edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): That is the issue that my colleague quite correctly highlights. As you'd know as a commercial lawyer—and I refer to you the Minister for Trade and Export Growth—the type of structuring of equity debt instruments and quasi-equity instruments is really quite a complicated issue. Even when you're talking quasi-equity you could be doing convertible notes you could be doing warrants—all that sort of stuff. There are a myriad of those instruments which you know.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Do you want to yield to the Minister and he can answer?ANDREW BAYLY: No I'll just finish this. So the issue with that is the Minister wants to capture—the intent of this is to capture—these relevant transactions. So one is depending on the foreign investor if they want to get around the regulations and you've only got a two- to three-page form they can structure it in a way to get around. It would be hard for you to detect sitting in the office even if you have got an army of Overseas Investment Office advisers beside you to work out what is the nature of the instrument and whether it's captured.The second thing is you quoted the example of the media transfer for $1 and that's your rationale for not putting a minimum threshold on it. See again if the value of the transaction is $1 it is very likely that you will take a view on it when you're considering the proposal—I'm talking to the Minister here Mr Chair—because it's such a low value of a transaction. So that transaction might have occurred at $1 but as part of paying only $1 they are assuming $200 million of debt in the company. So actually it might have been a very significant transaction but on the face value $1 it doesn't sound like much. But if it was a $200 million assumption of liability or the liability were put aside and you were paying $200 million up front for the equity then that would attract a lot of attention.So what I'm trying to highlight is the way that the deal is structured and the type of instrument you use which is a very complicated area and yet you're saying you can do that in a two- to three-page form which you obviously haven't yet completed—the Minister said it would be available in two weeks' time. I'm just wondering how the Minister expects to be able to do adequate service in terms of the intent of this bill.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): A convertible note would be caught borrowings aren't under this bill and it is also the effect of this legislation and the allied bill that borrowings are not covered in the future. They are covered by the current regime but from the time this is passed and that other bill is passed they are not covered for the future.
SpeechLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): Just a short call to ask a question of the Minister for Trade and Export Growth. I understand that in a previous answer you gave a rationale around borrowings and you gave a rationale around the size of what could trigger under the current legislation—the Overseas Investment Act—$100 million and you said that can be lower now but borrowings are exempt. What happens Minister—and I'm talking about small businesses again because this is what I'm most worried about—when somebody gets through the hurdle goes online fills out the form gets approval in 10 days assuming it goes well and gets the borrowings in? Are they able then later just to simply transfer that? That borrowing could be changed into equity and other things—Hon Member: Convertible loans. LAWRENCE YULE: —convertible—at a later time even before the Act is extinguished. So when the Act's extinguished those borrowings would be subject I presume to the Overseas Investment Act—Hon Member: No. LAWRENCE YULE: They're not? They stay the same—OK. What I worry about with the greatest respect—and I think you've said it—is that these processes notoriously take a long time. The number of people that have come to me and said Oh I can't do this and I've been to the overseas investment situation. I've spent tens of thousands on lawyers and it's taking months and months and months." My issue is that we don't have months and months and months at the moment because there's a lot of uncertainty and people will be looking for all types of equity all the borrowings they can get. What I am concerned about is yes they can get through the hurdle with the borrowings but is there going to be another hurdle? Are you saying to me—as we are today in this Chamber—that that won't present another hurdle at a subsequent point? So I'd like a bit of clarification but I can't see in my initial reading of the bill as to what that means. But what I don't want is people being trapped into something where we're going to do borrowings or we're going to get a situation now where the equity somehow comes in and then somebody says "Oh that can't be changed at a future date to equity or be converted." So I'd like you to comment on that please Minister."
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): I can assure the member that there was additional funding provided to the Overseas Investment Office in respect of these processes. In respect of the form it will be in place before the bill comes into effect which is two weeks after Royal assent is given.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): In respect of the process the member Paul Goldsmith in posing the question summarised my answer by saying that the triage period is intended to be 10 working days and the whole process if it went into a longer process would be an additional 30 working days. The form of initial application is an online form two to three pages long and there is no application fee.In respect of the time frames for overseas investment processes generally that is a fair criticism that there is currently no statutory time frame. The other bill actually introduces them through a regulation-making power to set those so that applicants can have some certainty that these things won't go on for ever because that is a fair criticism and a longstanding criticism of the existing process that I accept is valid notwithstanding that time delays are actually lower now than they were a couple of years ago.In terms of the ideas as to different revenue or employee thresholds it's quite difficult at the moment in respect of large international tourism businesses. Some of what was formerly large could at the moment have very low revenues; could be unprofitable; and could have laid off just about all of their staff. So we thought that—Hon Paul Goldsmith: If you've got no revenue and you have no staff there's nothing.Hon DAVID PARKER: No revenue and no staff and therefore there's nothing." he said; well there is actually. Sometimes some of these firms have actually put themselves into abeyance—the member will have seen reports of that—and that could be the wise thing to do. Indeed some of these firms have very little choice but to do that in these difficult circumstances. I'm not critical of them for doing so but it does show that it's difficult to set other thresholds. Because we are uncertain as to what is the proper threshold we're going to keep it under review—and we've got a regulation-making power to increase that threshold and an obligation to assess that after I think 45 days."
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): If I could respond to the last two contributions briefly. In respect of regulation-making powers the main regulation-making power that is new in this is the ability to increase the threshold. It actually relaxes the restrictions by increasing the threshold. The other companion bill actually narrows regulation-making powers which in respect of sensitive land are very complex and wide-ranging at the moment. We agree that that's wrong that they sit in regulation-making power and think they should be in the primary legislation.In respect of Mr McKelvie's question I mean I think the tourism asset issue is a very interesting one and we don't really know how that's going to unfold yet. It is possible as the member has suggested that there could be businesses that are important to the long-term interests of New Zealand's interest in our tourism industry that might make us want to pause before we allow all of those—or particular ones of those—to pass into overseas ownership. Unless we pass this legislation we don't have the ability to scrutinise on that basis. That doesn't mean to say that they should all be declined. I also reinforce something I said earlier: that we do have to make sure that this process is quick so that we're clearing the vast majority of transactions quickly and if there are the occasional ones that need a bit longer focus they need to be dealt with within a reasonable period as well.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you Mr Chair. I was cut in full flight talking about this bill and particularly about how it is being rushed through this Parliament. It came into the House was introduced on Friday and here we are a few days later trying to ram this bill through the House. The reason I was saying it could actually occur in this shortened manner was that there is an over-reliance on regulation-making power in this bill. The point I was noting was the Minister in charge of this bill David Parker was formerly the chair of the Regulations Review Committee. I know because I sat on that same committee with him. And we did a lot of work around the issue of making sure Ministers were not ramming through legislation and relying on regulation-making powers. For people who don't understand that term that means that if it's not in the primary legislation such as this bill the officials later involving the Minister can then specify the detail. Of course that detail is never subject to parliamentary oversight and that is how you bring about the absolute working elements of this bill. Unfortunately there is just an overreliance—I talked about all these different clauses about clause 25; I talked about clause 8 I talked about clause 62 and I talked about clause 52 and these are just four examples—and that is because this Government the Minister hasn't had the time to do the proper work. That's right. It should have gone to a proper select committee stage where we heard all of these issues and wove them into the bill.
Rurawhe AdrianOVERSEAS INVESTMENT (URGENT MEASURES) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed.Part 1 Amendments to Overseas Investment Act 2005 (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members when we were last in committee we were considering Part 1. Andrew Bayly had the call and has one minute 42 seconds remaining should he wish to take that. He does.
COVID-19 Public Health Response (Safeguard from Forced Vaccinations) Amendment Bill — Introduction—Leave Declined
Mallard TrevorCOVID-19 PUBLIC HEALTH RESPONSE (SAFEGUARD FROM FORCED VACCINATIONS) AMENDMENT BILLIntroduction—Leave DeclinedJAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany): I apologise. I should have done this at the end of question No. 2. I seek leave to table and introduce a member's bill in my name: the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Safeguard from Forced Vaccinations) Amendment Bill.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.Question time resumed.
Twyford PhilORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 6 to Minister 27 May—Amended AnswerHon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): I'd like to correct an answer from yesterday in response to questions from Chris Bishop. I said that my officials have not recommended a process for Auckland light rail that would have allowed all—SPEAKER: Order! I presume the member is seeking leave?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I beg your pardon. I'm seeking leave to make a correction. SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none. Can I just recommend to members that they don't do it at lunchtime—Mr Twyford.Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I'd like to correct an answer from yesterday in response to questions from Chris Bishop. I said that my officials have not recommended a process for Auckland light rail that would have allowed all market participants the opportunity to bid for the delivery of the project. One of the options presented to Cabinet would have allowed that but it's not in the public interest to release any further details until the commercial process has concluded.
Speaker's Statements — Prayers—Samoan Prayer Postponement
Mallard TrevorSPEAKER'S STATEMENTSPrayers—Samoan Prayer PostponementSPEAKER: We were planning to have the prayer in Samoan today but because we are under urgency we'll do a make-up next Tuesday.
Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
SpeechCHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I'm sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for me to report progress. The committee will resume after oral questions.House resumed.The Chairperson reported progress on the Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill. Report adopted.Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm going to leave the Rt Hon David Carter to respond to all that but it is—I was going to use the word perverse". You've rushed through a bill and then you think "It doesn't matter. We'll rush it through because we'll deal with it later. Don't worry; the other one's going to go through a full select committee process. We'll have an election in between time and by the time it all comes back it'll be a new committee and all that sort of stuff. We'll have to re-bone up and then somehow it'll get passed before the end of the year." What do you think Mr Carter?Rt Hon David Carter: Not likely.ANDREW BAYLY: Not likely. Anyway—Rt Hon David Carter: Winston won't be here anyway and it might not be necessary.ANDREW BAYLY: Of course. It might have different arrangements. I am looking for the contribution from Mr Mark Patterson who is very rowdy talking and interjecting but hasn't chosen to speak up. We would like to hear from the member from New Zealand First because they are rather uncomfortable on matters dealing with foreign ownership. So do you support it or don't you? That's what it would be nice to hear from Mr Patterson.I'm going to move on to something entirely different. This whole thing about this urgency—you know this bill came in last Friday. Here we are on Thursday and it's going to be rammed through today and we've put everyone through this massive change. The reason why this bill can get through is that it relies extensively on the use of regulations. Now I know the Minister the Hon David because—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Parker.ANDREW BAYLY: —the Hon David Parker—he and I sat on the Regulations Review Committee. In fact he chaired it and I was the deputy and we spent three years writing letters to every committee of the House talking about the overuse of regulations. You used—and when I say "you" I'm looking at Mr Parker. Mr Parker used to sign the letters on behalf of the committee saying "We the Regulations Review Committee wish to draw your attention to this matter of the regulations that you propose in this bill of X Y Z." And how many letters did you sign like that Mr Parker? Over the course of three years maybe what—50 100? We were always reminding every committee and we took our jobs very seriously. I know that you did Mr Parker as the chair of that committee.What happens when you look at this bill? What happens? We have got regulation power and actually a Regulations Review Committee did come back to us on clause 25. We see in new section 82 the same regulation power. We see it in clause 6 too. We see it in clause 52. Should I go on? The only way that this bill can get through this House in such short order is that you have circumvented the proper process of putting what is required in primary legislation."
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): In responding to those two points—and actually I'll respond to a third one that I heard the honourable member interject on—in respect of the definition of Overseas Investment Amendment Act (No 3) 2020 means the Act that will result from the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill (No 3)". The member was here for the first reading of that bill and that's the one that—Rt Hon David Carter: It hasn't been passed.Hon DAVID PARKER: No it hasn't. That's why you need this definition.Rt Hon David Carter: That's my point.Hon DAVID PARKER: Well that's exactly what the clause says.Rt Hon David Carter: So are we going to be fixing mistakes? That's the point. Is the Minister acknowledging we're going to be fixing mistakes?Hon DAVID PARKER: No I'm not.Rt Hon David Carter: Maybe it's easier if I take—is the Minister—Hon DAVID PARKER: No I'm not. There is no mistake.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): He hasn't yielded.Hon DAVID PARKER: For clarity this is making it clear that the Overseas Investment Amendment Act (No 3) 2020 means the Act that will result from the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill (No 3). That's necessary because of the interlinking of these two Acts—or bills: one's soon to be an Act; the other will be enacted after the first bill becomes an Act.Rt Hon David Carter: What a shambles! What a shambles!Hon DAVID PARKER: No it's not a shambles at all. It's necessary as a consequence of COVID to spit this into two bills as the member knows. He would have complained more if we'd pushed it all through under urgency. We thought it was appropriate to have the lengthy select committee in respect of part of it.The other question he had is: what is "special land"? As the member knows from the descriptions that were at the select committee that he was part of special land is land adjacent to foreshore and seabed.The third point I would make is there was an interjection to say that loans are not excluded by the legislation. They are at clause 6(11) new section 6(9) which says "acquisition[s] of property do not include the making of a loan or subscription for an interest or right that is solely an interest in or right to be paid money" etc. except if it's convertible into a security.Rt Hon David Carter: There's a threshold Minister.Hon DAVID PARKER: No there are no loans caught by this legislation."
SpeechRt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Madam Chair thank you for the opportunity to just ask two further questions of the Minister. The first one is effectively a repeat of the first question I asked when the Hon Andrew Little was in the chair and I don't feel it was answered—but I don't say that in a derogatory way to Mr Little; it's not his bill. It is the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister's now brought into the House at the 11th hour: clause 6 around reference to the Overseas Investment Amendment Act (No 3). There is no Overseas Investment Amendment Act (No 3) and my fear is as the officials told us the process is so rushed with this legislation the officials themselves are acknowledging they will not get it right and will take the opportunity to change it in some subsequent legislation. But I don't believe I've ever seen legislation being passed today under urgency that makes reference to an Act that doesn't exist. There is talk of a No. 3 bill and the No. 3 bill to the best of my knowledge is still sitting on the Hon David Parker's desk. It hasn't even come into this House. So how logical is it to be now introducing legislation on the urgent measures bill referring to the Overseas Investment Amendment Act (No 3) 2020 when there isn't one? So that's a very simple question for the Hon David Parker to answer. The second question I have is regarding Part 1 clause 13 In section 16A(9) definition of special land replace "foreshore or seabed" with "marine and coastal area". Now we teased this out in the select committee. I understand why there's the intent on replacing "foreshore or seabed" and the "marine and coastal area". I understand that completely. My fear now is this reference to and the definition of special land because I'd argue to the Minister as a person who's actually very much in favour of foreign direct investment—it's made the country what it is today—that every hectare in New Zealand is special. Every hectare in New Zealand is special. We're lucky we live in this lovely country. So what is meant by this definition? It certainly was not one that we had the opportunity in the rushed select committee process to tease out. What does the Minister think is termed "special land" in this wonderful country of New Zealand because I would argue strongly to the Minister that all land in this country is special?"
Sage EugenieHon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister for Land Information): Thank you Madam Chair. Just to make a further point that some members may have overlooked this whole concept of a national interest test has been developed through quite extensive consultation that Minister Parker Treasury and the Overseas Investment Office undertook in terms of phase two of the reforms to the Overseas Investment Act—phase one being around residential properties and the ban on overseas buyers of those. But this phase two consultation: there is wide support for the concept of a national interest test recognising that we have strategic infrastructure in New Zealand—airports ports irrigation—and the support for ensuring that there was an ability by Government to ensure that overseas purchases of any of that strategic infrastructure was in the national interest. So this is not just something that has been dreamt up in the last few weeks; it is the bringing forward of that aspect of phase two of the reforms around the national interest test and providing for this notification regime.The point that the Minister made in terms of the assessment that the Overseas Investment Office will do of applications that are notified to it will mean that a relatively small number I imagine of applications will then go forward to be considered by the Minister of Finance to determine whether or not they breach the national interest test. It is not saying that every application by an overseas investor to take a shareholding in a New Zealand company will have to go through the normal processes of the Act to determine whether they are of substantial and identifiable benefit to New Zealand. It is just whether they are of such substance that they trigger the national interest test. So it comes out of these phase two reforms which were well consulted on and well developed and it's been bringing forward that aspect of the national interest test. Thank you.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): I'm happy to respond to some of the points that Lawrence Yule has just made. Firstly this bill actually does carve out loans. Until this bill passes loans are covered; after the loans aren't. So in terms of loan finance and the example that—Rt Hon David Carter: That's not right—that's not right.Hon DAVID PARKER: Well that is correct.In respect of the $1 threshold issue we have given thought to that. The difficulty around the world including in Australia and New Zealand is how do you set the threshold at this time? The normal threshold is $100 million in respect of business transactions. The Stuff group was just sold for $1. It's a large enterprise. It's got large assets; it's got large liabilities. Its net value is $1. I would have thought that most members would agree that depending on who was the purchaser of that group—and it's been a management buy-out—they could envisage examples where they would have thought that the Government should have a right to screen that transaction. At the moment under current law we don't. We do need that right.I agree that we have to be careful that we don't over-regulate this space and that's why we've got a two-stage process proposed. Normally decisions under the Overseas Investment Act are delegated by the Minister of Finance to the Minister for Land Information and an Associate Minister of Finance. The exception will be in future in respect of national interest test transactions where you don't want that discretion to be exercised against approval—turning down a transaction—very often and it's a serious thing to do when a Minister does it. So that's been kept higher in the hierarchy as it is in Australia. It may well be that the Minister of Finance doesn't delegate that at all or delegates it to a different senior Minister than the normal delegations.In respect of this period now where we've taken the threshold which will normally be $100 million or depending on the free-trade agreement can be $200 million with Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership countries or $500 million with Australia pursuant to free-trade agreement thresholds for investment—normally it will be at that higher threshold but in this post-COVID period we really didn't know how things were going to roll and so we've put it at a lower figure.In order to stop the system being clogged up there will be a triage process. Now I apologise to Andrew Bayly in respect of that because I do actually accept it sounds like there's a medical emergency and that that's a bad thing. I don't mean it in that context. I mean a preparatory step to make sure that approvals that are uncontroversial which most of them—the vast majority—will be are ticked off quickly. That's going to sit with me in the meantime so that we just can keep this moving. We have a review every 90 days as to whether that limit should be pushed back up to $100 million or some other intermediate step and I think we have an initial 45-day review just to see whether it's practical. But that's the reasoning as to why it is that we've set the threshold immediately at zero.
SpeechLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It's quite fortuitous that the Hon David Parker has come back into the Chamber as the Minister but it is disappointing that he's missed the last contributions. But I wish to come back to the issue that previous speakers have raised for the Minister to address. We on this side of the House worry about the overreach that this legislation allows. If you go across New Zealand as I have been in my own electorate in the last week—if I walk up and down the main street of my electorate the stress I see in the businesses is not with the employees actually; it's with the business owners. The employees in many cases Minister have been sheltered by the wage subsidy and other things which I applaud. But the businesses are the ones that are worried about what happens next. I know there's an extension of the wage subsidy if you can prove you've lost 50 percent of your turnover but when you've lost 50 percent of your turnover things are pretty grave. So those business owners are really stressed. Many of those businesses are actually migrants to New Zealand or people from other nations that have made New Zealand their home. Many of them are leveraged to the max they have very little income and very little clientele and it would be very useful for them if a family member from their home country or a relative gave them some money or invested in their company. As I read this bill any of that requires approval through this process and when you have 37000 people losing their jobs in the last month—in April—and you have main streets emptied out and a whole lot of businesses really struggling why do we add on a compliance issue that means you have to go through this process for that investment? Because this was done in urgency there was no thought given in my view to having a threshold of investment or a number of employees involved or a way of minimising the regulatory requirements of these people to make the investment. I raise that Minister because we do not have time. This law is being rushed through today. It'll make some changes. We're doing that on the basis that we're worrying about a threat from foreign investors—I get that. But the threat that the businesses in my community have is immediate and right now and when the wage subsidy runs out they'll have two choices—many of them. They'll either shut down or sell. If they're selling in the New Zealand market that's probably quite difficult but if they could bring some capital from overseas countries from friends and family that would be very helpful. Minister I'm challenging you as to why in this legislation there is not an appropriate form of carve-out or legislation to deal with those small businesses in New Zealand by their thousands who are about to go to the wall. Thank you Madam Chair.
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): It's all right.Andrew Bayly: Oh very good. I've got to say: that might have been an improvement.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I think the honourable Andrew was a good start before Mr Bayly". Can I just acknowledge the contribution by Mr Bayly too and what I thought was the start of a case for import controls to be reintroduced. But there we go. We're not proposing to reintroduce import controls. If other private citizens want to import potatoes then there's not a great deal we can do about it subject to biosecurity interests or needs being met.To the Hon Mark Mitchell this is not a Government driven by fear; it's a Government driven by the practicality of the circumstances that we're in at the moment. There are two things at the moment that foreign direct investment when it comes to being scrutinised is not subject to and that is a national interest test or a national security test. The reality is as we see around the rest of the world like most economies there are vulnerabilities in respect of both. So we want to make sure that as a consequence of this extraordinary worldwide pandemic that has placed just about every economy in a very vulnerable position we have the means and the tools to provide adequate scrutiny to protect good New Zealand businesses and where they have it the intellectual property that goes with it from being preyed upon by much more wealthy and powerful investors from overseas. We owe it to the long-term future of New Zealand to ensure that that happens."
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you Madam Chair. Now I've got to say that is a load of potatoes. I say that with all due respect because I do represent the fine district of Pukekohe. I say it quite deliberately because we are currently about to see an avalanche of potatoes that will flood into this market—2.6 million tonnes sitting in European markets that will be coming into this market heavily subsidised and badly affecting the growers in my area of Pukekohe. That avalanche of potatoes can come in here without any problem. Yet here we are we're debating this bill that has been rushed through the House. Here we're going to do right now when these companies often want equity as my good colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith made the comment—they want equity. It's not always bad stuff that Mr Little talked about there. It can be good stuff but the trouble with this bill is it has no differentiation between good investment and poor investment. So what you're trying to do with this bill is put a barrier between allowing business people who have set up their business created all that infrastructure or the value of their business over time and then somehow the Government thinks Even though you've taken the risk"—and when I say you Madam Chair I mean the business owner; the business owner has taken all the risk. Hey presto this Government this paternalistic Government is saying "Well you may have taken the risk. You may have put your house on the line but right now even if you want to do it every transaction has got to come past only one Minister."—one Minister—and that one Minister has got the total godlike ability to say yay or nay. It is unbelievable the reach of this bill.So we're not suggesting that we don't stop some unwanted investment but the whole language that I hear from the members from the other side from the Government side and the language you just used the Hon Andrew Little—and I heard also the Minister who introduced it on the first day David Parker a mere last Friday use this term: triage. We're going to triage this investment.Rt Hon David Carter: That's what they do in hospitals.ANDREW BAYLY: It is. Why is it so negative? Why is every foreign investment bad? Why do we even use the word "triage"? It's not triage. We're not in a bad situation. Not everything is bad. Not everything is bad about foreigners.But here we are and I like the term "We want to have a robust capital base." Let's throw out that byline: "We'll be very careful. Yeah we are supporting the vulnerable. We are going to have a robust capital base." What is in that? What's in this document? It's nothing about that; it's about controlling it stopping it impeding it. That's the issue. That's the issue I find with this bill. Thank you."
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair. Just to deal with the questions that the Hon Paul Goldsmith has now raised—first of all which countries—well there are about 203 countries I think in the world so it could be any one of 202 that have wealthy investors who are looking for opportunities in this country. Of course it's not to stop them doing so but it is to ensure that those who are investing in New Zealand do so from a position of good character and do so in a way that ensures that benefits accrue to New Zealand.Now I know members opposite may have abandoned the philosophy of their former leader Sir John Key as he now is who didn't wish to be governing a country where we are tenants in our own land. We don't wish to be governing in a country where we are tenants in our own land. We want to have a robust capital base for our economy and this is a means of providing the protection for that.The member asked: why no threshold? Well he should cast his mind back a matter of days to see that one of the most important vital private companies in this country sold for $1—sold to a New Zealander for $1 it is true but one of the most vitally important media companies in this country sold for $1. Now that member might be happy for a Russian oligarch to come over here and swoop up and buy Stuff for $1 and conduct the sort of destabilising campaigns that Russian oligarchs are known for but we wish to protect against that and I think most New Zealanders would expect the Government and indeed this Parliament to protect us against that. At a time when we have businesses and indeed entire industries that are so vulnerable because of the current circumstances it actually is a matter of responsibility that we put in place suitable protections.Then thirdly the member asks: can we have jobs without investment? Well of course not. But the member is wrong. This is not a piece of legislation that is a bar to foreign direct investment. This is a country that has been built on foreign direct investment and we've done very well but we've done so in a controlled and appropriate manner that we do want to make sure that those who have the privilege of investing in this country do so with the interests of New Zealand at least in part at heart and are people of good character and meet the appropriate test that New Zealanders would expect us to have. We don't want to have vulnerable New Zealand companies particularly those with valuable intellectual property subject to predatory activity from offshore investors. We ought to protect ourselves against that and our private sector against that and that's what this bill does.
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I'm very pleased to respond to the member David Carter's perfectly valid question but also his valid expression of concern. He used the word extraordinary" and these are extraordinary times and extraordinary circumstances. While it's not desirable and while no one would prefer it the reality is we do have to have a regime in place now for one of the consequences of COVID-19 and the lockdown that we like many other countries have experienced and that is to deal with the risk and the threat that business assets that are distressed become available and swooped on by other interests particularly overseas interests. That is why the legislation has been somewhat rushed but that is why it has a 90-day time frame. It's subject to renewal every 90 days and there is more permanent legislation being referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee that will deal with a more permanent regime. But this deals with and will lower thresholds with more stringent tests. The situation that we are in in the very peculiar circumstances of today is that we want to make sure that business assets in New Zealand do not become the prey of more powerful wealthy overseas interests that can swoop them up and deprive New Zealand of the long-term benefits of ownership in New Zealand."
SpeechPart 1 Amendments to Overseas Investment Act 2005Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Madam Chair thank you for the guidance on the process now in the committee because I think that will be helpful. My first question to the Minister and my concern is exactly as I've outlined in the speech I've just given in the second reading and that is the rushed nature of the legislation and whether we're going to get it accurate with the Minister's wishes. Already we have a Supplementary Order Paper. We've only just got it out of the select committee and here we've got Supplementary Order Paper 507 on the Table suggesting to me between the time it left the select committee last week—it might have even been Monday this week—we've already found mistakes. The one I particularly want to refer to is in clause 6 the insertion of new clause 6(1A) after clause 6(1) … Overseas Investment Amendment Act (No 3) 2020 means the Act that will result from the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill (No 3)".Now that's exactly the point the Minister will have heard me making. The officials told us "The process was rushed. We're not sure we're going to get it right but don't worry if we don't get it right because we'll fix everything up in the next bill." which we haven't even—I think I'm right in saying it hasn't even come to Parliament and it certainly hasn't come to a select committee. So already we've got a reference to that process being enshrined in this legislation. I don't think I've ever seen that process in the time that I've been here. We normally strive to get legislation right as it goes through this House.Andrew Bayly: No not always.Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: Well we try. No we do strive to get it right. We don't always get it right and there's too many times when even as Opposition members we remember when in Government coming back to have to change things. But this is extraordinary when you already know that in passing the legislation you're not going to get it right. And therefore I want an explanation to those wordings because I think that's exactly what it's saying: "Don't worry about this. There's another piece of legislation on. It'll eventually come through the House. There's not much time to do it; we're going to be out of here shortly."—and I'm going to be out of here shortly in a bigger way. But reference here to an Act with a bill that hasn't come here—so an explanation from the Hon Andrew Little would have been appreciated. That's the first point I want to raise."
SpeechIn CommitteeCHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The House is in committee on the Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Bill. For those of you who are new to level 2 seating arrangements for committee of the whole House I am in the Chair but I'm remaining here so that we're keeping safe distances and the Minister remains and speaks from their seat. If the Minister wants he can come closer to the officials. I remind members also that the House has agreed to trial the removal of the four-call limit in the committee stage. So therefore I encourage you to keep your contributions focused and relevant to promote good interaction with the Minister in the chair. The committee stage earlier this morning was very good and very helpful and we had a series of questions and answers between members and the Minister. You don't have to wait to be called if you are following a series of questions with the Minister; just stand up and carry on. And five minutes is not a target. You can be confident that you will get a number of smaller calls. The question is that Part 1 stands part.
Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Isn't it so telling that on the day on which the National Party voted against decent income support for people who have lost their jobs as a result of COVID-19 we find out about the group of people whose interests they really care about: international speculators. That's the class of people that they are defending through their opposition to this bill. There have been so many straw men put up in this debate by the Opposition that as the Hon David Carter rose from his seat I had an image of Worzel Gummidge.This bill does not stop overseas investment in New Zealand; this bill does exactly what countries like Australia and many others have done at this time—and in fact in normal times as well—which is to apply a national interest test so that significant and strategic foreign investment in New Zealand is simply assessed as to whether it is in the interests of this country. This side of the House makes absolutely no apologies for that.It's a clear divide because Mr Carter and his colleagues sat on this side of the House in fact during the 1990s and saw significant private and public strategic assets flogged off on a dime that has been of significant negative economic consequence to this country. This side of the House is proud of the way that we have responded to COVID19. We've supported Kiwis we've supported Kiwi jobs and we're putting in place legislation which is not so naive as to assume that there aren't international speculators out there who will take advantage of the current conditions to swoop up on assets to strip them out and to sell them off at a profit later on. How naive can those members be and how forgetful can those members be perhaps wilfully neglectful to forget about the pillage of assets—for example the rail assets of this country—during the 1990s after similar difficult economic circumstances? This side of the House stands in favour of this legislation because we stand in favour of the interests of New Zealand of looking after the interests of New Zealanders and of not protecting international speculators as that side of the House so clearly does. I commend the bill to the House.Amendments recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee by majority agreed to.
Radhakrishnan PriyancaPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. Now this is a bill that allows the Government to effectively manage the risks of foreign investment while reducing the regulatory burden of the screening process to support the role of productive foreign investment to aid our recovery here in New Zealand. So it's really sad it's really disappointing to see the scaremongering from the Opposition. It's actually about supporting high-quality investment and not blocking investments per se as they have suggested. It's a bill that will be helpful to us in New Zealand and I commend it to the House.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Mr Speaker. Look I just want to turn away—Mr Bayly was a very useful member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee in talking about how we can streamline some of the processes. I just want to point out that not only do we have a notification process but this bill also cuts a whole lot of red tape in areas that really needed some attention. Minister Parker has done a great job in ensuring that land which isn't sensitive even though it's next to a reserve doesn't need consents; that majority-owned New Zealand companies including the trusts that Mr Bayly was so usefully engaged with at select committee don't need to get consents; and that small transactions that don't grant meaningful control won't need consents. So here we are making it easier to invest in New Zealand. High-quality good investment in New Zealand—that's what it's all about. That's one of the many reasons this bill is urgent. I am happy to commend it to the House.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. This bill is a good bill and it makes sense. It's what is needed to support those that have been impacted by the virus COVID-19 and the impact that it has had on this country. I think it's a shame that the National Party despite what their new leader said only less than a week ago that they will not be playing politics for politics' sake—here we are. They are voting no on a bill that will support those that are impacted by COVID-19. I think that's a shame. The task for them now is to go back to their communities and justify that decision. I think they will struggle. I commend this bill to the House.
Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): The Social Security (COVID19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill is an excellent bill. It's a bill which expands the welfare safety net in a moment of particular need. I wish in particular to commend the Minister for Social Development who has worked so hard for the last two years to extend the welfare net bit by bit by bit to those who need it so that now people in receipt of benefits are getting much more in their back pockets which will help them survive. I commend this bill which will help people who have lost their jobs very unexpectedly through COVID-19 to at least get through the initial transition into finding new work or training. It is an excellent bill and I commend it to the House.
Radhakrishnan PriyancaPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. The heart of this technical bill is a payment for those who have lost their jobs because of a global pandemic. Instead of seeing this as one tool in a kit that will help cushion the blow of COVID-19 for families and businesses—our people—in New Zealand this Opposition chooses to be churlish and deny their support by voting against this although they made a very similar temporary payment available after the Christchurch earthquakes to help people transition and this is just what this payment will do. And so I commend this bill to the House.
Kanongata'a-Suisuiki AnahilaANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Fa'afetai mo le avanoa i lau Afioga le Fofoga Fetalai. Thank you Madam Speaker for this opportunity to speak. Ou te lagolago ia te oe lau Afioga Carmel Sepuloni. I commend the Social Security (COVID-19 Income Relief Payment to be Income) Amendment Bill to the House. Fa'afetai.