Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Associate Minister of Finance: I move, That the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

For too long, New Zealanders have paid the price of having one of the most restrictive overseas investment laws in the developed world. It has meant less growth, fewer jobs, lower productivity, and stagnant wages. This bill will ensure Kiwi businesses can attract more investment from overseas. We’re a growing nation, and our businesses need international investment to maintain our position as a First World island paradise in the South Pacific. That’s why we’re overhauling our regulation of overseas investment. New Zealand’s productivity growth has slowed down because workers haven’t had enough capital behind them. Between 2013 and 2023, our capital-to-labour ratio grew by just 0.7 percent a year, compared with 2.2 percent in the previous decade. As a result, productivity growth fell from an average of 1.4 percent annually between 1993 and 2013 to just 0.2 percent from 2013 to 2023.

Foreign investment provides Kiwis with access to international capital, expertise, and technology. This grows New Zealand businesses, enhances productivity, and supports high-paying jobs. As Milton Friedman once observed—great man—the beauty of the free market lies in the fact that transactions only occur when both parties see mutual benefit. We agree. Investments into our country are, by definition, a win-win. We’re creating a far more efficient, growth-focused approach to attracting overseas investment, with changes that will make it easier, quicker, and more transparent for foreign investors to invest in New Zealand businesses. The Associate Minister of Finance has seen firsthand the difference this makes to Kiwi businesses and Kiwi workers. When he visited two businesses in the same industry on the same afternoon, both had skilled and passionate people with good ideas. One had overseas investment, and this benefitted them in two ways: they had more money for machinery, and they had more know-how for manufacturing and marketing their product by receiving knowledge from their partners offshore.

You see, New Zealand needs foreign investment, but foreign investment does not need New Zealand. New Zealand suffers from a tyranny of distance, from low domestic savings, and from persistent low levels of investment. Why, then, when we are in a global competition for capital and investment, has our regime been so difficult for investors to navigate, imposing both significant costs and burdens? This bill will address these problems by consolidating the regime’s complex and overly burdensome tests into a new national interest test through which most transactions will now be screened and consented, allowing consideration of the net benefit of an investment and requiring the regulator to complete their initial risk assessment in stage 1 of the new national interest test within 15 working days.

When the Minister was put in charge of policy in this area 15 months ago, it was obvious these changes were needed. We found that two elected Ministers had to sign every consent, no matter how minor. Is that a really good use of time for two elected officials—to sign off someone buying a paddock so they can plant some grapes because their passport doesn’t say “New Zealand”? I think we all know the answer, and that’s why we’ve delegated the majority of this decision making to the regulator. The new regime will operate with a presumption in favour of foreign investment, acknowledging the significant benefits it can bring to our economy. Most critically, the changes will reverse the presumption in the Act that it is a privilege for overseas persons to own or control sensitive New Zealand assets for asset classes other than residential land, farming, or fishing quota.

This law change builds on previous improvements. Last year, we directed the Overseas Investment Office to speed up consenting processing time frames under the Overseas Investment Act. The letter set the Minister’s expectation that Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) will process 80 percent of consent applications in half the statutory time frames for decisions. LINZ has since taken a risk-based approach to verifying information and streamlining consent processes. This recognises that the majority of consent applications are low-risk and should be processed more efficiently. In the 12 months to 30 November, LINZ has processed almost 82.6 percent of consent applications in half the statutory time frame. Processing times are 60 percent faster than in financial year 2024. The average time frame has reduced from 71 working days to 28 working days. This is good news, and it is a sign to the rest of the world that we welcome your investment.

Today’s milestone is another big step in the right direction. We all know that capital is highly mobile, and investors are looking for safe and stable countries to do business. I am excited by the opportunities presented through the major reforms the Government is making. We’re creating the conditions that make it even easier for businesses, like many out there, to invest, innovate, and grow in New Zealand. We do that because we know it’s a win-win. Investment leads to productivity, which leads to higher wages and happier lives. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It is a sad night: 10.30 on Friday night, the only thing to give me a smile is my mate’s win at Alexandra Park: Francent, race six, group 1. Yes, Madam Speaker—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Mr Speaker.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Mr Speaker. We’ve heard a lot of ideological rhetoric from the Associate Minister of Agriculture in explaining the passage of this legislation.

My ancestors, many, came to this country from other parts of the world where it was really difficult—class societies where if you didn’t have money, it was hard to get ahead. We formed a partnership with the indigenous people of this land, the Māori people, and we’ve built a nation. Our ancestors have gone to war; they have fought for the sovereign right to control our destiny. In building that country, we did depend upon foreign capital. We went cap in hand to London, to New York, different places around the world, to get capital to build the industries and build the infrastructure.

But we’ve grown up—we’ve grown up. We’re a modern country. We have a partnership with iwi, we have a multicultural nation, and we’ve got money that we can invest in ourselves. In fact, we’ve got total managed funds owned by New Zealanders of $363 billion. Don’t tell me we haven’t got the capital. In KiwiSaver alone, there’s $111 billion of capital—much of which is invested offshore—capital that could be available to assist us develop our own country.

Now, we have trade arrangements. We sell; we buy; we shift people, capital. Of course we’re going to open the door to foreign capital, but we’re not dependent upon it for our future. In fact, the country that we have built—for the most part free of major corruption; good, reliable infrastructure; solid laws; good, hard-working people. Investing in New Zealand should be a privilege. Indeed, that has been the presumption all the way through. In fact, even the purpose statement of the bill here that the Government put in still says they would like to acknowledge that it’s a privilege for “overseas persons to own or control sensitive New Zealand assets”—and the sensitive ones. The Minister, in the first speech in the third reading, said this shifts the balance in favour of the foreign investors. Well, that’s just outrageous. This is not putting New Zealand first; this is putting New Zealand last. I’m here, and most of my colleagues are here, for New Zealanders first and foremost.

Of course we rely on partnerships, but this piece of legislation, if I can be kind and say with some good intent to improve some efficiencies—and we’re not opposed to that. We’re not opposed to foreign investment. But what I tried, through my amendments, to do into this bill tonight was to make an alteration to ensure that the protections that we’ve always had through the regime remained in place. They are no longer there. A Minister of a Government can write a directive letter to the delegated officials, and they can decide who gets to invest in our country—pretty much open. Even when there’s a national interest test where the proposed investor fails, the Minister can step in under this legislation and approve that investment. That is outrageous.

The only thing that will protect us over time is the democracy that will put this side of the House in the sitting seat and in Government. That’s the only thing that will protect us, because as we’ve heard from many of the ACT members—not so much from New Zealand First, because they are a bit uneasy about this, but lots of ACT and National members here are saying that we should make it easier for foreign investors to come in and buy New Zealand.

Some of the money will come in for greenfield investment, to develop our economy and to add value, and we welcome that. But some of it will just come in for speculation, to buy into monopolistic structures that we have across our economy—and there are many of them. The banks are already foreign owned for the most part. Even in the primary sectors, we’re seeing increasing levels of foreign investment—some good, some not so good. But this bill will make it easier and remove the safeguards that most New Zealanders think should be in place.

The devil is always in the detail, and changing “may” to “must” or “must” to “may”, as I was trying to do through my amendments, might seem like a minor technical change. But there are enough lawyers in this House here to know that’s a major change in terms of protection for New Zealand and New Zealanders. As Minister Hoggard said, presumption in favour of foreign investors—that’s what he said. I think Kiwis, if they’re still awake at 10.30 on a Friday night or not out having a great time—most of them hearing that will be horrified. It is important to get on the record that the Labour Party in Opposition, while potentially supporting some moves to make more efficient the process, does not support handing and delegating just to officials the right to allow pretty much anyone to come into the country.

They’ve taken away the one test that we always had, which was around character and capability. The person normally would have been able to come and invest if they had some skills, if they were of good character, and if they said they would do what they were going to do. Those protections have been removed. The way the world is at the moment, with people looking for safe havens, obtaining money through all sorts of illegal means across the globe—those people will be looking to New Zealand now. The Minister and the ACT Party have just said that the presumption now is in favour of those foreign investors, with no check on character and no check on capability. Come and buy us, come and settle in our land and bring whatever money you can and buy whatever you can, with the dangers that that brings to our small nation.

I think that a Government with a true vision would be cautious in this area. Just at a time when we’ve built our capacity—the investment funds through KiwiSaver, through ACC, through the Superannuation Fund. We’ve committed to that. We should have done it in the 1970s, but the National Government and Mr Muldoon got rid of that. Once again, the National-led Government is undermining our sovereign rights to determine the future direction of our country. The people who fought and died around the world would be horrified to see this piece of legislation pass through the House.

The members over there should be ashamed, really, when they look at it. We gave them an opportunity tonight—we gave them an opportunity to make some final adjustments, to put in place a few protections. But alas, even in the House tonight, they refused to make the adjustments that would have offered some comfort for the vast majority of New Zealanders, who think it should be a privilege to invest in our country, not a right and not a presumptive right in favour of those people just because they have money.

This is a sad night, and I’m sure that into the future—because there will be incidents where there’s hot money or bad money coming to our country, bad people coming to our country—there’ll be a need to change this legislation to protect New Zealanders and New Zealand from the huge amounts of capital around the world. It could have been a good bill just to make improvement, but it’s gone too far.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Let’s call it like it is. This bill is not about investment or things that will benefit workers or productivity. It is about foreign ownership—ownership. Now, there were many, many, many, many submissions to the Finance and Expenditure Committee which opposed the bill; many extremely educated people who put in thorough submissions, thoughtful submissions, that, of course, the Government absolutely ignored.

Basically, Mr Speaker, and those watching at home, it is 10.35 on Friday evening, two weeks out from Christmas, and what is the National-led coalition doing? They’re rushing through under urgency a series of bills that are all about undermining democracy. They’re about making it easier for a smaller group of people to control the future of the country. They want to exclude the people who care about the environment, who care about fairness and justice.

Why do they want to do that? So that this smaller group can get richer and richer. Meanwhile, our planet, our ecosystems, everything that enables life is at threat because of this system: capitalism. Unfortunately, the members opposite, whether they mean well or not, cannot think long term. They do not think long term. They have no idea what is heading for us. Their religion is that of what the Associate Minister of Agriculture referred to as “the free market”. There’s no such thing as a free market—there is no such thing. I wish there was, but this does not exist. We have a market that is absolutely set up to privilege those who already have more.

Now, we’ve called it, over the last 30 years, the system that they have perpetuated—and other Governments as well that the Greens have not ever been part of. They call it neoliberalism, but actually neoliberalism is really neo-feudalism. You can tell with their priorities. They’re all about enabling those who own more to keep making more money and owning more.

Look, there are many erudite submissions I would love to quote during this speech. I would recommend that people watching at home go to the submissions; look at the submissions from Jane Kelsey, from Geoff Bertram. I mean, Geoff Bertram has a doctorate in economics from the University of Oxford. He taught economics and finance at Victoria University for more than three decades. He has, on many occasions, including the changes to the Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Act in 2020, identified that there’s a real problem with the so-called benefit to New Zealand test. It was inadequate before this and it’s being made even more inadequate because of the changes rushed through under urgency.

I just want to make it absolutely clear to people watching at home that it’s no accident that the Government is rushing these bills through under urgency two weeks out from Christmas, because they know that what they’re doing is actually quite unpopular—it’s politically unpopular with New Zealanders. But they think they can get away with it under the cover of night by flooding the zone with outrageous changes that fundamentally undermine democracy in this country, because this Government—the coalition Government—does not believe in democracy. They want to limit democracy.

The rise of oligarchy around the world is unmistakable—it’s unmistakable. This coalition Government has so much in common with the Trump administration in the United States and with many other far-right extremist Governments. We’re watching the decline of democracy. But here in Aotearoa New Zealand, we still have a system where if enough people participate, we can make sure that this is a one-term Government.

Now, just for the benefit of members opposite, I’m not sure if any of them are fans of Rick and Morty, but the very best, most succinct dialogue that I think explains the problem with capitalism is from Rick and Morty, and I want to get this on the Hansard. This is a fantastic—imagine Morty being like, “Oh, if people work hard, they get rewarded under capitalism.” “Oh my God, Morty! Capitalism doesn’t work when everyone wins. It needs poverty to function. Someone has to take the low-paying jobs so the profits keep flowing upward … Capitalism doesn’t reward work; it rewards ownership. You don’t climb the ladder by working hard; you climb it by owning the ladder.”

That explains the ideology of the people opposite. They are all about making sure that those who already own the most continue to make the most money. That’s why they want to punish those who are out of work for whatever reason. They want to force those people to go work for inadequate wages. They want to undermine the union movement. Every step they take is about ensuring that there is a hierarchy that is steeper and steeper and there are heaps of people at the bottom of the heap—what did our Prime Minister call them? Bottom feeders—yeah, the bottom feeders that can be, effectively, the slave labour to the owners of capital. That’s what this Government stands for. New Zealand First in particular should be absolutely ashamed to be voting for this bill—

Simon Court: Point of order. I just ask the Speaker to reflect on whether the member’s actually speaking to any aspect of the bill—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I will determine that. Sit down. I will determine that.

Simon Court: Well, of course you will, Mr Speaker. But it’s getting quite wide and it’s the third reading.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Now, I would ask the House that if they’re going to interject, for it to be rare and infrequent, and at 10.40 at night, for it to at least be witty. Make an attempt to do that. Otherwise, calm yourselves down, please.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. New Zealand First has absolutely sold out its roots in voting for this bill. Not only is this bill taking away the test that meant that we could prevent a large foreign corporation from coming in and profiting off the sale of fresh water in a bottled water plant, which was something that New Zealand First previously had tried to rectify—they tried to get royalties to be possible. But because we had previous neoliberal or neo-feudal Governments that signed us up to free-trade agreements that prioritise the profits or the returns to investors over the rights of people to access clean fresh water and to have access to something that is fundamental to life, they were not able to charge royalties on fresh water.

What happened was a previous Government amended the Overseas Investment Act in order to have that be something that can be considered under the national interest test. We already had an incredibly weak national interest test. I’m not saying that there couldn’t be a more systematic way to approach this, but the reality is we don’t have that, and this bill is taking us backwards.

It’s New Zealand First that is voting for this to make it easier for foreign corporations to come in and make profits at the expense of New Zealanders. That’s what this is about. It’s about foreign ownership. We have no doubt that the Minister responsible for the bill, the Associate Minister of Finance, is absolute—that is his agenda. It’s very clear. But what is so dishonest is the claim that somehow this is necessary or sufficient to benefit New Zealanders.

What is needed for New Zealanders to be able to address the productivity gap that we have? It’s not selling off our assets. It’s not cutting the minimum wage or refusing to raise it. It’s not cutting benefits. It’s not cutting education and all these other things. No. We need to invest in science. This Government is barely investing in science at all.

If we actually wanted to follow in the pathway of other small nations that have gone from being very reliant on selling primary products, like Denmark or like Sweden, what they did is they addressed the oligarchy in their own society. They created a fair tax system, and they used that money to invest in public good. Particularly the countries that have higher wages are usually—they have much, much higher unionisation, because what happens when you make it harder for workers to get the benefits of the investment in productivity is that the profits flow to the owners of capital. This case is going to mean more foreign ownership.

I don’t understand—I mean, I do understand. I know there’s been many decades of rubbish taught in introductory economics or commerce classes. I know that many of the people who join the National Party just fundamentally aren’t that curious about the world and the way things work. Maybe they’re not so empathetic, because they seem more interested in punishing the poor and punishing those who are marginalised and punching down on those people who have not been served well by colonisation rather than looking around and saying, “How can we be honest with each other about our painful past? How can we make reparations and amends? How can we work together to ensure that everybody can benefit, not just those who are already rich, who already own 100 investment properties, but those people who are born to parents who have been disadvantaged?” They deserve a chance. This Government is evil.

What a load of hyperventilating hysteria. The National Party is very, very happy to support and lead this Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill here on the third reading. Can I leave you just with one point—that this will maintain current screening requirements for investments in farmland, the fishing quota, and residential land, recognising the unique sensitivity of these assets. New Zealand is open for business. I commend the bill.

I rise to support this bill on behalf of New Zealand First. It does make, despite the hyperbole, measured amendments to the national interest test. It streamlines processes for which overseas investors can qualify to invest in New Zealand. If we can attract more capital and the expertise that comes with it, and potentially the market access that comes with it, it can create opportunities for New Zealanders.

Be in no doubt: New Zealand First has paid very close attention to this bill. We are not in the camp that thinks unfettered foreign investment is a total win for New Zealand. The loss of our banking sector is probably our best example: $7 billion a year of profits is getting sucked offshore. Our current account deficit reflects that we do have to be careful in this space. It has been a negotiation, this bill—we’re New Zealand First, so this is a very, very sensitive topic for us.

But the third rails in this—and Cameron Brewer mentioned them in his last speech—residential housing, farmland, and fishing quota—there was no way we were going to compromise on those, and we have not. We will not allow New Zealanders to be tenants on their own land. Hopefully, with these measures, we’ll bring in some capital that will increase our productivity, growth, jobs, and things we desperately need at the moment in this economy. New Zealand First, on balance, will support this bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think there are a number of things that we do need to address with this bill, and I want to echo what my colleague the Hon Julie Anne Genter has said—that this bill does nothing other than just simply selling New Zealand off overseas piece by piece. We have already seen this Government pass investment in New Zealand under urgency, and, basically, it is a real estate agency to sell off New Zealand. Now we’re seeing this bill being introduced that is allowing people to have that kind of carve-out.

That’s not simply the most scary thing in this bill. Let’s start unpacking. I think one of the things that we mentioned a number of times during the committee stage is what are some of the protection measures that are going to be placed on this from the perspective of environmental protection, from the very basics of the resources that belong to everyone in Aotearoa. Fresh water is a really, really good example, and we have seen some of the issues that have been created as part of the requirements of the Overseas Investment Act previously. I think that is something that we shouldn’t try to repeat, because although the Minister in the committee stage talked about “Oh, well, local government can do X, Y, and Z, mana whenua can do X, Y, and Z”, for them to do that, they have to challenge people in the manner of the court, and that also takes a lot of money. Basically, what the Government is saying is, like, “Oh, yeah, the option’s there, but you have to be rich in order for those kinds of options to be opened up to you.”

That’s only one of the many issues we’re seeing here. We’re seeing unprecedented power being placed on the Minister for their ability to do various things like directive letters. We’re seeing the unchecked nature of, potentially, even how the regulators could work in this particular bill. We’re seeing yet another substantial amendment being dropped by a Minister during the committee stage that didn’t go through a select committee stage. We pretty much have seen a substantial amendment being dropped in every single bill under this urgency. It is astonishing, it is appalling, that this Government takes our democratic system for a joke. They run our country like they think they run a business, and it’s not even running a good business. This is something that the people of Aotearoa New Zealand will not stand when it comes to this bill, when it comes to fast track, when it comes to the Electoral Amendment Bill and any other bill that was passed under urgency.

Also, the other really concerning thing in here—and we are starting to see these ugly terminologies rearing their ugly heads over and over again in recent bills. This is this idea of what is considered the national interest, and explicitly stating national security and public disorder—a very Trumpian and very American way of framing things. It is ironic that we have passed a bill on foreign interference, yet this Government very much has allowed Five Eyes and the US to interfere in our own democratic system. We have seen that interfering in education, we have seen that interfering in our defence, we have seen that interfering in our foreign affairs, and, just recently, we have seen that the UK has, effectively, partially pulled out of the Five Eyes because of the concerns in terms of some of the information sharing. But here we are, making decisions on overseas investment based on what our Five Eye partners will say. That was explicitly mentioned over and over and over again in a regulatory impact statement. That should be a concern, and that is going to actually have a chilling effect on the kind of overseas investment that we see here in Aotearoa.

Just to finish, this bill is not something that the Green Party will support, because this bill, fundamentally, doesn’t address—we have not heard once from the Government side on exactly what is the economic benefit to Aotearoa. Give us a number: how many jobs are we creating? They can’t answer that, because it’s all thoughts and prayers and no tangible action. We will not support it.

The hypocrisy is dripping from the ceiling as we get lectured on foreign investment from two foreigners from the Green Party. I think I might have been sick in my mouth a little bit. This is about foreign investment in this country. This is about unlocking productivity and helping New Zealand grow, and I’m proud to support it.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. As a foreign-born New Zealander, I take offence at this statement.

Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. As a foreign-born New Zealander, I take no offence.

Speaking to the point of order, I do ask that member to withdraw and apologise.

I think it would be appropriate for Ryan Hamilton to withdraw and apologise for that comment.

I withdraw and apologise.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Thank you. Let’s move on.

Mr Speaker, it kind of shows the attitude of this Government of the National Party as we hear debates like that, which are or should be offensive to all New Zealanders. All people are welcome in this country, and all people—[Interruption] Hear me out, please. All people are welcome in this country, and when they become citizens of this country, they are members of this country, so to throw barbs across this House in such an offensive way is despicable and actually makes me sick to my stomach. That is outrageous, and it is another sad day in this House with the glee and the jibes and the nastiness that comes out.

As we talk about this piece of legislation—[Interruption] We’ll just sort of settle down a bit and just move forward. We need to take a moment—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Everybody just calm down for a bit. There will be opportunities for this side to respond. It is a debate, so there will be an opportunity for that side to respond.

GLEN BENNETT: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I look forward, as we take our time and as we move through to tomorrow morning, to continuing the discussion around this and the next piece of legislation. We’ve watched as the week has gone on and we’ve seen other pieces of legislation come through, and what’s going on here is about prioritising the speed of doing things, the speed of changing these rules and allowing it to be far easier—but with that speed, when you run fast and loose, you can create potential risks. This bill is supposedly about streamlining these approvals, but it could also compromise the process that it goes through, running loose and fast.

Again, as we’ve gone on through urgency, we’ve had fast track—we’ve had all sorts of things that are about speeding things up and making them, supposedly, more efficient, but you have to look in terms of the long-term impacts these things have. My colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor, in the committee of the whole House, spoke about the weakening of the safeguards that this legislation brings. It’s a challenge. When we look at what is going on—consolidating the tests into a single national interest test risks reducing security and scrutiny on sensitive farmlands. We’ve talked about things like farmland, residential land, and strategic infrastructure. Again, we have to reflect on why this legislation needs to be sitting here in urgency—why it is so important to this Government to get this passed as quickly as they can.

What we need to think about and be clear on is what are the benefits that this brings in terms of when I look at who it’s for? Is it for their mates? Is it for ordinary, working New Zealanders? We have to really consider that, because this bill focuses on investors rather than looking at tangible benefits and how we can actually build better communities. We need to think about our economic sovereignty in New Zealand and what that looks like. We need to be thoughtful in terms of allowing things to be sold offshore, what that can mean, and the challenges that will bring over the decades and over generations when things have been sold and when things have slipped out of our hands, and once they’re gone—once land is gone—they never get to come back. For me, I think this bill is a step backwards. I think it is something we really need to pause and consider as we come to the vote this evening.

I think about that single national interest test, and as they bring that in and replace some of the checks and balances, we really need to pause and ponder and make sure that what we’re doing tonight within a piece of legislation like this benefits future generations. This bill claims to simplify and to speed up overseas investment, but in reality, I think it strips away protections for our land, for our communities, and for our sovereignty. New Zealand deserves transparency and a system that they can trust, and I’m not confident that this legislation does that. We urge the House to pause and to reject this legislation and uphold the sovereignty that we have within Aotearoa New Zealand—to make sure that our investments are not only for the betterment of us today but for the betterment of everyone tomorrow.

This is a good bill. I commend it to the House.

Kia orana, Mr Speaker. Meitaki maata. I rise to take a call on the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and lend my voice to the voice of opposition to this piece of legislation. It’s shortly going to tick past 11 o’clock at night on a Friday, and we are dealing with this through the remaining stages of urgency.

I guess the good thing is that this is a bill that did actually go to select committee—the Finance and Expenditure Committee—unlike some of the other pieces of legislation that we’re dealing with through urgency this evening. An overwhelming majority of those that did submit did oppose this bill, and it’s really interesting when you look at the reasons that those individuals and submitters did give. Usually, that’s something that’s covered at second reading, so I won’t dwell too much on that, but what I will say is that there were a significant number of submitters that were really concerned about the implications that this bill would have for the environment, in particular around forestry and fresh water.

Colleagues tonight have talked about the fact that Kiwis do actually expect that there are safeguards in place when it comes to investment and what that means in a New Zealand context. I guess the question for the Government is: why is the Government afraid simply to allow Kiwis to take a role in this? Why is the Government so afraid to back Kiwis? Why is the Government so afraid to invest in Kiwis? This is about priority, at the end of the day. We’ve heard a little bit about the decision-making process that would be involved as part of this bill. The reality of delegating decision making around matters when it comes to New Zealand and investment by foreign investors is it would now be actually given over to officials, through delegation, to make those decisions.

As the Hon Damien O’Connor has already indicated, the Associate Minister of Agriculture himself this evening has said to the House that it would be prefaced on the suggestion that officials would favour the foreign investment avenue; that this is heavily weighted, in terms of the way in which decision makers would go about making those decisions, to fall in favour of foreign investment. What that basically means is that if you have the moolah, then you get to have the opportunity to have a ticket here to New Zealand; that you can set up a future for yourself. When we step back and have a look at the other avenues—which are quite limited, and for good reason—as to how and why others would be able to come here and settle or set up base or whatever it might be, there is a real sense of injustice, I think, in saying that if you have the money, you have the capacity, you can buy your way here to New Zealand.

That value base and that value proposition is very far removed from the value base and the value proposition that the New Zealand Labour Party has in this particular space. We have always supported and will continue to support high-quality strategic investment that delivers benefit for all New Zealanders, and this bill falls far short of that particular threshold. The reason why we fall in favour of that particular approach in the Labour Party is quite simple and straightforward, because it’s actually about investment that will lead to the creation of jobs here in New Zealand—something that this Government really do need to tackle and address, and this is not the way in which they go about doing that. To raise the wages for Kiwis—and we’re not talking about the minimal sort of level of wage increase for the minimum wage that this Government has sparingly thrown about over the last 24 hours or thereabouts. It’s also about, actually, not just delivering profits to those that would flow those profits offshore.

This is an opportunity for us, I think, to reflect on how it is that investment by the Government, in terms of their priority, should actually be directed. It’s very clear that in the Government promoting this bill through the remaining stages of urgency, again they are saying, “Actually, Government and Ministers don’t need to be involved in the decision-making capacity; we can delegate that to officials.” The expectation is that officials will, in the majority of cases, fall in favour of making decisions, under delegation, in favour of foreign investment rather than backing Kiwis, backing the creation opportunities for jobs, backing a future here in New Zealand. This is a terrible piece of legislation, and we will continue to oppose it.

This is a good bill. I commend it to the House.

Outside of these walls, it’s 11 o’clock on a Friday night. Inside these walls, we’re trapped in a perpetual Tuesday, and I think this year we have been trapped in a blur of legislation delivered at an extraordinary pace.

I want to just go over the numbers that my colleague Vanushi Walters quoted in this House today—well, in some version of today. This Government has spent 30 percent of its time in urgency—30 percent—in comparison to the previous Government, which spent 15 percent of its time in urgency, and during that time was dealing with a global pandemic, was dealing with emergencies, was dealing with extraordinary situations. What extraordinary situation exists that this particular bill needs to be heard in urgency? There was no urgency required. It is only in this House because that Government could not organise itself, because that Government crammed so much legislation into this House that it has made mistakes. It’s having to recall legislation. There’s omitted stuff from bills. It has actually played fast and loose with the rules of this House, and we see that impact in the quality of the legislation that is coming before us. Now, this bill, I think, has some of that blur, that rush, that fast and loose expressed in this bill.

Foreign investment in New Zealand is an interesting issue to think really hard about, because we do need to walk a very, very fine line on foreign investment. Yes, we think it’s important that we have at least some foreign investment in this country. Yes, we do want to be open to the world. Yes, we can see the value that foreign investment brings, but at the same time, we want to be sure that it is the right kind of foreign investment, that it is foreign investment that enhances New Zealand, that it is foreign investment that ensures that New Zealanders remain in control of their own destiny. I think the example was quoted earlier on as to what has happened with our banking sector, where our major banks are now controlled from overseas, where we have seen extraordinary amounts of profits extracted from New Zealand, where we’ve tried to control that through various means, but, nevertheless, because some of our major assets are owned overseas, what we see is those overseas investors quite rightly wanting a profit but seeming to extract extraordinary profits from New Zealand. That’s the danger with foreign investment as well. We want the quality of foreign investment, but there is a danger in it, and we need to walk a very, very fine line.

I think that this particular piece of legislation has a bit of a misstep in it. It stumbles along that fine line. Yes, we support efficiency, but we do not support open slather. Yes, we support testing the quality of foreign investment that is coming into this country, but that Government has reduced the quality of the tests that we’re applying to foreign investment. Reducing to a single national interest test reduces the amount of scrutiny. I’ve looked at it, in terms of the efficiency that is going to allegedly come through this legislation—and, of course, it begs the question: is that Government going to staff the Overseas Investment Agency in order to enable that efficiency to be realised? If they do not staff it adequately, we will have rushed and sketchy investigation of proposed foreign investment. It’s all very well to put a time frame into the legislation, but then if officials are not given sufficient resources to actually conduct the investigation, to actually assess the proposals, that becomes another risk for the country. There’s a real question there, and I think it’s something that that Government wants to keep a close eye on, and we as Opposition will be keeping a close eye on, as to whether or not those efficiency gains which are promised in this legislation are coming at the expense of quality investigation of the investments that are coming into this country.

I am worried about two sets of proposals here, and they kind of pull against each other. One is the delegation of decision making to officials. Look, our officials work hard, and the public servants that I’ve worked with have been extraordinarily smart and able. They’ve been committed to New Zealand. Nevertheless, officials do not face election every three years. They do not face direct accountability, and that, I think, is a concern here.

There’s another concern here with some of the proposals, some of the investments then having, as I understand it, that the Minister can issue a directive letter—in other words, tell the officials what to do. Now, that’s a problem too. The interesting thing is that when you have two elected officials having to scrutinise an investment, that reduces the chance of someone doing something awry. In order to have something dodgy go through, you’d need a degree of collusion. There’s a protection there in having two Ministers; with having just one Minister who can issue a directive letter, that’s a risk. I don’t think it’s a risk we ought to be taking.

Although this bill, on the lid, says it’s going to promote efficiency, it’s going to promote foreign investment, and it’s still going to test that investment, in fact there is a whole series of risks inherent in what this Government has put into this legislation. For that reason, the Labour Party opposes this bill.

Of course I commend this bill to the House, because we are building New Zealand’s future.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I hate to deprive the House of an “I support this bill” and then sit down speech from the members opposite, but, alas, I have to deprive the House of that—

Tim Costley: I’m going to buy you an iron for Christmas.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Buy a what? I’d love a Christmas present from you.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Who do you think is listening to you?

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Well, nobody’s listening, but it doesn’t matter. This is the thing, right? We have all sorts of members—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I am listening.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: That’s right—that’s right. The most important person is listening, and that’s enough for me, Mr Speaker.

Anyway—on to the bill. The Green Party of Aotearoa opposes this bill because we have really serious concerns that it repeals the essential environmental, cultural, and public benefit tests that are really important if you actually want to consider overseas investment in this country.

We do know there is value in overseas capital. We do know there is value in bringing skills, bringing important talents, and bringing important things that New Zealand doesn’t currently have so that it can be used to serve the country. My question is: why can’t they go through the same process that migrants have to go through? It’s actually quite hard to be able to migrate to this country—it is rightfully seen as a privilege—and there’s a lot of hoops you actually have to jump through, and there’s a lot of payment and tests you have to go through to have the privilege of coming here and putting your labour and service to this country. Why do we not apply the same logic to capital? If it’s really important to have people here who do valued work at the nursing homes, at the hospitals, and at the dairy farms, but we make it so hard for them, it’s only really fair that we actually apply the same tests, that we apply the same logic, to the potential of capital. If the members opposite wanted to suggest a like-for-like liberalisation of labour and capital rules coming here, perhaps something in the shape of a deal could be reached here. The reality is that we should apply the same standards when it comes to capital that we do apply for labour.

I’ve heard many members on these Opposition benches try to convince New Zealand First to change their mind at the last minute and vote against this legislation. I think we’ll actually find that when it comes to the election next year, or maybe as soon as two weeks from now, New Zealand First will always have been against this bill—just like they were always against the—

Rachel Boyack: Regulatory Standards Bill.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: That’s right, the Regulatory Standards Bill. The Hon Casey Costello said, “We have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House”, but then, two weeks later—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Two days.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Two days—sorry. Two days later, the Rt Hon Winston Peters announced that, actually, they were very much against it and they were going to go to the election campaigning to repeal it—

Andy Foster: You just don’t understand the system, Francisco.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: I anticipate that we’ll actually see—I understand the system perfectly well, Mr Foster. This is why, in fact, I’m avoiding throwing too many slurs down New Zealand First’s way, because we might be sharing the benches opposite some time next year. I don’t want to be offending my potential Government colleagues here.

Todd Stephenson: He’s delirious.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Ha, ha! Well, we’re all delirious here—it’s 11.15 p.m. I’ll return to the concerns that we have about this bill. It weakens oversight of sensitive land, forestry, and water resources. It has the potential to centralise power and create even more centralisation in the heart of this Government. We have seen an over-reliance on ministerial decision-making during this term of Government. That’s good if you become a Minister, but my message—and I think the Hon Damien O’Connor was correct in trying to warn the members opposite—is that it’s all very well when you have a Minister from your side making these decisions, but what happens when you have Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan calling these shots next year? You have to think about what happens when you centralise power. In conclusion, we oppose this bill. Thank you.