Overseas Investment Bill

The debate on Part 2, clauses 10 to 79, includes debate on schedules 1 and 2.

Madam Chair, I hope that you will be very generous about accepting many calls, because Part 2 is basically the bulk of this legislation.

First of all, I would like to raise some questions for the Minister in the chair, Michael Cullen, to answer, because I really, really want to get some assurances from him. As I pointed out in my second reading speech, a lot of the resentment and negative public perception towards overseas investors, particularly those purchasing buildings or investing in business, is a result of some high-profile cases. There was some disproportionately bad publicity about some company that was supposed to move in and start mining or carry out some other operation and, after many years, nothing came of it. Officials came before the Finance and Expenditure Committee and said their hands were tied, because the previous enforcement monitoring regime did not provide enough tools for them to be able to carry out their task.

Part 2, Subpart 4, “Monitoring”, talks about the role of the regulator. The select committee, as a whole, was quite concerned about the wording and the use of “may”, as in clause 39, “Regulator may require consent holder to provide information for monitoring purposes” and clause 40, “Regulator may require any person to provide information for statistical or monitoring purposes”. I would like the Minister to take a call and explain to us whether it is really true in the past that the regulator found it difficult to obtain information, or to actually monitor, or to just pick up the phone to see why some of those investors’ plans had lapsed or whether the conditions had changed and what the reasons were. I think that created a lot of negative perceptions for the public, which has not been helpful.

So if the Minister can assure us that the word “may” in the legislation will be interpreted as an encouragement now that the regulator will be placed under Land Information New Zealand, and that he or she will carry out the monitoring and enforcements, that will relieve a lot of the negative perception towards overseas investors. In some cases the failure to fulfil the original conditions could be beyond the investors’ capabilities or circumstances could have changed.

The select committee also requested that there be action on additional information and activities, such as starting the collation of statistical information and the release of that for the public. Sometimes it is a fact that when information is not available people tend to have suspicions about what is happening. If information is available for public inspection, that would be helpful for the public perception towards overseas investors.

Of course the other thing I noticed was that 10 pages have been struck out of the bill—

Brian Connell: The “Mugabe clause”!

PANSY WONG: My colleague, the very, very learned, hard-working and robust representative for Ashburton, says it is the “Mugabe clause”.

David Parker: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Some people here have had relatives murdered by the Mugabe regime. That is true. I take offence at having a clause that is being associated with that despotic regime, and would ask that you bring the member to order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Would the member withdraw reference to that, please?

PANSY WONG: I withdraw. Suddenly this bill will become a lot skinnier. Ten pages of it will be struck out. They relate to clause 21, which is entirely the effort of the member for Otago, David Parker, who is soon to be replaced by National’s Jacqui Dean. He put in 10 pages of legislation to create marginal strips without compensation. I could not believe it. The member explained this to us in the select committee. He said that it did not matter and would not affect the value of the property just because a marginal strip had been created.

That is very, very strange, and I think the member might like to take a few calls. He seemed to be quite anxious to explain this himself, and I invite him to do so. This is the Committee stage, and all members are invited to explain and defend their position. So I invite the member to do that.

The provisions relating to the marginal strip, of course, will be removed by Supplementary Order Paper. That is the condition of United Future’s support for the bill. It also enables the National Party to vote for it.

But I have to say I think Pansy Wong should not push her luck too far in terms of her moral outrage on the provisions that the Finance and Expenditure Committee put in. First, she voted for Nick Smith’s member’s bill, which did exactly the same thing, and that was only last year; and, second, the current provision for a marginal strip after subdivision on coastal property was put in place in 1991, under the previous National Government. So Ms Wong’s “shock-horror” reaction lacks a certain amount of “probe” at the end of it, I think one could say! Her whispering in Brian Connell’s ear is not going to help the matter in that respect; it will just confuse him, I think, more than he is already confused on most of these matters.

The substantive issue that she raises is important. It is fair to say that under the current legislation the Overseas Investment Commission has insufficient capacity to follow up in terms of monitoring, but, more important, the current Act, which this legislation completely replaces, is quite inadequate in terms of the penalties and enforcement regime. This legislation will provide for a much more effective penalties and enforcement regime, should a purchaser fail to fulfil the conditions of consent. At the moment, what one ends up doing is forcing such purchasers to sell. That is actually at the extreme end of the spectrum in terms of the appropriate solution that ought to be followed through.

Although I think that has been part of the cause of public concern, I think there are wider issues of public concern. There is a widely held belief, which is not actually true, that foreign purchase leads to greater restriction on access over and through property. For some peculiar reason people think foreign purchase means land is not subject to other laws around planning, etc., and is outside the New Zealand legal framework. That is completely untrue. I am always opposed to any move to import into this legislation attempts to impose regulatory procedures, if one likes, in terms of planning, etc. What we are doing, quite consciously, in this bill is providing mechanisms whereby, as part of the consideration, we can take into account national-interest considerations around access, conservation, etc., and we have already begun to do some of that. The Young Nick’s Head agreement was exactly one of those. The Shania Twain agreement was another one of those kinds of agreements. We were able to get public gains, in terms of access, in terms of conservation, and in terms of historical protection, which could not have presented themselves if the sale had occurred to a New Zealand citizen or to a New Zealand resident person.

I think we are engaged in an important balancing act. Naturally enough, my colleague from Otago is concerned about the proportion of high-country land in the Queenstown Lakes District that is owned by overseas owners.

Brian Connell: Quite high.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is quite high. Even the member for Rakaia, when he raised the issue, told us that 50 percent of land transferred in mid-Canterbury was transferred to foreign ownership. But there is actually quite a high—

Brian Connell: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. If the Minister is going to refer to what I said, at least I expect it to be reported accurately. I said that 50 percent of the land that had been resold went back into New Zealanders’ hands.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That is not a point of order. It is a debating point.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If I could be more precise, the figure was slightly less than 50 percent. The member said that of the 11 properties sold, six were bought by New Zealanders, which, by a very simple piece of arithmetic that is not beyond the member, means that five were not. That is pretty close to 50 percent of the total being passed into foreign hands in a relatively brief space of time.

There are some countries in the world where that could not happen at all—where foreigners are not allowed to buy land. In Australia, for example, there are still some pretty strange rules about non-Australian citizens buying urban property, and they would apply to some of the most senior chief executives in Australia. I think we have to bear in mind that balance is required in this respect, so that there is public confidence. The fact, I think, that the so-called two tired old parties are combined against the fringe elements in this House on this matter is not one that gives me great cause for concern. It gives me some degree of confidence that probably there is a sustainable consensus that will be reasonably stable moving forward into the future.

I want to take a call on clauses 21O and 21T of Part 2 of this bill, because I want to make United Future’s position on the matter of marginal strips, etc. very, very clear indeed to the Committee. I do so, firstly, to clarify what the Minister, Dr Michael Cullen, has just advised the Committee, and secondly, to completely rebut and debunk the comments that the co-leader of the Green Party Rod Donald has made to this Committee about our position. It is amazing how other people in other parties think they know more about United Future’s position than we do.

I go first to the Minister’s comments. It is not true that United Future asked the Government to remove marginal strips from this bill—we did not. We said to the Government that we could not agree to clause 21T and the provision that no compensation would be payable to any person. My specific suggestion in that regard was that the bill should provide for an appropriate access fee to be paid to the New Zealand land seller. United Future’s position in relation to this matter was very, very clearly set out in the commentary on the bill that came back from the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which stated: “United Future, although supporting the creation of marginal strips next to rivers, lakes, and foreshores, does not agree that private land should be acquired for this purpose without the payment of just compensation. If the creation of such marginal strips is seen to be of value to the people of New Zealand, then the Crown, on behalf of its citizens, is duty bound to pay compensation.” I advise the Committee that the decision to remove marginal strips in their entirety from this bill was the decision of the Government, but one that we acceded to. I think that is a slightly different story from the one given to the Committee by the Minister.

I now turn to the Greens’ comments. Clause 21O states that a marginal strip put aside under this legislation is to be put aside until the end of time. It is a permanent alienation of the use and enjoyment of a piece of private land currently owned by a New Zealander. It is State interference in use and enjoyment if it forces people to share something that they may not, necessarily, want to share. Clause 21T then states—and I want to get this very clear, because it is quite obvious to me that Rod Donald has the wrong end of the stick completely—that no compensation will be paid to New Zealanders who own private land if they are selling it to a foreigner. Mr Donald has told the Committee that we think that compensation should be paid to foreign purchasers. Obviously, he has never read a sale and purchase agreement. He has no idea how they work, because that is a ludicrous comment. That has never been our position, and in fact, it is a total misrepresentation of everything we stand for and believe. We are not as stupid as that.

I shall talk also about our affiliation partner, Outdoor Recreation NZ. I advise the Committee, and particularly Mr Donald, that Outdoor Recreation NZ’s position in regard to access strips in general, which it is strongly in favour of, as is United Future, is that they should not be created at the expense of property rights. That is the point of difference, is it not, between Outdoor Recreation NZ, the common-sense Greens—the practical Greens, the intelligent Greens, the logical Greens—and the party in this House called the Green Party, which masquerades in that colour when, in fact, we all know it is just like a watermelon inside. The Greens are as red as it gets, just like a watermelon. I am not at all surprised that the Greens are quite comfortable with the no-compensation clause. They back it to the hilt. The Green member Mike Ward spoke in this House on my member’s bill. His attitude was this: if he, Mike Ward, personally, or any of the Greens disagreed with what someone was doing on his or her property, they reserve to themselves the right to stop the person from doing it and to force him or her to do something else. That is what Mike Ward of the Greens told the House in respect of my private property bill, and that is the Greens’ attitude. That is outrageous. It will not be tolerated by New Zealanders. Really, when New Zealanders understand that that is the Greens’ agenda, they will make sure that they disappear from Parliament. Such views override the Magna Carta and all the rights we have worked for, over about 1,000 years, in terms of private property. To have those rights overridden by such ridiculous nonsense and sheer arrogance is unacceptable.

I appreciate the opportunity to take a call or two on this part, because it is the substance of the bill. As I said in my second reading speech, I would like to give the Government some credit for some improvements to this part of the bill and to thank the officials for their assistance in achieving those improvements—particularly such things as adding a definition of “good character” and so forth. In our view the bill is still remiss and therefore we have put up a number of significant amendments that I would like colleagues in the House to give some serious consideration to.

The first amendment is to clause 10, where it refers to “an overseas investment in significant business assets”. We want to make it very clear that in our view significant business assets should include aquaculture. Aquaculture is an increasing business on our coastline. In fact, it is a business that in our view involves people in businesses being able to make a private profit from an activity conducted on, and in, the public commons. Therefore, the coastal marine environment, in our view, is just as sensitive as the offshore islands, the high country, the lake fronts, and the riverbanks that have particular restrictions placed on them under this legislation.

We believe that aquaculture should be covered by this legislation, and it is not. That is a significant deficiency in the legislation, so we want clause 10 amended to extend to aquaculture. I have proposed that amendment, because this concern was reinforced by the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society in its submission that stated the bill failed to protect public open space in the coastal marine area, and because there was no screening of purchases by overseas persons of their resource consents, or application for resource consent to use the coastal space for aquaculture. We think that it is absolutely vital that any foreign investor who cannot prove that such an investment is in the national interest should be disallowed from investing in applications for coastal permits and associated resource consents.

Therefore, we would like to see this bill include some weighty environmental criteria to ensure that those wanting to use our public commons, our coastal marine space, which is scarce and is sensitive, need to pass a hurdle as least as high as the hurdle that is required of those wanting to buy the high country or an offshore island.

But we are well aware why the Government is opposed to that amendment. It is because successive Governments have given away this Parliament’s right to protect our coastal environment. They have given it away through their negotiations on the General Agreement on Trade in Services. Way back in 1994 a National Government basically gave away our power to protect our coastal space, and then the Labour Government made it even worse through the Singapore free-trade agreement, where it basically did not exclude aquaculture from that agreement. Therefore, it is included, and it would be regarded as a breach of that agreement if the current Government, or the current Parliament, were going to protect our coastal marine environment. I think that that is extraordinarily sad, and it is outrageous that one Government has chosen to bind all future Parliaments in this way.

I contrast that with the fact that even what the Government has signed up to with the OECD has at least left the door open by reserving commercial fishing. Commercial fishing could be interpreted as aquaculture, but because of the Singapore closer economic partnership Labour signed up to, I think without due consideration, we are locked into forever in the future allowing more and more of our coastal areas—areas that New Zealanders value as a place to go fishing for themselves, a place to just potter around in their boats—to be taken up by marine farms of one sort or another, to the detriment of our ability to enjoy our great outdoors.

The next amendment we will be putting forward to this part relates to the threshold at which an overseas investment should be scrutinised. As I said during the second reading debate, Jim Bolger in the dead of the night lifted it from $10 million to $50 million, and then this Labour Government reinforced the $50 million threshold in the Singapore closer economic partnership, and they want to multiply it up to $100 million, whereas we want to cut it back to $10 million. I am hoping we will get some support from New Zealand First on that at least, because they supported a figure of $10 million at the select committee review in 2002.

We also have an amendment that would require all pastoral leases to go through a tenure review process before any of the high country can be sold. That was another recommendation from the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, which we believe has a lot of merit, and therefore we are putting forward an amendment to achieve that goal.

But the most significant change we want to see in this part, and the one I hope I have the chance to elaborate on, is that we want to see clause 18 applied to significant business assets. Clause 18, as far as it goes, is quite a good clause. It does require somebody wanting to purchase land to demonstrate that he or she will achieve a number of things, such as the creation of new job opportunities, the introduction of new technology and business skills, and an increase in export receipts for New Zealand, and that in the process there will be adequate mechanisms to protect or enhance existing areas of significant indigenous vegetation. I appreciate that the Government has added at my request, on behalf of Fish and Game New Zealand, that exotic species will also be covered, in terms of taking account of, or protecting, or enhancing them in the case of trout, salmon, and gamebirds, but also that public access will be enhanced.

But these provisions do not apply to business purchases, and that is ridiculous. Why apply them only to land? Why not extend them to significant business assets? So we have put forward amendments that say clause 18 should apply to business buy-ups. It is actually business buy-ups that are having much greater impact on our economy than land purchases by foreign investors. It is not enough that those businesses only have to meet a “good character” test. They should have to demonstrate that buying a business is going to lead to more job opportunities, bring new technology to New Zealand, and will look after the environment. We would add by way of an amendment that they should increase domestic substitution of imports into New Zealand to balance the export receipts the Government has put in.

It is absolutely vital that business buy-ups are greenfield investments, not asset stripping, which so many business buy-ups have been in past. Tranz Rail was a classic example of foreign investment leading to this Government having to bail out the rail network in New Zealand because it was stripped of any worth and left in a very dangerous state. So the Government ought to back extending clause 18 to include significant business assets. Without that, this bill has no substance. It is completely gutless. It will not achieve the intent the Government claims it will achieve, and it will certainly not meet the expectations of New Zealanders for tighter scrutiny of applications for foreign investment, let alone scrutiny of their activities when they come to New Zealand.

It is also remiss of the Government not to have any reference in this part to the Treaty of Waitangi, and we have suggested an amendment to clause 18(2) so that there are adequate mechanisms in place to ensure that any decision is made with reference to the principles of the treaty. We think that the Government should not back off its commitment to the principles of the treaty, and therefore we seek that amendment to this part.

We also want to pick up on the submissions that came from many people that any regulatory agency should be keeping a full and correct record of all land, business, and building sales to foreign investors. Something that came through and was, I think, virtually unanimous around the table, was that we do not know the extent of foreign ownership in this country, and even if the scrutiny threshold is higher than zero, the monitoring should be set at a base level.

That is one of the nuttiest proposals I have ever heard. How could the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi be applied to an overseas investor who is seeking to purchase a business in New Zealand? I thought I had heard everything! We have heard a lot of things today. We have heard about assets and about how foreigners are gobbling up New Zealanders’ land. We have heard that the Labour Government has brought in this bill to suck up to the Americans, so that we can have a free-trade agreement. I have heard so much racist and xenophobic claptrap that I am getting to stage where I wonder why any foreign investor would want to come here in the first place. We are very unwelcoming. People in the Green Party think that the Berlin Wall was built to keep the Westerners out.

I come back to Part 2, and specifically to clause 18 and the tests that need to be passed before foreign investors can purchase and invest in a business—in particular, in land with assets or important assets. May I just remind the member from New Zealand First that no assets were sold. No State assets have ever been sold in this country. They were all liabilities. If that party is to be consistent in its constant raving about the selling of the New Zealand post offices and Telecom, etc., why does it not put its money where its mouth is? Why does it not buy them all back, take away everybody’s cellphones, put everybody back on a waiting list where they had to wait for 6 months to get a new phone connection, have the New Zealand post office own all sorts of workshops, etc., have $90 million of taxpayers’ money going into it every year, and stop bleating on about the downside of selling to foreign owners things that were liabilities to the taxpayer? One could put up a good argument for the railway, by the way, that it was the New Zealand owners who stripped it and the foreign owners who at least tried to do something with it.

Rod Donald: Ha, ha!

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: I just remind the member of the wine-box inquiry. How many foreign investors were involved in that? Not one.

I come back to clause 18.

Rod Donald: How many of them gave money to ACT?

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: None. How can we force people to share? That is what the Green Party says we should do. It says that everybody should share, and it wants to force them to share. We will regret going down this path. What right do we have to force somebody who is purchasing a piece of land to put in walkways? What right do we have to force people to support the registration of historic places, wāhi tapu, or historic areas under the Historic Places Act?

Rod Donald: Demolish the lot, then.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: That member has very little faith in human nature—no faith at all. Why does he think that just because he would demolish the lot, everybody else, every other private landowner in New Zealand, would cut down every piece of bush and destroy every archaeological site? Just because he has the view that he would do so, that is no reason to believe that every landowner in New Zealand will do so. If we have public walkways set aside, and if we allow access for people to go trout fishing and salmon fishing, how long will it be before the Department of Conservation, with its current philosophy of “humans bad, no humans good”, bars all public access to those areas? I predict that it will not be very long, at all.

It is bad enough that anybody in New Zealand has to go through the tortured Resource Management Act process to get anything done, without foreign investors having to be subject to all the conditions and tests set out in the bill. And what happens then? We have seen what happens when they do pass the tests. We have seen what happened with regard to Motutapu Station, where the Minister of Finance, Dr Cullen, talked about the agreement the Government was able to get there, with walkways, etc. What have those purchasers got out of that? We can look at the tortured process Elaine Lange, otherwise known as Shania Twain, is going through in order to get her house built, even though she has agreed to put in walkways and register significant sites. We should subject everyone to the same process.

I have to start by responding to Michael Cullen. He is turning into a sensitive wimp. I do not know what is causing it, but I suspect that the political tide is going out and his true character is emerging.

Simon Power: He’s brittle.

BRIAN CONNELL: He is brittle, that is for sure, and it is starting to show. If he is going to quote me, I expect him to do it accurately. What I said was that there had been 11 high-country sales. Six of those had been sold into Kiwi hands, and five had gone to international interests. The five international owners have subsequently turned over those properties. Fifty percent of them—actually, three of them—were sold back into Kiwi hands. My maths are much better than Michael Cullen’s, because I know that that does not add up to 50 percent of the 11 original sales. That probably explains why today the Government announced a monumental cock-up, to the tune of $1 billion, over what are now New Zealand’s carbon liabilities, instead of the $500 million positive position it tried to tell New Zealanders their country would be in when it ratified the Kyoto Protocol.

Mr Cullen then took a cheap shot at my colleague Pansy Wong, when he said that it was a National Government that drove subdivision legislation. Well, there is a huge difference in driving subdivisions. Subdivisions actually add value, because people want them. Then he took another cheap shot—it was a threat, really—at my colleague Pansy Wong, when he said that she should be very careful with her moral outrage, because of something Nick Smith had done.

Pansy Wong: He tried to intimidate me.

BRIAN CONNELL: He tried to be intimidating. Well, one does not intimidate Pansy Wong as easily as that. In fact, one does not intimidate anyone from the National Party as easily as that. If the Minister is so sensitive, and if he is so sure in regard to the 10 pages of provisions the member for Otago put into the bill that state one can compulsorily take private property from New Zealand citizens without any compensation, then will he please explain why he is moving a Supplementary Order Paper to take them out? Will the Minister take a call and explain that fact? I bet he will not. What he will do is to rage on about Pansy Wong and Nick Smith, take cheap shots, and try to deflect from the fact that it is his bill—a Government bill that he is sponsoring—that proposed the clause in the first place.

It was only when he had to bow to public pressure, because the tide was going out for the Labour Party and the rest of his cronies who are associated with it, that he thought: “Oops, I’d better try to do something.”

But for that Supplementary Order Paper, the National Party could not have supported this bill, and that would have been a shame because the essence of overseas ownership of New Zealand lands, subject to reasonable conditions, is something I strongly support.

I have to ask where the negative sentiment comes from that says that overseas investment is bad, that it is hurting New Zealand. Overseas investors wanting to invest in New Zealand’s economy is a vote of confidence in our economy. It is not a negative sign. For goodness’ sake, we are now a multicultural society! We cannot build a wall around us to try to keep the rest of the world out. It simply does not work like that. We are all immigrants, starting with Kupe. Let us not forget that fact.

I am a strong believer that investors coming to New Zealand with their hard-earned cash and wanting to invest here is something we should welcome with open arms. Arguments to the contrary are simply arguments from people with their heads in the sand who hope the world will pass them by.

I can think of some practical examples to share with members of this Committee. I can think of a Japanese investor who bought a farm near the foothills of Rākaia, who spent $600,000 buying it, and who everyone thought was mad—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I call Craig McNair.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The point the National Party would like you to clarify is about Mr Connell being obviously interrupted in mid-sentence by the bell. That exact same set of circumstances occurred when Mr Donald was speaking, and the Chair granted him an immediate second call, despite the fact that other members of Parliament were seeking the call. Mr Connell was interrupted in mid-sentence. He sought a second call, but he was not given it. I guess that what members on this side of the Chamber are now asking themselves is this: under what circumstances are second calls being granted, back-to-back, to some parties and not to others?

New Zealand First has the utmost faith in your decisions on these matters, Mr Chairman, and would not want to question them, at all. But I presume there is a practice that where there is a spokesperson, he or she is entitled to get a second call. I think it was part of the Standing Orders some time ago that spokespersons were supposed to get a second call, if possible. I am sure that Mr Rod Donald is the spokesperson for the Green Party on this issue, but I do not think Mr Connell is the spokesperson for National on it. In any event, I am sure you are working out the proper apportionments, and New Zealand First has every faith in your decision to give the call to Mr McNair.

Perhaps Mr Jones could point to the Standing Orders that state that only spokespersons get back-to-back calls.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I thank members for that. It is entirely up to the Chair. Yes, Brian Connell was in mid-sentence. There are quite a few calls to come yet, and I have no doubt the member will get some of those. I tried not to cut him off. Mr Donald was given consecutive calls because he has a great number of amendments. I think it will be fair all round. I did not want National to sneak too far ahead of New Zealand First at this stage.

This afternoon I want to focus on clause 21T, “No compensation for marginal strip”, and to get my case clear on this issue. Either we let overseas owners have the land or we do not. It does not really matter what side of the argument we are on—whether we are for this bill or against it, whether we are for foreign ownership or against it—at the end of the day what this clause and David Parker’s amendment were about was taking something away from somebody. They are saying: “We’re going to let you have it, but, once we’ve let you have it, we’re going to take some of it away from you.” We should make up our minds at the beginning. Either we let the person have it or we do not let the person have it. That is the deal, and that always should be the deal. That is the problem New Zealand First had with the clause, and with David Parker’s amendment—the smokescreen amendment. I think it is outrageous that the Government was even considering that clause, and still, to this day, Government members get up and passionately advocate for it.

We all know the reason why the Government is pushing this issue. An election is on its way, in the next 1, 2, or 3 months. Government members looked at each other and said: “What are we going to do? We have to do something to make it look like we are the true Labour Party of the old days.”—and by that I mean the Labour Party before 1984; the same Labour Party that went up and down this country, signing a petition pledging that it would—

Jill Pettis: Where was that member in 1984?

CRAIG McNAIR: Admittedly I was quite young. This is not from memory; this is from learning a bit of political history. The facts are that the Labour Party of old would not have supported this bill.

New Zealand First says: “Make up your mind. Either let them have it, or not.” New Zealand First says that at the end of the day this bill is wrong, it is fundamentally flawed, and it is not putting New Zealand and New Zealanders first. This bill allows foreign investors to come here, flog off our country’s assets in a huge way, and have no regard for New Zealand and New Zealanders whatsoever. That is what New Zealand First says. There is $12 billion going out of this country every year, because of the dealings of Labour and National in the 1980s and 1990s.

There is another point on this issue that I want to talk about, before I move on. Who will be next? That is the question I want to ask. Labour Party members put their heads together, thinking that here is a situation whereby they can make it look like they are being tough and looking after New Zealand’s interests, and put in an amendment to say that they will allow foreign investors to buy land in this country, but then they will take some of that land away from them. That is what Labour members did. They put their heads together and said: “Let’s do that.”, and then they said: “We will push this little part for now, and in the future we will start taking New Zealand - owned land off New Zealanders, once we have got this amendment through.” So who will be next?

Labour is very, very disappointed. David Parker was almost devastated by the fact that his amendment could not be rammed through today. He was devastated. Labour has a hidden agenda on many issues, and on this issue those members jacked it up. They thought they had it all ready, set to go, but they were not able to do it. That is why they are devastated—because they have a hidden agenda on this issue. They want Kiwis to be next. They want to start taking Kiwis’ land off them. They want to start initiating the “Mugabe clause” right through our legislation.

When I was speaking previously I was about to share with the Committee the story of a Japanese investor who bought property in the Rākaia Gorge back in the 1990s. He paid $600,000 for a property, and everyone concluded he was absolutely mad. The locals were laughing out of the sides of their mouths. They could not give the land to him quickly enough. They thought they had caught themselves a mug. This investor has subsequently turned that farm into one of the pristine golfing environments in this country. It is now referred to as Terrace Downs. Terrace Downs is favoured by people on the golf circuit as one of the three best golf courses in this country. That investor has gone on to spend $80 million, and his initial investment was $600,000.

People from Christchurch have invested in Terrace Downs in their droves. The subdivision legislation that was introduced by National, which Dr Cullen took umbrage with, has enabled Christchurch investors to invest in Terrace Downs in their droves. Some of the houses there are outstanding. The landscape is outstanding, and the golf lodge is also on the circuit of “must visit” places for people who are holding a function of any sort. The number of tourists who come through Terrace Downs on any given day is contributing huge amounts of capital to the local community, as well as to New Zealand more broadly.

But—and there is a but—one or two of the holes I can think of go down to the water’s edge. We were told by the member for Otago to accept that that investor, having contributed something like $80 million to this iconic location, should have that value taken from him. He should have that land taken from him, so that people could no longer play the 10th hole on the Terrace Downs golf course. That is what he implied. That is what he was trying to do.

Michael Cullen can take all the moral high ground he likes. This is a bill that he is sponsoring. But he got the nod from the New Zealand public, to say: “Hey, the tide’s on the way out. You had better pull your horns in.” That is what Dr Cullen and David Parker were trying to foist on this House, and on the people of this country specifically.

I can think of another example, but before I go there I just want to say that this country needs people like that investor. We need people who are visionary, who are prepared to take risks, and who are prepared to have the courage of their convictions and come to New Zealand and invest. But I fear that a lot of the anti - overseas investor sentiments, which are driving some of the debates I am hearing today, are simply based on racial grounds. We have to accept now that we are a multicultural society and we need people like that to come here and invest.

I said I could think of some other examples, and I can. Another example, which also includes Japanese capital, is Five Star Beef Ltd in Ashburton. It houses 18,000 cattle, which are destined for high-value restaurants in Tokyo. That investment has about $30 million of Japanese capital, and without that capital it would not have happened. It would not be sustainable. That beef lot example underpins three local transport companies, underpins the local barley price, supports two freezing works in the district, and employs I do not know how many people, but it runs into hundreds. If we listened to the arguments that have been put forward, those investors would not be welcome in this country, and that is an absolute nonsense.

I want to speak a little further to the substance of the Supplementary Order Paper amendment that withdraws the marginal strips provision. I think it is very important to explain to the Committee that the Supplementary Order Paper amendment will not bring to an end the possibility that marginal strips alongside rivers and lakes will be set aside when a New Zealander decides to sell land adjoining lakes and rivers to non-residents.

I say that because in clause 18, “Factors for assessing benefit of overseas investments in sensitive land”, subclause (2)(ba)(ii) states that one of the things the Minister will do in deciding whether to approve such a sale is to look at “providing, protecting, and improving walking access to those habitats” of indigenous vegetation and indigenous fauna. Paragraph (d) of the same subclause states that the Minister will also ensure that adequate mechanisms are in place for walking access over the relevant land, or a relevant part of the land, by the public or any section of the public. Notwithstanding the Supplementary Order Paper amendment, the Minister will still, in deciding whether to approve the sale of sensitive land to an overseas buyer, take into account the whole question of walking access along rivers and lakes.

Here is what will happen. If the New Zealand seller decides that he or she can get a better price for the land by selling it to an overseas person, and both the seller and the purchaser know that that is a condition of the sale, then of course the New Zealand owner will agree to allow access. On the other hand, if the overseas buyer would not pay any more than a New Zealand buyer would, then the question will not even arise, and walking access will not be given. In substance, notwithstanding the Supplementary Order Paper amendment, I believe that marginal strips will still be created in the great majority of cases, and it will all be done without breaching the important principle that compensation should be paid when land is confiscated. We have a win-win situation.

I go back for a moment to a remark that Rod Donald made about the Ruby Bay cliffs. I am very familiar with the situation of the Ruby Bay cliffs. For those who do not know Ruby Bay, it is on Tasman Bay in the province of Nelson. It involves a piece of land known as the Copeland block because it is the place where I was blessed to grow up when I was kid, and a beautiful piece of land it is. That block has now been sold to a family who have built a multimillion-dollar house on the land, and it is now the subject of great controversy. Why is it controversial? It is controversial only to a group of Greens, really. It is controversial because the people who now live there, who are New Zealand residents, were born in California. Guess what they have had the audacity to do? They have cut down a whole lot of Pinus radiata trees that were growing along the top of the cliff. Pinus radiata happens to be a native of California, but this particular Californian family who have come here, who have decided to quit California and want to become Kiwis, are cutting the pine trees down, and are spending thousands of dollars on planting thousands of native plants on those cliffs. There will be indigenous plants on the cliffs.

Rod Donald: The cliffs are falling down.

GORDON COPELAND: They will not fall down once the growth starts, I say to the member. When I look at that with any objectivity, I conclude—as any reasonable person has to—that there are two things happening. One of them is xenophobia, because the people happened to be born outside this country, and the other one is just sheer envy. End of story.

I move, That the question be now put.

I rise to take part in the debate on Part 2 of the Overseas Investment Bill. I want to reflect on the issue around the size of companies, and the reasons for which the current threshold for a company to be required to give notice of an intention to acquire a New Zealand company, which is around about $25 million, will be extended up to $100 million.

Rod Donald: Shocking!

JOHN KEY: No, it is a wonderful thing. I want to talk about why it would not make sense for acquisitions involving amounts of less than that to be referred to the Overseas Investment Commission. As members will probably be aware, there has not been a situation where the commission has turned down an application from those companies.

I want to put a slightly different spin from that of the Green Party on what takes place when foreigners make an acquisition here in New Zealand. In particular, it relates to the criteria and factors that will be considered. They are the issues around job creation, business skills, development of export receipts, market competition, and additional investment and development. I say that because last Friday I met with a group of investors who have invested about $50 million so far in New Zealand, but who have ambitions to invest a further $150 to $200 million over the next 2 to 3 years. It was interesting to talk to them about the role they have been playing in the companies they have been acquiring in New Zealand. It has been a role of quite active management, which is slightly different from the normal venture capital situation, in which a lot of the investors will come along and supply some finance, but essentially leave the status quo in place—the companies concerned are left to get on with it.

In fact, the investors I met have done something a lot of commentators have argued is a real benefit of overseas investment. They have come to New Zealand and invested not only their capital but also—maybe this is more important—their time and their contacts in their international networks. In many respects, that is quite similar to the situation that operates domestically in New Zealand with “angel investors”, who are involved, I guess, more in the infancy of the development of a company. They may not put in very much capital at all, but it is very often the case that they agree to lend their experience, skills, know-how, and knowledge to small companies that are looking to develop.

What was interesting about the investors I met with last Friday was that they told me that, in the case of a number of New Zealand companies that they have bought into with a significant investment, they have managed to double and treble the size of the exports of those companies in a very short space of time—within months of acquisition. Members may ask themselves why it is that a foreigner is able to come to New Zealand and supply something that is more than just capital, which we accept is reasonably freely available here in New Zealand. The answer is that the companies that are being acquired often operate here in New Zealand in a niche area. They are built on the backs of entrepreneurial New Zealanders who have developed some good ideas, technical know-how, and skills. But those people lack the ability to have access to the marketplace, and to other suppliers along the food chain who may buy their products. So what is hugely valuable about those investments is not so much the ability of the company to get access to capital, but its ability to get access to those vertical chains.

Navman New Zealand is quite an interesting example. At one level I was concerned about Navman being sold offshore, because I think it is producing fantastic technology, and I do not want to see that company picked up, relocated to Los Angeles, and lost to New Zealand. The real challenge for New Zealand is to prove that it is an incubator and also a developer of great companies. It has been quite interesting to see that Navman has, at this stage at least, managed to take the foreign capital that has come out of the Brunswick Corporation and develop the company on, by building greater market access and penetration of its goods—by building a world-class company with world-class products on the back of that technical know-how.

Gerry Brownlee: That’s right.

JOHN KEY: That is right. For those who stand up to speak on this bill and say that foreign investment is bad—

Gerry Brownlee: Who are they?

JOHN KEY: The Green members, for one, and the New Zealand First members, as well. They do not want a bar of anyone from overseas. They actually forget the other things those people may bring outside of capital, which are much more important than capital. I refer to things like knowledge and know-how, and access to markets.

I move, That the question be now put.

I think this bill highlights what is happening in New Zealand to a large extent. Once again we are in danger of drifting back to the situation we had between 1984 and 1990, when Labour came into office and sold off New Zealand, and between 1990 and 1999, when National came in and sold off New Zealand. Now we see Labour and National once again combining forces to establish a situation whereby they can once again sell off what little is left.

I think the preceding speaker could quite easily have been speaking about the wine industry in New Zealand. Small vineyards have been developing in New Zealand. For example, Sauvignon Blanc is grown in the Matua Valley area, which is where Sauvignon Blanc started in New Zealand. The Matua Valley Wines company is the result of wonderful work done by the Spence brothers. Of course, people can reach a certain point at which they ask where they go to from here, and, inevitably, if their family do not want to stay on in the business, they ask themselves who will give them the best deal. The best deal may come from an overseas company.

Deborah Coddington: What’s wrong with that?

DAIL JONES: The company loses its New Zealand feel; what is “New Zealand” about it is being sold off. [Interruption] What is the name of the company now? We are gradually selling off New Zealand in that sort of way. In the first instance it sounds good, but if people think those big international companies are here for the benefit of New Zealand, they really have another think coming. People are so naive. Deborah Coddington and Gordon Copeland are so naive. If they think those big overseas companies are here for the benefit of New Zealand, they are dreaming. It is absolute dreamtime. They should be with Michael Jackson in never-never land. They are never-never land people if they believe that the big overseas companies are here to help New Zealand. Those wine companies are here only to help their shareholders get all they can out of the New Zealand wine industry. If necessary they would move on tomorrow, if there was no more profit, and it would be to heck with New Zealand.

I give members that as an example. I think it is so appropriate to the Helensville electorate and to the sort of thing that happened in West Auckland in the past. We are losing the New Zealand person being involved in and running the business. Those companies are now run not by New Zealanders but by foreign people. Foreign people come to New Zealand and run the companies now, and New Zealand jobs go begging. It may be that a New Zealander can get into the company and work his or her way up to the top somewhere in New York, or wherever, but we have to ask ourselves, if we are New Zealanders, where is New Zealand in all of that? I raise that as an issue. It is a classic example that I have come across.

Brian Connell: Where’s Ralph Norris going?

DAIL JONES: He is gone; he is lost to New Zealand. He is not here for New Zealand any more. It is a culture thing, of course. The National Party member talked about foreigners coming in and it being a racial thing. It is not; it is a pro - New Zealand thing. That is something the National Party does not understand. Those members are here only to talk to the big boys who want $50 million or $150 million deals. We wonder what else can flow on from that to a particular political party.

New Zealand First does not want a bar of that type of thing. We are here for New Zealand first. We do not want that situation created, which is the danger we see in this legislation. Deborah Coddington does not want to stay in Parliament any more and does not have any regard for trying to protect the interests of New Zealand any more. She is going; she is gone. But New Zealand First is here. We make the point that we should not pretend that any of these big companies are here for New Zealand. They are big internationals; they are in New Zealand today and in Chile tomorrow. If the Chilean wine industry booms, they will be in Chile tomorrow, and in Argentina the next day if they can. That is the way it goes. They would be in South-east Asia if they could grow wine there, but it is very, very difficult to grow wine from grapes in South-east Asia.

All the ideas that some of these people come up with sound great, but I say to Mr Copeland that I am afraid that he is really out of touch with what big business is about. I am sure that when he was with the oil company it was not working for New Zealand. It was working for its shareholders and its big interests. New Zealand First says we do not want to fall into the trap, once again, of National and Labour doing a deal and taking turns to sell off New Zealand. That is where New Zealand First comes in. We are in the middle. We want to make sure that everything is straight and fair, and that New Zealanders, in any deal that is done, are protected. New Zealand First’s role is to look after New Zealanders first.

I move, That the question be now put.

I say to those members who, like Mr Power, are concerned about the extent of time the Chairperson has given me that this will be my last call. I am grateful for that time because, apart from New Zealand First, the Greens are the only party opposing the liberalisation of foreign investment in New Zealand. I know that ACT would like absolutely no rules on foreign investment, but at least it holds no sway in this debate.

As far as wanting to introduce tighter controls on foreign investment—something we think most New Zealanders support—I have a few more amendments that I would like to explain to the Committee and to the people of New Zealand who are listening. The first is to clause 32. It relates to the whole issue of compiling and maintaining a full and correct record of all land, business, and building sales to foreign investors—something that I think is absolutely vital and should be a responsibility of the regulator to do and to report on annually to Parliament.

I am pleased to say that most of the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee recognised that there is a paucity of information about the extent of foreign investment in New Zealand. The Government officially acknowledges that somewhere around 1 million hectares of land is foreign owned, that a certain amount of our coastline is in foreign ownership—approximately 57 kilometres—and that around 2,720 hectares of offshore islands and around 150,000 hectares of high country are in foreign ownership. But absolutely no records are kept of land that is owned offshore that falls below the various thresholds contained in the schedules. All the members of the select committee acknowledged that there is some concern in the community about the extent of land purchases in particular areas by foreign buyers, even when most of the individual purchases are below the threshold.

I was pleased that the whole committee agreed with this statement in the commentary on the bill: “High demand by overseas persons increases house prices and can make it unaffordable for some New Zealanders to own property in such areas. There is currently no means for determining the extent of overseas ownership where the properties purchased are below the applicable threshold,”. The majority of the committee went on to state: “… the collection of information regarding the residency status of property owners would be valuable.” I am pleased that that recommendation is in the commentary, along with an encouragement to the Government to consider implementing a pilot programme to collect that information.

That is good as far as it goes, but we simply say it should go further and be obligatory. The Greens are concerned about two matters. One matter was raised by the whole committee, and that is the fact that foreign investors are outbidding Kiwis. We are not just talking about the bach at the beach or the family farm, both of which we think Kiwis should be able to buy; we are talking about that first home, which is so vital in order for Kiwi families to get the start in life they deserve. The dream of owning one’s own home is now turned into a nightmare because so much foreign capital is coming into New Zealand, particularly from Australia. Investors are buying up cheap residential properties and making it impossible for young Kiwi families to buy their own homes. So much for National’s property-owning democracy or Labour’s ownership society! The fact is foreign investors are allowed to outbid Kiwis when it comes to buying that first home.

We have evidence of that. We have anecdotal evidence from around the country—from Kaitāia to Invercargill. In terms of specific evidence, when I was on a select committee exchange to Australia last year we met a New South Wales Labor MP who was coming to New Zealand to buy up properties in Huntly and Ngāruawāhia.

I want to take a brief call to rebut some of the nonsense New Zealand First decided to inject into the debate, and in particular its criticism of the National Party. We know that New Zealand First is one of this Parliament’s parasites—

Dail Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. A member cannot call another member a parasite, surely.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Not even a party, no.

Dail Jones: Thank you. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise.

GERRY BROWNLEE: I withdraw and apologise. Some will notice the parasitic behaviour of New Zealand First in the constant comments of its members about the National Party. Although I use the term “parasitic”, one may say also that that behaviour is somewhat symbiotic, because without the National Party there would be no New Zealand First. It is quite galling to find the New Zealand First politicians—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Order!

GERRY BROWNLEE: I was just coming to the bill. If I had not been disturbed by the point of order, I would have been in only my first minute or so of rebutting the issue at hand: the misrepresentation New Zealand First chooses to put on National’s support for this bill.

Although we have reservations about the bill, in essence we recognise that facilitating overseas investment in a country like this is important. That does not mean selling everything off, I say to Mr Jones. It does not mean entering into the sorts of shonky lease-type arrangements that the Government has entered into over the Transpower assets.

Pansy Wong: What is that about?

GERRY BROWNLEE: Members ask what that is all about. We would all like to know what it is all about. It would be helpful to Parliament if Dr Michael Cullen were to come down here and explain exactly how it is that this Government, which is so committed to keeping State assets in the hands of the State, has allowed such a transparently shonky deal to be put together. It is transparently shonky, but is not transparent as a deal. Although we know that the assets are now in someone else’s hands and that the various parties in this Parliament who support the Labour Party have allowed that type of investment, we do not know exactly the nature and structure of that deal.

Brian Connell: Why don’t we know?

GERRY BROWNLEE: Dr Cullen will not tell us. I have to surmise that that is probably because Dr Cullen himself does not know what has been done under his nose. Dr Cullen himself probably does not know what has been slipped into the pile of papers on his desk and what he himself has signed off on, or exactly how much the New Zealand tax base has been rorted as a result of that particular transaction.

Brian Connell: What did Treasury say?

GERRY BROWNLEE: It would not matter what Treasury said, because the Labour Government simply rubbishes everything that comes out of Treasury. It does not treat Treasury at all seriously.

One of the most interesting points in this bill is the matter of the investor tests. It is good to see that we are making sure that those who choose to invest in this country are well qualified to do so, and that locals will not pay the price for their inability to get together the capital they need. I ask the New Zealand First members to tell us what is so wrong with having foreign investment in this country. Has there ever been a time in our post-1840 history when we have not been heavily reliant on foreign investment? There has probably never been such a time. Certainly the places of origin of the capital that is invested in this country have changed dramatically. There was a time when New Zealand was largely owned by British insurance companies and British banks. That, of course, has substantially changed. Many New Zealanders now, through international share portfolios, share in overseas investment in this country.

I move, That the question be now put.

The next amendments are to clause 14 in the name of Rod Donald and are to omit the expression “25” and substitute the expression “10” in subclause (1)(a)(i) and (ii). These amendments are inconsistent with decisions already taken and are therefore out of order.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 14 be agreed to:

to omit from subparagraph (ii) of subclause (1)(a) the expression “100”, and substitute the expression “10”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek your advice in respect of Standing Order 120, which reads: “An amendment must be put into writing, signed by the mover, and delivered to the Clerk at the Table.” I have just noted that the amendments we voted on in Mr Donald’s name that were moved by Mr Donald have not been signed by Mr Donald. In fact, they were signed by Mr Locke. That places us in an unusual position, unless the Standing Orders can give us further elucidation on the application of Standing Order 120. I would appreciate that advice. You would see the difficulty, which, at face value, is that the amendments have not been signed by the mover, as required by Standing Order 120.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Yes, thank you for raising that. That would be the impression one would get. But the explanation is that the amendments were all submitted in writing and all signed on behalf of Mr Donald by Keith Locke, and that signature is on the original submission of the amendments.

SIMON POWER: I want to be clear about that, Mr Chairperson. The Standing Order very clearly states that the amendment is to be signed by the mover. In this case, we have several amendments, and the amendments we have just voted on begin: “Rod Donald, in Committee, to move …”. That makes Rod Donald the mover of those amendments. Mr Donald has not signed those amendments; Mr Locke has. What is the standing of those amendments?

Rod Donald: I think that Mr Power has raised a very interesting point, and had the Clerk pointed that out to us at the time the amendments were submitted, then we would have taken them off the Table and a member such as Mr Power would not have had the benefit of seeing our amendments in advance of the Committee stage debate. I could have signed them after 2 o’clock when I returned to the House from Dunedin this morning. So perhaps the Chair would like to consider whether the Standing Order intends that it be required that the actual mover sign an amendment or whether another member can sign it.

In the same way, I understand, the procedure at the moment is that other members can sign, for example, the cover sheet for a member’s bill without the actual mover of that bill needing to sign it. For that matter another member can sign off an oral question without the actual member asking the question being needed to sign it. I think the liberal interpretation has been such that other members of one’s own party can sign on one’s behalf, and if we change that interpretation for this purpose, I think it would create some problems for parties having to find members to sign their own oral questions and other documents when they are not necessarily available to do so.

SIMON POWER: I accept the points made by Mr Donald. I also accept the practicalities of having to deal with the tabling of oral questions and members’ bills when proposing members—I guess that is the right phrase—are not available to annex their signatures. The difficulty we find ourselves in here is that a specific Standing Order relates directly to amendments. It is my submission—and this is not a difficulty for Mr Donald in the sense that it is probably more a difficulty for the Clerk that the matter has got to this point—that it seems on the surface that Standing Order 120 has been breached because the amendments have not been signed by the mover. There is no reference to “the mover or his or her nominee”, “his or her appointed person”, or “his or her substitute”. The Standing Order is very clear that it is the mover of the amendment who must sign the document. Now, I seek guidance from you as to whether we have just wasted 25 minutes of the Committee’s time in voting on amendments that are out of order—in fact, that probably breach the Standing Orders by the fact that we even considered them in the first place, given that, as I say, on the face of it Standing Order 120 has been directly breached.

I thank the member. I need no further assistance; the matter has been very clearly laid out by the person who raised the point of order. Yes, on a literal reading of the Standing Orders it would appear to be correct. However, it is a very longstanding practice in the Committee and in the House that with consent, a member can sign on behalf of another member. That is what has happened this time, and it is for the convenience of members. But I think it is an issue that needs to be looked at, and I will get a proper ruling from the Speaker as to this practice.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I fully accept your ruling in that regard, but I would like to say that I have checked Standing Order 365, which relates to the lodging of oral questions. It specifically states that such a question must be “signed by the member or by another member on the member’s behalf,”. So there is a distinction between Standing Order 120 and Standing Order 365, which is contrary to what Rod Donald advised.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Yes. Thank you for pointing that out. That was not part of my ruling.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Thank you for your ruling. I do think that it would be worth the Speaker clarifying the difference between Standing Orders 365 and 120. I concur with my friend from United Future on that point, and I thank you, Mr Chairperson, for your guidance on it. But that still leaves us in a difficult position, and I think we owe it to the Committee to determine now what status is to be accorded the amendments we have just spent 25 minutes voting on.

No, I do not need any assistance on that. I have accepted those amendments, based on the longstanding practice of doing it in just that way. All the amendments were put and they were dealt with. Decisions were made, and the votes were all lost. So other than to urge the Speaker to give a clear ruling on that—as I am sure the Speaker will—so that we can incorporate that longstanding practice through the Standing Orders, I cannot take it any further.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. With regard to the Minister’s amendments, I presume they will be put en bloc, so that we cannot, say, just have a vote on the amendment to omit clauses 21A to 21V and the heading above clause 21A as a separate vote? Some of us want to support that amendment but oppose everything else. We have supported the omission of the clauses dealing with marginal strips, but here we will seem to be voting against their omission. Is it the practice that there will be just one vote, and that we have no choice in the situation?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): That is a good point.

DAIL JONES: Do I have to seek leave to have that done separately?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): That is the normal practice.

DAIL JONES: In that case, I seek leave that we first vote separately on the provision in relation to clauses 21A to 21V and the heading above clause 21A.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be objection.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 376 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to Part 2, and the following amendments in his name to Part 2, be agreed to:

to omit from paragraph (b) of clause 42(1) the words “produce to the regulator”, and substitute the words: “provide the regulator with”; and

to omit from subclause (1) of clause 70 the expression “2004”, and substitute the expression “2005”; and

to omit from section 57(1)(b) in clause 73 the expression “57H”, and substitute the expression “57HA”; and

to omit from section 57F(2)(c) in clause 73 the words “Minister or”; and

to omit from section 57G(1)(b) in clause 73 the words “the relevant overseas person is, or (if that person is not an individual) all the individuals with control of the relevant overseas person are,” and substitute the words “all the individuals with control of the relevant overseas person are”;

to omit from section 57HA(1) in clause 73 the words “Minister or”; and

to insert in subclause (1) of clause 78 after the words “exemptions granted under”, the words “the 1973 Act or”.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Prior to the dinner break the Chairperson went through with members the concerns we had regarding amendments and Standing Order 120. That Standing Order refers to the fact that an amendment must be put into writing, signed by the mover, and delivered to the Table. Prior to the dinner break we discussed the fact that Mr Donald had moved amendments but they had been signed by Mr Locke. We had a discussion about whether that affected the validity of the amendments, and what would become of them, in terms of their standing, now that the vote had been taken on them. The Chairperson prior to the dinner break indicated that he would get a ruling from the Speaker, and I am asking at this point whether that ruling is forthcoming.

Mr Power is right to the extent that the Chairperson said he would seek advice from the Speaker on the issue, but the Chairperson also clearly ruled that he accepted the amendments. There was no doubt about that. So that particular issue is resolved, as far as I am concerned.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): What did he say then, Mr Donald?

ROD DONALD: Mr Simich accepted the amendments.

The ruling is that a member can sign on behalf of another member if the member had that member’s permission. So I ask Mr Donald whether he had given his permission to Mr Locke to sign on his behalf.

I did indeed give my permission to Mr Locke to sign those amendments.

That is the end of the matter.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. During the points of order about this matter, Mr Copeland raised a very interesting point, which was that the matter raised by Mr Donald by way of comparison was to draw an analogy with oral questions being signed by another member of Parliament. Mr Copeland’s contribution to the debate was quite right when he referred to Standing Order 365, which specifically makes provision, at 365(1)(a), for oral questions to be signed by a member or by another member on that member’s behalf. In other words, there is an express, an explicit, authorisation for another member, with the consent of the member lodging the question, or the moving member, to do that on his or her behalf. No such explicit reference to another member signing on behalf of a mover in respect of an amendment exists under Standing Order 120. One of those Standing Orders relating to oral questions clearly makes provision for another member to sign on behalf of a member; Standing Order 120 makes no such allowance, expressly or impliedly. Although I certainly do not want to question your ruling, is it now the case that Standing Order 120 is amended by a Speaker’s ruling, so that a member, with another member’s consent, may actually sign an amendment moved by the original member?

No, that is not correct. It is a longstanding practice that a member may sign amendments on behalf of another member, if he or she has that member’s permission. That is the ruling.

Schedule 1

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to schedule 1 be agreed to:

to insert in the second column of Table 2 in Part 1 for the item relating to any regional park created under the Local Government Act 1974, and for the item relating to land that is listed, or in a class listed, as a reserve, a public park, or other sensitive area by the regulator under section 38, the words “0.4 hectares” in each case.