Prebble Richard: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Prebble Richard: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21599] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I am sorry that Mr Parker did not take longer. It is not often that one gets an opportunity to speak at one’s own funeral and I think he should have taken it. 
Jill Pettis 
: Oh! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Oh this bill most certainly is Mr Parker’s funeral. Here is a member who is so ideological he does not understand what is in the best interests of his own constituents. I do not know whether Mr Copeland would like me to quote him so perhaps I will not but I will say that other members have questioned whether Mr Parker is aware of the fact that property values in his electorate have gone up because people have been able to sell their land to whomever they want. The passage of this bill will damage not just one person who was unable to put through a property sale; it will damage the value of every property in Central Otago. We need to ask on whose behalf Mr Parker thought he was acting. That is his first problem. 
His second difficulty is that he was prepared to support an amendment whereby the State would take away property without paying compensation. That is one of the criticisms that is made of Mr Mugabe. Indeed I am sure Mr Parker is aware of that and I am certain that when it comes to Zimbabwe he is strongly opposed to the actions of Mr Mugabe. That is the contradiction that has been drawn to his attention. He has managed with this bill to offend every single constituency. He has offended the liberals the conservatives and those who own property—he has managed to offend everyone. I understand that the National Party has a rather good candidate in his electorate. I cannot remember her name but I am told she is pretty good. 
Brian Connell 
: Jacqui Dean. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Her name is Jacqui Dean. I am sure she would not take just 30 seconds. Then again given Mr Parker’s position 30 seconds was probably the longest he could speak without making a further fool of himself. 
David Parker 
: 1.8 percent. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The member thinks that the truth of a proposition is in its polling numbers. If that is so then he will accept his defeat with grace will he not? 
Let me turn to the bill itself. Firstly the Minister of Finance is correct in saying that some provisions in the bill bring about some liberalisation. The law at present requires Ministers to plough through proposals that everyone knows will be agreed to. Who thinks a supermarket in Dargaville is a bad thing? Only someone who does not live in Dargaville or in another area without a supermarket would think that not having one was a good thing. 
Brian Connell 
: Woolworths did. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The supermarket operator’s opponents may object but apart from another supermarket operator everyone would agree that such a proposal is desirable. It is desirable to have a law that does not involve that sort of nonsense. But having said that I must say that a great deal of this bill is completely irrational. The ACT party finds itself opposing the bill not for the reasons given by New Zealand First which are frankly xenophobic— 
Rod Donald 
: I’m not. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The Green member interjects—and I am not objecting to that—to say that he is not xenophobic. I hate to break it to him but in fact the Green Party has expressed exactly those sorts of sentiments. I join with Mr Trotter in saying that it is a great disappointment to see that a party that was elected to this Parliament as a green party on environmental issues has decided that it wants to keep itself here by making ridiculous xenophobic statements against foreigners and suggesting that foreigners and foreigners alone are somehow an attack on the New Zealand environment. 
I say to Mr Donald that overseas investors actually have a better record than New Zealanders on a whole range of things. Let me give just one example which New Zealand First may identify with. We had a case known as the wine-box case in which a number of companies entered into a number of interesting arrangements to get out of paying taxes. Not one of those companies was an overseas company. All of them were New Zealand companies. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Including State-owned enterprises. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Of course—State-owned enterprises are well known for trying to avoid tax. When I was the Minister for State-owned Enterprises I discovered that a number of State-owned enterprises had gone into the sorts of tax arrangements that made the wine box look like nothing at all. 
The point I am making is that overseas investors tend to be much more careful about obeying the law. There are some quite logical reasons why they should be. Just because a large number of submitters came before the Finance and Expenditure Committee and said that overseas investors do not obey the law does not make it true. Repeating a lie does not make it true. The evidence shows that overseas investors follow our laws. The evidence shows also that New Zealand is a much wealthier country today as a result of overseas investment. Dr Cullen is absolutely right—New Zealanders do not save enough. If we were to follow the logic of New Zealand First and the Green Party this country would be much much poorer today. I tell Mr Donald that there is no doubt about that at all. 
Rod Donald 
: I agree. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Mr Donald now says we should save more. He thinks that by preventing overseas investment coming here somehow we will be able to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps. That is nonsense. 
Firstly the ACT party is opposed to restrictions on private property. If one owns a property one ought to be able to sell it to whomever one chooses not just to those to whom Mr Donald and Mr Peters think it should be sold. 
The second thing is this. We already have in this country a Securities Commission monopolies laws and a Companies Act. We have no shortage of regulations and controls that exist on investment. No case has been put up by any member including those from the Government or the National Party as to why there should be extra restrictions on people just because of their passport. No such argument has been raised and that is why the ACT party is totally opposed to the bill. 
We can see absolutely no reason for it and it is a matter of regret that the bill can go through only because the two old parties support it—for electoral reasons I think not because they believe it. Dr Cullen does not believe in the bill and John Key certainly does not believe in it. The bill will go through because the two old parties looked at the polls and saw how well Mr Peters does in his anti-foreigner rants—helped by the Green Party which is disgraceful in the case of that party because at least it is a party that claims to represent principle; Mr Peters never hides the fact that he is a straight-out populist. The two old parties are pandering to the fact that there are many people in the country who have an irrational fear of foreigners. Shame on both those parties. 
That is the reason why the ACT party is voting against the measure. We do not actually need it.