Invest New Zealand Bill

I move, That the Invest New Zealand Bill be now read a second time.

I want to thank all members across the House for the views they have shared during the first reading, but I would like to clarify a couple of points because I don’t think the bill is as well understood as it could be. I’d like to be clear that Invest New Zealand will be focused on attracting investment into high-value sectors with the potential to raise productivity, expand research and development, and drive increased activity by multinationals and other investors in the New Zealand economy. It will not work to attract investment in sectors that could pose national security risks in New Zealand, and investment will still need to comply with the Overseas Investment Act—it doesn’t alter that; it is guided by it.

As outlined in the first reading speech, the key functions of this bill are to establish Invest New Zealand as an autonomous Crown agency, an entity to focus on bringing investment to New Zealand, rather than a broader mandate that New Zealand Trade and Enterprise currently has. To provide for its objectives, functions, and operations, this will be by establishing an agency whose sole focus is attracting that investment, and we have exciting opportunities to transform New Zealand into a top-tier destination for high-quality international investment that’s good for New Zealand and good for New Zealanders.

I do note the comments by the Hon Damien O’Connor—and I know that when he, previously, in the last Government, was trade Minister, he had many opportunities to talk to investors from around the world who were interested in investing in New Zealand. I daresay and imagine he tried to attract them to New Zealand into areas that would help grow the economy or, in partnership, grow New Zealand businesses. But he too would have realised that it is often harder than it should be for that capital to come to New Zealand to benefit New Zealanders to grow the economy, and it often goes elsewhere.

We should compare ourselves against the country in the world with the highest level of foreign direct investment on a GDP basis, which is Ireland; we should compare ourselves to Singapore, that attracted almost eight times the foreign direct investment last year that New Zealand did. Because in both cases, their citizens earn more, they have more opportunity provided for them, they have better jobs, and they’ve done it in partnership with that capital.

We can’t get rich selling to ourselves; we won’t become wealthier by only investing in ourselves. This is a nation that has always attracted foreign direct investment. This Government backs growth, it backs New Zealanders, it backs the companies of New Zealand, and I commend this bill to the House.

I take issue with that Minister who said we will not get wealthy by investing in ourselves. What an outrageous, unpatriotic statement to make in this Parliament. What we need is to invest in ourselves, in ways of education, in ways of research and development, in better housing and infrastructure—investing in ourselves, believing in ourselves, and getting the return through future generations. Not seeing the 191 people who leave this country every single day because they’ve lost faith in New Zealand and they’re going somewhere else.

I’ll go to the regulatory impact statement—the Government’s own assessment of this: “Note that an increase in the level of foreign investment will not necessarily equate to an improvement in access to capital or productivity. This is because the impacts of the increased foreign direct investment are dependent on the characteristics of the domestic firms. Investment in non-productive areas will not necessarily improve access to capital, particularly if a given domestic sector already has sufficient access to capital. Foreign direct investment will only improve access to capital if it is directed to sectors and firms where access to capital is currently lacking.”

We welcome, and have welcomed, foreign investment into this country. The Minister is right. We do talk to people who are interested in coming to our country—but for the right reasons: to ensure that we have long-term benefit from that, not just selling off our country. In fact, the primary objective of this agency in relation to the outcomes is an increase in the level of foreign direct investment in New Zealand—full stop. We have amendments that we will talk about in the committee stage that ensure it is subject to the net benefit and ongoing sustainable development of our country.

We’re not here just to deliver profits and returns to foreign investors. We’re here—or I am, and people on this side of the House are—for New Zealand and our future generations, not for the opportunities of foreign investors. We’re happy to have partnerships, but we must ensure that the benefits accrue to us. We are told that we have a shortage of capital—I don’t think many New Zealanders would understand: we have $373 billion—sorry, we did have in March 2024; it’s probably improved since then—of New Zealanders’ money invested offshore. Well, I would suggest that many sensible New Zealanders would say, “Actually, why aren’t we investing a little bit more of that ourselves?” We have KiwiSaver funds—and can I thank Michael Cullen and the Labour Government for finally committing ourselves to develop investment funds that we own and can control. How much is there? There’s $111 billion in KiwiSaver funds. The Superannuation Fund has $76 billion, and 85 percent—

Todd Stephenson: It’s invested offshore.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Yes, it is invested offshore, and can I say that because the fund managers have freedom to invest wherever they like, and they receive income and bonuses on the basis of maximising the return—the short-term return—

Todd Stephenson: No, the long-term return. That’s how it works.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —no, the short-term return—for their incomes. I suggest that the ACT Party will never understand this. I’m not even going to try and explain it to them. The long-term returns to our country depend upon investing in infrastructure and assets and people and research and development that give us more opportunities into the future. I suspect—and someone asked why this bill has come to the House now under urgency. Well, I think it’s because Winston Peters is away, because let me quote: “New Zealand First stands”—

Simon Court: Point of order. The Standing Orders are very clear. Members are not allowed to refer to other members not being in the House. I ask that you ask that member to withdraw and apologise. He’s a very experienced member—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): OK, I take the point of order.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Mr Speaker, I didn’t say the member wasn’t in the House. I said he’s away. It’s widely known that he’s offshore doing valuable work for us. Mr Speaker, can I quote?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I take your point but please move on with your speech.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I am moving on: “New Zealand First stands for controls and restrictions on foreign investment. We oppose making it easier for foreigners to come into this country, leave their money, buy our businesses, buy our homes, and buy our land.”

Hon Mark Patterson: Exactly what I said.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: No, not quite, because if the member goes and reads the objectives of Invest New Zealand, he will find that it’s not out to necessarily ensure—as I quoted from the regulatory impact statement—that the money coming in here—and he can vote for our amendments if he does support this—does deliver net sustainable benefits for all New Zealanders. No, it’s just coming in, possibly, for opportunistic investments into a country that has no capital gains tax, and those investors can take away, as they did last year, $26 billion from our economy into their pockets.

Now, that’s perfectly reasonable. They’ve been able to do that. We can’t stop or challenge that. The question is: is there a better way forward and can we invest more in ourselves? Because this agency has been set up, in my view, just to sell New Zealand—to sell New Zealand. Well, it’s about time we invested in ourselves, and if we do get foreign capital in here, we put conditions and provisions on it, as suggested by New Zealand First, and we welcome their support for our amendments. That money can come in and work in partnership, but it must have conditions that ensure the long-term benefit for our country, not at the expense of others.

Now, let’s have a look at what we see. If it comes into houses, no doubt it will drive up the price of houses. People might feel better in the short term. What does that do to long-term housing affordability? If the money comes into research and development—because the Government has squeezed money for research and development; they have taken money from a core part of our economic development for the future and they’re hoping that this money will come in and replace it. Well, you don’t get something for nothing, and if they’re going to invest into our research and development sector and into the bright minds and innovative practices of Kiwis, then those investors are likely to take that IP offshore. Where does that leave us into the future? There are many, many questions in this piece of legislation that we will be asking during the committee stage of this bill.

It is a sad day when we have to have a real estate agent for New Zealand, run by the Government that says it wants growth for them, not for us. I’ve got real concerns about the direction of travel for our country under this current coalition Government. I would have thought that New Zealand First, in particular, in this area of foreign investment, would have had the courage to stand up for what it has stated and stood on in principle over many, many years. The Minister said it: “New Zealand first.” This is not New Zealand first; this is investors first—this is foreign investors first.

Joseph Mooney: What a load of nonsense.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Well, we’ll go and test some of these theories through the committee stage. I know that ACT do have a fairly open mind to sell off anything for any reasons. We have tabled a number of amendments, and we look forward to support from New Zealand First for those. They simply put in place safeguards. If this bill is to progress—because the Government has the numbers—the least that New Zealand First can do is stand up on its principles and support adequate controls and safeguards that mean this money will deliver additional benefits. At the moment, this agency, “Sell New Zealand”, is simply going to go out, find any money it can, bring it into this country, for whatever projects—we don’t know—and not necessarily deliver the long-term benefits we need.

We appreciate, and I can refer to many projects and many businesses in this country that have been set up and deliver long-term benefits for our country. But they’ve been set up under Governments that have put in place those safeguards. There are no safeguards here—absolutely none. New Zealand Trade and Enterprise did have an overall objective of driving an increase in trade and enterprise in this country, and the foreign investment that they sought played into that comprehensive objective. This agency simply brings foreign money into New Zealand for the purposes of the foreign investors. We oppose this legislation.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to hear and oppose this bill. Here we are in the second reading because this Government simply cannot have the guts to let the New Zealand public weigh in and have a say on an entirely new Crown agency that they are creating here under urgency.

I look forward to, following the second reading, spending time with everyone here in this House during the committee stage and getting the chance to have a chat with the Minister, alongside other members of this House, to really scrutinise why we need to have this agency in the first place. So, Mr Speaker, and also to the Government, I look forward to this opportunity coming up after the second reading tonight.

On to the second reading of this speech. I think one of the things that is really apparent, and I want to address this up front and centre, is the complete and alarming lack of any form of Te Tiriti analysis in this bill—not just on this bill but also in this bill. The concern that we see when it comes to the department impact statement: “What is the policy objective? The policy objective is to lower foreign investors’ liability of foreignness as much as possible.” I echo the previous speaker, the Hon Damien O’Connor, to really question this Government of who we are placing first here with this agency. If this is the policy objective, is this really putting Aotearoa New Zealand first? Maybe a political party who have supported this bill should call themselves “Foreigners First” instead of New Zealand First, or—even more appropriately—“Migrants First”, because, God, that party certainly loves themselves some migrants!

When it comes to Te Tiriti, what we are seeing here is a complete disregard for the foundation document of Aotearoa New Zealand. What we are seeing here, as we see in all of the trade deals that we have been negotiating under this Government—and that includes the latest New Zealand - United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement—is Te Tiriti still being placed as a tag-along, as something that is nice to have rather than a core part of what we are offering here in Aotearoa New Zealand, both to our own people and how we would like to see ourselves projected on the international stage.

When we are looking at why people would like to invest in Aotearoa New Zealand, the world has moved on, but this Government has not. This Government would love to be stuck in the 18th century, like all of their policies around offshore mining, seabed bottom trawling when we were looking at opening gas and oil exploration, removing all of our climate obligations, a lacklustre emissions reduction plan, not upholding anything under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, putting more Māori and Pasifika in prison, and putting more of our young people in prison. That is not what other people would like to contribute.

Indeed, we have heard from our overseas partners that they are concerned with the way that Aotearoa New Zealand is moving. They are concerned because it is out of step with our international obligations. They are concerned at our complete disregard to environmental protection under this Government. So I ask you: under this Government and under this agency, what are they hoping to do?

When we are looking at this particular bill, and when we are looking at the way that we promote ourselves internationally, our most successful marketing campaign as a country is the fact that we paint ourselves as a clean and green country. Yet the truth now is so much further away from that. What we are seeing are unswimmable rivers. What we’re seeing is beaches that, with the tiniest bit of rain, or even during dry season, people can’t swim in. Those kinds of lack of sustainable goals and sustainable targets is not what foreigners or investors would like to invest in.

They are afraid that when they are investing here—for those of them who would like to have the Government’s ear in terms of opening more offshore drilling or allowing for more mining permits—they know they’re only getting a short-term gain out of this, and they know that they can exploit Aotearoa New Zealand, because they couldn’t do it to any other country. Other countries have moved on; yet they know.

We removed the Clean Car Discount. It was a great form of input for us. You have clean-car companies who are like, “We were hoping to invest more, but do you know what? We’ve got all of these really fuel-intensive vehicles that we can’t push off to any other country.” But do you know what? Aotearoa New Zealand will then become a dumping ground for all of these sorts of things. This is what this agency and this bill will allow.

We are looking at the fact that when we get to talking about some of these issues, like I said, foreign investors will not invest—or the kind of foreign investors we would like to attract will not invest—in a country that doesn’t invest in itself. What is so telling about this—and as part of the Budget 2025—is the fact that the bulk of the funding that is going to be funded towards Invest New Zealand, as the Hon Damien O’Connor said so accurately, as a real estate agency for Aotearoa New Zealand, comes out of Callaghan Innovation, an institute that this Government cut that is supposed to support local and New Zealand entrepreneurs and innovators. Instead, we are taking that money from people of Aotearoa and then trying to use that money to draw overseas investors. That is not going to work and is not a long-term solution; it is, at most, a band-aid. We may not even get to the band-aid stage, because this agency is going to fall apart, because there is nothing tangible that we can see that’s going to hold this agency in itself accountable to the functions and targets.

With that, we do have a number of amendments that, hopefully, will amend or address some of these concerns and risks that we are seeing. When we are looking at international trade, we know the precariousness of our position internationally. We have seen, and the Minister has also spoken about the fact—how the US tariff and the changes in geopolitics has affected our own ability to do trade and how we have to be agile in response to that. So we know from that that we should be investing in our own people first. We know that we should be putting in more investment in education, in health, and in regional areas, but this is not going to do that.

This is a Government that wants to talk the talk but not walk the walk. This is a Government that through its Budget would like to paint a beautiful picture for the people of Aotearoa but without addressing any of the core issues that it’s experiencing. This is a Budget that only reprioritises money from one area to another, because, ultimately, this is an austere Government that only cares about balancing the books but will not actually, ironically, invest in New Zealand.

So I challenge the House—and I challenge all of us—to be able to have this debate coming up in the committee stage. Some of these, as we heard from the Minister, we are basing on Singapore and we’re basing on Ireland. But do you know what? Neither of those two countries care about speculative investment. They are there to invest, genuinely, in the arts and culture and technology of those countries; they’re not there just for the landlords. That is the difference we’re seeing between this Government and those countries they refer to. So, with that, the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand will not support this bill.

That is why this bill is needed; because, after six years of a Labour-Green Government wrecking investor confidence, doing crazy things like banning oil and gas exploration, tanking one of our most productive sectors that keeps the lights on and energy prices low, New Zealand is simply not set up to channel the growing interest in investing in this great country that this Government has generated with the policies that we are putting in place. We are an open economy and we need investment. We have a hunger for capital. The hundreds of billions of dollars invested here in New Zealand and by Kiwis overseas shows that this is a country that is facing up to the realities of having to grow our business in a pretty tough environment.

I’m shocked and surprised that Labour won’t support this bill. But, look, even hearing about the Greens and Labour spouting this xenophobic nonsense, this fearmongering about foreigners, fearmongering about foreigners buying New Zealand assets, it was shocking and disturbing from people who claim to be social justice warriors—

Francisco Hernandez: Look who you’re in coalition with. Don’t talk about xenophobia.

SIMON COURT: —and even from people—

Francisco Hernandez: The Deputy Prime Minister tells migrants they can’t have their say. Nonsense.

SIMON COURT: Again, you can tell, for those listening and watching at home, how triggering it is to have this pointed out to people who claim to be social justice warriors. The Opposition have no credibility on this bill. Damien O’Connor and Lawrence Xu-Nan, the previous speaker, absolutely jumped the shark in their opposition to it. They were unhinged. Labour, the Greens, Te Pāti Māori are unfit to govern, ever, based on that position.

ACT supports this bill because it provides a pathway for international investors to invest in the assets and the infrastructure we so desperately need. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

This is a pretty narrow bill. It’s been an interesting philosophical debate but, essentially, it’s a pretty narrow bill trying to set up this Crown entity, Invest New Zealand. It has seemed to draw a bit of attention to New Zealand First from the Labour Party, and following on from Simon Court—what a pale comparison to the Labour Party’s farce.

I can tell you that unless we grow this economy, all the visions that you might have for throwing money around are not going to happen. Look at the things we’ve championed. Fast track—to get projects going. We’re supporting Simon Court and Chris Bishop in getting the wider Resource Management Act reforms. The Regional Infrastructure Fund: $1.2 billion into regional New Zealand. Championing mining—remember that? You used to champion mining, Reuben Davidson and Damien O’Connor, when you had a Labour Party worth the name. The West Coast is booming, thanks to Shane Jones. Water storage and irrigation. Energy—the $200 million investment into oil and gas exploration.

We will not stand aside—like the Labour Party looks like it’s doing—while New Zealand deindustrialises. We’re going to stand up for New Zealand. That’ll mean attracting some foreign capital and some overseas expertise, so that’s where our focus is. We’re going to throw the absolute kitchen sink at this. We’re not going to allow ourselves to be smothered by the Greens and their Marxist ideology, and who knows what the Māori Party are doing. But we’re going to build this economy and we’re going to make it so that there’s a future for our kids to stay here. We’ll support the bill.

This is like an episode of Utopia. Has anyone seen Utopia? It’s meant to be like a satire, but it’s actual reality—is this Government, in the thick of it.

There’s two issues overall with the bill. I’ll start with the first one. The first one is: what is this Invest New Zealand concept, and how many one-stop shops is the Government going to put up? Like, pretty soon they’re going to need a one-stop shop for all the one-stop shops. As previous speakers in this debate have noted, they’ve got fast track as a one-stop shop. But then, last year—I don’t know if anyone remember this—the National Infrastructure Funding and Financing (NIFFCo) was established. What is the point of NIFFCo? Well, again, it’s just something that’s evolved, over time, and keeps getting different names. But when Minister for Infrastructure Chris Bishop announced NIFFCo, he said that the agency would be tasked with serving as a “shop front” for receiving investment proposals, supporting private infrastructural investment, partnering with agencies and local government on projects involving finance, and administering the central government’s infrastructure funds.

So, previously, in the first reading debate, I was intrigued to hear from Mr Brewer that this bill—this bill, Invest New Zealand—was all about getting investors to come here and build roads and bridges and tunnels. But then, which shop front are they going to go to? Are they going to go to NIFFCo, or are they going to go to Invest New Zealand? This is getting very confusing because now we’ve got two shop fronts to get foreign and private investors into infrastructure, which is actually a core responsibility of the Government.

That sort of brings me to my second point. I mean, firstly, we do really have to laugh about this, right? Because Invest New Zealand—it just sounds like a Christopher Luxon special. It just sounds like a brainwave he had. You know, somebody who’s been a corporate manager selling deodorant, or whatever, and running an airline for a while—like, their big idea on how to improve productivity for our country is to set up another agency that’s going to attract foreign investors. And it’s the second agency. This is the second agency in less than one year that they’ve set up, and they’re putting in $85 million to set this up over four years—$85 million for another agency to interact with investors and try to get them into building infrastructure, because they can’t figure out that, actually, all we need to do is improve our tax system and make better investment decisions, and then we could actually build the infrastructure that would improve the productivity of our country.

Amazingly, changing the tax system is the number one recommendation from the IMF and the OECD about how to improve productivity in New Zealand—it’s actually tax capital, tax land; don’t tax labour. You’re overtaxing workers, and low-paid workers, and you’re not taxing all of the people who are earning money just through passive capital gains. And then people just put all their money—like we’ve seen in a recent report; how many of the Government members have millions and millions of dollars invested in property? Big surprise! They don’t want to change the tax system, because that wouldn’t suit them personally. But, actually—

Hon Member: That’s you, you fool!

Todd Stephenson: You’re the number one in the Greens.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I don’t have any investment properties; I don’t know what you’re talking about. But it makes sense that people invest in property, but that—

Hon James Meager: Do you own a home? Willow’s got a home, Damien’s got a home, Rachel’s got a home, Tracey’s got a home.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: James Meager, that’s not how you get the economy to be more productive. Like, we understand that people personally can get ahead by investing in properties and renting them out, but that’s not what makes New Zealand a better-off country. That’s the whole problem: these people cannot differentiate—the Government cannot differentiate—between what made Christopher Luxon rich and what’s actually going to make the country prosperous. You can’t differentiate between those two things, so you come up with Invest New Zealand. “We’ll just get some really great salespeople to go overseas and get all the benevolent rich people overseas to come here and build our infrastructure and buy our things, and then they will make money out of it and take it back offshore!” It’s the same problem that’s happened since the 1980s and 1990s. Why can’t you learn from history, Government members?

That’s why I say this could be a Utopia episode. I can imagine Chris Luxon coming up with the idea of Invest New Zealand: “I know how we’re going to tackle this productivity problem.” [Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I want members to not have a conversation in the middle of the speech. If you want to have a conversation across the Chamber, you’ve got the hallways.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. But, like, more seriously, it’s basically a joke that you’re going to have another one-stop shop and spend $85 million over the next four years for an agency, when we already had New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, we already had NIFFCo, we already have plenty of opportunities, and we had the Government spending heaps of money on the public-private partnership (PPP) investor summit. What’s come out of that? Crickets. I mean, I think there was one reference to one PPP project—a Corrections project—in the Budget.

So you continually have the Government coming up with these ridiculous bills, setting up a second agency that’s meant to be a one-stop shop. That’s why the Green Party’s not going to support this. I did listen with interest to the amendments that were referred to by Damien O’Connor that will be coming up in the committee of the whole House stage of the bill. Of course, it would be better if this did go to a select committee so that we could consider it properly and we could hear from actual experts and people what they think about this. But that’s probably not going to happen.

I think the Hon Damien O’Connor made some really excellent points about wanting to make improvements to this bill to at least make sure that, in the process of going out and trying to hawk off New Zealand to overseas investors, we have some protection to make sure that it’s actually in the long-term interests of the people of New Zealand, because it is the case that there might be a very small percentage of people who profit or become very wealthy because of attracting foreign investment to New Zealand, but I think it’s highly unlikely—and I think most New Zealanders would want that to actually be relevant to the long-term wellbeing of New Zealand. So we might consider supporting some amendments to the bill, but we won’t be supporting the bill.

Fundamentally, besides the “We can’t think of anything else other than setting up a second agency to be a one-stop shop front for attracting foreign investors to invest in infrastructure.”, I think this bill and the shallowness of this Government’s assessment on how we actually build a thriving society here in Aotearoa—it’s really made clear through bills like this and Budgets like this: it’s like there’s no real depth of thinking and taking on the challenges that we’re facing when it comes to climate change. In fact, they’re getting rid of the green investment—green investment’s gone now. That was only just building up. It takes time for these institutions to build up—so just five, six years after it had started, before it could really be useful, we’re shutting that down, setting up a new agency, hoping that magically it’ll solve New Zealand’s productivity problem while we continually avoid and refuse to acknowledge the problems with our tax system which perpetuates the worst inequality and child poverty, and that inequality is actually part of our productivity problem, and that the Government can be investing at a much higher level in both infrastructure and services that help people be their best.

This whole Budget has been quite targeted towards certain sectors of the population, just like the last one, and they’re not the sectors that are going to make us a thriving, innovative society in the future, because our younger people are going overseas; they don’t get opportunities. It’s very, very difficult for young families. We’re not building as much housing as we could be, and I know that the Minister is passionate about increasing the housing supply but literally 250 homes that would have been contracted, would have been built on Kāinga Ora land in my own electorate, just in Rongotai, have been cancelled since the 2023 election—cancelled; not happening. That’s why the construction sector is so upset and the infrastructure sector is so upset, because a whole lot of work that would have been done in the last year or two was completely cancelled by this Government. While they claim to care about these things, their actions are actually about protecting the status quo, protecting the people like them, and they’ve got no real ideas or understanding. It’s pathetic.

Oh, I think the first thing that Invest New Zealand should help us with is finding some funding to dig the second Mount Victoria tunnel—the second Mount Victoria tunnel. The Minister of Transport would agree with that. Let’s find it. The amazing thing is that when that member is in Seatoun, she’s all for the second Mount Victoria tunnel; and when she’s in Island Bay, she’s against it. Unbelievable. So that would be a great focus for Invest New Zealand.

The policy objective—if we look at the non-partisan, non-political statements on this explanatory note—is to lift New Zealand’s investment attractiveness internationally by establishing an investment promotional agency, Invest New Zealand—$88 billion worth of tax; $44 billion worth of debt. It’s a rainbow and unicorn Green plan. Invest New Zealand is our only option. I commend the bill.

I am very troubled by the use of urgency in the House. Having experienced it as a former member and coming back to the House now, it feels as though the nature of what we’re using urgency for is different and really quite concerning.

I read clause 8 of the bill several times over. It is the clause that creates a new Crown entity, and one of the questions I will be asking the Minister, when we get to the committee stage, is whether a Crown entity has ever been created during urgency, using urgency, before. I know there are a lot of political things that happen in this House, but at times, we need to look to good governance, as well. The Crown Entities Act was set up in 2005, and, really, the intention was that we take care in establishing Crown entities—that we have respect for the independence that they hold in our system and that there is precision in terms of the role that they’re playing in New Zealand. Neither of these two things has happened.

In terms of the appropriateness of the independence, I’ll be speaking shortly about the governance function in this entity and how it’s actually quite markedly different to the one that currently exists in New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE). I will be asking some questions about the rationale for that and why the same model wasn’t used, why this dramatic new model is being used. Colleagues have spoken about this but, in many ways, we could kind of term what’s happening tonight as a bit of a ghost rationale being given for the creation of a Crown entity. There hasn’t been a rationale that’s been given in the regulatory impact statement (RIS), and colleagues have quoted a part of the RIS, which expressly says that decisions were made to create this entity before the analysis could be completed. It’s very clear in the RIS.

We had an announcement from the Prime Minister in January seeding the entity within NZTE and stating that it would become a Crown entity, before an analysis on whether it should become a Crown entity or not, before an analysis on what the function should be. I understand this is a political place. We are also responsible for good governance—and the Government members are talking over that statement. We are also responsible for good governance. On any new bill that they introduce, whether they introduce it in urgency or not, they must first have a problem statement. We do have elements of a problem statement here: that sufficient capital isn’t being directed to the areas that we need it to be. Great; I think we can agree on that as a problem statement. However, the questions that follow, which should be addressed through a robust analysis, are not answered in the RIS.

The next question is: is there anything that can be done to address the problem statement that doesn’t require legislation or an $85 million spend? Do we already have a mechanism? Multiple members have spoken about NZTE. If you read the statute that relates to it—Government members are laughing now; go ahead, read the statute—that entity has provisions in the statute that provide for them to do this function. There is an entity. Why wasn’t that option considered? If you go to the RIS, there are four options that are considered in the RIS. The most natural option, one would have thought, is that the current entity that already has statutory powers to do this function would then be given more funding, if it required it, and a more specific mandate to tie the work that needs to be done—getting the capital to precisely the places that we need it to go. That’s a legislative fix. It’s actually quite a small legislative fix of existing legislation.

Now, what is thoroughly curious is that that was not one of the four options considered in the RIS. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why that most obvious first option was not considered. The options go from identifying a legitimate problem to setting out three other options—none of which look at the most obvious solution of extra funding and a more targeted mandate—and leap to the creation of a new entity. It is a wild, wild leap.

I want to look at what a possible reason for the commitment to this new entity is. We know we’ve already got the function under statute. We’ve already got an entity. Why are we spending $85 million? Why are we establishing a new board, getting a new chief executive in, let alone thinking about all the staff who are now going to go through a redundancy process, either to be made redundant or to be absorbed into the new entity? Why? Surely this is a Government about efficiency, right? It’s a Government about efficiency. There is one difference that I could find, looking at the two pieces of legislation side by side. It relates to the governance provisions of the new organisation, compared to the governance provisions of the old organisation. I’ve got three minutes, so I’m going to read them out and explain the difference between the two.

Hon Member: You’re not allowed to read speeches.

Hon Member: That’s not very efficient.

VANUSHI WALTERS: Madam Speaker, if I could have some quiet to be able to do that?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Actually, I wasn’t going to interrupt the member’s speech, but half of the conversations that are going on, on my right, could take place in the lobby, because there’s far too much chatter over there and most of it doesn’t look like business being carried out. Carry on—to the member.

VANUSHI WALTERS: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. In the current legislation, the Minister does appoint the board, and they can also appoint special advisers to the board. They can only appoint two people to be those special advisers. That’s the Secretary of Foreign affairs and Trade or the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Economic Development. Now, this is an entirely normal governance function. It’s actually in accordance with section 107 of the Crown Entities Act, and it’s, basically, providing for a cross-governmental approach. It allows chief executives to sit in the room and provide context.

This bill is different. This bill, in clause 13, states: “(1) The Minister may appoint the chief executive as a special adviser to the Board. (2) The purpose [being] … to facilitate the exchange of information between the Minister and the Board on matters of Government policy relevant to the Board in performing its functions and exercising its powers under the Act.” I will be asking more questions about this during the committee stage, but, for now—

Hon Member: Can’t wait!

Hon Member: Don’t threaten us like that.

VANUSHI WALTERS: I’ll wait for you to be quiet if you need to. I think people need to hear this.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When people listen, they learn. If they choose not to listen, the speaker can carry on speaking.

VANUSHI WALTERS: There are two unusual features of this. First, it appears to be making the chief executive of that organisation a ministerial conduit in the room. That’s an entirely inappropriate role for a chief executive to have in relation to a Minister. It’s also inappropriate in terms of the relationship between the chief executive themselves and the board. You’ll all remember that it is the board who appoint the chief executive, so it puts them in a very odd situation.

Everybody’s focus should be on why this governance arrangement has changed between the two Acts, and I will be asking more questions about that, and others. I do not support this bill. I think it’s extremely irresponsible, and I would like the Government to remember that—politics and urgency aside—you have a governance responsibility to New Zealanders.

Now it’s time for the adults to come in the room. As New Zealand goes overseas and has adult conversations with commercial constructs, Invest New Zealand is the vehicle which is going to enable that. New Zealand’s growing up. New Zealand’s open for business. Go the Chiefs.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s good to have the opportunity to stand and continue to speak for a little longer than some of the members on the other side of the House have taken the opportunity to, because this is a very important issue and a bill that definitely deserves some proper and thorough examination here.

Now, we’ve heard, in a number of ways and from different people, some assessment around the policy objectives of this bill, which is “to lift New Zealand’s investment attractiveness internationally by establishing an investment promotional agency, Invest New Zealand,”—

Tim van de Molen: Good reading!

REUBEN DAVIDSON: —“which will facilitate and enable increased overseas investment into New Zealand.” Now, someone called out and said, “He’s reading that.” Yes, you can do that, even if you’re not taking the opportunity to do so yourself, sir.

The thing that a number of people have pointed out is that this is actually the same as creating a real estate agency to sell New Zealand. That’s what it is. My questions are: who’s the agent and who’s getting the commission? I’ve seen some suggestions here. So I’m looking and I’m thinking: who’s a strong leader in the National Party that could be doing that? Maybe the Hon Erica Stanford. People can get in touch on assettsforsale@gmail.com, because she’d be very accessible via that. Perhaps, you lean on a coalition partner and see if the Hon David Seymour would be available to drive a good deal—almost as well as he tried to drive that Range Rover up the steps of Parliament. But the problem is he’s good at negotiating with a weak leader, but he won’t be good at negotiating with much bigger countries, which is what this is about. So maybe it will all fall on the Hon Casey Costello from New Zealand First. But, as we’ve seen, the deals that she does go up in smoke, so that’s not going to be good for the country.

The reality with the Invest New Zealand Bill is that you are being reckless with the future [Interruption]—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Quiet!

REUBEN DAVIDSON: —and the reality is it’s not yours to be reckless with, because investment needs to be ethical and investment needs to be responsible, not “permissible”. That’s what you’re doing: you’re creating super-permissible investment that is not well governed. One Minister; a board of as few as three. That’s not good governance. That is not democracy. That is chumocracy, and that is what this bill is setting up.

If you were real estate agents, you’d be flippers, because all you’re doing is making quick deals. You’re saying, “Just trust us—just trust us”, and people look and they say, “Like we did with the cancer drugs? I don’t think so. Like we did with the surprise tax cuts for big tobacco? I don’t think so. Like we did with the pay equity settlements that you cancelled with no notice, in less than 24 hours?” There were more people standing on the lawn protesting your Budget than there were listening in the lock-up to try and find out the details.

You are merely becoming flippers in a real estate industry, and, at the same time—at the same time—you are taking money from our science, innovation, and technology sector and putting it into starting up a new entity that is already provisioned for within New Zealand Trade and Enterprise. You are setting up a new entity that is not needed—your own regulatory impact statement (RIS) says that. Even if you only read the bits of this RIS that are pro your idea, it would take you a matter of seconds; there’s so little in there to support it. The reality is that our science, innovation, and technology sector creates jobs. It creates IP—that’s intellectual property. I don’t know if you know that on that side of the House, but that’s what it creates.

It also creates pride. New Zealand has a very, very long, proud history of great self-funded science, innovation, and technology, and you have pulled the capital out of that and pushed it into the establishment of an agency that sells that off. When they pay, they own, and it’s gone. All those ideas, all that talent, everything that you get invested into, you have, effectively, sold. As real estate agents, you’ve flipped the house; it’s not yours anymore; it’s gone. You ultimately end up becoming sell-outs. You are being reckless with the future, and it is not yours to be reckless with.

New Zealanders, remember this: this Government wants New Zealand to grow, grow, grow. The Opposition over there—Labour, Green, and Te Pāti Māori—you are here to stop New Zealand to grow. I commend this bill to the House. [Interruption]

Excuse me, I’m going to be sending a couple of people out soon if that barrage doesn’t stop. If you want to make intelligent interjections, that is fine. But no one can hear a word any of you are saying, because you’re all just yelling it at the same time and it’s not good.

Madam Speaker, thank you. My colleague Vanushi Walters asked the critical question here: what problem is this bill trying to solve? Now, it’s a critical question right from the start. What problem is it trying to solve? Sitting in the regulatory impact statement, we have some of the analysis that’s going on as to what problem the bill is trying to solve, and in paragraph 1 of section 1, it says that the problem—the first problem: “The Prime Minister has highlighted economic growth as the core priority for the Government.” So one of the Prime Minister’s priorities—and, of course, it does seem to be something we indeed need to focus on—but in the second paragraph comes the nub of it, that this bill might be oriented towards: “The most important driver of economic growth is productivity.”

So we’re casing this as a productivity problem. That’s what this regulatory impact statement says. In fact, then, the analysis prepared by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment draws on an economic analysis by Treasury, and says that “In a recent analysis by the Treasury, several possible causes for our low productivity were identified, including education and skills, employment composition, capital, innovation and technology, business dynamism, globalisation and trade, sectoral composition, and measurement.” It says, “While the report ultimately concluded that there is no singular cause for this issue”—for low productivity—“poor access to capital was identified as a major issue.” Well, that’s interesting, because there was a whole lot of issues identified there.

So I went and got the actual analysis from Treasury. It’s a May 2024 paper, The productivity slowdown, and it really does canvass the particular issues as to why productivity has slowed down in New Zealand. It does indeed list all those issues in terms of what might slow down productivity, and one of them is indeed capital, but it’s only one. Access to capital is one problem that might be causing our problems with productivity. In fact, that’s backed by the Productivity Commission, who say that we do need to have certain concerns around access to capital. But if we are looking for the biggest driver in terms of productivity, it’s not access to capital; it’s innovation. That is what Treasury says—it says, on page 20 of their report, “Innovation is perhaps the most fundamental determinant of productivity.”

What do we need for increased innovation? We need solid, secure education at primary and secondary levels, and especially at tertiary levels. We need a tertiary education system that ensures that everyone has a trade, a diploma, or a degree. Yet that Government is in the midst of destroying one of our tertiary institutions, in particular the tertiary institution that most students go to, that most students go to for a trade or a diploma.

What else do we need for innovation? Well, we need a thriving research and science sector. What is that Government doing? It is taking apart our science sector. In fact, notably, a heap of the funding that is coming into this new entity that the Government is setting up is coming from Callaghan Innovation research. It is money that is being reprioritised—reprioritised—out of our research and science sector and put into this new entity. That’s where it’s coming from.

So two of the things that we know drive productivity are being decimated by this Government, and what is an alternative? What are they offering us? A new Crown agency which replicates work that is already being done within New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE), and for which they cannot identify the success factors. Well, actually, that’s not quite the case. The purpose of this entity is going to be to drive more foreign direct investment, and its success is going to be measured by having more foreign direct investment. Well, that’s kind of just—that’s OK, but what is not clear is the link between foreign direct investment and the drivers of productivity. That link has not been made, and we would need to see that link being made.

Now, this is exactly the sort of issue that we could’ve dug into in a select committee process to see whether setting up this particular type of Crown entity would, in fact, drive the productivity that is needed. Let’s remember: access to capital is only one of the factors that drive productivity. We could’ve been able to weigh them all up against each other, but because we didn’t have the select committee process, we weren’t able to do that.

Now, there is a whole lot of objectives, then, that are set for this policy. One is that there’s greater investment into innovative activities. One is greater research and development, investment, and innovative activity in New Zealand. One is more skilled professionals in New Zealand. But how exactly is more foreign direct investment going to drive all those? The link needs to be made clear.

But then we come to the assessment, the analysis of how the options proposed in this regulatory impact statement—the Minister’s preferred option compared to the status quo, and so on. They are all assessed, as is the usual way, with a spreadsheet with plus signs in green and minus signs in red. The curious thing is the way that these are allocated in this particular document. So, for example, in terms of getting an increase in foreign direct investment, option two: reprioritisation within NZTE would’ve been just as good as enhanced option three, which would’ve been removing some of the regulatory barriers, which would’ve been just as good as option four, the dedicated agency.

But this one is the one that, just, I find gobsmacking: one of the ways that the options are assessed is by looking at the Government mandate. Well, of course the option preferred by the Minister has the Government mandate. That’s just circular. Of course it does. And of course the status quo doesn’t have the Government mandate, because they do want to change this. That is just a nonsensical assessment, and it’s the only one that’s got two little green plus signs.

But then—and this is the one that really astonishes me—increased cost to Government. In terms of assessing whether or not a policy is positive, with that positive green sign, well, of course, focusing on general business settings, well, that could have costs involved in that. But then it gives a positive green sign and says the establishment of a new Government agency can have significant costs. Now, blow me down—I would’ve thought that was a minus for a policy, but here it’s assessed as a positive. I’m just a little bit blown away by that. So it’s really hard to assess what is going on. There is no clear lead from this paper. There is no clear evidence that says that this solution is a good solution. Frankly, the analysis here, to me, feels skewed, and it is not strong enough to rest the formation of a new agency on.

Finally, I do just want to think about the types of investment that might be facilitated by this new Government agency. We’ve seen in this Budget an absolutely shocking commitment—a shocking commitment—to fossil fuel industries. A shocking commitment—you know, $200 million allocated to them. And then an absolute shocker with the new partial expensing, with two clauses specifically there in the legislation saying that petroleum and coal mining can get this extra subsidy from the Government to get going. At the same time, we know that offshore wind in South Taranaki, which would have brought investment into the country that would have been good for the climate, has been driven off.

This Government has shown its priorities already for the sort of investment it likes, and it is the sort of investment that leads to more global warming, that puts this country at risk. I think this is an absolutely shoddy policy, and we should not support it.

Foreign direct investment equals growth. Ireland gets it, and we on this side of the House get it. Invest New Zealand is going to match foreign investors with great opportunities in the Hutt Valley, in Bay of Plenty, in Selwyn—in great areas—in Hobson, Southland, Northcote, and that is why I commend this bill to the House.

This bill is set down for committee stage, presently.