Overseas Investment Amendment Bill (No 3)

I move, That the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill.

This is the second of two bills that, between them, cover the territory that was in the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill (No 2), which was introduced on 19 March 2020, which has been sitting before members of the House now for close to two months. That bill, as I previously described, has, effectively, been split into two parts. One part was in the last bill and the other part is in this bill. The only addition to the first part was this new, lower screening threshold during the COVID period. In terms of briefings being offered to the members, briefings were offered when it was originally tabled, but, of course, COVID interrupted and—through no fault of the Opposition or anyone else—those briefings weren’t given. And they weren’t re-offered until earlier today, when we had been re-meeting under level 2, for reasons that the members understand as to where those briefings have to be.

On this side, we believe that the changes already outlined in the prior bill, plus the changes that are in this bill, together with the prior reforms that we had during this term of Parliament, are a suite which improve the integrity of our foreign investment screening regime. If I could just recap on the changes that we’ve already had: we introduced new screening requirements for foreigners buying residential homes, which, from the point of view of the Government, was necessary to ensure that the housing market is set by New Zealanders for New Zealanders, and not by foreigners who don’t live here.

The second thing we did was we reformed the overseas investment regime for forestry, and we did two things there. Firstly, we screened forest registration rights, as the Rt Hon David Carter mentioned, because they previously weren’t screened by the scheme and it was being used as an avoidance mechanism and, effectively, meant that the forest regime was ineffective. At the same time, we simplified processes for forestry, because, although we wanted to have a screening regime for the future, we wanted to encourage more investment in forestry, which we did by enabling a more permissive screening regime for all classes of forestry.

The combined changes of the Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill that we’ve just put to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, plus those prior changes, plus this bill, complete that package of reform. And I’m confident that these bills combined will not only leave us well positioned to navigate through this current crisis but, in the long term, they support the sustainable and productive investment that we need to improve New Zealanders’ living standards.

While we’ve sought and been given by the House permission to have a short select committee period for the urgent measures bill, because we need that to pass into law quickly—and I would again remind the House that Australia did that by statutory regulation overnight, and Canada and Europe have already done it—my intention is that the select committee and Parliament be able to fully consider this bill in a normal select committee process, a full process. And that will include interaction of the parts of this bill with the parts of the urgent bill that remain, i.e., the national interest test. So we want the select committee to have the full time under the second bill to properly consider all of those details of the national interest test, because I agree that they are worthy of that scrutiny. The only difference between the No. 2 bill that’s been there for two months and these two bills combined is actually the short-term intervention in respect of COVID that takes the threshold down to zero for that COVID period.

As prior speakers on both sides of the House have noted, overseas investment does benefit New Zealand. It creates jobs, brings new technology, boosts productivity, drives growth, brings international connections, and our economy is built on openness to trade and productive investment, and the Government wants to ensure that this continues. At the same time, we know that some overseas investment can bring risks or disadvantages, and we think it’s appropriate that the overseas investment regime can manage these. In respect of the survey that I think one of the members was referring to when he said that New Zealand’s international rules relating to overseas investment are already quite strict, that is only true in respect of land-based investments. It’s actually not true in respect of business investments.

The balance that we need is, of course, always a matter for debate, and we think the balance is not currently right. This particular bill has two main parts. Firstly, it codifies into the primary Act the effect of existing regulations about investments in rural land, and we think that it’s appropriate that that sit in primary legislation rather than be able to be changed by Ministers from Government to Government by statutory regulation. It is, of course, the right of any Government to change those, if they can convince Parliament that they should, but we think they should have to come to Parliament to make those changes, rather than do it by statutory regulation, and I’ll give a point to illustrate why that’s necessary.

Following the controversies when the Rt Hon David Carter—I’m not sure if you were still Minister of Agriculture at the time, or whether you were in the Chair, but there were controversies around the sale of the Crafar Farms to overseas interests. At the time, the National Party said that, in response to the public outcry, they were going to make it harder to buy rural land, and they introduced a rule that they said was going to achieve that purpose. What it said was, through a side letter they sent to the Overseas Investment Office, please look favourably and approve applications to buy farms up to 10 times the size of that type of farm. So you could buy 10 times the size of an ordinary dairy farm, get approval, and then get turned down on the 11th. You could do the same with sheep farms, or sheep and beef farms. Now, we thought that that was really pulling the wool over the eyes of New Zealanders, and didn’t think that was right. We removed that, we changed the letter of expectations, but we’re now saying that those changes and the existing regulatory standards should, in effect, be brought into the primary Act.

The second thing it does is it has further measures to cut red tape to streamline the process for most people investing in New Zealand, which will help our attractiveness. In terms of the red-tape cutting, we’re building greater flexibility into the consent process for both prospective and repeat investors of good character. This will enable investors to complete transactions more quickly, with lower compliance costs, having met the simplified good character relationships, either as part of previous transactions or in advance of a current transaction. We’re removing short-term leases and some other less-than-freehold interests in land from screening. As I’ve said in respect of land, we don’t really think that there’s any economic benefit in selling our farmland to overseas interests. We think that our farmers are amongst the most efficient in the world, and it’s interesting that most of us, at the moment, are very thankful that our farming industries and our farm processing industries, which are dominated by New Zealand ownership, are actually still performing for us through COVID. I think we should reflect on the fact that the status quo is actually performing very well for New Zealand, and that we ought not to put that at risk by selling land-based assets overseas.

So this codifies those positions rather than lets a future Government, by regulation, effectively by stealth, after not having campaigned on the issue—just doing it by Government regulation in a way that would cause more of our farms to be overseas-owned and for us to be tenants in our own land. There are some changes in there relating to bottled water on sensitive land, where discretion is allowed to ensure that there’s not going to be an impact on water quality and sustainability.

In conclusion, we think that, as always, the role of productive investment is important to lifting New Zealand’s wellbeing and productivity. I actually agree with some of the comments that were made by the Hon Gerry Brownlee—that we have to be careful that we don’t become so restrictive that distressed assets can’t be sold when there’s a proper reason to do so. But we also need to be careful that we have the appropriate protections in so that the Governments of the day can protect the national economic interest as they see it, as part of their right to govern. I recommend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So here we are with the second of the overseas investment bills, and the National Party will again support this bill to the select committee for further consideration. Look, we’re supportive particularly of the elements of this legislation that aim to make it simpler for people to make productive investments in New Zealand.

So, just for people tuning in, if we go right back to where we get jobs and growth from, and opportunities for New Zealanders, fundamentally most of those jobs and opportunities come from somebody, somewhere, making an investment—an investment in a new business. To rebuild their business, to start a business, to grow their business, to take a chance, to take a risk, to be entrepreneurial, and to get ahead, ultimately, you have to invest some money.

As we’ve seen today in this Budget, where New Zealand has fallen into a colossal economic hole initiated by this virus, and we’re now looking at, you know, new debt of up to $140 billion—extra $80,000 per household—and unemployment rising, we’re in desperate need of economic growth and opportunities, and so we’re in a desperate need for investment. Now, there are only two places you can get investment from: either domestically—that is, from New Zealanders—or/and the rest of the world. Now, if we rely entirely on domestic savings for investment, well, that’s fine, but we’ll grow quite slowly because there’s not that much of it. So if we want to grow faster and if we want to have more opportunities, we need to get money from the rest of the world—which is what we do, and which is what we’ve done for the history of this country for a very long time.

💬 Hon Member: He’s on to it. Since Kupe.

That’s right. It’s what has led to the growth of this country.

So, in the meantime, in response to concerns particularly around land and around sensitive land, sets of rules have been developed to ensure that when overseas interests purchase sensitive land in New Zealand, in particular, they have to go through a series of hoops. Now, obviously, nobody can take the land away, and so the land will always remain there, but a lot of New Zealanders have been concerned about our ownership and direction over land across the countryside. You can argue about the merits of that. There are benefits in terms of having some sense of comfort that we’re not going to be tenants in our own land—the fear that many people have. Against that, of course, these rules become very tedious and cumbersome and difficult to negotiate.

The practical reality of the current laws is that because they are so difficult—and particularly because they’re so hard to predict the outcome of those laws—when an international investor is considering buying something in New Zealand, or has an interest in New Zealand which involves lots of landholding, then it becomes very complicated and very time-consuming. Now, the logical outcome of that is that many foreign investors who could be investing in this country, providing jobs and opportunities for New Zealanders, will throw up their hands and say, “It’s all too hard; I’ll go somewhere else”. Because there’s a whole world out there of places where you can invest; you don’t have to invest in New Zealand, and if we make it too difficult and too complicated, they won’t.

So this bill does some things that will make it easier—in particular, no longer requiring low-risk transactions to be screened. Now, obviously, we in the National Party would like this to go further, but it’s saying that investments in less sensitive land that are only screened because land adjoins land that is sensitive in its own right won’t need to be screened. You would think that would be pretty obvious. So we’re protecting sensitive land, but under the current regimes, if you happen to be dealing with land that’s next to sensitive land, well, then that gets caught up in the system, which is terribly cumbersome.

Then we’ve got: it affects many New Zealand companies and people. We think of New Zealand companies—like Fletcher’s, for example—but because there’s a certain amount of international shareholders over a particular threshold, that gets caught up in the regime. So they have to go through hoops every time they want to purchase land and move around.

This legislation also excludes leases for less than 10 years, which, again, we’d prefer that to go further. But at least it makes it a little bit easier and removes a section of transactions from this whole cumbersome process. It also streamlines various other processes, and so forth.

So to the extent to which this bill streamlines the process a little bit, we are supportive of that. We notice that there are some elements to this bill which go the other way and are somewhat vague—I’m referring to some reference to Māori cultural values and wāhi tūpuna. So it will be very important that we have some clarity about exactly what that means so that people who are sort of contemplating purchasing things consider that. The information required to be disclosed regarding the tax structure and tax treatment probably is useful and helpful.

The final point I’d make is that we’re at a time now where there will be many businesses across the country that are shaky—in fact, could be about to fall over and New Zealanders are about to lose their jobs. There will be examples where there will be people around the world prepared to invest in those companies and put some money into those companies because they think they’re fundamentally good businesses, they need to get through a very difficult spell where they haven’t been able to sell any products, get any revenue, and they just need some capital injection to get through the next couple of months. If we make that too difficult because of these laws—this one and the previous one—then we could be costing more jobs. We’ve had a Budget where tens, indeed hundreds, of billions of dollars have been thrown at the task of trying to save jobs and help the New Zealand economy. If we’re passing legislation that goes in the opposite direction, that would be, obviously, highly counter-productive.

So we’ll be looking very closely at this bill as it goes through the select committee. We are hopeful and, indeed, confident that by the time that it comes out of the select committee there will be a different Government and we’ll have a good chance to scrutinise this and make sure that it does the best job possible in order to provide the opportunity for New Zealand companies to get the capital they need to provide jobs and opportunities for New Zealanders. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I wish to speak to several points in respect of this bill. The Overseas Investment Amendment Bill (No 3) is the second overseas investment bill we have considered this evening, and I will look forward to working on both of them as they progress through the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

I want to speak to a point that’s been raised both in respect of this bill and in respect of the previous bill, and that is how to deal with businesses which are, like businesses worldwide at the moment, facing tough times, finding it hard to get through. Businesses that could survive just with a bit of a hand—a bit of overseas investment is the particular case that we’re looking at here. The line that has been taken by some people in this House is they said, “Well, hang on a second, if we’re not going to have overseas investments, we’ll be sacrificing jobs, and those are much needed jobs.” Indeed, we’ve had a Budget today which has worked on jobs, so there’s real focus on it. But that is to imply that all overseas investments would necessarily be turned down, and they won’t. What overseas investments of any particular scale need to pass is a test of whether they are not in the national interest. May I suggest that it would be quite straightforward to argue that an overseas investment that supports and creates jobs is indeed in the national interest. It is not actually a problem that it goes through a test first, because that is a fairly straightforward test to pass.

We have seen in recent months cases where people who have bought assets in New Zealand with Overseas Investment Office approval have been required to sell those assets because they made commitments about what they would do with the properties they bought and then didn’t fulfil them. So quite properly, they were asked to then sell the assets. What this suggests is that our overseas investment process is, in many respects, working, but there are some aspects of it that we need to tidy up and that we need to do better. We can do it faster, we can do it better, we can cut some of the unnecessary red tape around it, but we do not want to cut all the hurdles—we do not want to cut all the hurdles. Why? Because we do want to protect our assets. We do want to protect the values of New Zealand. We do want to protect those things that are precious to us, such as our most valuable land, such as our wonderful natural assets, such as our water, which will be covered in this bill. We do want to give due regard to the values that come to us from the tangata whenua and make sure that they are respected. They may not be easy things to do, but they are things we ought to try to do.

Now, this bill will require things, if it goes through, like that overseas investment in farmland will be required to bring a substantial benefit to New Zealand before they can acquire farmland. That seems to me to be a reasonable thing, but let’s talk about that in the select committee. It will ensure that before overseas persons can bottle water on sensitive land, if it goes through, that we’ll need to consider the impact on water quality. Will it have an adverse effect on water quality? It would be a test that an overseas investor would need to pass.

So what we’re trying to do is make it easier in some respects for overseas investors, but not so easy that overseas investors need to have no regard for our values. That is what this bill is attempting to do. I’m sure that the select committee process will refine it. Even though, as I recall, members on the Opposition voted against the previous overseas investment bill that we had towards the start of this Parliament, they nevertheless worked to refine the bill in the select committee in what was an excellent process. I hope that process will be replicated as we examine this bill in the months ahead. I commend this bill to the House.

The National Party is supporting this bill to select committee. We support anything where there is at least an intention to streamline processes, but most attempts at streamlining processes, I’ve noticed over the years, tend to actually make them worse. But isn’t that the rule of good intentions? That’s a bit harsh, but it’s probably true. We think it’s a good idea to no longer have to require investors to carry out a full screening process once they’ve already been screened and approved for an investment. These are the sorts of things that add a lot of time and cost, and actually time is money when you’re paying for the time of your lawyers and your advisers.

It’s also important, I think, to—and having listened to the member who’s just resumed her seat, Deborah Russell—you know, there’s nothing in here, when I’ve looked through, about property rights or any concept that once one owns property, actually one owns property rather than simply then everyone else gets a say about what you do with that property. I know it’s currently a foreign idea, this concept of property rights, and I can see my good friend Eugenie Sage sitting up in horror at the concept of it. But actually, surely, when people pay for land, they pay for land. But we’re very aware that people want to make sure that some assets remain in New Zealand and that New Zealanders get a fair opportunity to partake of the wonderful natures of our country and assets.

But I do sometimes think that there’s a tremendous amount of worry about what might happen when, actually, as I look around the Parliament, most of the people here are children of immigrants. Some are immigrants themselves, grandchildren of immigrants, in some cases, many decades back. But, actually, people come to New Zealand to get ahead in life and we’re a very long way from anywhere else. So bringing in whatever we do in relation to overseas investment, we need to understand that overseas investment is generally a good thing. There’ll be some instances where it hasn’t worked out well for the country, and I think that those need to be acknowledged, but, actually, mostly it’s a good thing. Because one of the things with a country of our population of a mere five million people, smaller than Melbourne, in an area larger than the United Kingdom—the one thing we really lack, apart from people, is we actually lack capital. And that capital holds us back.

We get often very proud of the fact—we like to talk about the No. 8 mentality that we have to get things fixed; it’s actually quite a sad indictment on the fact that we don’t have enough money to buy what we should have bought in the first place. That is, I think, one of the sad things with this, but generally we think it’s a good idea to try and streamline the processes.

I’m not sure that everything in here is going to be treated with universal acclaim by the National Party, but we’ll give it a fair opportunity to go to select committee. We think the select committee process is far too short. These are very important and serious issues, and they shouldn’t be just rushed through in a very shortened process in the select committee—which the current Government decried every time it happened when we were in Government, and suddenly it’s all OK to do that.

I guess we should be very grateful that at least in the select committee we’ll have an opportunity to talk about the details. At least we will be able to have some submissions from the public, and we would like to hope that people who are actually involved in investment in New Zealand, or people who are trying to get some investment into their businesses so they don’t have to sell them or actually just close their doors on them, will want to be able to give submissions on it.

I went for a walk yesterday—I’m sure you all want to know about this—around Wellington Central, a nice long walk, and I thought there was nothing open, really, apart from a couple of places selling a few cups of coffee to people as they wandered by. It was so empty and eerie, it was like I was expecting some tumble weeds to come racing down the street. It was so empty. I hope it’s better today; because I’ve been so busy here all day, I haven’t had a chance to go out. But I really do think we need to get ourselves, basically, into the real world. We need money in this country and we need it fast, so let’s not be silly; let’s help this bill get through to the select committee and let’s actually have some streamlined processes, and let’s hope that for once they actually do work.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m looking forward to having this bill come before the Finance and Expenditure Committee, mainly because this is something that New Zealanders are really passionate about: making sure that everything that we have here in New Zealand is protected for us as New Zealanders. And it shouldn’t be seen in isolation: in fact, this Government has done a lot of work. In terms of screening housing and in terms of forestry, we’ve done a lot of work to make sure that New Zealanders are proud to say that, actually, New Zealand is for New Zealanders. But we can’t turn away the thought that, in fact, overseas investment does in fact benefit New Zealand. We get to take advantage of some of the new technologies that overseas investment brings. Some of our productivity is driven by that overseas investment. So we don’t want to shut it out, but we do absolutely want to control it, and why shouldn’t we, because we set the rules.

One of the things that I’m looking forward to most about this bill coming before our select committee is the protection that it’s going to afford land and our natural assets. Now, those of us that have electorates which span the Eastern Bay of Plenty know that in fact there has been a lot of heartache, especially around water and the Overseas Investment Office. In fact, there have been applications from overseas companies to buy up sections of land which has beautiful pristine springs on it, and, in fact, it’s brought a lot of grief to Māori communities in the Eastern Bay of Plenty especially. I want to especially mention Ngāti Awa and also Ngāti Manawa as well, who were thinking about embarking on water bottling as their way of economic freedom. But, in fact, what this bill is going to do is it’s going to make sure that if there are applications that come in to buy tracts of land where overseas persons are looking to bottle our water, then, actually, Ministers will need to consider the impact of that proposal on water quality and also sustainability. They will have to make sure that it is in the best interests and the benefits of New Zealanders.

So this is a really good bill. It’s long overdue—long overdue—and I know that when I go back to my electorate, I’ll be talking to a lot of our Māori communities who feel really passionate about the water-bottling issue, and I’ll be able to say that this Government is absolutely doing something to make sure that we’ve got some structure in place so that our land and our water isn’t taken from underneath our noses. So I absolutely commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I note with interest how you’re keenly observing this debate tonight, which I must compliment you on.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Flattery will get you everywhere.

Yes, that’s correct. I just say to the member who’s resumed his seat, Tamati Coffey, when he returns back to his electorate, probably on Saturday morning, I hope someone in his electorate and particularly on his marae might ask him the question: why is it that the Government, which he is obviously part of, pass legislation that allowed foreign investors to buy up to a thousand hectares of land without any Overseas Investment Act requirements? They were loosened under the bill that he was a select committee member on. And so when he talks about protecting New Zealand land, the very Government that he’s part of made it much, much more permissive for foreigners to buy New Zealand farmland. This issue needs to be in the context of understanding that 72 percent of forestry land and forests in New Zealand is currently and already owned by foreigners. So why was his Government prepared to allow and open it up even more, when he’s just given a speech saying that he wants to make sure that land is better protected? There is a total contradiction.

We know why it occurred: because one of his support partners required it. It is outrageous for the Government members to stand up and try and say that they are better protecting land, when they are allowing thousands and thousands of hectares to be bought by foreigners and to wait—it may not even be planted immediately, but eventually will end up in forest, with all the downsides that then happens when already 72 percent of forests in New Zealand are owned by foreigners. I just think there is a lack of concurrence and clarity around what they are trying to achieve. This bill does some improvements; I accept that. But there is still that total illogicality of what went on last year.

The other thing I find about this overseas investment bill, and I’ve spoken on it a few times already—the thing I find about the Government’s attitude to overseas investment is this paternalistic approach. So if I’m an entrepreneur and I decide that I’m going to set up a new business, and I might have to buy a facility with a bit of land on it and I take all the risks of setting up a brand new facility, all the financial risks, all the market risks—I might mortgage my house to do it, which is the normal way that people start—and I get over many, many years to a situation where it is a substantial business and a foreign investor wants to come in, somehow the members on that side, the Government members, think that they have the right to say, “Well, you know that business that you took all the risk on and we as the Government didn’t do anything about it or didn’t support you, you did it of your own right?” Somehow, under certain circumstances, you want to say that that business is so important that some Minister—and we don’t even know who the Minister might be; it might be David Parker today and it might be someone after 19 September—probably with very few commercial skills, sitting in Wellington, now has the divine right, and it is a divine right in the sense that he or she can decide whether or not you can sell that business to a foreigner. That paternalistic attitude around it I find slightly grating.

So, as I’ve said before, we will support this, but I find the way that the Government members talk about this bill, and the righteousness that they’ve been espousing about these overseas investment bills when there are clear areas where you could drive a bulldozer through, is not appropriate, and I think if you want to do it, do it properly. That’s why it’s important that all these bills should be heard and properly considered over time, and not rushed through this House just because we think we need to do something under urgency.

E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. Thank you, Madam Speaker. In terms of the National Party and the Opposition that it has had previously—and the House spent over half an hour, I think, around the shortened select committee process—what some of the members didn’t seem to realise there is that with the previous bill, the Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill, yes, that is going through a shortened process, but the fact that this bill, the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill (No 3), is going through the full select committee process means that if there are any changes that are made in the urgent measures bill which are problematic, then they can potentially be addressed through this bill.

That was one of the reasons that the Green Party was happy to support urgency for the previous bill—and also because, given the COVID crisis, given the financial hardship and economic distress that some firms are under, it is critical that the emergency measures and the requirement for any transactions that will seek to have a greater than 25 percent share being overseas owned be notified to Government, go through that 10-day quick assessment process, and, if there are significant issues that relate to national interest, then the Minister of Finance can consider that in a more detailed way.

In terms of this bill, the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill (No 2) that was introduced into the House in March is being withdrawn, and this one is taking its place.

The Hon Judith Collins talked about streamlining. This bill makes a real effort to streamline the process by which applications are considered. It does things like introducing a much better test for character. It deals with the whole issue of the way that that is assessed and makes it more efficient to do that. It also provides for a regulation-making power which enables the Government to introduce an emergency notification regime if needed at any time in the future, if we need to respond to a future emergency.

One of the key things, though, that is really important about this No. 3 bill is the fact—and Minister Parker outlined it as well—that at the moment the ministerial directive outlines the criteria which are to be taken into account when Government assesses whether there’s a substantial and identifiable benefit from an overseas person buying farmland. We know that New Zealand farmers are amongst the most efficient in the world. There is really a significant benefit for an overseas person coming in and buying farmland. So in this bill those criteria will become statutory, rather than just being in a ministerial letter. So any overseas applicant will have to demonstrate a substantial point of difference in the likely level of economic benefit or oversight or participation by New Zealanders if they want to receive consent for that purchase.

One of the other issues that this bill strengthens—again, recognising that it is a privilege for an overseas person to own land in Aotearoa New Zealand—is the requirements around advertising. That’s to ensure that any New Zealanders wanting to buy a farm get an opportunity to see it being advertised—because there have quite often been some retrospective applications for consents when those advertising requirements haven’t always been fully implemented. So this is updating this requirement, ensuring that it can be done on electronic media as well as in print media, and just strengthening that requirement.

The other issue where it’s making a significant improvement is in relation to completing the Queen’s chain by requiring that areas of foreshore and seabed and riverbed can be transferred to the Crown when the adjacent land is sold to an overseas purchaser.

As Tamati Coffey mentioned, the issue of water bottling and overseas companies taking water from Aotearoa and exporting it without paying anything for that water is a hot button issue for New Zealanders. This bill, largely because of the advocacy of Green colleagues, is about enabling decision makers to consider the impacts of investments where an overseas company or person is wanting to buy land and that land has a water right attached to it that could be used for water bottling.

Similarly, it is bringing the legislation up to date and requiring much clearer consideration of issues around tikanga Māori and mātauranga Māori so that that is more of a factor—those cultural values—in decision making.

It’s a significant improvement. The bill represents a lot of the consultation that was done on the phase two changes to the Overseas Investment Act—recognising that phase one was about reducing speculation, particularly by overseas owners in our housing market; stopping that happening—and working to implement a number of quite practical changes to improve the process and to ensure that the environmental benefits of investment can also be better considered.

So the Green Party supports this bill, is pleased that the Opposition is supporting it going to select committee, and has every confidence that the Finance and Expenditure Committee will give it very serious and thorough consideration. We’d also like to particularly acknowledge all of the officials in Land Information New Zealand, the Overseas Investment Office, Treasury, and other Government agencies who have worked incredibly hard over a short period of time in response to COVID in taking apart, really, the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill (No 2), putting some of the measures into the urgent measures bill and the other ones into this. So I really congratulate and thank them for their work and commend the bill.

As has been mentioned by previous National speakers, we will support this legislation, the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill (No 3), to the select committee. But the first question I have, that hasn’t been addressed by any member in the House tonight—and I want the next Labour member to rise and address this question—is why, if it’s going to a select committee for a full six months, is it having to be passed under urgency tonight? Duncan Webb shakes his head. He hasn’t got a clue. But I’m going to tell him the answer. I’m going to tell him the answer. It’s because there’s nothing in the Budget that the Government wants to debate tonight.

It’s the biggest-spending Budget we’ve seen in the history of New Zealand, but it lacks detail, so they’ve had the shortest-possible debate today on the Budget. They’ve slammed it down, they’ve put the House into urgency, and, suddenly, the second piece of legislation we’re discussing, the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill (No 3), is off to a select committee for a full six months, to come back after the election. So why do we have to do it in urgency tonight? There’s no possible—Duncan Webb’s ready to rise to his feet. I’m going to look for the answer. I’ve already given him the answer. He’ll fluff around the edges, trying to give an excuse as to why. The only reason is this Government doesn’t want us here tonight analysing the Budget.

The second point I want to note is why does the Hon David Parker hate foreign direct investment? He’s been the Minister for Trade and Export Growth now for 2½ years, and this is now the fourth piece of legislation he’s brought to the House to make it tougher for foreign direct investment in New Zealand—the fourth piece of legislation he’s entered into the House. For the first one, Duncan Webb sat in the select committee. Lots and lots of submissions. We worked on it for months. Good submissions, particularly the ones that had an association with New Zealand First: Conrad Properties, the forestry industry. We brought in substantive amendments through the select committee process, to get a better bill.

It was interesting, for me, how they introduced this legislation restricting foreign ownership of land at the same time the Hon Shane Jones was trying to push his tree programme. He’d been asleep at the Cabinet meeting that pushed the legislation through and suddenly realised he was in trouble with these overseas investors, so they passed a Supplementary Order Paper at the very last minute making it easier—easier—for foreigners to come in and buy our farmland, provided they’re planting it into trees. A thousand hectares: it’s easy to buy. If you’re a foreigner, it’s easy to buy a thousand hectares, provided you’re putting it into trees. And consequently, we’ve seen good farmland coming out of sheep and beef production, going into trees supported by a subsidy to plant those trees, all because the Hon Shane Jones went around at the last election with his mate the Rt Hon Winston Peters talking about a billion trees.

When I look at the main purposes of the legislation, it enables a higher threshold for acquiring farmland, reflecting its economic significance and cultural importance. I’m actually at the very liberal end of foreigners coming into this country and buying farmland. I’ve observed a number of farms in Canterbury that have been run by farmers over generations who, coming to the end of their farming life, put it up for sale. It’s been bought by somebody who is a foreigner, but they’ve come in with substantial investment. They’ve hugely improved the farm. They’ve employed more people. As I drive around in Canterbury I look at those farms, and they’re far more productive. They’re far more attractive to look at than what they were under the previous owner. Many of them have been bought by Americans—not a lot of issue there. Many of them have been bought by Australians—not a lot of issue there. But if they’re bought by an Asian, particularly a Chinese: outrage from the community, outrage from Labour, outrage from New Zealand First. There’s a word for that, and it begins with “R”.

The second main purpose of this legislation, it says, is to enable decision makers to consider the impacts of investment involving water bottling. The Hon Eugenie Sage has just sat down and said this is a hot button issue, and I agree it is. Because I know of a particular plant in Kaiapoi, just north of Christchurch—not a lot of significant land involved, but a big investment there—attempting to bottle water. It’s a very abundant artisan well, and if it’s not tapped and utilised at that source, it bubbles out to sea—well, if you think about it, then to be contaminated. But the issue, again, is the investors in this particular water-bottling plant. They’re not American. They’re not Australian. They’re Chinese, and that’s wound the local community up.

Now, if you think about the economics, the wasted opportunity if we don’t bottle that water and if we don’t take the opportunity to export it and earn overseas funds—think about the lost opportunity. And then the Greens are normally concerned about the environmental impacts of our export industries. Tell me one primary industry in New Zealand that would have less environmental impact than bottling beautifully clean, pure water out of an artisan well, putting it in a bottle, and sending it overseas to earn foreign exchange. The answer is, there isn’t one.

So National will support the legislation to a select committee. I won’t be here to consider the submissions, but I’ll be watching and talking to my mates with great interest. But I do come from a very liberal point of view on foreign investment, because this country was built on foreign investment. Consider the insurance industry, consider the meat-processing industry: founded here in this country, both those industries, entirely on foreign investment, and over time, it transitions, comes into New Zealand ownership. It’s good. But we’ve got a Budget delivered today which we now know the Government didn’t want to continue debating, a Budget that was meant to deliver jobs. Well, you don’t get jobs unless you’ve got a business, and you don’t get jobs unless that business has some capital to invest. And if this Government over there thinks, in this time, that New Zealand has an abundance of capital to play with, they’re dreaming, they’re delusional.

We need foreign investment in this country, and this sort of legislation, the fourth such piece of legislation advanced by the Hon David Parker in just 2½ years, sends all the wrong signals to potential overseas investors—who were interested in New Zealand; they’ve been turned off dramatically over the last 2½ years. And this will be a further nail in that coffin, that will actually make the Prime Minister’s wish for the Budget that her Government delivered today to deliver jobs—it’ll make this a lot, lot harder to do so, and who suffers then? The very people who, traditionally, vote Labour at an election. Many of them, by the time we get to the election, are going to be unemployed, and I’m going to be campaigning saying if this Government had any sense and any economic realism about what drives an economy, they’d actually be doing the opposite, would actually be making it easier for foreign investors to come into this country. Because if they come in, invest in businesses: there’s your job opportunities.

This is a split call.

What a shame that previous speaker, David Carter, didn’t actually listen before standing up and speaking, because he may have heard the explanation for his question from my colleague here, the Hon Eugenie Sage.

For those listening at home, there are two important pieces of legislation. The first piece of legislation we heard tonight was about dealing with some urgent issues around COVID. It appears to have missed the attention of the previous speaker that we are in the middle of a COVID emergency, and the first piece of legislation is intended to deal with that. The second piece of legislation—I hope you are listening, the Rt Hon David Carter—is to ensure that any issues that arise from the need to address that one with some urgency are dealt with in the second piece of legislation, which will go through with plenty of time to do the very things that you are worried won’t be done. So can I encourage the member to sit and listen, and he may learn something between now and the short time before he leaves this House.

The Hon Judith Collins made an interesting comment here. If you’d sat here and listened, you’d have thought that there is no risk to this country in allowing anybody who wants to, with a big enough chequebook, to come in here and buy what they liked. She pointed out that we are all children of immigrants here, whether it was from the Pacific in the 1200s, or right until recently.

Well, I happen to have a surname—and my cousin Damien, next to me, is another—the most common surname in this House is O’Connor, which means we came from Ireland. That means that we understand what happens when, strategically, you lose all control of your land, because it means that those with English-sounding names—and, actually, I do note that four of the speakers, as I looked on Wikipedia, all have English-origin names. Goldsmith, Carter, Bayly, and Smith: all English surnames. The English came, they owned the land in Ireland, and so that meant that when there was a famine, when the potatoes failed, they were exporting the food from Ireland while the country went from 8 million to 1 million. They starved. That’s what happens when, strategically, you lose control of your land.

Now, I agree that we do need to have the balance right. We do need overseas investment, but overseas investment is about making sure that you keep control of your destiny. It’s about being strategic, and what we’re talking about is strategy, a strategy which, clearly, those members opposite are incapable of understanding. So, for that reason, this is a necessary, welcome, important piece of legislation that those who come after us will be very, very grateful for. I commend this to the House.

That was a fine performance—a fine performance—about potatoes from the previous speaker, Greg O’Connor. But I do want to come back to what we’re trying to do here and, really, the importance of today. Today, the largest spending and borrowing Budget of all time—and about three hours afterwards we’re in urgency debating at a first reading a piece of legislation that is now going to have a six-month select committee process. It defies logic that on the day of the Budget, New Zealand’s worst economic day in decades, we are discussing a bill like this under urgency.

It’s clear we support this bill going to the first reading, because there are some very good things in it. But I challenge the Government, including the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Forestry: we have a six-month process; why do we not, in this bill, address the issue of forestry? The only investment available for foreign investors right now is to go and buy farmland and plant it in trees, and members only need to talk—and I know the Ministers have—to the mayors of Wairoa, Gisborne, the Wairarapa to know that they are horrified with what’s going on, horrified. So why in this bill, when all these other things are in here to be looked at, has this Government conveniently chosen not to bring this piece of legislation before the House? After all, we have six months—six months—of a select committee process.

I think it’s deliberate. I think it’s deliberate because the Government know there is a big con going on in New Zealand when the only farmland you can buy without any necessary approval is good New Zealand farmland, taking sheep off it, and putting it into pine trees. It is amazing that two months ago farmers were enemy number one of the coalition Government—enemy number one. Now, they are the saviours of New Zealand—the saviours of New Zealand. They’re going to come out—the agricultural industry is going to save New Zealand and bring it out of this great recession. They’re going to pay the borrowings, they’re going to pay all the money back, and they’re going to help New Zealand out.

That same Government that has turned on a dime in two months—that same Government—now wants to plant all the East Coast of New Zealand in pine trees, because this bill had an opportunity to try and redress that balance but they’ve chosen not to. And I’m quite upset about that because, ultimately, in communities like mine, to the south of where I represent, to the north of where I represent—and Kiritapu Allan knows this; Meka Whaitiri knows this; they all know what’s going on. Yet if I look on this paper—not a mention, not a mention of what we’re going to do about forestry.

In closing, I want to talk about one issue of this bill which I particularly support, and that is around leasing of interests of less than 10 years where this threshold has reached into a single interest. I want to point out what this practically means in my own electorate. A significant number of horticultural operations and a significant number of international interests like Heinz Wattie’s and McCain have a supply chain which relies on leases of farmland, and unless this bill is passed and it is changed—and I very much support this part—they have to apply for the Overseas Investment Office to renew their lease. Now, they are international corporates. They are employing thousands of people in my electorate. They’re a wonderful company. They’re using our land and resources on a lease basis—they don’t own it—and there is a flaw in the law which this bill addresses. It’s very costly, very disruptive, and above all it takes away a lot of confidence.

The other thing I want to talk about is water bottling, and the Hon Eugenie Sage has talked about it. Yes, in certain communities it is a hot button issue, but in other communities it’s not. If you’re on the West Coast and you get 5 metres of rain a year—and I’m guessing what the number is—and most of it goes from the mountains to the sea, if somebody wanted to come and set up a water bottling plant on the West Coast of the South Island and employ 1,000 people, you would get a very different result than you might get in Hawke’s Bay. So I think we need to be very careful—very careful—how we control water bottling. I accept it’s an issue, but in some parts—

Order! The member’s time has expired. This is a split call—[Interruption] Order! This is a split call. I call David Seymour—five minutes.

Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to this Overseas Investment Amendment Bill (No 3). In deciding to oppose it, I had to weigh up three things. One is that it is true there are elements of this bill that actually make it easier to get foreign investment into New Zealand, which ACT has always supported, for reasons that I’ve gone into detail in many speeches in this House, including the one given earlier this morning. In fact, ACT MPs have been doing that for about 25 years now. Number two, there are certainly parts of the bill that make it much more difficult for foreign investment to be brought into New Zealand. And number three is the question of change.

This is the fourth foreign investment bill or overseas investment amendment bill that this Government has brought in 2½ years. If you weigh those up, well, the things that make it harder to invest, “embedding a higher threshold for acquiring farm land, reflecting its significant economic and cultural importance,”—you know, what that means in practice is that it’s going to be more difficult for the likes of Stephensons, who own a whole lot of land on the Central Plateau, to sell it and free up capital for other projects, such as a housing project in South Auckland. That’s what happened to them. This restriction on selling farmland actually cost New Zealanders housing developments, because New Zealanders weren’t free to use their capital that they owned freely under the laws set down by this Government.

It says, “enabling decision-makers to consider the impacts of investments [including] water bottling … bulk water extraction for human consumption [or] water quality and sustainability;”. So hang on a minute. We have a resource management regime in this country that is supposed to mean that any kind of activity complies with environmental sustainability. That’s what the Resource Management Act (RMA) says. Then we’re saying there’s going to be a different test if foreign investment’s involved. Well, that’s very interesting. The suggestion seems to be that somehow the RMA is not enough, and if that’s true, we should be really worried about all the locally owned water bottling and extraction operations. On the other hand, if the RMA is adequate and we are properly managing the environments in New Zealand, why would we care who the investment was from on environmental grounds? So again, needlessly making the law more complex.

It says, “[provide] better recognition for Māori cultural values, including by taking into account plans to protect or enhance wāhi [tapu], wāhi tapu areas, and Māori reservations;”. Well, that’s all fine, but the problem is that this bill doesn’t tell anyone how to do that, so there’s going to be a new job interpreting what that means in the context of the Overseas Investment Act. Then it says a new regulation-making power so that at any time, a future Government can, by regulation not by legislation, do what the other bill being passed through the Parliament in urgency does. So those are the things that make it harder. On the plus side, you no longer need Overseas Investment Office (OIO) approval to buy land that’s next to so-called sensitive land. That’s sensible, but what’s being got rid of is so ridiculous, it’s difficult to know why they don’t go further.

Then there’s a couple of other administrative changes, but none of them make up for the fact that overseas investors are going to have to provide more information to the IRD. Who has ever chosen to invest in a country so they could have more intimate interaction with that country’s tax department?

Overwhelmingly, the additional complexity outweighs any of the administrative easing in this bill. But there’s another factor here, which is change. This bill is a fairly weighty thing—32 pages of new legislation—that I’m fairly certain will actually make the Overseas Investment Act longer, and that’s the problem with legislation. Bills are like acorns: they grow. The RMA started off at 400 pages; now it’s 900 pages, and the OIA is going in the same direction.

So the final reason for opposing this bill is not only do the new complications outweigh the simplifications, but having had four Overseas Investment Act amendment bills in only 2½ years, it is time to stop changing the law and hope that anyone who’s still remotely interested in investing in New Zealand with this regime has some time to catch up. With that, I oppose this bill and I hope it falls under a new Government soon.

Tēnā koe, e Te Mana Whakawā. Well, the Opposition is struggling, really, to find things to oppose in this bill. We know that the National Party will be supporting it to select committee, and I suspect even Mr Seymour, floundering around there looking for things to criticise in it, will actually engage in some robust and constructive discussion at Finance and Expenditure Committee. It may be a change, but I look forward to it anyway. I’m forever the optimist. I mean, an objection on the basis that we’re requiring details of investors to be given to the IRD, really? Does he really think that we ought not require information to be given to the IRD?

💬 David Seymour: Justify requiring more.

And Mr Yule needs to read the bill more carefully in terms of the leasehold land. He was quite wrong-headed in his criticisms of that.

And you know what? I love the criticism that David Parker has been too hard-working in getting this right. We have brought legislation to the House on more than one occasion because, absolutely, in terms of the first bill, we were going to stop foreign investors purchasing residential properties. New Zealand homes for New Zealand families: that was our policy there. We then had a bill which was disrupted by COVID-19, and that is largely what you’re seeing in front of us now. So there are three bills, and the other one is the urgent bill—the bill to stop the vultures of international investment companies coming in and swooping and picking the bones of New Zealand businesses. I absolutely stand behind the hard-working David Parker, who has done more for international trade in 2½ years than that Government did in nine years.

This is a fantastic bill. It’s easing the way for good investment. It’s stopping poor investment. I support this bill. I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m not going to spend too much time at all speaking about the last speaker, Dr Duncan Webb, in this debate—otherwise, why not a sport analogy: when you’re nowhere near the ball, you might as well play the mat. What we’ve just seen him do there is actually attack a speaker who has, in the debate—David Seymour—stood up and actually made very relevant points about the uttermost confusion that we see on the part of the three parties in Government when it comes to foreign direct investment and the role it plays in creating jobs in New Zealand. Rather than an intelligent conversation about that, the poor public, who are only just today really out of lockdown—I hope they’re not watching TV, because they got 2½ minutes from that member.

The real crying shame of the debate taking place today on this bill is that when this Government has announced a Budget that will mean that every household in New Zealand will be responsible for an extra $80,000 worth of debt—and, indeed, when we look at the off-the-book debt that they’re also creating borrowing for Housing New Zealand and others, it equates to maybe $63,000 for every single person in New Zealand.

💬 Hon Member: How much?

Sixty-three thousand dollars for every child that’s going to school on Monday of next week, $63,000 for every parent dropping that child at school, and if you pick a home in my electorate of five people, that is a generation or two generations of debt, more than $300,000—more than the affordable houses they said they would deliver and they’ve failed to.

The reason I say this is because, actually, the first two bills we’re seeing in urgency are not about how to create jobs, they’re not about how to help New Zealanders do better as they deal with the significant consequences of the economic impact of the lockdown from COVID-19, they’re not about how to help them with their health, they’re not about how to support their businesses; they are about telling investors from overseas that they’re either welcome here or they’re not welcome here. So the point here is the first two bills we have in urgency in the biggest-spending Budget the country has ever seen, a Budget that will mean there’ll be $200 billion worth of debt, more than 50 percent of GDP—this Government is rushing through changes to the Overseas Investment Act, and I just think that’s absolutely appalling, because every single New Zealander has sacrificed over the last eight weeks. They’ve done their part, and as they come out of their homes today to go back to their businesses, to open them up, to try and put them back together and make them survive, as they’re hearing about the debt will be incurred on their behalf by this Government—they’re turning on their televisions, and, in urgency, the first bill says it’s actually harder for a foreigner to make a worthwhile investment in New Zealand that will create jobs.

But that first bill actually was an absolute waste of time, because, actually, it’s only there, was it, for 30 days, or 90 days?

💬 Rt Hon David Carter: Mere 10 days—Monday week.

No, no, but my point is it will be 90 days. So for 90 days, the Government has the right to veto an investment from overseas in a business they say is sensitive. Is there anybody in this country that imagines that, actually, an investment that triggers the Overseas Investment Act has ever taken less than 90 days? It’s not possible. The system doesn’t work that quickly, and therefore that was a waste of time, and it’s virtue-signalling on the part of the Government to say they’re protecting businesses in New Zealand, but at the same time the current system would protect it because it is so very slow.

And now we have another piece of legislation, the second bill in a row under urgency, of the Overseas Investment Act, and actually it says that it’s making it easier to invest by taking away bureaucracy and red tape, but it’s not doing that. If we look at the two pieces of legislation, one makes it harder; they’re saying the other makes it easier. If no one in the country can work out whether the Government believes that foreign direct investment creates jobs or not, how can somebody that we hope to attract to invest in our economy, to invest in the productive parts of our economy—how could they work out whether this Government wants investment or not? I think that’s what the shame is.

There was a huge opportunity for this Government today in urgency, because we’re here in the Budget, the biggest-borrowing Budget of the history of this country, to send a real signal to New Zealanders about what they really were going to do to protect jobs, to create jobs, to help businesses get back on their feet, to help them with their debt, to do anything for the tourism sector other than set up a ministerial group, an advisory group, to work out what the Minister should’ve been doing over the last eight weeks and will sometime in the future. They could’ve given more than hope to New Zealanders, but, sadly, they didn’t. They’ve brought this back before us.

Here’s a prediction: there’ll be another bill straight after this one that won’t do anything other than, I don’t know, worry about a few people that may be smuggling a bit of tobacco into the country through the postal service, at the same time they’ve dropped $130 million to help the post office keep delivering letters as they work out what to do, I suppose. My point here is it’s very confusing, their approach in this Budget, as to what they’re trying to achieve.

The final bit—I don’t know, what else would you do in urgency apart from this legislation to send a signal to New Zealanders about how serious they are about getting us back onto our feet? Why not a remuneration bill to give somebody the power to cut salaries for a very small group of New Zealanders? That could’ve been done two weeks ago under urgency in less than an hour if the Prime Minister delivered what she said to New Zealanders when she said she and her colleagues were giving up their salaries, but, no, that didn’t happen. They rushed through a tax bill in two hours, and it was the wrong tax bill. We should be doing that.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Which would be great in a general debate, but I don’t think that’s in the bill.

Well, I guess the point here is—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): So if you can reference that to something in the bill, that’d be great.

Yes, well, I guess the point here is that, actually, we are doing this bill, the Overseas Investment Act change, under urgency, and the problem that we have with that is actually it’s not fitting of urgency, and neither are the other things the Government has brought forward. So my point here is that, actually, this is wasting the House’s time, and the reason it’s wasting the House’s time—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): The fact of the matter, though, Mr McClay, is that we had the debate on the motion on urgency, and the House agreed to it. So if you could come to the bill, that would be appreciated. Thank you.

Well, in as far as coming back to the bill is concerned, not all parts of the House agreed to it, and so I’m making the case again that not all parts of the House agreed to this, and the reason we didn’t agree to it is this piece of legislation is not fitting for urgency straight after the biggest-spending Budget in the country. The previous one wasn’t; the next three are not either.

A couple of very important points here: the reason that I suppose the Government feels they have to do this is they need to send a signal that they are taking these things seriously, and in taking them seriously, it’s evident to everybody that they made a mistake. One of the things they’re tidying up, or trying to, with this legislation is looking at exactly the criteria required when farmland is bought, because everybody now knows that it’s extremely difficult to buy farmland in New Zealand unless you want to plant trees on it. And, actually, what that suggests is it’s not about supporting the forestry industry or not; it’s having clear, consistent rules that actually bring the type of investment that we need to New Zealand. So if you are a foreigner who wants to invest in land in New Zealand, you could buy the best dairy farm in the country and you couldn’t milk cows on it, but you could plant trees on it. That’s not an efficient or effective use of investment or that land, and therefore this bill actually doesn’t help that.

But I do notice that what it says is that, actually, one of the things it’s clarifying—it wants to give New Zealanders equal opportunity as a foreigner to buy this land, so they’re changing the way you must advertise it. I don’t know about you, but the person in my electorate who’s dropping their child at school on Monday morning and that child will owe $67,000 as a result of the debt probably is not so happy that they’re changing the way this is advertised. I think that’s a ridiculous use of urgency when we should be actually seeing things pushed through this Parliament in urgency that will make a difference to that mother and that child and the business they own and their livelihood.

The second thing this is doing is—I refer to the first bill that they went through the first stage of in urgency, because it was only for 90 days, but I see there’s a clause here that says, after the 90 days, if this passes into law, they can re-enact those provisions without coming back to Parliament. So on the one hand, they’re passing legislation under urgency that will give an opportunity for the Government to say no in 90 days and then to say no forevermore using those powers again under this.

The problem with this legislation is it does nothing but tinker. It makes no significant change, it is confusing, it’s not going to make New Zealanders better—if anything, it will detract investment, it will make them worse, and we will have fewer jobs here. We should be using the time of this House on things that are urgent, like creating jobs, protecting jobs, and reducing the debt of $60,000 on that poor little girl whose mother will drop her at school on Monday of next week, because that debt will be with her and her children for a very long time.

Why does the National Party want to sell off the birthright of all New Zealanders? Why does the National Party want to put on the international auctioning block the legacy of all New Zealanders? Why do they want to offer to people who do not have the same interests in the post-COVID environment as this Government does? Why do they want to use the COVID economic contagion as a further opportunity to pursue the privatisation of our legacy assets into foreign ownership?

That is exactly the tone and the content from the other side of the House. Now, of course, this bill affirms sensible foreign investment in New Zealand. This bill introduces a host of overdue changes that will simplify the process. The ACT leader talked about weeds growing, and analogised legislation to something akin to an acorn or a weed. This bill has the opposite impact. This bill will strip unnecessarily frustrating impediments from the road standing before foreign investors. It’s going to actually de-weed the statutory process as we bring in sensible blends of foreign direct investment.

But I say to the other side of the House: we remember vividly all of the big opportunities squandered by them where we let legacy assets in the South Island be hocked off. Not a single word said from that side of the House. Our side arrived and said, as a part of the sovereignty of New Zealand, some things are worth fighting for. Some things are worth taking right into an election, coming out victorious, and passing legislation. This bill represents that. This bill says that, in the post-COVID environment, growing food, creating exports from the primary sector is essential. Therefore, if you are a foreign direct investor hoping to swoop in, for example, like the Tai Poutini West Coast dairy factory, those days are over. No more exploiting transitory distresses, distressing times, and denuding New Zealanders of these legacy assets. By all means, make an application if you are an applicant out there, but have no illusions: where farmland is concerned, and its incredible importance for export-based activity, you will go through a strong test.

Now, if the other side wants to change the law, they have to come to this House and change the law in the future—no writing letters at quarter past 9 in the evening to the Overseas Investment Office (OIO), wink, nudge, and opening up vast swathes of the country and actually causing the next generation a state of despair as they watch the productive sector of New Zealand dribble away, disappear into foreign ownership without any scrutiny. Those days are over.

Of course, I had a small contribution to make to the first phase of OIO reform, and I recall liberalising the OIO. Because certain foreign direct investment is very positive—incredibly important to the manufacturing sector, to the industries that will actually lift up the country out in our provinces and move forward. Now, our very clever colleague Mr David Parker ascertained that forestry and the usufructuary rights associated with forestry rights, associated with forestry, needed to go through a screening process, and two minds of great passion met—namely, his and mine—and we decided that if land was under 1,000 hectares, then it should be allowed to pass through the regime of the OIO. And, if you’re bringing a proposal to expand the size of the New Zealand lung, then that type of investment—subject to a suitable level of scrutiny—was very positive for the provinces.

Now, it’s very sad that members on the other side of the House have exploited that. They’ve manipulated the facts, and they’ve been a tremendously irritating source of misinformation up and down the East Coast and the West Coast. Fortunately, every time I point out to them that when they were the Government in the 1990s, 100,000 hectares of farmland was turned into forestry—that wasn’t this side of the House; that was the grand-uncles of the other side of the House. Then, all of a sudden, we get a mild change, and that land that will probably create a greater level of public good by going into forestry, land consolidation, environmental resilience—that, they now want to attack. Well, who’s actually selling the land? Who’s actually putting the land up for sale? Garden variety Kiwi owners. Do you want us on this side of the House to actually trample upon those property rights of those owners as to whether or not they should be entitled to exercise it?

💬 Greg O’Connor: Sounds a bit communist to me.

Well, there’s nothing so straight, nothing so recognisable as a capitalist who exploits a crisis to show how real socialism can be exploited to their private profit. Now, we overlook these lapses and inconsistencies in the arguments put by the other side of the House, which is why this bill will engender a great deal of support. It is not akin to some wild, crazy—

💬 Hon David Bennett: $15 billion sold.

Well, now we hear from Mr David Bennett over there. On the question of weeds, he would know the famous one in the Waikato, what’s it—the broadleaf flea-brain, or flea-vein, or words to that effect, anyway.

💬 Hon David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Now, that Minister has presided as the Government sold $15 billion worth of assets in his period of time, and then he attacks members on the other side of the House? He should stick to his debate.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): And your point of order is? That’s not a point of order. That is a debating point that members are debating.

Sir, I do need to correct my contribution. The description of the hairy buttercup is more akin and more apposite for the contribution coming from that member from around Hamilton. However, the House has rediscovered part of its mauri, the liveliness. The Budget has well and truly been acclaimed up and down the country. And without a doubt, Mr David Carter, without a doubt, spoke great truth. He said as this bill goes forward, he won’t be around. You can put money on that, because a host on the other side of the House, as I commend this bill, after 19 September will definitely not be around.