at any cost.

At any cost. What is the biggest part of National’s agenda this term? Sell State-owned enterprises. Changing who owns what already exists does nothing to grow the output of your economy. It is true of asset sales, and it is also true of our rural land.

We heard a diatribe from the previous speaker, Jonathan Coleman, accusing the prior Labour Government of allowing the sale of rural land. Most of it was forest. The Minister was quite correct to say that. Most of it was, in fact, the resale of land owned by Carter Holt Harvey that had previously been sold into overseas ownership, moved back into New Zealand ownership for a day, and then onsold to new foreign investors. That is what those big hectares relate to. In any event, the lessons that New Zealand has learnt as a consequence of what happened through the sale of our forestry sector ought to be a salutary lesson as to why it is that we do not want to make the same mistake in respect of all of our other rural land.

There is no doubt that the sale of our forestry estate has meant that we have ended up processing fewer of our logs as a proportion of our total. There is no doubt about that, at all. If you want to see third-party commentators who have analysed that, have a look at what Brian Gaynor has written about how if you lose control of the ownership of some of these interests in land, you end up depriving New Zealand of the full value stream that flows from the use of those lands. There is no economic advantage to New Zealand from flogging off our dairy land. We know this from the analysis of the High Court when it overturned Minister Williamson’s initial decision to sell the Crafar farms. The court said that it was not convinced that the improvements to productivity, to production, that would happen under the purchaser, Shanghai Pengxin, would not have happened anyway under alternative purchasers. That is just common sense.

We know that we are very efficient farmers in New Zealand and that we increase farm output where it is economic to do so. That is why we are successful in these industries around the world. These are our primary industries. They are our premier industries. They are the way in which we keep control of Fonterra. Ownership of land is what leads to ownership of Fonterra. That has been diluted a little bit through the share trading bill that this House passed without the appropriate protections in respect of Fonterra recently, but, generally, landownership is what controls ownership of our cooperatives. Those cooperatives have been very successful at maintaining vertically integrated ownership of a decent share of the profits that can flow from the land.

We heard some assertion that this bill, the Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership of Land) Amendment Bill, is all some crazy economic vision being brought forward by the Greens and supported by the Labour Party. Well, do you know what happens in Japan? It has a very successful economy. Does it let foreigners buy its land?

💬 Hon John Banks: Really? Really? A successful economy.

Yes, it has a successful economy, Mr Banks. It would have a per capita income that is far higher than New Zealand’s. It runs a current account surplus year after year after year, unlike the New Zealand current account deficit, which has been four decades in length. It controls its sales of land. So does China. What about the land of the free? What about the United States of America? Why did you not mention it? Why was the land of the free, the United States of America, not mentioned? There are a number of states in the United States of America that stop foreigners purchasing their rural land. [Bell rung] One minute? Is this a 5-minute speech, Mr Speaker?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Yes, it is.

Oh right. OK, I thought it was 10. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

There are problems with this bill. This bill is not perfect. It does go too far. It says that no sensitive land ought to be sold—that is, no rural land at all. We say that there are exceptions that need to be made. For example, if someone was bringing in intellectual property or was going to bring jobs that would not otherwise occur, then we are willing to look at that as a matter of ministerial discretion. That can be fixed at the select committee. We think that there are some revisions that are needed in respect of that, but it is better than the status quo. Those things can be fixed at the select committee, and those changes ought to be allowed to be made by this bill getting the vote at first reading.

If parties cannot evolve their positions as circumstances change, then democracy becomes moribund, and we might as well not have democracy. We might as well have dictatorship. It is appropriate that—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. His time has expired.

The ACT Party opposes this xenophobic exercise in economic nationalism. That is what the Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership of Land) Amendment Bill is. It is a xenophobic exercise in economic nationalism. What a cheek—the Australian leader of the Green Party coming into this Parliament and wielding this xenophobic piece of legislation in the House. But at least he is smart enough to line up the Labour Party to go with him like one of the lemmings.

One of the great leaders of this country once said to me: “Some doctors make you well, and others make you sick.” Well, I can tell Dr Norman that if he wants investment growth and jobs in this country, then this proposition is sick. This bill is diametrically opposed to the best interests of this country. Members should know that when it comes to welcoming foreign investment in New Zealand, New Zealand is already an international laggard. Every few years the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development measures how open countries are to foreign investment, including investment in land. Members should get used to the idea. The same members might be surprised to hear that out of 55 countries measured, New Zealand is the sixth most restrictive country on foreign investment. What are foreign owners going to do with the land? What is a self-respecting Aussie who wants to come to this Parliament going to do when he buys his one-bedroom flat in Manukau Road in Epsom, in my electorate? He cannot take it back to Aussie when he has finished with his political career, come the next election. It stays here. It is an investment here. There are fewer restrictions on investing in Russia than there are here.

If we wish to prosper, we need foreign investment.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Where is Dotcom from?

I can say to “Mini-Mike” that if we want to prosper—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Better that than “Mini-Rodney”.

The downmarket version of Mike Moore—that is whom we are hearing from—is yapping across the other side of the House. I want to hear him. I cannot understand the Labour Party members who want to be on this side of the House. The previous speaker, David Parker, was parachuted into the Epsom electorate, got 2,000 votes, and we have not seen him on Broadway in Newmarket ever since.

I want you to know that we know we need foreign investment, because up until approximately 1,000 years ago there was no foreign investment in New Zealand. There were no jobs either, 1,000 years ago. There was no foreign investment and no jobs. Foreign investment equals jobs, foreign investment equals productivity, foreign investment equals foreign exchange earnings, and foreign investment equals the fact that New Zealand is going to go ahead and be able to compete with the rest of the world.

Take this example, Labour Party people over there. James Cameron, listening on his crystal set in the Wairarapa tonight, will be appalled. The best film director in the world will soon live within an hour of this Parliament. He is bringing his capital, he is bringing his know-how, and he is going to bring many, many jobs to this country. But the Labour Party and the Australian leader of the Green Party do not want James Cameron here. The Australian leader of the Green Party does not want James Cameron here. With this legislation, if we pass it through here, James Cameron, the greatest film director in the world—one of the great ones—will not be welcome in this country. Only the Green Party would want to discourage that kind of investment—only the Green Party. Only an interloping Australian, leader of the Marxist Green Party in this Parliament, would want that kind of legislation foisted on the people.

This bill actually tells us quite a lot about the Green Party, does it not? It is a party of old dudes and young fogies—old dudes and young fogies. One of the older members, Steffan Browning, said that this bill is “totally timely”. That is what Steffan said—that it is totally timely. As modern as it sounds, this bill would be a step backwards, towards fortress New Zealand of old. This would be fortress New Zealand of old. People would be packing up their bags and fleeing to where that joker fled from—Australia, across the Tasman. Well, we say to the Australians, unlike the Australian leader of the Green Party in this Parliament, that if you want to come to New Zealand, invest in New Zealand, buy land in New Zealand, buy property in New Zealand, create jobs in New Zealand, and create wealth for New Zealand, then you are welcome.

This bill would be a disaster for this country. It would close down New Zealand when it needs to be opening up, and would leave the nasty aftertaste of Green xenophobia in our mouths. That is what it would do. It would leave a nasty aftertaste of Green xenophobia. I have not heard in the last 8 months what that party stands for in terms of investment growth, jobs, and creating wealth and foreign exchange earnings. [Interruption] Ah, the little yapper there. He has never had a real job in his life—

I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but his time has expired.

I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership of Land) Amendment Bill. I guess it will be of no surprise to most people listening to this, or watching this, or in this House that New Zealand First will support this bill because we do not support the sale of land to foreigners. We have consistently opposed the sale of land to overseas interests, and we will continue to do so. In fact, back in 1997 New Zealand First first brought in the initiative to drastically reduce the sales of land to foreigners each year. Just imagine—if that had been enacted all those years ago, then we would have a lot more land in New Zealand ownership today than is currently the case.

At the present time about 70 percent of our forestry is in foreign ownership. New Zealand First has always opposed the sale of land to foreigners, so this bill is very much in New Zealand First territory. However, New Zealand First is not opposed to foreign investment as long as such investment stands the test of being to New Zealand’s advantage. New Zealand First stands firm against asset sales to foreign interests.

New Zealand First’s foreign investment policy also includes the premise that such investment must be in the interests of all of New Zealand and New Zealanders. The private interests of foreign owners and shareholders are not our concern, but the public interest of New Zealanders is. We also are in favour of rewriting the foreign investment policy framework and operational requirements as they relate to the work of the Overseas Investment Office to protect the national interest—and that is where this bill comes in—in line with long-held New Zealand First policy.

When you look at the definition of sensitive land in the principal Act—and perhaps Government members need to have a look at it—it is interesting to see that it includes things such as islands apart from the North Island and South Island—and we are talking about many sensitive islands around New Zealand’s coasts—the bed of lakes, the land held for conservation purposes, the foreshore and seabed, and many other sensitive areas along those lines, including heritage sites, wāhi tapu sites, and the like. So when we are talking about sensitive land, it also means that foreign interests cannot buy some of our cherished heritage, some of our very, very sensitive conservation areas, or areas adjoining waterways or foreshore areas, which, again, could be perceived as being sensitive. So in this regard it is good.

I am a fifth-generation New Zealander. Both my mother’s and my father’s side of the family arrived in the 1840s. I am one who most certainly wants to see New Zealand land kept in the hands of New Zealanders and not sold off to foreigners. We do not want to become tenants in our own country. We do not want people coming to this country just to use it as a convenient place to have some sort of spot in the South Pacific that they can come to once or twice a year but who are in fact giving nothing to the economy.

I was aware of a number of instances where people were coming great distances to stay in holiday houses in New Zealand that they owned in very, very sensitive strategic locations while New Zealanders themselves could not access some of those same areas of New Zealand coastal land. It is a great shame when we get to that sort of a situation. We do not want to be in a situation in this country where good New Zealand Kiwis no longer have the same access to all of our sensitive areas of this country.

We certainly would hope that this will have a flow-on effect through the current asset sales petition that is going around New Zealand. We certainly hope that the likes of this is another feather in the cap, in that more and more New Zealanders will also sign that to ensure that there are not State asset sales per se going on under this Government, and that basically we are striving to keep New Zealand for New Zealanders. In that situation it is very much fitting that the New Zealand First Party stands for putting New Zealanders first, and in that respect we commend the member in charge of this bill, Dr Russel Norman, in terms of also wanting to ensure that New Zealanders are put first in terms of our sensitive land in our beautiful country. Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the first reading of the Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership of Land) Amendment Bill. On behalf of migrants I would like to say that such a bill will be a disappointment for them. They bring a lot of investment, which in turn creates a lot of jobs. Such a bill will restrict them from bringing in their investment. I hope my good friend Raymond Huo will stand and join me in saying this on behalf of migrants.

This bill is designed to retain ownership and control of sensitive lands within New Zealand. It amends the Overseas Investment Act 2005 to prevent overseas persons from purchasing sensitive land. This critical bill also means that nobody can buy sensitive land unless they are a citizen or an ordinary resident, nor can any company that is 25 percent or more foreign-owned.

I call this bill critical for a number of reasons. Our colleagues on the opposite side of this House want New Zealand to enjoy a high standard of living, minimum wages to be raised, and to compete with Australia. However, these wonderful colleagues of ours who have all these bright theoretical ideas do not share their wisdom on where, as a country, we are going to fund these theoretical ideas from. Our colleagues suggest we raise the company tax at a time when our largest competitor and trading partner is contemplating lowering the tax rates. We do not need a supercomputing brain to calculate the impact of this decision on our economy, our businesses, and our jobs.

I also take this opportunity to remind my colleagues that most countries are facing the global financial crisis. This means that investors are looking for alternatives to the traditional economies of Europe and America to invest in. Therefore, I believe that this is our opportunity to benefit from the current situation that New Zealand and the world at large is in. This is also our opportunity to provide our people with more much-needed jobs and economic growth. This is definitely our opportunity to provide New Zealanders with the kinds of lifestyles they are entitled to.

As the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon John Key, said, we have been spending like First World countries, and it is high time that we start earning and building up an economy that belongs to the First World. Unless we take decisive action now, future generations stand to bear the burden of our inaction and our wrong decisions. This country needs overseas investment so that our businesses have access to much-needed capital. Access to capital means they can expand their operations, which, in turn, means they will employ more people. It will also mean that our businesses can look at not just national but international expansion of their operations. This will boost our exports, thereby improving our lifestyle and wages.

On one side we talk of New Zealand being an open and internationally competitive economy, and on the other hand we have Opposition members proposing that we turn New Zealand into a fortress where there is a limit on who can invest. This attitude of the Green Party will no doubt limit our incomes and lead to a depreciation in the quality of public services, and it will most certainly not lead to any job creation. I oppose this bill.

Mr Speaker—

💬 Hon John Banks: Ah, “Mini-Mike”.

John Archibald Banks, who interjected just before I stood up, called me “Mini-Mike”. I presume that refers to my good friend—a very close friend of mine—Mike Moore, who—

💬 Kris Faafoi: The right honourable.

—the Rt Hon Mike Moore, who does have a good memory, unlike the Hon John Banks. I say this: if the insult from Mr Banks is that somehow I look up to Mr Moore, then that is true. Better that than being “Mini - Rodney Hide”, with the credibility in this Parliament of John Archibald Banks, whose credibility, we know, is in the toilet. I will not waste any more time on him. At least Mike Moore and other members in this Chamber can remember their own name, not just when it suits them, and can tell the truth.

💬 Hon John Banks: I’m being savaged by a sheep.

Well, you would know. You would know, being a pork-barrel politician.

I want to address the Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership of Land) Amendment Bill. Labour will support this bill. Labour will support this bill’s referral to a select committee. We, and other parties in this House, have been accused of xenophobia. I will just say this on the Labour Party position: we have a bill in David Shearer’s name, actually, which restricts foreign investment in land where there is—and this is the bit that those members do not understand—no likely economic benefit to New Zealand, such as farmland, but would still allow investment where there are clear economic benefits. That is the Labour position. How can it be xenophobic to require foreign owners to add value to our economy? How can that be xenophobic?

What we say is that if you want to buy it, you have got to add some value. You have got to create some real jobs, not just employ one or two people to make it look good. You have got to add value, innovation, technology, and market access—add value to New Zealand. But simply just swapping ownership from domestic ownership to foreign ownership, with no value add, in critically important land assets in New Zealand simply does this: it transfers the revenue streams out from domestic owners to foreign owners. That benefits no one in New Zealand. So we say that where there are critical assets, where there is a clear economic benefit, then investment can take place. Investment can take place, but you have got to actually—

💬 Hon John Banks: That’s not what the bill says.

I am talking about our position, “Banksie”. I am talking about our position. But, you see, then we have the position of National over there, which is to sell everything, holus-bolus, whether or not they are State-owned assets, aided and abetted by Rumpelstiltskin in the corner there, who trots along, hanging on to the coat-tails of his National Party brethren, desperate to hang on in this place. He has no credibility and has done nothing—done nothing. The only bit of legislation that genius has put into this House is to repeal 31 Acts that do not exist. What an absolute genius! His credibility is in the political sewer—everybody knows it—but he is clinging to his National Party mates. That is what this is about.

This is about John Key and his pride. He will sell anything at any cost. We see that with the State-owned enterprises, with a tribunal hanging over him, with court action hanging over him, and with the worst possible economic environment in which to float a company and sell off a State-owned asset, yet John Key will do it. To hell with the taxpayers who have built those assets up for generations. He will do it, simply because his and the National Party’s pride is at stake. And the little snivelling one in the corner there, whose credibility is in the dunny, clings to his National Party mates, turns up to the trough, and will vote accordingly with National in order to preserve his own little future. He is a man who has “honourable” in front of his name, which for that member is now an oxymoron. We say that where there is an economic benefit to New Zealand, where foreign ownership can prove that it can add value, then that is the appropriate way to execute the sale of certain land.

We think this bill does need some changes. We will be promoting some changes, but we do believe that it is appropriate to support the bill’s referral to a select committee so there can be a proper examination of the issues before a select committee. And, by the way, it will allow us to show up the ineptitude, the policy gaffes, and the contradictions, once again, of the National Party when it comes to land of significance and when it comes to State-owned enterprises, because all it is willing to do, all it wants to do, is sell New Zealand out. John Banks has done that with the people of Epsom.

I rise to speak on the Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership of Land) Amendment Bill. This is, essentially, a bill that makes sure that New Zealand farmland stays in New Zealand ownership. That is the nub of the bill. Fundamentally, what drives this issue—and it is not just an issue for New Zealand; it is a global issue—is that on a finite planet, food-producing land is becoming more and more valuable. That is the fundamental reality that sits behind this bill and the global debate about the global land-grab. So whether you read the New Scientist, where there has been a lot of debate around the global land-grab, or whether you read Oxfam reports, all over the world there is a debate about what to do about the fact that large sovereign States—particularly some of the Gulf States but elsewhere as well—as well as large corporations, are buying up large tracts of land. The reason they are buying up large tracts of land is around food security, fundamentally. South Korea is very concerned about food security, as are China and other food-importing countries, and the way they are trying to address that is by trying to buy up food-producing land.

The figures on this are hard to come by, because it is not very well regulated, but possibly 2 million square kilometres of land has been bought up in the global land-grab in the last decade. That is the equivalent of Spain, France, Britain, Italy, and Germany combined. It is a very, very large area. This global phenomenon of food-producing land becoming more valuable is being driven by a few things. The first, of course, is the growing population. The second is the growth of the middle class within those populations, who, obviously, are looking for more and more protein-rich foods, such as the dairy from New Zealand. It is also being driven by climate change. We are seeing real problems around food-producing land with uncertain and unstable weather, which has meant that there have been significant crop failures in various places. All of that has put enormous pressure on food prices. We have seen a big spike in food prices over the last few years, and that, of course, is being reflected in land prices. New Zealand is in the fortunate position of having access to quite a lot of food-producing land, with access to water. That land, over time, is becoming increasingly valuable, and they are not making any more of it.

So we need to have a debate about how we respond to those global pressures. One option, which is the Government option, is to have a free-for-all. If people want to buy land, then it will rubber-stamp the applications that come before it, as we have seen from the Overseas Investment Office. That seems to me to be a particularly stupid approach, and does not take account of what is happening internationally. I was hoping tonight that we would hear some reasons from the Government, but all we heard from Jonathan Coleman and Mr Banks, who are going to form—National and ACT together, and Peter Dunne—the majority that will probably defeat this bill, was an attack on me for being a migrant. I think it is extraordinary that the Government members got up in this House and accused the Green Party of xenophobia, and then attacked me personally for being a migrant in New Zealand. I would say to every migrant in New Zealand: “Do not listen to Jonathan Coleman. Do not listen to John Banks. You are welcome in this country.” Every migrant who comes here has a right to be in this country, every migrant in New Zealand has a right to buy land, and we in the Green Party believe it is important that migrants and all other New Zealanders are able to afford to buy land.

If land in New Zealand becomes part of a global market—an unregulated global market—the price of land will be driven up so that family farmers will be driven out of business. It will not be possible—it is not possible—for ordinary family farmers to compete with the likes of Shanghai Pengxin and other very large players, which are backed by sovereign States that are buying up land. There is no way to compete with the kind of money that they have available to buy land. So whether you are New Zealand - born and bred, a citizen here, or whether, like me, you have come here as a migrant—and I am proud to say I am a migrant, and I say to John Banks and Jonathan Coleman that you might attack migrants, but we are not going to listen to you—this bill is about making sure that everybody who makes New Zealand their home can afford to buy land here. Because if we have open slather from all of the international forces we will drive up the price of land out of the reach of ordinary residents and citizens in this country. That is fundamentally what this bill is all about—dealing with the international pressures to make sure that family farmers have a future in this country, and to make sure that ordinary citizens and residents can afford to buy land in New Zealand. That means keeping New Zealand farmland, in particular, for New Zealand citizens and residents and New Zealand - owned companies. Otherwise, that land, over time, will become more and more expensive.

This bill, the Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership of Land) Amendment Bill, is enlightening. We have seen Mr Norman make a great effort to appear more reasonable and focused on the economy, and he has been sensitive to the charge that the Greens are merely watermelons—green on the outside and red in the middle. He is focused on the economy in all of his questions, he looks serious, and he evinces great concern about the economy. That is very good and I applaud it in many ways.

But this bill shows us the Greens’ true colours—its raging, unreconstructed, closed-economy piece of policy. It is anti-growth, it is based on fear—like most of what the Green Party is doing—feeding on fear that the world is about to implode and that all sorts of foreigners are going to come in and take our land. It is based on fear. It is about wrapping New Zealand up in a cocoon of protection and regulation, and I am against it.

The basic effect of this bill would be to stop virtually all foreign investment in land. Anything could be described as sensitive. This is a party that stood under the campaign slogan in 2011 that it was For a Richer New Zealand. Well, what a joke. You actually have to earn a living in this world, and by closing our borders and sealing the borders as this bill would do, we are not going to get very far.

It is a good job that Mr Norman and the Greens were not around in the 19th century, because nobody would have come to this country, the country would not have developed, it would not have happened, if you did not have the ability for people to come from overseas and buy property and invest in it. This country—this economy—has been built on men and women from distant lands coming and investing their money in businesses and in land in this country. Some remained overseas, and their capital built enterprises and developed the land, providing jobs for locals and improving the productivity of this country. That is how we grew as a country. More often than not, once they had made that investment, they decided eventually to settle here with their families, and that is how New Zealand made its progress.

So I am not surprised that the Greens have come up with a bill like this, but I am shocked, however, to see that the once-proud Labour Party is supporting this bill, as well. Mike Moore would be turning in—well, not his grave; he has not got there yet—his bed in Washington, DC, right at the moment, at the thought that his party, the Labour Party, which once stood for free markets and for being open and for free trade, has now given in to pusillanimous me-too-ism, following the Greens in this to the bottom.

Let us run through some of the arguments of why foreign investment is good for the economy. Small, high-productivity economies rely on international connections of people, of capital, of trade, and of ideas. All those things are linked. With the money come the people, the ideas, and the opportunity for trade. That is what foreign investment is all about. We do not have to be terrified of foreigners. Look at the wonderful things that people like Julian Robertson have done for New Zealand. They have come in, bought farms, invested in vineyards and golf courses, fallen in love with the country, and started donating great paintings to the art gallery, and there are many such stories. These are not people to be afeard of. Foreign investment greatly helps to add to the overall dynamism and diversity in a society, and it is not something we need to be afraid of.

Of course, the system proposed by this bill would—where it is talking vaguely about sensitive land—be so capricious and so hazardous that no one in their right mind would consider coming to New Zealand and investing in this land, in that environment. A second area, of course, is that a growing economy needs investment, and New Zealand has always needed capital since the start of European settlement. We have imported capital. We are a young, growing economy still. That is nothing to be ascared of. What we see here is a bill from a party that does not want growth, is anti-growth, and there is nothing to be commended in that.

It is worth remembering, too—sorry, I slipped off the step; I was getting carried away there—that foreign direct investment tends to lead to higher wages. Let me explain. I would just like to say that this bill has all the intellectual coherence of the speech that we heard from the leader of the Labour Party yesterday. I just want to quote the leader—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but his time has expired. You should not have fallen off the perch.

Mr Paul Goldsmith’s gesture just confirmed how important it is to strike a balance. To that end, and in that regard, Labour supports this bill, the Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership of Land) Amendment Bill, but we do have some concerns about its scope and focus. Therefore, Labour supports this bill being referred to a select committee because we are interested in hearing what the submitters may say about it.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: What does the Chinese community think of that?

The interjections from the National members are very interesting and very helpful. As Labour’s first member of Parliament of Chinese ethnicity it is very fitting for me to reiterate that it was under the Labour Government that, in 1972, New Zealand established a full diplomatic relationship with the People’s Republic of China. This year marks the 40th anniversary of the diplomatic relationship between New Zealand and China.

In reply to Mr Jami-Lee Ross, it is very important for me to reiterate that it was under Labour that New Zealand apologised to the Chinese people in 2005 over the racially discriminatory legislation and poll tax. More relevant to this bill is that it was under a Labour Government that New Zealand signed the free-trade agreement with China in 2008, making it our second-largest trading partner. Our exports to China have increased to over 60 percent, with more money being injected into the New Zealand economy, which flows on to more jobs being created.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

New Zealanders have widespread concerns about this issue, and these are valid. As a Kiwi-Chinese, I share these issues. I share these concerns, because we are not addressing these issues for ourselves now; we are addressing these issues for their future generations. It is all about striking a balance. Labour supports foreign investment, but we cannot afford to sell our future. To quote the Prime Minister, John Key, we cannot afford to become tenants in our own land. As I said—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: You can’t be giving this speech.

Well, that Minister Maurice Williamson is laughing. I do not know whether he is laughing at my contribution, or laughing at his Prime Minister’s quote. I will quote it again: New Zealand cannot afford to become tenants in our own land.

As I said, however, we do have some concerns about the scope and the focus of Dr Russel Norman’s member’s bill, because, effectively, it prevents any foreign ownership of sensitive land. Labour’s own bill in that regard has taken a balanced approach. It limits the discretion of the portfolio Ministers to approve applications for the purchase of rural land. It would, therefore, significantly narrow the type of investment in rural land, and ensure that the economic benefits, job creation, and increases in our exports are the most important factors to be considered. It does not prevent all foreign investment in New Zealand, but it does recognise that buying land in New Zealand is a privilege.

I have just quoted what the Prime Minister said, that New Zealand could not afford to become tenants in our own land. In a similar vein, we cannot afford to lose control of our best income-producing assets. Talking about our best income-producing assets, a New Zealand Herald story by Adam Bennett says that the Government’s sell-off firms are top performers. A report by accounting firm Ernst and Young released just before Christmas last year confirmed that those State-owned energy companies that this National - ACT Government is so passionate about selling are generating returns well in excess of the Government’s cost of owning them, and out perform most similar private sector companies. It is a matter of striking a balance. If we fail to strike a balance, New Zealand is going to tumble down. Thank you.

I rise to speak on the Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership of Land) Amendment Bill, which is about protecting New Zealand farmland for New Zealand residents and citizens. This is part of a broader debate that we need to have about foreign investment in New Zealand.

The Green Party is not opposed to foreign investment. We think, however, that before the New Zealand Government and people approve foreign investment, there should be some value-adding for New Zealand. There should be new capital, new networks, and new technology. There have to be some reasons to approve such foreign investment. Unfortunately, we have not been able to have the mature debate in this Parliament that we need. For example, from the National Party, Jonathan Coleman, and Maurice Williamson, we have just had abuse directed at me for being a migrant. That is National’s approach, and we see them sniggering over there. They abuse migrants, and they argue that migrants do not have a right to speak in New Zealand. I disagree with that, and I would say to Maurice Williamson and Jonathan Coleman, and to John Banks, who also said this, that migrants have got a right to speak in this Parliament.

I say to migrants in New Zealand that the National Party, the ACT Party, Jonathan Coleman, Maurice Williamson, and John Banks abuse migrants, but the Green Party stands up for migrants and the rights of migrants to speak in this Parliament, and the rights of migrants to own land in New Zealand, because this is about New Zealand citizens and permanent residents being able to afford to buy land in New Zealand.

If we have unrestricted overseas buy up of land in New Zealand as part of the global land-grab, it will become unaffordable for ordinary New Zealanders, whether those New Zealanders were born here, or whether they are migrants like me. So if you are a migrant, do not listen to the abuse from Maurice Williamson, do not listen to the abuse from Jonathan Coleman, and do not listen to the abuse from John Banks. Actually stand up for your rights. Because you are a citizen in this country, you are a permanent resident in this country, and you have rights.

Under this Green Party bill, you have rights to own land. In fact, you will be able to afford land under this bill, because, as opposed to the National - ACT Government—the John Key - John Banks Government—we think that land should be affordable for all New Zealanders. That is the purpose of this bill, because those who understand what is happening with global capitalism at the moment will understand that there are these enormous capital flows, and there is enormous value being placed on food-producing land all over the world. There is what is called a global land-grab under way; a massive area of land has been bought, both by sovereign countries and by large corporations, because they value food-producing productive land. New Zealand land is a target for that global land-grab, and if we do not protect the golden goose—the golden goose that lays the golden eggs—then we have only ourselves to blame. New Zealand is a target if we are not smart enough to have the intelligent debate, which obviously the National Party is incapable of, to discuss how we engage with foreign investment, what kind of foreign investment is good for New Zealand, and what kind of foreign investment does not add anything to the New Zealand economy but simply becomes a drain on the New Zealand economy.

That is the kind of sophisticated discussion that we need to have as a country, as we engage as a small, open economy with the rest of the world. It is very difficult to have that conversation in this Parliament when, of course, the National Party and the ACT Party just flaunt abuse. But I am very thankful that my colleagues in the Labour Party, New Zealand First, the Māori Party, and Mana are all supporting this bill through to the select committee stage, because I accept that not everybody thinks that this bill is perfect. But it is part of the debate we need to have in the select committee and elsewhere in New Zealand about what the right kinds of policy settings are so that we get the most from foreign investment but do not lose control of our country, and do not lose control of the profit streams that come out of land, as well as other kinds of assets in New Zealand, if they become overseas-owned.

We have seen problems in the banking sector and the telecommunications sector where overseas purchasers have simply bought up existing companies and have dominated those sectors, and they have become drains on the New Zealand economy, as those profits have travelled overseas. So it is very important that we protect key strategic parts of our economy, like our food-producing land, and make sure that those profits and the benefits from that land actually flow back to New Zealand. That is what this bill is all about.

This bill is likely to be defeated tonight on the vote of John Banks—that one person; that man who solicited and received donations, and then declared them as anonymous. It is John Banks, that one vote, that is likely to defeat this bill, and that is morally repugnant. This bill should go to the select committee. This bill has the support of New Zealanders. This bill is the bill that will actually keep New Zealand farmland under New Zealand control, and all New Zealanders support that, as a matter of fact.