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:21582] 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 I am happy to rise on behalf of the National Party to address this part of the Overseas Investment Bill. If commentators on this bill take nothing else out of it they will know one thing—that is the tide is going out for this very tired Labour Government. It is on the way out big time when its coalition partner United Future will not even support its tired old Labour policy. Even if Labour does not think that people with property rights should be respected and rewarded at least United Future was smart enough to understand the issue and left the Government on its own—on its tod—with nobody else in the entire Parliament supporting it. The Government could not convince the Greens who are opposed to everything and it could not convince New Zealand First members who are opposed to everything in this field. The Government did not get support from United Future members who could at least see it National’s way. It did not really care about the Progressives and ACT would not support it on this measure also for some very good reasons. Labour members were “Johnny-no-mates” and they have come to Parliament in the incredibly embarrassing position that they cannot even pass their own legislation. 
David Parker was quoted in the  
Otago Daily Times 
 telling the people of Otago that he had a victory. He said that he had won and declared victory. That reminds me of Michael Cullen and Helen Clark declaring victory a few months ago—well they are not smiling quite so readily tonight. David Parker will be looking for a new job post - election day 17 September. He will be looking for a new job but it will not be in this sort of area. No wonder Government members look a downtrodden and disheartened lot; they cannot even pass their legislation. 
I want to refer to one thing that Mr Parker said in the Chamber recently. He took offence that National wanted people who owned something to be paid for it when it was taken off them. Then he said our position was inconsistent because when it came to the foreshore and seabed issue we were not prepared to give Maori anything for taking it off them and that inconsistency was the problem with our position. I hate to tell Mr Parker but he may not be aware that in National’s view Maori did not own the foreshore and seabed in an exclusive situation. They owned it along with all other New Zealanders and they have not had anything taken off them. They are in the same position that they were in beforehand regarding the foreshore and seabed legislation. 
So Mr Parker might be a bit confused about National members’ position on marginal strips but we are not confused and we do not intend to send the message to anybody who invests in New Zealand—a domestic person or someone from offshore—that we will somehow legislate to have that person’s property rights taken off him or her anytime we like just because the people in power think it is a really good idea on the day. We have seen that system operating in various other regimes. It has not worked tremendously well in Zimbabwe and I doubt that it would work terribly well here in New Zealand. So we will not be supporting that notion. [ 
Interruption 
] That is right. 
I do want to refer to the investment in companies that come here from offshore and I think lifting the threshold does make sense. There are some very sound and credible reasons why foreigners who invest in New Zealand companies can actually add some real value beyond just the capital they invest in those companies. They can bring knowledge and skills and more importantly they can bring a gateway to take those New Zealand products and really grow them in offshore markets. I think we sometimes look with far too much scepticism at companies that come to New Zealand and invest. New Zealand is a country born out of entrepreneurs and people with a number eight fencing wire mentality of doing things and we want to encourage that. 
The last point I want to make—if I can make it in the 37 seconds that I have available—is about the purpose of the bill. I think it makes sense. The purpose clause of the bill states that it is a privilege for someone from overseas to buy land in New Zealand and that when they do so they should meet and honour some criteria. One of the other things I heard when I sat on the Finance and Expenditure Committee was that all foreigners who invested in land in New Zealand were bad and all New Zealanders who invested in land were good. That is not true; plenty of New Zealanders actually stop access in any form to their land. But foreigners who come here do have to recognise that they are playing in our playground and that New Zealanders have a right regarding that situation.