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

I present a legislative statement on the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I move, That the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

There is a view of the world that people across the seas are somehow bad or venal or out to get us, and that we should put up barriers and try to keep them out, that when they try to invest in New Zealand with their ideas and their capital, they are out to get something and must be regarded with suspicion.

There is another view, which is that when our friends around the world choose to bring their ideas and their money to our country and make voluntary agreements with people who own property here—whether they be New Zealanders or other overseas investors—that trading of value for value makes us stronger together. That when you see people from overseas who have a better way of doing things, or a different way of doing things, investing in a business and bringing those ideas, we’re all better off. People can be paid more, people can have more interesting jobs, and we can export more interesting and valuable products overseas.

There’s a great movie, from my youth in the 1990s, that summed it up: it is the circle of life. That’s why I’m very proud to be commending this amendment to the Overseas Investment Act, because it carries on the work that we have done to ensure New Zealand is a place that welcomes investment from across the seas. It’s actually the entire history of our country to do this. The history of our country is a history of foreign investment. There was no foreign capital in New Zealand, once upon a time. Then, Kupe showed up with a waka hourua and a few kunekune pigs, and New Zealanders have been importing capital into our country ever since—and we’ve been all the wealthier for it. That’s why, so far, this Government has halved the time it takes to get a consent on overseas investments into this country—we’re very proud of it. That’s why we’re bringing this bill to the House, which will ensure there is a revised purpose statement for the Overseas Investment Act that acknowledges the benefits of investment in New Zealand. We’ve never done that in our legislation before—it’s well-past due.

We will introduce a new national interest test. That, for most consents, will mean that people will be able to get a consent within 15 working days—within three weeks. All this, while maintaining the breadth of what the Overseas Investment Office screens, and intensifying the focus on overseas investment—some of which really is a threat to our way of life, and that means a focus on national security and public order. That is, in short, what this bill does.

It is a vote of confidence in New Zealand when people send their money and their ideas here. It’s when they take it out that you should be worried. Just ask most South American countries what that experience is like when the politics goes wrong—I’m looking at the Green members.

I would like to thank the Finance and Expenditure Committee for its consideration of this bill—including considering 3,504 submissions—and for making a series of mainly technical amendments that improve the bill. I look forward to the later stages in committee and the third reading of this bill, should it proceed that far, so that it can make New Zealand a place that stands confidently and proudly in the world, welcoming business from our friends and allies—not afraid, ashamed, or repelling it, but rejoicing in stronger connections that allow all of us to trade value for value and grow stronger, wealthier, and more interesting together.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on this, the second reading of the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I too, like the Minister, want to acknowledge the Finance and Expenditure Committee for their thorough review of this particular bill, and also to the numerous officials from Government agencies, namely the Treasury and Land Information New Zealand, who supported the select committee during this process.

I’m going to take quite a methodical step through a number of the submissions, as well as some of the changes and the reasoning for there being some changes which were not agreed to by majority in the select committee. I think that’s incredibly important because, for a number of members in this House who are lawyers, if you’ve ever worked on a litigation case, you know how important it is to do due diligence and look at the Hansard in relation to what Parliament’s intention was when passing legislation. I’ve had to do it a number of times in my career and it has been so valuable to go back through the Hansard to understand Parliament’s intention. I want to go through Parliament’s intention today in relation to some of the changes in this bill and the submissions and the reasons why, by majority, the Government members did not accept them, but also some of the reasoning, which is in the actual officials’ advice, because I think it will be helpful for the litigation cases that are coming in the future in relation to this specific piece of legislation.

I also want to acknowledge the Minister’s acknowledgment of the number of submitters who submitted on this bill. The committee received 3,504 written submissions in total—3,450 of those submissions were from individuals and 54 were from organisations. I do want to acknowledge our officials, who supported us in making sure that (1) they coded those submissions, but (2) they also analysed the themes that were coming through out of those 3,504 submissions.

What was incredibly important is that, very similar to another bill that the Minister has enacted very recently—the Regulatory Standards Bill—the majority of submissions were opposed to this bill: 92.7 percent were opposed to this bill, with 0.6 percent supportive and 6.7 percent unstated or otherwise unclear. The opposed submissions included concerns around the potential for negative impact on the environment, particularly fresh water and forestry; the impact on iwi Māori, and the desire for explicit Treaty recognition in the Act; the lack of consultation before the bill was introduced or a desire for specified consultation during consent processes; concerns about foreign investment going offshore—there were about 84 submissions which actually spoke to that or similar concerns; a perceived lack of accountability in decision making under the Act, there were 963 submissions on that point alone; and the potential for international obligations to mean that changes are irreversible, there were 183 submissions on that.

There were a small number of submissions from law firms and industry groups providing nuance and supportive feedback on the bill, and I just want to make sure that I put that on record. Businesses and industry groups were broadly supportive, but several expressed a desire for more substantial change. For the future lawyer that has to do the due diligence in the litigation, have a look at the Treasury officials’ report on the submission. There’s a whole sector at the back of that which actually sets out what those material changes should be, but they were ruled out of scope for the purposes of this bill.

One particular summary from the submissions was on the removal of new section 19C(1)(a), inserted by clause 15, which states that one of the mandatory factors for a national interest assessment is the purpose statement. The reason why the committee agreed not to change this—again, this is for the Hansard, for those future litigation purposes—is because it is not necessary to have the purpose as a consideration factor, as the purpose statement is something statutory decision makers will consider when determining the national interest. That is an important point for future litigation. If for any reason you are litigating against the Crown, you can use that, because it should be considered by the statutory decision maker when considering determining the national interest.

One of the major submissions that came through—and it was from a lot of individuals and, for example, from the Māori Law Society, Te Hunga Rōia Māori o Aotearoa—was on the impact on Māori. Their response was on the removal of the benefit test. There was a strong environmental theme in submissions for Māori and iwi. Many responders suggested the need for foreign investment screening to continue to provide, enforce, or support environmental standards.

Now, the important part for those future litigators—and I’m hoping that this will save some billable hours in the future—is that the advice that was received by officials, accepted by majority members on the Government benches, and will be the reason why this bill goes through, was that benefits will continue to be considered within the national interest test. Again, going back to that earlier point, I talked about new section 19C; that is an important point for iwi Māori and for the Māori Law Society whenever they come to the future litigation against the Crown. They can look to the national interest test, because that’s Parliament’s intention and therefore that’s where you can find the windows of opening. I think it was really important that I put that on the Hansard.

The officials continue to say, “The test will first assess whether a risk is contrary to the national interest before considering whether the benefits of the transaction offsets these risks. Māori interests may be considered as part of this consideration of risk.” There you have it, iwi Māori. There is your gap in order for you to be able to litigate this in the future, because the advice accepted by the majority of this House when this bill was enacted, and therefore the advice that was accepted by the select committee, ensures that your considerations will be as part of that national interest test. I just wanted to save you some billable hours for the future.

Another issue that was raised during submissions—and this is, again, really important because it was a factor that kept coming up through submissions—is the watering down of decision making from no longer being at the primary legislation level, but going down to secondary legislation with the regulations that could be made. There were some comments here from the Regulations Review Committee, but actually almost to a tertiary level of legislation, which is around a ministerial directive letter, and that’s in clause 22 of the bill. Again, the Regulations Review Committee was concerned that in the absence of a definition of national interest in the bill, substantive policy decisions would be left to the discretion of the Minister to determine by way of secondary legislation, and it sets out why that was.

The advice received by the Government and by the select committee, and which they will be approving through majority in this House when this bill becomes an Act, is that all transactions that require consenting currently can be called for a national interest test. We know that. But the main thing was that the Government wanted to provide some flexibility, and it aims to provide additional transparency and certainty via setting out that expectation in the ministerial decision letter. The use of the ministerial decision letter should shape decision making in a set of factors that must be considered when determining national risk. That is under the new section 19D, which sets out a variety of factors to be considered by the regulator or the Minister when determining the national interest. When you go to litigate this in the future, that is your third door to ensure that the ministerial directive letter is where you can go to.

I’m going to leave it there, because I’m pretty sure a number of our members on the Opposition benches—in particular, the Green Party, who had quite a substantive minority view—will go through some of these openings to where the Government have basically allowed for loopholes to be seen, and that’s why I’m putting them in the Hansard today. The Labour Party considers that this bill shifts the balance of overseas investment away from the principle that investment in New Zealand is a privilege and it undermines the scrutiny of applications. I’ve just shown you some of the doors you can walk through. We consider that removal of the character test and reliance on the ministerial directive letter puts New Zealand at risk from inappropriate foreign investment. It doesn’t have the secure safeguards that we need in this bill, because investing in New Zealand is a privilege. Never once did I hear the Minister ever utter four letters, “jobs”—none.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I have to say that it’s very telling that the Minister in charge of this bill is David Seymour, a person who has extremist views that do not represent the values of most New Zealanders. He’s one of the two tails wagging the dog of this Government. Somehow there are two of them. But, clearly, New Zealand First is missing out because they’re voting for this bill. I think we won’t be able to call them New Zealand First anymore; it’s more like “Overseas Corporates First”. That’s what this Government is about. It’s a right-wing playbook that has been used time and time again. I think the public would be very familiar with it, and we just have to call it out and explain what’s going on here.

What is going on here? They get in, and they say, “We don’t have any money—we don’t have any money. We’ve given it all away to landlords, tax breaks for the rich, tax breaks for tobacco companies.” Then they say, “Oh, we need money from overseas investors. Those very kind, benevolent overseas rich people who are going to come here and build our infrastructure for free.”—no, no—“Believe us; it’ll be fine. We’ll just sell off our strategic assets. We’ll sell them off, and we’ll be fine. It’ll be jobs and productivity.” They just make this stuff up. It’s actually embarrassing to see the Government backbenchers consistently say things that are absolutely ridiculous. They live in a dreamland where wealthy, benevolent investors come and sprinkle their fairy dust and make us all richer. Actually, the truth is it never makes us all richer. New Zealanders lose sovereignty and control of our own natural environment, of our water, of our air, of our forests, and of our whenua, and who benefits? Well, the overseas investors and maybe—maybe—a few wealthy New Zealanders here benefit as well.

By and large, this is not going to be something that delivers for our country as a whole. That’s why we will not support it, and that’s why the overwhelming majority of submissions were opposed. There are some extremely lengthy, well-informed submissions that I would recommend anybody look at and read. Of course, the Government members won’t. I’m not sure they’re capable of reading anything other than their talking points, and they’re probably not capable of understanding the economics. Well, maybe a few of them are, but they’re willing to compromise on their knowledge and principles for this job that they have.

Here we’ve got summary and recommendations from some very well-informed submitters to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I’m absolutely serious. People should read these submissions because they’re thoughtful submissions with references, with evidence, and with analysis to support them from people with PhDs in economics. One of them is from Geoff Bertram, who has a doctorate in economics from University of Oxford. He taught at the School of Economics and Finance at Victoria University for more than three decades. If you read his submission, you will see he makes a very strong argument as to why this bill is mistaken in its overall objective and how it’s weakening the tests of what is actually good for New Zealand. A big part of this is that where overseas capital funds new productive activity that would otherwise not have been developed and the income generated by that activity is retained within the local economy, there could be a case for inflow. But, by and large, that’s not what has happened over the last 30 years. We can see this most strongly with the overseas, Australian-owned banks.

One of the main reasons why our current account deficit, like our balance of payments, is negative is because we have overseas ownership of our debt. That means that the profits just go offshore. I highly recommend the submission from Bill Rosenberg, who also has a PhD in economics. He made the point that, firstly—and this is what’s happening over and over again—there’s very poor process and that things are being rushed through in short time frames without due diligence. But, of course, due diligence doesn’t support the aims of this Government. The aim of the Government is to ram as much stuff through as possible in a short time frame—this is particularly the aim of David Seymour—to undo the role that Government plays in protecting and empowering people.

This is a person, our Deputy Prime Minister, who does not believe in public good and whose entire political career is dedicated to removing the oversight of Government and removing the possibility of empowering those who are not doing as well. I don’t know if he believes in his bizarre ideology or if he just says it because he’s repping for some very strong vested interests, but, either way, the result is the same: New Zealanders will miss out and will lose control, profits will flow to a smaller and smaller number of people, and our natural environment upon which we rely to live good lives and to have a productive and thriving economy will be eroded.

I’d love to quote from Bill Rosenberg’s submission, paragraph 10, “The economics”: “The main objective of the bill is ‘to make New Zealand a more attractive place to invest by speeding up consent for low-risk investments’ based on a concern that New Zealand is not getting enough [foreign direct investment]. 11. … not all foreign investment is … beneficial, even if it’s confined to low-risk investment. A more selective process for [foreign direct investment] is needed … [that] is increasingly being used internationally. The quality of [foreign direct investment] in Aotearoa New Zealand has been low … It tends to be concentrated in non-tradeable sectors and in areas which provide market dominance such as in banking and insurance (which together made up 43% of FDI stock in 2024 according to Statistics New Zealand), and supermarkets.” The very sectors where foreign direct investment is concentrated are sectors where we don’t have good competition and we have excess profits, and that’s where any productivity gains here in New Zealand are being sucked out by organisations and investors that are not contributing at all to that productivity. It makes us poorer as a country, but that suits these guys because they’re just here to enable the very richest to get richer. That’s what they’re all about.

A frontier-firm strategy to raise productivity—as recommended in the Productivity Commission report, New Zealand firms: Reaching for the frontier in 2021—where development in particular areas led by a large productivity frontier firm depends on selecting a few large firms with the required record and characteristics. What is being proposed in this bill is not going to enable that. Bank profits constitute a very large part of the investment income deficit. Only in the pandemic, where trade was severely disrupted, did that pattern change. We’re actually losing income as a result of foreign direct investment that reduces our own sovereignty and ability to invest and get the benefit of those investments. This is incredibly well researched.

Obviously, I can’t read all of these submissions, but just as an example, here’s a 14-page submission with excellent graphs and citations and we compare that to the ideological rhetoric of David Seymour, who says, “Just trust us. Just trust us, mate.” We know whose interests David Seymour is looking out for, and it is not ordinary, everyday New Zealanders, it’s not future generations, and it’s not the natural environment. That person is so disconnected from people and the environment that he has no idea what is really going on. But what he does do very well is dismantle systems that we have set up to protect our country and our long-term future. That’s what Government is for: protecting and empowering.

A pretty good example, in one of these submissions which I read, was about how they’re getting rid of the provision around water-bottling plants and treating water-bottling plants differently on the claim that there haven’t been that many proposals for foreign water-bottling plants. Well, there’s one thing I can tell you: it’s that New Zealanders do not want foreign companies coming here, taking our water, and then making a profit off it and selling it back to us or to anyone else. Water is life. Water is essential. The people who think that big corporations are here to make our lives better really haven’t been paying attention to the last few decades, where corporations have systematically sought to concentrate power, have reaped excess profits, and have eroded workers’ rights, usually through lobbying to politicians. It’s a very old playbook. I’ve seen it all play out in the United States when our democracy is crumbling. It’s just a dire situation because of decades of an ideology like the one that these people represent, which is let the rich get richer, destroy Government services, sell it out of the private sector, sell it off to foreign investors, destroy the environment, and remove regulation. Those are not the values of New Zealanders. I look forward to when we get a chance to vote and get a new Government.

Just before I call the next speaker, the inanity and quality of the interjections will often be reflected in how much leverage a speaker on the other side of the House might get. Everything is a balancing act. I might just ask everyone to reflect on that.

What a lot of Green garbage, what a lot of Green waste and, dare I say, what a lot of Green manure. Let’s get back to what this bill actually achieves and seeks to achieve. This bill simplifies the screening process for less sensitive assets by introducing a streamlined national interest test. The Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill maintains current screening requirements for investments in farmland, the fishing quota, and residential land, recognising the unique sensitivity of these assets. Unfortunately, New Zealand has one of the most restrictive foreign investment regimes in the OECD, and so this updated system brings New Zealand up to speed with other advanced economies, cutting compliance costs, reducing processing time, and restoring confidence that New Zealand is open for business. I commend the bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. On behalf of New Zealand First, I rise to support this bill. Look, New Zealand First, without a doubt, has always had a degree of caution around overseas investment—open slather overseas investment. We’ve got plenty of examples where it hasn’t worked to our advantage—the banking sector being one, and its massive profits that are being sucked out of New Zealand. We go into these bills with our eyes wide open, not from an ideological point of view.

We do have a woeful record of flogging off State assets, but we are not North Korea. We are pragmatic. We do realise that we do need balance if we’re going to turn this economy around; we do need injections of capital. Some of that will be foreign capital—particularly useful where it’s bringing in new investments and new jobs. We’re seeing it down in Otago, particularly, at the moment, in the mining sector. We are bringing expertise, bringing capital, and opening up massive opportunities. They will be very high-paying jobs, and they’re high-paying jobs in New Zealand rather than in Australia, where many of our people are going to the mining sector. They can now come to Otago, which of course is a much better place.

In terms of the scaremongering that’s going on around this, I just want to reiterate that there is a national interest test in this. We’ve made sure that that remains. There is no change for farmland, for fishing quota, and for the residential property considerations. We have held firm on those things—they’re really important to us. As you know, within a coalition there’s a range of views on this stuff, but I think we’ve struck a balance. We’ve used our proportionate influence to make sure those things are protected, through the select committee process and the high interest that there was—3,500 submissions.

This is something that matters to New Zealanders. There’s a certain portion of New Zealanders that represent us that would want to see us protecting those core values that we hold, and we believe we have, and got balance within the wide spectrum of views within this coalition. With that, we continue to commend it to the House.

A five-minute call, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. As my previous speaker—the Hon Julie Anne Genter—mentioned, the Green Party will not support this bill. There are very good reasons for that. I think, when we hear the Minister who is in charge talking about how we are unkind or we’re not welcoming to foreign investors, that’s not necessarily the case. But where we are unkind and not accommodating to foreign investors is those who come to Aotearoa New Zealand with ill will, with the idea of exploiting our country, and especially those projects that have been rejected in other countries, particularly some of the other OECD countries. I want to point out that while one of the previous speakers mentioned that we have a more stringent requirement than other OECD countries, that particular member also could not name a single one.

When we are looking at this bill, let’s talk about a couple of things that the bill does address and, I think, some of the submitters during the select committee process have explored reasonably well. In clause 8, we do see some of the changes that we’re looking at in terms of the investor test. I think, as the submitters pointed out and we see some changes that have been made as part of the select committee stage, that the investor test will no longer seek—particularly with regards to sensitive land—background checks on some of these investors, particularly when there are investors who may have a criminal record or may have projects or investments in other countries that are illegal, for lack of a better word; some of those adjustments have been changed as part of this legislation. There is a concern that if they do change aspects of the investor test—I acknowledge that some of them have retained things like around farmlands, things around coastal areas; however, there are still sections that remain a concern in terms of the removal of some of the sections when it comes to an investment test, particularly in terms of the oversight of sensitive lands, forests, and water resources.

I think this is one of the issues we are seeing with the weakening of the environmental safeguards, particularly when it comes to water bottling and extraction. This was something that was a huge problem maybe about eight years ago, that we saw this play out in certain areas. Water is—fresh water, in particular—a taonga, and we do need to look after our own resources.

In those kinds of cases, while a lot of people say “Oh, look, investment is good. Investment creates jobs.”, we also haven’t clearly heard the Government side concisely articulate exactly how many jobs they expect it to create as a result of this. We do see a lot of sound bites being created but not a lot of tangible evidence to say, “Look, we are going to be seeing 4,000 jobs in this area, therefore we’re going to be seeing X number of jobs.” At least in the Green Budget, for example, it clearly articulated we’re going to be creating 40,000 jobs, but we haven’t seen some of that being played out by this Government and in this particular bill.

Also, when we are looking at some of these areas in terms of this particular piece of legislation in conjunction with other legislation that has also gone through the House—for example, the Invest New Zealand Bill that was going through the House under urgency without even a select committee process, where we have already said that if we do continue and change the settings to the way we look at overseas investment and things like the national interest test and other matters, we are going to be seeing that Invest New Zealand will, essentially, function as a real estate agency that sells off New Zealand piece by piece. Again, we do ask why certain political parties that presume to put Aotearoa New Zealand first do not look at this bill with a more critical lens.

Finally, I think some of the submitters, particularly Emeritus Professor Jane Kelsey, have raised a number of really important questions around the interaction with the free-trade agreement, and particularly when we’re looking from a forestry perspective and how that will affect, in terms of the ratchet clauses that we’re seeing, an ability to relook at forestry and into sort of native or alternative land, as well as certain interactions that we saw with ISDS—that’s the investor-State dispute settlement process.

All in all, we are seeing that this bill is being put across without any sort of genuine understanding or genuine, well-thought-out argument to say that this is something that will benefit Aotearoa New Zealand. At this stage, we cannot—actually, we probably won’t support this bill at all. We are going to still be asking some questions at the committee stage.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It was only two days ago that I was speaking to a lady who has got property on the edge of our city, and it’s ripe for development. She wants to offload it, but no local buyers will take it. She’s been dealing with the Overseas Investment Office. It’s too hard and she’s been pulling her hair out. She said that lawyers want tens of thousands of dollars. This bill is all about streamlining and making it easy, and instead of that going on and on for up to 70 days, in some cases, it limits it to 15 working days. It’s a no-brainer, and I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m no longer on this wonderful committee that we have—the Finance and Expenditure Committee—but I remember my time on it fondly. I absolutely gained deep respect for the work that my colleague Barbara Edmonds did on that committee at the time when she was the chair.

I picked up this piece of legislation, and it’s actually been one of those moments when I look at a piece of legislation and really worry. I worry partly because of the kinds of comments that I heard from the Minister presenting it but also from Ryan Hamilton, who has just stood up. Now, he said very little in that speech, but he did heckle one of the other members when they suggested that some formidable economists had been concerned about this legislation. He said in his statement across the House “Did those people run a business?”, and I thought, “Well, did David Seymour run a business?”

What I am concerned about is that ideology is front-footing this piece of legislation, when in fact this is the very sort of legislation that we should tread carefully with. I looked at the regulatory impact statement and my concerns grew. In the regulatory impact statement, it says that “While the potential benefits of attracting more international investment are clear, there are also risks that need to be managed. New Zealand is facing a fundamentally more challenging security outlook, and an enduring screening regime is required to manage risks to our national interest that emerge over time.”

We are living in unprecedented times. What we are doing in this piece of legislation is easing up the scrutiny that we have on foreign investment, and that’s a very dangerous thing to do. It goes well beyond the skills of running a business, but it is also of concern to those who do, and it’s of concern that that report goes on to talk about the evidence for this and it looks at how there is some evidence from developing countries, but very little from countries like ours, if we do this, in terms of the benefits of it. That was from Treasury, and I am particularly concerned.

Some of the submitters are people I really admire, who have been very worried about this piece of legislation. One is Dame Anne Salmond, who is a national treasure. She’s one of our deepest thinkers, and she stands very much independently. I don’t think that she is a member of any party, but she is particularly concerned about the impact that it will have on iwi, and I share that concern.

What we have here, and have had here until now, are safeguards, and it’s so important that when we look at those things, we don’t look through an ideological lens. We’re trying to balance interests here. Yes, there’s nothing wrong with some foreign investment. In fact, that’s a really good thing, and Labour has put up a proposal to have a future fund so that it can attract that investment but keep it onshore. But it’s a very different thing when we tip that balance and concentrate all the power in a Minister’s hands about where those decisions will lie.

I am concerned about that, and I go to the Labour Party view first here. They have a differing view that they spell out in the report back on this piece of legislation. The members who were representing us, including the Hon Barbara Edmonds, said that “The Labour Party considers that the bill shifts the balance of overseas investment consent away from the principle that investment in New Zealand is a privilege, and undermines the scrutiny of applications. We consider that removal of the character test and reliance on Ministerial directive letter puts New Zealand at risk from inappropriate foreign investment.”

That’s a pretty serious thing to do, to shift that balance, and I have made that point right at the beginning of my speech. I’m particularly concerned about shifting that balance right now, because we have a very different world from the world we had even 10 years ago. We have the conglomeration of power and a lot of autocracy, and, actually, those big, big countries that are not necessarily democratic—they want in to other people’s economies, and that is in fact something that we should worry about. We should make sure that we keep control of our land.

In this country, we’ve been really, really streets ahead in our reconciliation for what happened when we colonised in this country and for the damage that was done. We have had a reconciliation process that’s ongoing, and we have had a lot of iwi ending up with a lot more of the resources than they have had. It is pitifully little, really, given how much they’ve lost, but with those resources, there has been investment in New Zealand, and we have a skyrocketing Māori economy. The businesses that Māori are running in this country are remarkable. It is one our most growing areas, and what we are doing here is we are opening the gate to foreign investment, with very little regard for that.

The reason I’ve been most worried about that is that it’s not the only thing that this Government has been doing. It’s been undermining all the value that there has been in recognising the principles of the Treaty. It’s been undermining that very development, and so this is a worry to me. It’s a worry at a foreign interference level, it’s a worry at a “lack of control by New Zealanders” level, and it’s a worry in terms of a burgeoning economy that is based on, really, a Māori renaissance of economic power.

This is of extreme concern to me, and I was very interested to hear the comments from the Green members when they stood up. I look at their contribution to this report back, and they are talking about things that matter. They are talking about the centralisation of power, they are talking about the weakening of environmental and public safeguards, they are talking about the Treaty of Waitangi and Māori interests, and they are talking about the public and expert concern which rallied against this bill by an overwhelming amount. Those are all things that we need to hear in this Parliament. Even if the position that the Government takes is different, they don’t need to be dismissed as views that are somehow extreme, because they are not extreme. Those are logical concerns that we should all share, and I don’t have to be a member of the Green Party to share those concerns and to listen to those points of view.

We are supposed to be a mature Parliament. We should be able to listen to views on the other side and consider them, and consider a changing world in light of them. Those things that are raised here in the Labour differing view and in the Green differing view—I am worried that those chickens will come home to roost in this area. It is time not to get up and make a 30-second speech, and not to get up and say a 30-second line, but to get up and actually think about this legislation and make a contribution. Even if the Government members disagree with the Opposition, it would be good to hear about the balancing that’s gone on and the checks and balances that are in place.

Now, I’ve heard some of that contribution today, but I haven’t heard enough of it. What I have heard is a lot of people whipping through the agenda and getting this put through with very little scrutiny at all. It is important to me to actually make the point that, on this side of the House, the Opposition is doing its job and it is competent in doing it. That is why those views will stand the test of time, and it is very important that they are not dismissed and they’re not seen as being somehow completely radical when, in fact, the position that has been taken is a pretty reasonable one in a changing world. We should be concerned in this country about losing control over our assets. They’re precious to New Zealanders. We’ve made those mistakes before, and we shouldn’t be making them again.

I am for the Future Fund. I’m for doing these things in a way that keeps assets within New Zealand and which grows our own autonomy and control and power over those assets. That’s where we put our energy, and we keep the safeguards and we’re cautious—we’re cautious and we’re savvy—about the world we now live in before we give up those powers to other people. Thank you.

This bill is all part of the Government’s plan to go for growth. This is all about growth, and how do we get growth? We get it by investment, and either it’s domestic investment or, in this case, foreign investment. You can’t just say you’re all about growth and then not be prepared to actually welcome foreign investment. Countries like Estonia, South Korea, Switzerland, Ireland, and Singapore—much wealthier countries than New Zealand—have all said, “Come, foreign investment.” This is what this bill is about: making it easy and simple to invest in this country so that we can go for growth. I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Otirā kei te tū awau ki te whakahē i tēnei pire, arā te pire Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Indeed, I stand to oppose this bill, the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.]

Last week, it was my privilege to receive a petition from Bevan O’Connor of Ngāti Kahungunu to withdraw the Regulatory Standards Bill, a bill which received 0.7 percent support of submitters. Here we are again, pushing through a bill that only 0.6 percent of submitters supported. What does that tell you, Aotearoa? The Government are deaf to your whakaaro. They want to run the country, they want to run it with you in it, but they will not hear your views on it.

We hear about the amazing success of the Māori economy. We know the Māori economy has got an asset base of $126 billion and contributed $32 billion to GDP. Now, how did they do that?

Grant McCallum: Isn’t there foreign investment in the Māori economy?

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: How did they do that, expert on the Māori economy? They did that by recovering, retaining, and protecting assets for the growth not only of iwi, hapū, and their descendants and the ability to stay on their whenua and grow communities, like those you proport to represent. That’s how they did it.

Now, this Government is disregarding that and making statements like, “These are dealing with less-sensitive assets.” What is a less-sensitive asset to an uri of Aotearoa, an uri of hapū, and an uri of iwi? When a woman is pregnant, the child takes sustenance from the placenta, which we call whenua. When we’re born, we continue to take sustenance from the whenua. That’s why we know its value. Then we identify ourselves with our maunga, our awa, and our whenua. That’s its value. A perfect example is the beautiful Whanganui: ko au te awa, ko te awa ko au—I am the river, and the river is me. It sounds like the local MP would be happy to hock it off.

Hoi anō rā, we are talking about less sensitive assets. Once again, this shows a disregard for Te Tiriti o Waitangi. How often do we sit in this House and say, “We all support these Treaty settlements.”? We look up at people who have been disenfranchised from their whenua. We hear about the disgraceful impacts of that. We all say—including that side—“We are so sorry. We’re so sorry we’ve taken that away from you.” Yet here we are again, willing to take that risk. The other reason the Māori economy is going so strongly is a point that my esteemed colleague the Hon Barbara Edmonds pointed out: it’s that we understand it is indeed a privilege to invest in Aotearoa.

I just want to acknowledge the people throughout Aotearoa who submitted on this, and many others. Sadly, because we’ve got a tone-deaf Government, people around this country have had to become experts on writing submissions, just for them to fall on deaf ears. People, like Te Hunga Rōia, some of the most impressive minds in this country, were completely disregarded, and people like the Māori Women’s Development Incorporation, who have been directly responsible for contributing to the growth of not just the Māori economy but the overall Aotearoa economy for the investment they make in growing skills.

Heoi anō rā, hei whakakapi i tēnei [Anyway, to conclude this], I reinforce our opposition to this, but I just want to, again, reinforce Labour’s vision for the growth of Aotearoa, a vision, like the New Zealand Future Fund, that will not only ensure economic growth, it will ensure it here in Aotearoa, by Aotearoa, and for Aotearoa—while not closing our doors to the world but making sure that the world knows what we stand for, and that is kaitiakitanga, not just growing the pūtea. Like I’ve said, our kaitiakitanga is forever.

To grow our economy, we need to attract overseas capital investment. New Zealand currently has one of the most restrictive foreign investment regimes in the OECD. This has cost us opportunities and jobs. We need to speed up decision making and improve certainty for investors and say, “New Zealand is open for business”. This is what creates jobs and opportunity. I commend this bill to the House

It’s a line of one of my favourite songs: “Once it’s gone, baby, it’s gone.” Once those assets are gone, it’s gone. It’s probably a bit more modern to many of the members on that side, but I know members across this House have driven by ports around New Zealand and have seen our logs sitting on ports—raw, undeveloped, harvested, but certainly not produced through our mills—and simply going offshore. What value does New Zealand get from that? I can tell you: bugger all. Eventually, New Zealand will go to other countries where these logs are sold and buy that produce back to this country. That was the outcome of asset sales of this kind that went unchecked, unregulated, and now sees the vast majority of our forests in this country owned by offshore investors. That’s not the New Zealand for the future.

When I was a trustee on our tribal forest trust, it worked because of the reasons my colleague here—Cushla Tangaere-Manuel— espoused to the House: (1) we were never going to sell our land or give it away; (2) when we grow those resources on our land, we need to make sure that those resources produce outcomes for the people who benefit from that land. That means jobs, wealth, income, and opportunity. When you sell those assets, they’re gone.

Now, I’m looking this way for a certain reason, because New Zealand First, I know, believes in this. New Zealand First knows that selling off our assets is a bad thing for this country. Yes, of course we want foreign investment. In fact, when the Government held their foreign investment symposium earlier in their tenure of this term, who were the ones that the foreign investors wanted to talk to? Māori. Why? Because Māori have a 100-year strategic view. They’re not flogging off the asset for a short sugar hit; for an income hit that will help them develop their community. No, these investors are saying to Māori, “What you’re looking at is strategic. Let’s work together to make sure that everybody benefits from this.”

From the speeches we’ve heard from the other side of the House, all I’ve heard is, “Let’s get rid of them to the people we like so that we can grow our economy.” That’s just not good enough. The submitters on this bill were very clear; my colleague made it clear that very few people supported this bill. In fact, some of the smartest minds in this country have made it very clear that this bill going unchecked, without the kind of recommendations that could provide a strong platform for foreign investment into this country, have been completely ignored. Those particular amendments that could have been included, I think will come back and bite this Government in the backside.

We know when we hold our assets, when we develop them, when we invest in them, it works out well for this country. There was a motto that was heard bellowed in this House in two previous terms by a member from New Zealand First, who would always say “Billion trees”—“Billion trees”. For those of you who are in this House, you’ll know who I’m talking about. That made it very clear that the strategic goal of the Government at the time was to grow those resources for this country. Why? Because we knew we had a housing shortage, we knew we had an infrastructure shortage, and we knew we could produce the vast bulk of those resources to meet those needs. Trees were one way to do that.

The National Party and the ACT Party, though, saw it as an opportunity to say, “Oh, they’re getting rid of farmland; they’re turning it into forestry, etc., etc.” Sure, they gained the platform through the election by doing so. However, now what we have is fewer forests in New Zealand hands. Those trees that were planted in and invested in to grow carbon credits in this country have, for the most part, been sold off. We also know, too, that when we were in power, Labour invested in making sure we could process that wood and that timber. Sadly, that’s all gone now. Now, we go back to that time I mentioned at the start of my contribution. We drive past ports with raw logs sitting there waiting to be exported to other countries.

The National Party and the ACT Party say, “Look at Singapore. They rely on foreign investment to get going.” Well, guess what! Singapore don’t have forests. Singapore don’t have valuable conservation land. Singapore don’t have all of the resources that we are blessed with in this country. I’ve been to Singapore. You can run the length of that country. Well, I can; some members in this House, Mr McCallum’s one—I suspect he won’t be able to do that. None the less, the point of it is this: they were strategic in their time to make sure that their investment invested in their own human capability. That’s why they have such high technology avenues. That’s why they have such a productive economy: because they invested that way. What this, sadly, does, though, is it continues to—in a concern for all of us—lower thresholds to allow more people to come in and to invest and to buy up assets in this country.

Now, what it also does is something that we’ve seen time and time again from, in particular, the ACT Party, where democracy means nothing or means very little. It’s putting the power in the hand of the Minister of Finance to go, “Nah, today I feel like this and I might do that; or tomorrow—nah, I might not let that one go through.” Now, while I accept that a ministerial post comes with huge responsibility, when we’re talking about the country’s strategic assets, I’m of a mind that those matters should be debated here in this House—somewhere where we can have a full democratic process that says, “These are the views our country have towards the strategic assets that we have either on the market or off the market at the moment.” Now, I think that that’s reasonable. When we continue to marginalise the voice of many and put the power into the hands of so few, I have a problem with that—and we’ve seen it far too many times on this bill.

I’m always concerned when we look towards the erosion of Treaty rights—and there have been a number of legal cases that have been won, hard-fought for, through the high courts in this country, through the local court, through the District Court, and on to the High Court and the Supreme Court, that have continued to reaffirm Māori rights in this country. I’m not just talking about customary title; I’m talking about actual rights to areas that were confiscated by the Crown over many years.

Yet here we are, continually eroding that voice and that part that Te Tiriti o Waitangi offers protection for this country, not just for Māori. It offers protection for this country; for all citizens in this country to say, “These are important assets to all of us, so let’s look after them. Let’s look after them for the benefit of the majority and not for the benefit of the few.” Te Tiriti o Waitangi is not the enemy here; in fact, it is a gateway. I said earlier that the conference that the Government held looking for foreign investment look towards Māori to ensure that long-term investments were the way that everybody wins—and you get that through to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

One of the things I’m proud of, when this House does its settlements, is when we return strategic assets, we look towards allowing iwi to grow that asset for themselves. My colleague Cushla Tangaere-Manuel sat here and went through the numbers. But I can tell you—it was 30 years ago when Waikato-Tainui settled the first settlement under Jim Bolger and Doug Graham—that it’s taken a long time to grow that pie. A long time: 30 years. That’s called having a strategic view. Elections in this country are every three years, and we’re looking for a sugar hit.

Instead, we need to be taking a longer-term view just like Waikato-Tainui have, just like Ngāi Tahu have, and so many other iwi now. Some iwi—and I know a small handful have looked towards their strategic assets and how they might be able to leverage off them, and some of them have indeed either leased them or sold them. That’s OK; that’s their right. They can do that. However, they’ve continued to maintain an ongoing welfare mechanism; an ongoing outcome mechanism for their descendants and those who have registered with those tribes. Ultimately, though, that supports New Zealand’s economic growth.

Now, if we look towards smarter investments into the future, yes, let’s do what Singapore does. Let’s look towards an economy that is about not just looking at our natural resources but the greatest resource in this country, which is our human capacity, right? That’s what Singapore did, and look what they were able to do. That’s what other countries have done, and look what they were able to do. Instead, we keep coming back to this fight for assets in this country, and I beg the New Zealand First Party to make sure that they stand by what they keep saying to our community: protect our national assets.

I say to the New Zealand First Party that it’s not too late. They’ve got an opportunity through the urgency that we’ll all be going through over the next three days to make it clear that we stand together on protecting national resources of significance and making sure that it produces outcomes not for the rich overseas, but for New Zealanders.

New Zealand has had one of the most restrictive regimes for investment in the OECD countries. This legislation is balanced, pro-growth reform. I commend the bill to the House.

The Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe—this is the Te Pāti Māori call.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. He tino hōnore tēnei ki te tū ake ki te kōrero ki tēnei pire.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a real honour to stand to speak to this bill.]

I’m sure Te Pāti Māori would want me to talk about Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which I’m pleased to do. This bill, to me, is a sign of a weak leadership, of a weak Government that’s trying to look for a shortcut for better outcomes. I’ll give you an example around Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It was the New Zealand Māori Council that took the Crown to court over forestry, and it went all the way to the Privy Council. They won, and those lands were put aside for the purpose of Treaty settlements. Imagine today, with this bill, an Act that, if this bill was in place then, probably wouldn’t have happened. A shortcut doesn’t always give the best outcomes for all New Zealanders, because what that did was give an opportunity to grow the Māori economy that my colleague Cushla Tangaere-Manuel spoke about and that my colleague the Hon Peeni Henare spoke about. I speak about that now as a warning, and I support what my colleague the Hon Barbara Edmonds said, who gave some pathways forward in her foresight of what’s about to go wrong with this bill. It’s incumbent on this House, actually, to make sure it’s listening to all of those voices. Shortcuts don’t always mean the best way forward. Mr Speaker, thank you.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Mr Speaker?

Sorry, there are no more calls on this bill.

The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the meal break. The House will resume at 7.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6.01 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.