Invest New Zealand Bill

Good morning members. The committee is resumed on the Invest New Zealand Bill. When we were considering the bill last night, we had just concluded the debate on Part 2. We therefore come to our final debate, clauses 1 and 2, which are the title and commencement.

This bill is named the Invest New Zealand Bill, which I suppose that’s partly what this bill is trying to achieve, but I just wonder if a better title for it might be the “Sell New Zealand Bill”. It’s here to sell, encourage people to come into this country and to buy up our resources—to buy them up—not to the benefit of New Zealanders. We tried to put that into the bill last night in various stages, that the purpose might include ensuring that New Zealanders are better off. But in fact, this is all just about selling New Zealand overseas. Now, of course we want people to come here and enjoy our tourism, enjoy our hospitality, enjoy some of the fine things this country has to offer, but let’s not forget that the purpose of this bill is to bring foreign money in.

When we bring foreign money in, people don’t do it because they have a warm fuzzy feeling about doing it. They don’t do it just for the likes and the jollies. They actually want to get a return out of it. Now, there’s nothing wrong with getting a return; no one minds that. But we have to ask ourselves: why are we trying to send those investment returns offshore to people who live overseas, when we actually have some perfectly good sources of capital here in New Zealand ourselves?

Over many, many years, thanks to the foresight of Sir Michael Cullen, we’ve at last managed to build up a bit of an investment pool in our KiwiSaver funds. Why are we not developing mechanisms to ensure that our KiwiSaver funds can invest in New Zealand? Why are we not trying to develop mechanisms to ensure that New Zealanders themselves can invest in New Zealand? Why are we not trying to ensure that people have decent wages and a decent income so that New Zealanders themselves can invest in New Zealand?

This is not actually about New Zealanders investing in New Zealand. This is about New Zealanders selling our country off to foreign investors and foreign investors who want to return. So I’m going to suggest that instead of calling this the Invest New Zealand Bill, we should be calling this the “Sell New Zealand Bill”. That would be a much more accurate description of what this bill actually sets out to do. I invite this committee to consider that.

If we weren’t going to call it the “Sell New Zealand Bill”, I have another suggestion to offer here, and it goes to some of the issues which we alluded to last night around this bill’s rather naïve hope that we might develop collaborations around science, after we’ve thoroughly decimated our science sector. So we could call it the “Living In Hope But Not Having A Real Plan Bill”.

You see, in order to get something going like serious science collaboration across countries, across sectors, across the world, you probably need to have a decent science system at home. We’ve had a really good science system. We’ve had dedicated scientists. We’ve had people who research and do this because it’s thoroughly interesting. But in the last year or so, we have just slapped those people in the face, told them that we don’t value science any more, totally undermined the institutions, walked away from science in both our universities and in our science research institutions. Yet somehow, this Government thinks that overseas investors, overseas research institutions, having seen the way we’ve treated our own scientists, will actually turn around and decide that they should come and collaborate with us.

A rather more accurate name for this bill might be the—I can’t even remember what I said now, something around the naïve hopes but not actually having the reality to back it up. I think that’s characteristic of this Government. So this bill would be a much more accurately named bill if we reflected what this Government is doing, saying something in the hope that just by saying it over and over again, it will actually happen, but, in the meantime, undermining the reality. So I propose those different names for this bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I know there’ll be many people out there watching; they’ve probably waited up and been by their TVs to tune in and follow this bill and they’ll be really interested in the title. There might be others who are not. But the point is it is actually quite critical.

As my colleague Deborah Russell has said, it could be named in different ways. There are two questions I have of the Minister in the chair, really: why not call it “Buy New Zealand 2025” because, clearly, the fairly blunt and crude way that this bill is being constructed with few, if any, qualifications on what kind of investment we will be getting into New Zealand, then why not just call it the “Buy New Zealand Bill”?

And then the question is: 2025—why this year? Why not push it out for a year and provide the business community, New Zealanders, and parliamentarians a greater opportunity to look at this bill and see the implications of it? As I’ve said previously in this debate, we have $575 billion worth of investment in our country already. It’s foreign investment in New Zealand and a lot of it is valuable, but not all of it—not all of it. I think being able to differentiate between good foreign investment and bad foreign investment is critical. That’s why we have the Overseas Investment Office. But, actually, if you constrain them, or you flood them, then you limit their ability to work out what is good and bad investment.

There’s a philosophical issue, as well, that if you bring in money just to inflate asset values but not drive any further productivity across our economy, it further drives us back, because there is a lot of money out around the world, and in spite of the Government saying that it has to set up this real estate agency at a cost of $54 million a year, I think good investment finds its way to New Zealand anyway and with the good work of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise.

So I think “Invest New Zealand Act 2025”, which is the title which we’re currently debating, is somewhat unhelpful, if not misleading, because we could end up with a flood of investment that simply buys our valuable assets and our productivity. The Minister in the chair there might think, well, he’s OK, and the Māori people and the Māori interests he represents are OK because they’re protected and sensible—the same doesn’t apply to the rest of the assets across New Zealand, many of which are already owned by overseas people and may be flicked on to other overseas people through this initiative, and put us in a worse position in terms of productivity.

So the question is: why not have this bill called either, one, “Buy New Zealand 2025”, or, we could call the bill the “Invest New Zealand Act” and make it 2026 and provide this—

Joseph Mooney: This gentleman was the Minister for Trade, what happened?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —House and the rest of the country with another 12 months—

Joseph Mooney: What happened to trade?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —to look at, arguably, what is one of the most critical things? The member’s going on about trade. As a former trade Minister, I know what we have done is negotiated increasing the thresholds to allow more investment into New Zealand, all with qualifications. When we negotiated those agreements, we did not in any way remove or attempt to remove the sovereign rights of individual nations, including ours, to have qualifications, to have checks and balances and, ultimately, the right to say “No” to the investment. Some of those provisions will still remain in place; I accept that. The question is why should we set up, under the title “Invest New Zealand 2025”, a real estate agency costing taxpayers $54 million a year to just go out and welcome in and incentivise people to come and buy New Zealand? Because that’s what’s happening.

If there were provisions in this bill that had an assurance that the money coming in was either for greenfields investment or for additional productivity and for benefit, then I think we might take a different approach. But, in fact, there are none of those qualifications in the legislation.

Kia ora, Madam Chair. Look, the pejorative and scrambled messaging that’s being conspired by the Opposition is not just dank and dark, dark and dank, but it’s opaque and black—opaque and blank.

The purpose of the bill is to establish Invest New Zealand to promote increased overseas investment into New Zealand and provide for Invest New Zealand’s objective functions and operation. It is entirely appropriate, in this brunch and breakfast session in our esteemed Chamber, that the Invest New Zealand Bill turn into the Invest New Zealand Act. Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We understand what the purpose is, because we had a discussion about this last night. But just following on from the previous speaker, the Hon Damien O’Connor, who was the previous trade Minister—and he captured it quite nicely—we already have a number of one-stop shop agencies for this. What is unique about this particular one?

I want to go on to the commencement date first, which is 1 July 2025. I want to check with the Minister, the Hon Tama Potaka: we’ve heard from the Minister previously on some of the work that is being done, potentially, in the background. But I think what we haven’t heard, succinctly, is a response to the question that was asked around the transition measures and whether they will be in time for 1 July, particularly from the perspective of collective agreements in terms of the Public Service perspective. So that’s my question in terms of the commencement date—whether 1 July is feasible or whether we should be looking at pushing the 1 July date out further.

But just now coming to the title of the bill, I know that we talk about “Invest New Zealand”, but what we’ve heard from the Minister—and, to be honest, every three questions that we ask, we get maybe one answer and the other two left unanswered; you know, we still haven’t heard exactly what was the advice given from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and we still haven’t really heard why the regulatory impact statement and the Budget had different amounts allocated to Invest New Zealand.

We are really curious as to whether “Invest New Zealand” is actually the best name for this, because there seems to be a half-heartedness when it comes to this particular bill and this particular agency, and there’s going to be a lot of confusion, and, to the Minister’s own words, “opaqueness”, when it comes to the way that agencies can be set up. Fundamentally, when we’re looking at the title of this bill, I wonder if the Minister in the chair would consider, from all of the things we’ve discussed, the lack of reassurance we have received from the Minister that this is indeed something that is going to be good for New Zealanders and for New Zealand in general. We’ve heard things and we’ve heard more concerns and more questions than actual responses, and the previous speaker, the Hon Damien O’Connor, mentioned that this is, essentially, going to be a real estate agency that’s going to sell off New Zealand one bit at a time.

So I wondered if a better title for this bill, rather than “Invest New Zealand”, would be “Divest New Zealand”, because that’s what, fundamentally, the concerns around this agency are going to be. We are actually no longer supporting New Zealand entrepreneurship and also innovation but, instead, we expect overseas companies, carte blanche, without any sort of precautions and provisions—we didn’t hear anything around how they’re going to ensure, from a procedural perspective, from an operational perspective, that there is not going to be any sort of anti-competitive measures, anti - money-laundering measures, or any of those things. Yes, I admit that they’re part of domestic legislation, but the fact is that just because the law is in place does not mean that the agency is well equipped to ensure that they are followed.

So I personally think that “Divest New Zealand” is a better term for us to use. But other ones—to be fair, if the Minister thinks that “Divest New Zealand” is a bit too on the nose and too similar to “Invest New Zealand”, we can look, I think, at changing the title to “Country for Sale”, because that seems kind of appropriate as well, or even just “Selling New Zealand Out”.

I think the other appropriate title, when we’re looking at the title of this—again, although we do see in the departmental report some of the advice that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has undertaken in terms of our Te Tiriti obligations, we’re still not entirely convinced, particularly in light of some of our trade agreements but also in light of some of the current trajectory that the Government is going in. I think if we really want to signal to the world that we are a country that upholds indigenous rights, “Invest Aotearoa” would be a more appropriate title.

So I would like to hear from the Minister as to whether he would consider any of those titles and the change to the commencement date.

There’s been some lopsided and obtuse comments this morning—you know, again, the cursory remarks about Māori interests from individuals who have probably been involved for about half a second in Māori development.

Now, it was wonderful, a couple of weeks ago, to attend, with the colleague from Hamilton East and others, the Ruakura development being led by Tainui Group Holdings and a commitment by an international investor of nearly a billion dollars into a tribally led land development on the eastern flank of Kirikiriroa Hamilton. Yet today, we hear that Māori are scared of doing this—this wasn’t good for our tamariki and mokopuna. Actually, iwi and Māori want to invest with capital, and, to be fair, it doesn’t matter what the colour of that capital is as long as it’s aligned with iwi and tribal development. The agencies are ready to move forward, and I have full confidence in their commitment and enthusiasm and energy to enable this country to fulfil its co-investment potential.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s great to be able to continue this morning the debate around the Invest New Zealand Bill, because last evening when we were discussing through the committee stage aspects of the bill, it was good to see the commitment from the Government parties to sticking around for as long as was required to go through, one by one, the various amendments that we had suggested to try and make this bill better, because there’s a lot of concern around the House that there isn’t the correct governance certainty and structure provided in the bill to give New Zealanders the certainty they deserve. So my suggestion when it comes to the title is that we really ought to be calling this bill what it is.

There was a discussion earlier in this part of the debate around the title—there was a comparison to people tuning in this morning, like they would when we’re playing a big game globally, and New Zealanders want to tune in and watch that big game and see the result. The difference here is that when New Zealand as a nation tunes in to watch our teams compete on the world stage, the hope is that we will bring the cup, the prize, the win back to New Zealand. What viewers are tuning in for this morning is to see the complete opposite of that.

What viewers are tuning in for this morning is to see a bill that takes the cup, the prize, the trophy out of New Zealand. So with this bill, a win is actually a loss for New Zealanders because the loss is that great intellectual property, that great development, that great idea and work and innovation being taken away from New Zealand because the money didn’t come from ourselves; it came externally.

It’s a little like having a garage sale. You have a garage full of goods. You open the door on a Saturday morning, people come along, they buy those items, and then you have a little bit of cash in your hand, but you also have an empty garage. So all of a sudden all those things that you had in your garage that used to be yours are no longer yours, because you’ve sold them off to whoever would pay whatever they would pay for it. So this is all leading to some suggestions here around actually calling this bill, titling this bill, more honestly what it is.

Part of the discussion last night was around the Minister suggesting that this bill needed to be fleet of foot, which I think the consensus was it actually just meant slippery. So a slippery bill like this needs a more honest title. Some of the title suggestions I have are—and I’m really looking forward to some calls from the other side with some of their suggested bill names too. Some of my suggested bill titles—and I’m really interested to hear the Minister’s opinion on these. My question is really which of these the Minister thinks best fits the bill.

The first is to recycle a name that you’ve already paid for, which is “Everyone Must Go Bill”. That was the tourism slogan. It was also the slogan that was repeated to the science sector as the $90 million worth of cuts were rolled out in this year’s Budget. “Everyone must go” is the message that this Government sent to our brightest in the science sector.

Another potential title is the “Sell Out Our Future Invest New Zealand Bill”. Another is the “Briscoes Sale Invest New Zealand Bill” or the “Failing Our Science Sector Investment Bill”—one of my favourites. [Interruption] You’ll need to listen carefully, because I might need to explain it to you, members of the other side of the Chamber—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I am listening carefully.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: Not you, Madam Chair. I’m sure you’ll get this immediately. Sorry to bring you into the conversation. It’s the “Buy-bye Invest New Zealand Bill”, and the important distinction here is that the first “buy” is spelt B-U-Y. and the second “buy” is B-Y-E. The message is goodbye, but the message is also that it is simply a fire sale.

But I’m going to use the Minister’s own words and describe possibly the best title as being the “Lopsided Invest New Zealand Bill”, because that’s what this is. It doesn’t favour New Zealanders; it favours foreign multinationals.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired.

Again, the inventiveness and foxiness in the vernacular that’s being promoted by the Opposition commentariat will not change the intentions and the commitment of this Government to get the economy back on track and to ensure that we enable and expedite and accelerate co-investment, not only with public and local providers but also with Māori and iwi developers. I will retire and allow the other Minister, the Hon Nicola Grigg, to carry on.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I think we’ve got room for one more tranche of ideas. I call the Hon Julie Anne Genter.

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Thank you so much. I really am grateful for this opportunity to speak to some of my amendments on this part of the bill, because I think they possibly do need some explanation, particularly for the members opposite.

In my second reading speech on this bill, I brought up Utopia, which is a satirical show. It takes place in Australia. I feel like it just perfectly sums up the energy of this bill and this whole concept, because the Government has already set up a one-stop shop for investment in infrastructure with the National Infrastructure Funding and Financing company; I’m not sure if members are aware of that. That happened less than a year ago and now we have yet another agency being set up at a cost of over—I think it’s going to be about $50 million a year for the next few years to set up another one-stop shop to attract foreign investors into New Zealand.

So I thought this is amazing, because it seems like this policy is really more about PR than it is about substantially addressing the issues with productivity in Aotearoa New Zealand. Particularly when we consider that the majority of the funding for Invest New Zealand is coming from Callaghan Innovation being wrapped up. That was an agency that was actually driving research, employing scientists here in New Zealand, working with businesses, actually achieving genuine innovation. But this concept, Invest New Zealand, is that we don’t have the ability to invest in our own country; we have to rely on rich foreigners to come in and invest so that we can somehow get wealthier. But of course those investors are going to require a return on their investment.

Is that going to stay in New Zealand and benefit New Zealand? Realistically, no. So one of my tabled amendments last night was in clause 1, title, “After ‘Invest New Zealand’, page two, line 3, insert ‘(Utopia As A Satire)’.” It’s not meant to be an example of how we actually govern and come up with things.

My other amendment was a reference to yet another one-stop shopfront for private investors to profiteer. [Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The interjections are not now being directed at the member speaking, they’re being directed across the Chamber. So we’ll just have a little bit more calm, please.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Thank you, Madam Chair. I also had another tabled amendment. If the Minister didn’t like the “Utopia As A Satire” reference, we have another option, which is “Invest New Zealand (Yet Another One-stop Shopfront For Private Investors To Profit Here) Bill”. Ultimately, this bill just demonstrates, I think, the difference between having genuine ideas about how New Zealand can develop and be a prosperous nation that’s looking after its environment, that’s investing in its people, that’s investing in its own infrastructure by having a fairer tax system—and, instead, the ideas of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and this coalition Government are simply to set up more agencies, multiple agencies directed at trying to get money from overseas, which is going to be looking for a return. So rather than really properly investing in New Zealand, it’s going to be looking to draw profits out of New Zealand.

That is the fundamental difference, I think, between the concept of economic development, between this—well, it’s certainly for the Greens, who proposed an alternative budget and some very realistic costed policies that would actually support innovation, support green industrial development here in Aotearoa New Zealand, would support science. I know people who want to come back and work in New Zealand who have PhDs from some of the top science universities in the world, and they don’t even feel they can come to New Zealand. They’re having to go to Australia or other countries. That’s because as a country, we need investment in public-good science—public-good science—not just things that are already commercially viable. There’s no need to put public money into things that are commercially viable. But we do need public money in public-good science and that has spillover benefits for everyone in the country.

If we look at other small economies, that’s what they’re doing. [Interruption] Yeah. Like Singapore, like Denmark, like Ireland, they actually have substantially more public-good investment. They may have done similar silly things. I mean, Ireland did, that’s for sure. But, actually, they have more progressive tax systems. They have more public investment. That creates jobs. That creates opportunities. Fundamentally, this Invest New Zealand Bill is like a bad joke.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The following tabled amendments are ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill: Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “Invest” with “Divest”, Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “Invest New Zealand” with “Country For Sale”, Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “Invest New Zealand” with “Foreign Profits First”, Scott Willis’ tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “Invest New Zealand” with “Selling New Zealand Out”, the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to clause 1 inserting “Utopia is a Satire”, and the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to clause 1 inserting “Yet Another One-stop Shop Front for Private Investors to Profiteer”.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to change “New Zealand” to “Aotearoa” be agreed to.