Overseas Investment Amendment Bill

I think it’s an odd day for democracy in New Zealand when there can be a ruling that says that because 26 speeches have been made out of a possible 500, there has been enough of a voice exercised in this Parliament to take a vote.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! It is inappropriate for the member to be criticising the ruling from the Speaker that has just been made. We are debating Part 2.

💬 Hon David Bennett: It’s a bad ruling.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The Hon David Bennett will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Hon David Bennett: I withdraw and apologise. What for, Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Well, if you sit down, I’ll tell you. When I’m on my feet, no one interrupts, and you did; that’s why you had to withdraw. So, as I was saying, we are on Part 2, and I will ask the Hon Gerry Brownlee to turn his attention to Part 2.

We are on Part 2, and it’s not unreasonable to reflect that Part 1, a very important part of the bill, but not as important as Part 2, had only 26 contributions from members on this side of the Chamber.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! When I stand, you sit down. We are on Part 2, not on Part 1. I’ve just made a ruling, and I would ask the member to make his speech relevant to Part 2.

Well, Part 2 is the most important part of the bill, and I hope that the jackboot gets lifted a little bit so that all aspects of this part can be properly discussed by the committee. It’s terrible when you see people in the Chair fearful of what their caucus may think of them if they don’t follow some kind of party line on all of this. So I’ve got a couple of questions that I think are worth pursuing in this part.

Firstly, if this bill and all the signalling that’s gone on about its merit, all the signalling that’s gone on about its virtues and its values, were so important and so strong, why has the price of a KiwiBuild house in this country—remember there have been only 18 built so far; I look forward to another 99,800-odd to come. Why is it that the price of those houses has gone up so astronomically in the last nine months? Why has it gone from the $450,000 house that the Government promised New Zealanders to up to $680,000 for a three-bedroom house in Auckland? And, what’s worse, none of them are available on the market; so that price, as we speak, while this silly bill is going on, continues to spiral upwards.

What it is also an example of is that, when the tap gets turned off on capital, the price of the scarce capital remaining goes up. Worse, we’ve got a housing policy now that sees the housing Minister being the main financier of housing in New Zealand. Now, anybody knows the housing Minister would find that a little bit concerning, but that’s the situation we’re in because the Government has decided there is no longer a requirement—no longer an opportunity—for foreign capital to invest in housing in New Zealand, simply because there are some members in the Government’s coalition who are very jealous of those who have extremely expensive houses. So they punish everybody, all the way through. They have no idea that there is a small number—hundreds only—of houses in those multimillion-dollar categories. But the vast majority of people, who just want to get into a house, who want to buy something at a reasonable price, who would benefit from the low cost of capital to develop those houses, are going to suffer. And the evidence is in front of us: nine months of price escalation on KiwiBuild.

The other thing I’d like to ask is why it is that there is a provision in this bill for foreigners to come and invest here—quite the opposite of what I’ve said is happening, because it won’t happen, but the provision is there—but they can’t live in those houses? So the question is: can they own them? Because it’s got to be a great prospect now, doesn’t it? They’ve escalated the price of housing—[Time expired]

I call Dr Deborah Russell.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: This’ll be an academic tome that drives us all to sleep.

Thank you—it’s a bit better than shouting. I suppose I’ve been finding a lot of the speeches quite puzzling so far this evening: speeches on Part 1 which addressed issues in Part 2, and now the speeches on Part 2 which are addressing issues to do with the bill as a whole. I wish to draw the attention of the committee to Part 2 of this bill, in particular activities that Part 2 is concerned with.

Now, we are fair and reasonable people on this side of the House.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Yeah, right! You’re a communist.

We actually want to achieve a balance—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Sorry for interrupting the member. The Hon David Bennett, it is inappropriate to be interjecting while you’re wandering around the Chamber. Return to your seat and sit down.

Thank you, Mr Chair. We do actually want people to be able to come here from overseas, as always, and to be able to purchase property here, for a variety of reasons. Now, people who want to come and live here in New Zealand, who are ordinarily resident in New Zealand, of course they can buy property here. We want people to be able to come and live here, and we do actually want to enable the sorts of investment we want. What we don’t want is people not coming here, but nevertheless holding property here.

So what happened with Part 2 was we did have a number of people come to the Finance and Expenditure Committee and ask us for particular exemptions, and where they had good reason for those exemptions we looked for ways to achieve it. So, for example, we had a fascinating submission from the Waihī goldmine, where they happen to own some houses as a result of some of the consent conditions around their mining activities, and those houses happen to be incidental to their mining activity. So we’ve worked a way in so that where activities are incidental, in fact residential property can be owned. We’ve done exactly the same thing with respect to utilities companies—so Spark and other utilities companies—and we’ve tried to find a way that they can purchase land as needed without being caught up in the conditions of this bill, because we are keeping the bill focused on its real purpose: that is, who gets to own residential property in New Zealand.

So, looking at Part 2, and keeping the debate quite strictly on Part 2, I think we should thank the members of the committee, who worked quite hard on forming these exemptions. Even if they didn’t agree with the political purpose, they nevertheless worked hard on getting these particular exemptions right, and they helped us to get those consent pathways right for this bill, and that’s what we’re looking at in this particular part of the bill. Thank you to the members of the Opposition who nevertheless worked hard on this, and I’m looking forward to hearing what they say about Part 2 of the bill.

Well, look, the member who’s resumed her seat, Deborah Russell, says that she wants to hear from the Opposition. That’s wonderful. Well, she’s going to get it! Well, let’s look at Part 2—and it’s always good to be given a lesson from a new member, isn’t it?

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Patronising, isn’t it?

Oh, it’s wonderful! I love it!

💬 Hon David Bennett: She won’t be here next time.

Well, look, she might as well make the most of her opportunities. I want to deal particularly with this provision of new section 16G in clause 11, which is “Conditions for consents relating to sensitive land that will be used for forestry activities”. It’s actually quite difficult to read in the bill, and I say that because most of the bill has been crossed out by the Finance and Expenditure Committee. You always know when you’ve got a dud bill: most of it’s crossed out and has had to be replaced at some stage, and it’s having to rely on the Finance and Expenditure Committee to correct it for the Minister. So I want to know what’s so special about forestry, as opposed to every other activity on land.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Well, that’s the question, isn’t it?

Well, that is the question. So what is so special? I want to know about blueberries. Blueberries are something which is incredibly good for us all. It’s a super-food. There are, basically, no calories in them. Everything about them’s good, and you can freeze them and do everything else to them, so what about blueberries?

💬 Hon Member: You can’t import them.

And you can’t import them, I’m told. So what’s so special about pine trees that are probably going to end up being used for pulp paper stuff? What about that? What’s going to happen there?

💬 Hon David Bennett: It’s going to be exported.

And they’re going to be exported. So what’s so special about this land that grows forests? What is it? What is the one thing? And I’d like to hear from the Minister about what in particular—what about viticulture? Why isn’t that exempt? What about kiwifruit? Why isn’t that exempt? Why is every other industry around land, including housing, suddenly sensitive? What is it? And you have to wonder: has it got something to do with a little deal between New Zealand First and Labour?

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Price of power.

Is that the price of power? And what is it that the Greens are agreeing to this for? Would that be, what, the price of a bauble or three? No, four, because there’s four of them, aren’t there—four Ministers. So it’s the price of a BMW, basically, you could say, and a VIP car. That would have to be it. So let’s find out from Mr Parker, in the chair, what is so special, because what about the rest of New Zealand?

When we talk about the “benefit to New Zealand” test—I recall just this evening listening to my colleague Lawrence Yule speaking about Elephant Hill, that excellent vineyard in Hawke’s Bay, with an excellent syrah, I have to say. If only it was larger, there could be more. And yet, you know, New Zealanders who didn’t start their life as New Zealanders—German—came to New Zealand, got themselves involved, bought this property, and made it from nothing, basically, and these are the people that David Parker and his ilk want to punish. So why is that? Why would they want to do that? Because New Zealand is actually built on immigrants. Whether people came in a waka, whether they came on an aeroplane, or whether they came on a ship, it’s built on immigrants, and so what’s so wrong with them?

And he might say, “Well, it’s not that, it’s just that they’re using New Zealand and they’re going off overseas.”, but hang on: the very exemption in this around being able to buy apartments off the plans in New Zealand and keep them, as long as you don’t actually live in them, encourages speculation and encourages overseas landlords. It encourages foreigners to own the properties, and New Zealanders to get to rent them. So what is the purpose of it? And, again, I say, what is the principle behind this?

The principle behind this is power—if that could ever be a principle. The principle behind this is that if you get your seat in Cabinet, then you can do this, and you can stay there, and New Zealand First gave it to them because of it. And the Greens, who have long lectured us about their principles with such sanctimony—oh, I can only just think of Metiria Turei when I say that; such sanctimony—have shown that the price for them is the BMW, and the BMW, for which they are happy to say, “Exempt forests, but nothing else—just exempt forests. Allow people to be foreign landlords in New Zealand for apartments, so New Zealanders can pay for them but not actually own them in that case, but just don’t let those foreigners want to stay here any time.”

I just want to correct an issue that the Hon Judith Collins has the wrong end of the stick on. Forest land is not exempt. Forest land is included. The problem with the existing screening regime was that forest registration rights were not within the regime. They are being now included in the regime—

💬 Hon Member: Didn’t you have to make this point earlier?

—so that we have a common-sense approach across all forestry assets. It’s a similar point to one that was made in an earlier part of the debate in response to an earlier incorrect point by the Hon Judith Collins. So, just to be clear, forestry land is not exempt from overseas screening; it is actually made a coherent regime by including forest registration rights in addition to leasehold and freehold estates in forestry.

Well, that’s interesting that the Minister, David Parker, should just inform the committee that forestry is included in the tests, because, when you read the bill, you see that there are some specific exclusions for people who invest in forestry. It suddenly strikes me that, given 5 hectares is the threshold, all those people in Queenstown and other places where they’ve got these expensive homes—the few hundred throughout the country—they’ll be able to get their price back if they simply plant the near area in trees. The test will simply be that while there’s a residence there, the residence can be there to support the tree operation.

Everyone knows that the Greens have got a tree-hugging programme that’s been going on for years; so of course you’ve got to be close to your trees. Everyone knows that they require a whole lot of husbandry, a whole lot of pruning, and various other things. So there is one of the biggest loopholes that could possibly be seen inside the bill, and I’d like the Minister to tell us whether that’s correct or not. If someone spends an enormous fortune buying a multi-hundred hectare property with a magnificent home on it in the Queenstown district, but they’re only doing it as a residence to support a forestry operation, will that meet the test? According to the bill in front of us, going through those criteria, they would meet the test—pretty simple.

The other thing that I found a little bit fascinating is that it seems it’s possible for foreigners to come to New Zealand, make a commitment to live here, and become tax residents. First question: can people have dual residency? We know the answer to that is yes. Can they have dual tax status? We know the answer to that is yes. If they’re prepared to stay here for 186 days in each year and they want to invest in residential property, then they can become foreign landlords, in our country, to New Zealanders. So this bill, for all that it makes a claim to assist New Zealanders with the opportunity to buy property, simply creates specific opportunities for those with a lot of capital to come in here and continue doing what they’ve always done.

💬 Kiritapu Allan: Different from the houses that are—

So while the member over there, who’s been in the House for 5 minutes and doesn’t have a lot of experience of knowing what tricky Ministers do with bills, might want to mount a case in saying, “No, you’ve read it wrong.”, Madam Chair, as you know, eventually all of these bills, if they become Acts—and it appears that we’re under the jackboot to get it into an Act pretty quick—are interpreted by the court.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Don’t bring me into it.

No, no, I’m not bringing the Chair in; I’m simply pointing to the Chair’s sensibilities around these matters, and know full well that the Chair would understand there’s a degree of pressure going on here that we haven’t seen in the House for a period of time.

The question is: how will a court interpret an application, or a case that comes from, perhaps, a rejected application or otherwise? They’ll go to the legislation and they’ll start making the same conclusions that any reasonable person who reads it will make. I would like to hear from the Hon David Parker to tell us how it is that conditions for consent relating to sensitive land that will be used for forestry activities are going to exclude the sort of scheme that I have spoken of so far. How is it going to stop people who have large acreage—perhaps productive acreage; perhaps vineyards; perhaps beef farms or sheep farms; any amount of horticulture you might like to suggest—simply ripping it all out, planting it in trees, putting it on the market, and making it available to any foreigner who’s prepared to pay the price? Achieving what? Lost production, lost opportunity, probably lost jobs for New Zealanders, and, certainly, none of what is claimed in this bill.

As we’ve said—I’ve said it before and I was saying it when I got cut off last time—there’s still no explanation from the Government as to why, if this bill is so good and the signalling of it has been so good, the price of the yet-to-be-built KiwiBuild homes has gone up so astronomically, from $450,000 to $680,000.

Madam Chair, thank you very much. I’m very happy to take my first call on Part 2.

💬 Hon Member: First of many.

It will be the first of many; I can assure the members of this committee. Part 2 largely deals with issues such as exemptions, processes and pathways, and the like. In respect of that, I want to look at the way in which exemptions are going to be granted, because one of the things that is clear about this legislation in the revised form, as it came from the Finance and Expenditure Committee, is there are any number of ways that the Government can still pick and choose the winners that they want to come in and say are OK. For all the rhetoric about those “nasty tax-dodging foreigners”, as the Minister described them, demonstrating his prejudices once more, they have created more carve-outs, where Ministers—without scrutiny, without transparency, who knows with what process—can pick and choose the foreigners who can come in and buy. Isn’t that interesting? Isn’t that interesting?

We’ll now have this new beast—with this bill—in the Overseas Investment Act called a “standing consent”. Let me tell members of this committee what a standing consent is. That is when a developer goes along to their Minister of choice and says, “Look, I’m a good bloke and I’m doing good things, and it should be all right for me to buy land, because I’m not one of those nasty ones; I’m a good one.” And the Minister says, “I agree, mate, that’s a good idea. Have a licence to go and buy the land you like over X number of years. Fill your boots, my son.” Now, how is that good process, where Ministers will be able to sign off and just wipe away all of this?

This rhetoric—we’ve been hearing so much about how it is outrageous and undermining the fabric of our society and is crucial. Well, guess what? Ministers can pick and choose anyone they like and say, “Oh, but not you, my friend. You can have a consent.” Isn’t it interesting? We’ve already seen the first example of that, haven’t we? I want to say to the Minister in the chair, David Parker, when he talked about how outrageous it was that exemptions could be created, as my colleague Hamish Walker has suggested, for high-value properties which might go to foreigners—that was outrageous, according to the Minister. Well, I’ve got two words for that Minister: Te Ārai.

What was Te Ārai? Te Ārai was an exemption that Michael Wood insisted had to be in the bill despite advice that it was absolutely appalling process, to the extent that the Speaker had to rule it out. That was an exemption to allow two very wealthy developers to sell multimillion-dollar sections to foreigners. They were quite clear about that. They were quite clear about that in the submission. It wasn’t hidden. And the advice to the Minister was that it wasn’t a Treaty issue; there wasn’t a necessity to do that. In fact, they recommended against it. What do we find when we get to the House? The Minister hadn’t even bothered to check whether there was iwi ownership? “Oh”, he tells us, “we have to protect iwis’ Treaty assets.”, when Treasury had told him that wasn’t right, Treasury had told him there was no legal obligation. Treasury advised him not to do it—and by the way, iwi didn’t even own most of that land. What it was was two wealthy developers selling high-end properties on a golf course in Northland to foreigners. That, according to this Minister, was fine. But if Hamish Walker wants to stand up for the people in his constituency, that exemption’s not OK. That is outrageous. It is arrogance, and it leaves me scared for how these processes will be given effect to.

I want to talk about listening, because the Minister in the chair has got up and said we’re not listening—if we would just agree with him, then we’d be listening. I want to tell you who’s not listening: it is this Government and this Minister. They’re not listening to the advice, they’re not listening to the submitters, and they’re certainly not listening to any sort of economic analysis. We’ve just had a debate around “benefit to New Zealand”—that clause is in the legislation, clause 16E. Well, I would say to this Government that you can’t treat New Zealand like a homogeneous whole. We understand, on this side of the Chamber, that regions are different, provinces are different, economies in different parts of the country differ, and there are different factors.

The fact that this Government thinks you can treat all of New Zealand as a homogeneous whole, and not recognise that, shows a couple of things. It shows how little-connected they are to the country, and it shows how few of them have electorate seats and talk to their communities. This is not about a homogenous treatment of New Zealand; this is the Government looking after the people they want to see prosper, and too bad for everyone else. This debate is going to come up again as we go through this part of the bill because, as members will know, there are a large number of amendments on the Table for the committee to debate, and members on this side of the Chamber will speak to each one of those.

Dealing with the Hon Amy Adams’ point about exemptions, the criteria for exemptions are set out in Part 3 of the bill, not Part 2.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the call. It’s been an interesting debate this afternoon and this evening, and I want to focus on Part 2 and really drill down into the detail, because it’s a very important part. Can I just say from the outset, as a bit of a scene-setter, this is a terrible bill. It’s going to have a major impact on investment in New Zealand and, in the particular area that I’m concerned about, its primary sector. We’ve had numerous contributions from the side of the House—very reasoned. Those in the Finance and Expenditure Committee that have heard from submitters that—

💬 Simeon Brown: And listened.

Exactly—and listened. I’m not sure that we’ve heard from the Minister for Trade and Export Growth enough this afternoon and this evening that he has listened. Where is the economic analysis?

💬 Hon Amy Adams: There is none.

Exactly—Amy Adams says, “There is none.” Where is the economic analysis of the impacts of this bill on the New Zealand economy? Zip, nada, nothing. Isn’t that woeful that there’s been no economic analysis done on what this piece of legislation, when it’s, potentially, passed, is going to do the New Zealand economy?

It’s really interesting: earlier on this afternoon, I heard from Mark Patterson, who is the list MP—people probably haven’t heard of him too much—from down south. He likes to portray himself as bit of a farmer, and what he’s lost sight of is that, about 18 months ago, he was a signed-up National Party member, but now he’s on the other side of the House talking about socialism.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Talk to the bill—talk to the bill.

Now, that’s got them chatting away now. Look at him over there—he’s a little bit pink; he doesn’t know where to look, whether to look down or up, and he’s really embarrassed about that. But his speech was, I thought, terrible. It was woeful. It was socialism at its best, and what he forgot was that, in the campaign, his political party that he’s now embraced as his wider family, called New Zealand First—now in Government—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Come to the bill—Part 2.

—they were rallying against the Overseas Investment Office and saying that things needed to be tightened up. Well, I say to Mark Patterson and to New Zealand First that, effectively, now there’s been a carve-out for forestry rights, up to 1,000 hectares—a bit of a sweetheart deal. We still haven’t heard from the Minister as to why this has been allowed, and he’ll stand up and say, “Oh, I’m protecting it.” Well, the reality is, why not go further? What about other parts of the primary sector? Why is there a sweetheart deal for forestry rights? I’ll tell you why—I’ll answer it for you, Minister—that’s because Shane Jones walked into the Cabinet room and said, “I’m not going to get my billion trees planted unless we let these foreign investors come in and plant trees.”

What is lost on Mark Patterson—and he got it big time at the Red Meat Sector Conference in Napier earlier this week, when people came up and kicked him in the shins and said, “Don’t you realise that this policy is going to harm rural communities and, in particular, the red meat sector?” Do you know why? Because these foreign investors will be allowed to come in and invest in run-down sheep farms in the back of beyond, sheep stations, and convert them into forestry—not own them but convert them into trees. Now, Mr Patterson got it in the neck at the Red Meat Sector Conference, and he is now conflicted, because he considers himself a friend of farmers down south, but the reality is, as David Carter said, when his Hansard speech is out there on social media in the next few hours, when it ripples through Clutha-Southland, they will get to see what Mark Patterson is all about.

But, importantly, back to the substance of Part 2, which is all about exemptions, carve-outs, and deals. What I want to know from the Minister is: why is it just forestry? Let’s pick an example. Pick a super-fruit like avocados. Dairy farms are being converted in Northland as we speak, and you would think that this Minister would be encouraging—because he doesn’t like cows, he’s worried about pollution, hates cow cockies. You’d think that he would be aware that horticulture production creates a lot more jobs—so-called better for the environment. He’s nodding his head; we’re all agreed on that. So you would think that if you’re going to have a carve-out for forestry, an exemption, why wouldn’t you have a carve-out for avocados? You know, they generate about $155 million of exports now—indeed, they are a super-fruit: high in potassium, higher than bananas; great for cholesterol; and high in fibre. They are a super-fruit. Why not give a carve-out for avocados? I could go on, but I won’t.

I want to come back to a very important point that I haven’t raised in the debate so far. I’m mindful of David Parker, the Minister. He’s sitting in this chair this evening as Associate Minister of Finance with oversight of the Overseas Investment Office and the Act. It’s really interesting that this bill is going to restrict foreign investment in New Zealand. I’ve talked about the primary sector, and what I haven’t alluded to is that it’s investment downstream and upstream. What I mean by upstream is the investment flows into market as well, because these foreign investors often have networks and relationships in market. But this bill is going to impact particularly on one country that I’m really aware of, our biggest export market, and that’s the country called China. Now, exports to China are worth, what, about $12 billion? This is going to send shockwaves through the Chinese community—it already has. I don’t want to get off message and be told to keep it constrained to Part 2, but remember back when Labour railed against Chinese-sounding surnames, and now they’re restricting foreign investment, and that’s been noted in China. Also, what’s been noted in China in recent times is the Government’s defence strategy position, their policy in the China southern seas.

Then, of course, we have a trade Minister—here’s a question for the Minister: has the Minister for trade visited China since he’s been in his position? This is a straight yes or no question. You would think that David Parker would know. I’m going to make it simpler for him: has David Parker visited China since he became a Minister in 2017? All you need to do is go like this or shake your head—it’s quite simple. I’m going to take the silence as a no—I’m going to take the silence as a no. So we have a Minister of trade, 10 months into a new Government—the largest export market for New Zealand and he hasn’t bothered to visit. I’ll tell you, here’s a factoid for David Parker: there’s been only one Minister that’s visited China 10 months in.

The reason I raise this important point is because, at some point down the track—and it may not be too far away—China will flex its muscles, and we will have product held up on the wharves in China. That is coming just around the corner, in my opinion. They have noticed that this Government doesn’t care about them—our largest export market—

💬 Kiritapu Allan: Relevance.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Actually, that’s for me—OK? That’s for me to decide.

—and this bill here goes further than anyone would expect. The Chinese community—the ambassador, the President, and high-ranking officials—have read this. They know what message this bill sends to them, and that is “We don’t want your investment here. We don’t care about you.” The Minister hasn’t visited China in 10 months in his job as Minister of trade.

I conclude by saying this is a terrible bill. We are going to feel the effects of this not only in the primary sector but across the New Zealand economy for a long time to come. There’s a carve-out deal for New Zealand First and Shane Jones to allow foreign investors to come in and create forestry rights up to a thousand hectares. Why would you give only forestry a special carve-out? Why not other areas? Stuart Smith, earlier on this afternoon, talked about viticulture. That’s obviously all going to go down the toilet as well. There’s going to be no rights for them. This bill is a terrible bill. I’m really disappointed in the Government. We are going to feel the impacts and effects of this bill for some time to come.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like to follow on from that last speech, from Nathan Guy. One of the exceptions in this bill actually relates to a thousand-hectare block. That is an unusual choice of land area that the Government of the day has chosen, because about 85 percent of New Zealand farms are below a thousand hectares—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh, no, it doesn’t have to be continuous.

I know—I know. You can choose a thousand each year.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: No. Aggregate.

Yes. But the thousand-hectare exemption means that the best land in New Zealand will be available for overseas purchase. When you fly over some of the roughest parts of New Zealand, you may think, “Well, maybe some of that could be in forestry.” If you were really a supporter of the Greens and the New Zealand First policy you might think, “Well, some of that land—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Could you look at me, and not say “you”.

Some of that land could actually be very important forestry land. But the best land in New Zealand is, typically, in smaller blocks. Those smaller blocks now have a free-for-all for overseas investment.

Just take an example of a town like Wanganui. As you leave Wanganui, most of the farms are going to be less than a thousand hectares. It is only when you get out into the backblocks that you’re, potentially, going to get the bigger farms. So what we’re going to have is a whole lot of forestry around the town of Wanganui, and then, as you get out to the further, bigger blocks—the blocks which have some erosion and those things—it’s going to stay in grass. Does that help the river systems that the Greens are wanting to do? No, it does the opposite. Does that actually help the productive heart of New Zealand so that you can utilise land in the most successful way? No, it doesn’t. What does it do? All it means is that it gives a fast track for foreign investment in the best parts of New Zealand land. It actually achieves the opposite of what New Zealand First has been saying in this Parliament: that they want to stop foreigners owning land. It enables the best land to go to foreign ownership through giving them a fast track.

So I can’t understand why the Minister chose a thousand hectares. I’d love for him to explain that, because not only is there that thousand-hectare exclusion but you can divide that over two years. So a potential purchaser can do a thousand hectares this year and then a thousand hectares next year. So they can, potentially, cover all blocks of land if they want to and buy a 1,200 hectare block of land and do 600 hectares this first year and 600 hectares next year and evade the rules of this legislation.

This is bad lawmaking. It does not achieve its purposes, even if you believed in what the left had been saying about environmental purposes or any of those other things. Under this exemption in the bill, it actually achieves the opposite. It encourages foreign ownership of New Zealand’s best land. That cannot be the interests that the Government is seeking to achieve. I wonder why they have done that. I believe it is because they have no concept of land in New Zealand. They have no concept of farming. They’ve just picked out a number of a thousand hectares and made it an arbitrary number, not understanding what percentage of New Zealand farmland is actually incorporated in that and not understanding the quality of land that would be incorporated in that. Even if someone did believe the principles that the Government is speaking about, no way would that legislation enable a thousand-hectare exclusion for anything less than a thousand hectares.

So that is something I wish the Minister to actually explain: how he came to that conclusion of a thousand hectares and what it actually will mean in practice and reality. The answer is it will mean the best land in New Zealand has now got a free ride into overseas ownership and New Zealanders will be left with the rest.

I repeat an earlier point that’s been made repeatedly: unless forest registration rights are included in the regime, New Zealand has no future ability to control overseas investment in forest land. By including forest registration rights, New Zealand can now or in the future control overseas investment in forest land. At the moment we want more foreign direct investment in forest land. It is a sector that is reliant on overseas investment and we welcome more of it.

The inconsistency of the Opposition criticisms of this were shown by the last two speakers. The Hon Nathan Guy said that China would be upset because of the signal that we’re sending them in respect of forestry because somehow we were closing it down. Then the Hon David Bennett said that we were loosening it. In fact, what we’re doing is making for a coherent regime by including forest registration rights. We are loosening the overall rules that apply to the screening regime but those rules can be changed again in the future if we or another future Government want to tighten those rules. If we do not include forest registration rights now, we as a country, in practice, lose the ability to do so in the future.

The final point I would make, in respect of China being offended, is that China has their own controls on foreign buyers of their residential land assets and, indeed, they already apply them against New Zealanders in some of their larger cities.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m going to change tack a little bit. I would like to speak to my tabled amendment, which is amending clause 12, which reads: “After clause 12(2), insert clause 12(3):”—which, in section 17(2), inserts section 17(2)(h)—“These factors should be considered in light of any other offers received, including international and domestic offers.”

Now, I urge the Minister in the chair to read this amendment, because it goes to the heart of some of the issues that he raises. I can give examples, from my electorate, of sales through the Overseas Investment Office, applying for approval to get through, putting the ad in the paper, receiving offers—in fact, in some cases, they had offers before it went on the market officially, anyway—and the Overseas Investment Office doesn’t consider those offers. How can you have a market test on whether you’re going to approve a foreign sale or not if you don’t—because, in fact, it has to be that price doesn’t come into it; it is about the net benefit to New Zealand. What’s the benefit to New Zealand from a sale to a foreign owner? It has to be better than the status quo. How do you test that unless you test what the other offers are? Yet, the Overseas Investment Office does not require the vendor to provide those other offers if there are any for consideration.

Surely, Madam Chair and, surely, Minister in the chair, Mr Parker, you should be reading this, because this would dramatically improve the current situation. It’s not good enough to say, “Oh, well, we’re going to have all these magic carve-outs here.” I mean, Te Ārai was just shameful. I really do think anyone, in a constitutional law sense, would be quite horrified by it. I think the Speaker was quite right to rule that out, but I’m surprised it came to that. How did it get to that? I think the Clerk came to the committee, and that was ignored. That’s quite a blot on the select committee chair’s record, really. Has that ever happened before in the—

💬 Rt Hon David Carter: Never. Never.

I don’t think it’s ever, ever happened. I mean it’s a shameful thing. Those people sitting around that select committee table on the other side really have to have a good look at themselves, because what are you? Puppets? They’re not all New Zealand First MPs, surely? They don’t just do the North Korea dancing—you know, we clap loudly and smile all on cue, and make sure you do it quite vigorously, otherwise you get a political assassination! I mean, it’s just quite shameful to see that.

This amendment, Mr Parker, would make a significant difference to this bill. It is a massive change from where we’re sitting today. Have a look at it and consider it. You’re not even looking at it. Just grab it; have a look at it. I think it’s a very important step. I’m trying to be helpful here, and it’s just a shame that they’re not getting it.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: “We’re from the Opposition and we’re here to help”.

Well, I am from the Opposition and here to help, but God knows they need it.

Anyway, I want to turn now to profit à prendre and viticulture—as the Hon Nathan Guy said, I mentioned that before—and how this bill has carved out some things and not others. I think that it’s quite a shocking indictment on this bill as well that they haven’t had a good look at it. I asked questions before—it was actually Eugenie Sage in the chair—which I still haven’t had answers to. What was the advice? On what basis were these decisions made, in these carve-outs in Part 2? What are they?

💬 Hon Amy Adams: An economic analysis.

Well, an economic analysis would be great. It would be some basis at least for these decisions to be made. Normally, you go through a process. You have papers put up. You take advice, surely. It just seems to me that they have some sort of Ouija board or something, where they come up with these magical carve-outs.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Could New Zealand First tell us whether they do it?

Well, they don’t seem to make any sense. You know, there is a slippery slope—and it’s quite a long, gradual slope, I admit—to where there can be a perception of corruption, and I think we’re going dangerously close to this with this bill. It is the very thin end of the wedge here, and I think it’s quite a constitutionally slippery slope that we are going down, and I just really urge the Minister to think about it. He’s better than that. I know you’re trying to do the right thing, Mr Parker, but I think you have got yourself so far down the track that you really can’t back out, and I think that’s quite a shame.

I want to respond to Stuart Smith’s reference to his amendment, which I have read. I took advice from officials, who confirmed my understanding that as a consequence of the law which was clarified by the High Court decision in the Crafar farms case, the fact that a foreign buyer under the existing legislation might be willing to pay a higher price than a New Zealand buyer is not a criteria for consent.

💬 Stuart Smith: I made that point.

Sorry, I heard you saying the opposite—I’m sorry. [Interruption] OK, I apologise. I didn’t mean to misrepresent you. We think that that position at law is correct, and we’re not proposing to change it by this bill. Therefore, we will be opposing your amendment.

💬 Stuart Smith: But that wasn’t my point.

Well, I don’t understand, then, the reason as to why you say that these factors should be considered in light of the international offers, because that would be to, effectively, change the Crafar farm decision in a way that we would disagree with.

In respect of vineyards and pastoral farms, this legislation does not change the law. This legislation has no effect in that regard.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Yes, it does—profits à prendre.

No, it—oh, a profit à prendre.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: That’s what we’re raising.

Well, profits à prendre—the reason profits à prendre are being included is that there have been a small number, but perhaps a growing number, of vineyard transactions that have been structured as the purchase of profits à prendre, rather than freehold or leasehold interests, and we thought that for reasons of regulatory consistency, they should be included in the regime.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s great to have the opportunity to speak to Part 2 of the bill and I hope the Hon David Parker will feel free to circulate this around the good people of Clutha-Southland afterwards. I’m sure I’ll be carried shoulder high by the nurses and the schoolteachers and the good working people of New Zealand as they see us trying to take some measures to help their cause. I would also say—[Interruption] Well, I was called a communist. Maybe being a communist isn’t so bad. I suppose that is a step up on being the “angry hamburger guy” or, as Nick Smith said, “Who?”, but anyway, I am here to talk about the carve-out for forestry.

The ex-Minister Nathan Guy claimed to have seen my Part 1 speech, but, obviously, he did not, because he has totally misunderstood and misrepresented the main drivers of this clause. The reason we are having to take this step is that the National Party, “Paula Benefit”—sorry, Paula Bennett—and John Key liked swanning around on the international stage, signing us up, looking good in front of the great and the good overseas, and they came back with not one plan. In fact, no, that’s not true. They did have a plan. They were going to send $1.4 billion a year overseas to buy carbon credits, to outsource our responsibility, and guess what? A lot of those credits were shonky. They were proved to be shonky. We were paying good hard-working taxpayers’ money for fraudulent electronic transactions that did absolutely nothing.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Part 2.

Part 2 of the bill—Part 2 of the bill. So that is why we have to take these measures in Part 2 of the bill.

Of course, there will be some effects to that. We may lose some farmland to forestry, but I’m sure Mr Bennett would not be converting his dairy farm to forestry. I mean, these people are savvy investors. They are not going to be putting pine trees where they could put avocados, but we may leave some of our land for sheep and beef. So I’m thinking maybe that’s true, but we need to go value, not volume, and we should not be scared of what that measure will take.

So this carve-out for the forestry in Part 2 is an absolutely necessary step for us to take to meet our international obligations. We will not shy away from that. The Minister will not shy away from that. These are the measures we’ve got to take, and we will take them. Thank you.

Well, it’s a pleasure to make a contribution on Part 2, but the first thing I want to say is that that speech that I’ve just heard from Mr Patterson I won’t be circulating to anybody. It was completely incomprehensible. I have no idea what he said. The other thing I just wanted to comment on was the excellent contribution from the Hon Nathan Guy, when he—

💬 Hon Members: The mike’s not on.

No, it’s on. They can hear me. They can hear me. I was just going to make the point that the excellent contribution of Nathan Guy pointing out that the Minister of trade has not yet been to China—I know why. He’s been held back tidying up this mess since he introduced it into this House. He’ll go shortly, as soon as he gets this mess tidied up. But this part, Part 2, is the time when New Zealand First rolled Labour. The bill, as it was introduced—as I made the point earlier—stopped foreign investment and makes it very difficult to invest in any sector. Shane Jones and New Zealand First realised that. They huddled around the Cabinet table and they forced Mr Parker to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) into this House making forestry come into the regime—making forestry come into the regime.

Not only did they do that, but they then made it easier, and I referred to something that no one else has talked about yet: the screening pathways for forestry. Under the existing legislation, there’s a benefit test that incorporates a counterfactual: if it remained in New Zealand ownership, what would the likely benefit be of this going into overseas—

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: All of Northland is foreign-owned forests.

“The Professor” ought to listen to this; he might learn something. First, if it goes into overseas ownership, what is the benefit to New Zealand? It’s called the counterfactual test. It’s difficult, so what the Government’s done with this is, first of all, they’ve modified the benefit test and made that counterfactual analysis a lot easier. But the one that worries me more is for forestry and forestry alone. Shane Jones is smiling over there because he’s managed to get a special benefit test. A special benefit test takes out the counterfactual argument completely, and we said to the official, “So what is this special benefit test about?” and the answer was “We don’t know yet. We’re going to do it by regulation.”

So here we are, and Shane Jones is nodding his head because he knows this is all about the billion trees he’s promised to plant. The original bills would have scotched the idea of planting a billion trees, so up they’ve come, in the last minute, with a Supplementary Order Paper that poor old Mr Parker has got to sit in the chair tonight and stomach, because he never agreed with this—he never agreed with it. Shane Jones rolled David Parker. New Zealand First rolled Labour. They want to see a billion trees a year planted. They need more forestry. So we’ve now lightened the regime for forestry. We’ve given an exemption for up to 1,000 hectares per year. So what that means, Mr Jones, is that before we manage to kick this Government out by 2020, there’s, effectively, three opportunities. We’re talking about guys rorting the system to get 3,000 hectares done and dusted before the next National-led Government can change this legislation.

Having put in the exemption for 1,000 hectares, the next thing Shane Jones argued for, and successfully, was the special benefit test. And the officials can’t tell us what will be in the special benefit test, because it’s going to be done by regulation. So I say to members of this committee: if we don’t manage to stop the legislation passing through, keep an eye on that, because that will be another issue whereby I bet that Provincial Growth Fund—the slush fund—is used around the country, giving opportunity for easy investment by foreigners, easy investment—

💬 Hon David Bennett: And getting paid for forestry credits.

Yes. Absolutely. This is about the Hon Shane Jones rolling the Hon David Parker. It’s neat to watch, but that doesn’t make it right.

Madam Chair, although the hour is late, it required the appearance of the provincial champion.

💬 Hon Members: Where is he?

Let’s deal with a few facts—

💬 Simon O’Connor: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I believe it’s unreasonable to make reference to a member who’s not in the House.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That is not a point of order.

I did preface that remark with “it is late in the evening”. Obviously, the tempers are short and the mentality is shallow on the other side of the Chamber, as reflected by those totally gratuitous remarks.

Number one: what a brilliant provision that strips red tape for a valuable industry. Now, Mr Parker needs to be congratulated in Part 2 for seizing an industry that was riddled with red tape, where forest owners and investors from overseas had given up hope as a consequence of being denied any opportunity to expand the sector, until our MMP coalition Government arrived. So up and down the country, investors who want the sector to grow for climate change purposes, people who value the sovereignty of New Zealand, are applauding Mr Parker for the efforts in Part 2.

Why have we brought forestry rights into this regime? Because, prior to that, they were totally unregulated. And, on the other side of the House, we do not share their zeal for selling the country out to the highest bidder. That’s the ideology of that side of the House. Our side of the House has stood up to ensure that forestry rights are now part of a regulatory regime, whilst at the same time sparing these important overseas investors the hassle of being entangled in red tape.

Now, it’s a curious coincidence that I happen to be the Minister of Forestry. That is just an act of serendipity, which has been applauded by all the forest owners up and down the country. This will ensure that the size of the sector expands—that the size of the lung of the country to absorb all the nasties associated with climate change is funded, where appropriate, by overseas investment. I’ve got no doubt whatsoever that the 1,000-hectare rule will ensure that this roadway to converting land away from negative purposes into growing trees will boost the target of a billion trees.

There is nothing nefarious, there is nothing nasty, there is nothing frightening here—all these half-baked notions that the dairy farms of Matamata are suddenly going to disappear into mānuka or pine tree; no, no. Those subsidies were offered by the other side of the House, not this side of the House. Those subsidies were offered as a consequence of the environment meeting all the costs of dairy farming, and I know there’s a lot of disappointment on the other side of the House that the dairy farms that they drove into being in the Mackenzie country can no longer be hocked off to foreigners. That game is over. There is only one exception, where our climate change credentials will be boosted, not by enabling further international ownership of our dairy farms, which is at the essence of what the other side of the House wants to do—we are going to drive forestry, through appropriate infusions of overseas investment, a refined ETS scheme; all those pleasures await you.

I absolutely claim credit for lobbying my senior colleague to ensure we strip red tape, create something of a primrose path, because 70-odd percent of the crop of exotic forests are already owned internationally. We stood down the members of the iwi leaders group, and said, “Yes, we’ll provide some slack: up to a thousand hectares. After that, the sovereign obligations on all New Zealanders must be imposed on hapū and iwi at the same time.” Now, we are very conscious of those Treaty obligations. That’s why, for those groups who have fewer than a thousand hectares, with an appropriate partner, they are going to join us in ensuring the billion-tree strategy is delivered. We are not going to acquiesce any longer with the wholesale sale and alienation, as the other House has done for the last nine years, of our valuable rural landscape. Those days are over.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve been looking forward to taking another call in this part, because I do have two amendments on the Table, of quite different natures, that I haven’t yet had a chance to speak to. The first of those follows on, actually, quite nicely from what my colleagues and the last speaker, Shane Jones, have been discussing.

We heard from the Hon Shane Jones that this bill is about both protecting New Zealand and, at the same time, stripping away all the red tape. Well, which is it? Are we making it easier or are we making it harder? The answer, interestingly, is both, because if you happen to be forestry, this bill does everything it can to roll out the red carpet and say, “Come on in. Seventy-two percent foreign ownership isn’t enough for the New Zealand First Party. We won’t stop until it’s pretty much all foreign-owned. We’re going to do everything we can to make buying New Zealand land and forestry rights as easy as possible if you are a foreigner, because we don’t stand for red tape. Oh, but by the way, if you’re in any other sector, we want a lot more red tape.”

This is what has been wilfully misunderstood by the Minister in each of his responses to my colleagues’ contributions in this debate. This is around the introduction of profits à prendre—forestry rights for forestry, profits à prendre in other sectors—and why there is an entirely different set of rules for those profits à prendre from forestry than for any other use of land. That question has not been answered. Mr Parker has continued to try and assert we just don’t understand it. We do understand. Both are now in. Forestry, with the most lenient possible set of conditions—a pre-approval checklist, not the counterfactual, and a thousand hectares—

💬 Hon David Bennett: Because they’re going to get paid under the ETS.

That’s exactly right. You get paid under the emissions trading scheme (ETS), as my colleague Mr Bennett says—but a thousand hectares per year before it even counts. Yet what my colleagues are raising is why it is a thousand hectares and no red tape for forestry, but suddenly viticulture, horticulture, avocados, kiwifruit, and pipfruit are all in the regime, and no explanation has been given for that point.

I want to make an important point that hasn’t been made, and that is this: at the moment, if a foreign buyer wants to come and acquire a kiwifruit orchard, let’s say, or a viticulture orchard, or any of these profits à prendre, currently they have to go through the Overseas Investment Office. Actually, National supports that. We’ve never pretended that there shouldn’t be a process to ensure we’re getting that balance right. Now, by bringing profits à prendre in, a foreign investor who might previously have taken a profit à prendre will now say, “Well, I may as well just own the land—same process, same cost. Why take a profit à prendre? I’ll just buy it.” There’s every chance we’re going to see foreign investment numbers go up, because those that are going to invest might as well own it outright. So rather than giving foreigners a pathway where they can invest in the production potential of our land without owning it, this Government has said, “No, no; you may as well just buy it outright.”, and that is ridiculous.

Now, I want to talk about my particular amendment in this space, first of all, and that is around the pipfruit sector. Very much like what my colleague Stuart Smith was talking about in viticulture and what Nathan Guy was talking about with avocados, pipfruit requires long-term investment and development of a block of land, and you want to know you’ve got a secure return. Now, when we come to vote on these amendments, this is really important, because, in this case, the Government themselves have said, “One sector is very different. One of these sectors is not like the others.” So I hope we don’t see a repeat of the sort of argument that they can all be voted on en bloc, because even the Government, in this legislation, has made the point that forestry is special, it has particular interests and rights, and it is very different. Well, if that’s the case, it is vital that each of these amendments is addressed very, very separately, recognising that very same logic.

Now, the second of the amendments that I have in my name relating to this part is an amendment—“4:45 p.m.” I think is the nomenclature we’re using to relate to them—which is around clause 4 of schedule 3. Now, this is an entirely different point. This is around one of the numerous carve-outs and botched quick repair jobs that the Finance and Expenditure Committee was asked to do to this appalling piece of legislation when the Government recognised that they did actually want to have some foreign capital coming into large-scale developments and created exemption certificates for off-the-plan sales.

Now, it was interesting, because Mr Parker, in the media, was quoted as saying, “Well, we’ve now amended it so that you can have foreign capital coming in and sales off the plan if you’re building a large-scale development.” The Minister, in the media, said that would apply to any development of 20 or more dwellings. The media questioned that with him—“Isn’t it just apartments?”—and he confirmed to them, “No, no; 20 or more dwellings.” Well, actually, Mr Parker, if you look in clause 4 of schedule 3, it makes it very clear that that is not the case.

What clause 4 of schedule 3 says is that those exemption certificates that enable a number of sales off the plans only in fact apply where there are 20 or more dwellings in each building—in each building. So, very clearly, it only applies to apartments. Now, I thought, OK, well, perhaps the select committee hasn’t properly interpreted what Mr Parker, the Minister in charge of the bill, actually wanted. So I have—very helpfully, I think—come up with an amendment that changes the bill to say what Mr Parker said it said, which is that, actually, it will enable sales off the plans to large developments.

Unlike the Government, I know, from Ms Collins and others on this side, that we do want to see the housing supply increased. So if Mr Parker is true to his media comments and wants to ensure that large-scale developments will still enable a number of sales off the plans, then I am sure he will want to support my tabled amendment, which just gives effect to that very wording and makes it clear that the clause applies in the construction of one or more buildings, as one development, where the total number of dwellings is at least 20—so not just 20 apartments in every building for it to qualify but at least a total of 20 new dwellings.

That would be a very small step in the right direction, and it would say, actually, the Government recognises that enabling a level of foreign buying off the plans helps the financing of large developments and will see more houses being built. That would be a good thing, and, as I’ve said, that’s certainly the way Mr Parker represented it to the media. I know that’s the case because I rang the journalist and said, “Well, hang on. I was on that select committee. It doesn’t talk about 20 or more dwellings; it talks about 20 or more apartments in an apartment complex.” And the journalist said to me, “No, no, no; I checked that with Mr Parker. He was very clear that it applies to stand-alone developments as well.” Well, that’s very interesting, I thought. But I’m happy to put it right and provide a tabled amendment to make sure the bill does say that.

So, Mr Parker, I’m looking forward to you supporting my tabled amendment that makes it clear that the sales-off-the-plans exemption certificate is going to be available to large-scale stand-alone developments, as you’ve told the media, or, if not, certainly taking a call and explaining why your media comments are different from the wording in the legislation.

But, in closing—in this particular call on this part of the legislation—it is worth referencing the fact that when we’re talking about this carve-out for forestry what we are talking about is the fact that there is a very different track for how a forestry profit à prendre is dealt with to a profit à prendre in any other sector. Now Shane Jones himself—the Hon Shane Jones—has just told this committee very clearly that to not have created that special pathway would have created all sorts of cumbersome red tape. Well, that’s absolutely right. But I want to hear from the Minister why viticulture, horticulture, avocado, kiwifruit, the pipfruit industry, blueberries, and a number of other very distinct industries don’t deserve the same consideration from this Government.

I certainly represent an area, as a number of my colleagues do, where those sectors fight very hard for their survival and their viability. They want the Government to recognise the impost of legislation and compliance cost, and given that the Government has said it can achieve all it wants to with future positioning for forestry with this light touch, why on earth is there such a negative prejudice towards other critical parts of our primary production industry?

It’s not because there is any particular analysis as to why it has to be one way for forestry and not for the rest, because none was sought—none was sought. If nothing else tells you the degree of dismissal, arrogance, and lack of concern from this Government to our primary sector—that, by the way, pays the bills in this country. If the Government cares about nothing else, it should care about the fact that these industries provide the revenue to build our schools and our hospitals and put police on our streets, and to fund cochlear implants. Maybe if they didn’t care so little about these industries and the compliance costs, and could stand up in this committee just once and explain why they don’t care as much about viticulture and horticulture and pipfruit and kiwifruit as they do about trees and tell the owners of those businesses, that would be good.

Responding to the questions from the Hon Amy Adams in respect of the exemptions for large developments that could be made up of dwellings that include single dwellings or multi-unit buildings, that provision is found at clause 20 of replacement schedule 2, which is headed “Exemption for large developments with shared equity, rent-to-buy, and rental arrangements”. The member will see that this can apply where collectively the buildings consist of 20 or more residential dwellings, so I think that deals with that point. In respect of the member’s—

💬 Hon Amy Adams: That’s all I was asking about.

Well, that’s why we’ll be voting against your amendment to schedule 3—because it’s unnecessary.

In respect of the various amendments that have been brought forward for exemptions for activities less than 1,000 hectares, which are photocopied with different fruit types put in them, I would make the point, in addition to those that the Hon Shane Jones has already made, I don’t know of one strawberry farm of 1,000 hectares in New Zealand. I don’t know of one kiwifruit activity of 1,000 hectares. I don’t know of one cabbage farm of 1,000 hectares. I don’t know of one blueberry farm of 1,000 hectares. I don’t know one strawberry farm of a thousand hectares. There may be the occasional apple farm of up to a thousand hectares, and maybe there are in respect of viticulture, but they would be enormous operations in respect of those fields of endeavour in horticulture, and I would absolutely oppose there being such a high threshold for those activities.

In respect of the 5-hectare rule being applied in profit à prendre in horticulture, that 5-hectare limit was chosen because that’s the existing limit in respect of freehold and leaseholds in respect of those classes.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak on the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill, specifically the amendments in my name relating to a new clause 8A in the Schedule 3 inserted by Schedule 3—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Let me guess: raspberries.

—of which there are two, in fact; one on the subject of strawberries. So Mr McAnulty’s guess was not too far wrong; he’s used to receiving raspberries, no doubt. But, in fact, it’s literal strawberries that I refer to, and, indeed, literal apples as well. Comparing strawberries and apples, I know, is not good practice, any more than comparing apples with oranges. But, nevertheless, in The Beatles theme of Apple Records and Strawberry Fields Forever, I’ll push on with my amendments.

I should prefix my remarks by noting that the Helensville electorate is so prominent in producing strawberries and apples that it’s almost a conflict of interest for me to be speaking to this subject in the Chamber tonight. I’m aiming to ensure that the debate on Part 2 is not fruitless—as many of my colleagues are, as well. So, if time allows, I will speak about the mechanics of how I see this amendment—in fact, times two—in my name playing out. But, before that, I would like to focus on the reason that I have put forward these amendments. There are a number of different reasons that this should be contemplated seriously by the Minister, and I encourage him to take a call and explain that he will, indeed, do so; or, in fact, if he’s not, the reason for that.

The reasons that I am putting forward these proposed amendments to the legislation include, first, employment. Employment in my area, and, indeed, throughout New Zealand, is a very important aspect of economic growth, and the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill should contemplate that very seriously as one of its primary aims.

Second. Appropriately, secondary business opportunities that will arise from allowing the exemption that my amendments put forward—in particular those who service the production, the growing, and the distribution, and so forth of strawberries and apples—will be encouraged by allowing such industry to flourish in a way that my exemption will allow.

💬 Third: taxation. The income tax and GST opportunities that will arise from allowing this kind of activity—again, as I say, encouraged by the placement of this amendment—are such that the Government should take it seriously, particularly in an environment where business confidence is already falling. I don’t want to stray too far from this bill, particularly Part 2 thereof, which we’re currently debating, but suffice to say there is a broader context for encouraging the Government to take seriously initiatives that will, in fact, have a healthy effect on their books—no pun intended—and not a detrimental one, as we are seeing far too often in respect of other matters before the House.

Similarly, my fourth point is the encouragement of skills. It’s no mean feat to run a successful operation for strawberries, apples, or producing other produce—if you’ll allow the tautology at this time of night.

Fifth. A major benefit is the strawberries and apples themselves. I feel as though that’s almost so obvious that it barely needs saying. I’m reminded of the benefits of the space programme, once said to be the invention of Velcro, ballpoint pens, and, indeed, space shuttles. It’s such an obvious thing to have arisen from promoting strawberry and apple picking, like space shuttles as an aspect of the space programme. But let us not forget that the primary aim of such an amendment is to produce such wonderful products for the benefit of our nation.

Sixth, and finally, in relation to this particular amendment: investment. Investment will be allowed by this. This is exactly the kind of thing that should be encouraged by the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill. The clue’s in the name. It should do what it says on the tin and not discourage investment from overseas. So I’ll just briefly note that the way that my amendment intends to achieve all these worthy objects is by establishing an exemption whereby an apple activity or a strawberry activity—depending on which of the amendments one is looking at at the time—will be established where the activity will take place on less than 1,000 hectares.

And it sets out very clearly, first, that consent will not be required to the extent that that would result in—[Time expired]

There have been numerous questions raised in the committee this evening that, essentially, relate to section 16 of the bill. There have been numerous examples given by members on this side of the Chamber as to how it is possible to drive a bus through some of these provisions.

Debate interrupted.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Appropriation (2018/19 Estimates) Bill without amendment and progress on the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.