Key John: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Key John: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21548] 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 We are up to the interesting bit now the Committee stage debate on the Overseas Investment Bill. We know from the speeches on the second reading where the divisions in Parliament on this bill lie. I want to make particular reference to clause 4 “Overview”. Clause 4(1)(b)(i) talks about subpart 1 of Part 2. At the Finance and Expenditure Committee David Parker on behalf of the Labour Government inserted into this subparagraph the words— 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague but in the time since we have started this debate the Minister has not been in the chair. He has just returned to it now. I ask that we get some kind of discipline around Ministers’ seating arrangements while we are in Committee. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I apologise. The Minister will stay in the chair. 
JOHN KEY 
: Sadly that is the position the Minister feels he will be in regarding the position of Minister of Finance as well—a chair was so close to him but in a few months’ time the opportunity will be gone and never will he manage to position his bottom on the Minister of Finance’s chair. What a tragedy. Let me go back—[ 
Interruption 
] Well it will be anyone— 
Darren Hughes 
: Does he think he will get the job? Don Brash will give that away. 
JOHN KEY 
: If he does and it is for the good of the country I shall welcome and support the incumbent person. I shall support that decision fully because the National Party believes in what is good for the country not what is good for Labour. That is why Darren Hughes will be so firmly rejected when the election takes place. But let me digress no more; I will go back to the Overseas Investment Bill. 
I want to talk about the addition to subpart 1 of Part 2 in clause 4(1)(b)(i) that was imposed by David Parker on behalf of the Labour Government during the select committee process. The additional words state that subpart 1: “imposes a statutory marginal strip condition for certain overseas investments in sensitive land:”. That clause originally included the words following on from those I have just quoted “for adequate and fair compensation”. The National Party would have supported that—[ 
Interruption 
] Well we would have discussed those words—“for adequate and fair compensation”. I suspect that the National Party finance spokesperson may have had some concerns about the costs of that compensation. But putting that to one side we would have supported the inclusion of the words “for adequate and fair compensation”. Those words were not added. One is left with the feeling that that clause is nothing short of a grab of a property right—nothing short of the view of a Government that cannot quite differentiate between— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Can I just clarify that we are talking about Part 1. 
JOHN KEY 
: Absolutely—Part 1 clause 4(1). Madam Chair were you not listening to my speech intently? I think it is one of the better ones I have delivered in Parliament so far—and Mr Cunliffe is nodding his head. 
Let me go back to clause 4(1)(b)(i) which talks about imposing a statutory marginal strip condition for certain overseas investments in sensitive land. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes that is right. We know that because the words “for fair and reasonable compensation” were not added this measure will fail. Unlike the Labour Government we understand property rights. We understand the definition as being that if something one owns in one’s own name is taken from one—“involuntarily acquired” is the term—there must be compensation. 
Clearly the Labour caucus voted for the wording that is in the bill. I understand Mr Parker’s reasons for doing so. He had some local reasons. He is under a lot of pressure in his seat of Otago. I understand that. I have been down there. I got the same reaction in Otago as I got when I was in Otaki the other day. In Otaki I asked what people thought of the local member Darren Hughes and they had never heard of the bloke. That is how they put it: “Never heard of the bloke.” I asked whether he was the guy cleaning out the back of the chicken farm that I was visiting and they said: “No I don’t think so; I think he’s in Wellington.” I got the same sort of reaction in Otago. 
I understand that we are in a political environment and that Mr Parker has a lot of high-country stations in his electorate. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes he has to get it pumped up in the  
Otago Daily Times  
that up here in Wellington he is not just sipping lattes served by Deborah Coddington; he has to do something when he is up here. So sure enough he thought that if he put this provision in the bill it would be really popular. I guess it would not be popular with those who are selling but it would be popular with some anyway. That is why Mr Parker did it. We saw the true colours of the Labour Government which really does not believe in anyone’s property rights or anyone’s ability to earn anything in his or her own name when Labour members happily followed the Pied Piper Mr Parker and voted for the inclusion of that provision. That was fair enough except that when they came to Parliament they could not get even the Greens to agree with it. That is how sad it was. [ 
Interruption 
] My friend Mr Donald is looking across and saying “maybe”. The Government is in an unbelievable situation.