Wong Pansy: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Wong Pansy: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21543] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I will take up just two points made by Dr Michael Cullen the Minister of Finance of New Zealand. Firstly if Dr Cullen is so concerned about New Zealanders not saving I challenge him to give them a generous tax cut to enable them to save. A tax cut of 67c per week in 3 years’ time will not help most New Zealanders save up to buy even a piece of brick in Auckland—if they live in Auckland. Secondly I fail to see how Dr Nick Smith can be connected to this Overseas Investment Bill which is labelled as a Government bill and into which Labour member David Parker introduced the creation of compulsory marginal strips without compensation. I hope Labour takes some responsibility for that. After all this is a Government bill. 
National supported the Overseas Investment Bill at its first reading and its referral to the Finance and Expenditure Committee because we also believe in striking a balance between the benefits derived from overseas investment and the public’s desire to maintain the long-established New Zealand practice of providing public access for outdoor recreational activities. 
But the vast majority of submissions including the 8000-signature petition that we received and heard during the select committee process were against the bill. This reflects the public perception after a number of high-profile cases of the failure of the Overseas Investment Commission in following up and enforcing the obligations of overseas investors to fulfil their conditions of purchase. This perception of lack of enforcement led to calls from many submitters and signatories to restrict or ban overseas investment. But we should distinguish enforcement and undesirable conduct from banning overseas investment per se. 
The main enforcement agency which has been the Overseas Investment Commission argued that it lacked the tools to take effective enforcement action when some overseas investors failed to meet the purchase conditions. One has to wonder why it has taken this agency so long to seek additional tools to carry out its work effectively. During the select committee process all the members of the committee from all sides of the House shared the sentiment that we are more in touch with the public. All the members of the select committee urged the agencies to be more proactive in monitoring purchase conditions and enforcing the law when those conditions are breached. I imagine that unless a more proactive approach is taken by enforcement agencies to improving negative public perceptions antagonism towards overseas investment will not be lessened. 
National supports the tougher enforcement provisions contained in the bill and we will keep a very watchful eye on the new enforcement agency to ensure that it does enforce the law. The administration of the overseas investment portfolio was undertaken by the Reserve Bank in the past and has now shifted to Land Information New Zealand. We certainly would like to see that as a signal that more proactive enforcement action will be taken. 
We realised that it must be election year when suddenly the largely cooperative atmosphere in the select committee took a new turn. Suddenly we had to take a lot more time because David Parker brought in a change. He must have thought it would be an election year winner for him. His action must have had the endorsement of his Labour colleagues. Mr David Parker insisted that marginal strips must be created on sensitive land adjacent to rivers lakes and the foreshore. 
Brian Connell 
: You could pay compensation for that. 
PANSY WONG 
: No it gets worse. The select committee spent a lot of time investigating whether this late addition was within the scope of the bill whether it was in contravention of New Zealand’s international agreements and whether it was workable. Ten pages were added to this bill. It became worse when we realised that Mr David Parker wanted the marginal strips to be created for no compensation. I do not know where he studied economics or finance. He argued that that provision would not affect the price obtained by the seller. 
Gordon Copeland 
: He’s a lawyer. 
PANSY WONG 
: Ah lawyers! That explains it. Taking land away to create marginal strips would affect the price that sellers could obtain for their land. Any person of sense could tell us that the sale price must be affected. So at that point National changed its stance. Even though we supported the bill at its first reading we could not support it at the deliberation stage of the select committee because the expropriation of property without compensation is a fundamental infringement. 
How could the bill contain such an unacceptable provision but still pass through the select committee and return to the House for a second reading? I think another party has woken up to the fact that this is election year. United Future registered a small protest during the select committee stage to the effect that it found the provision to create marginal strips without compensation bad—but it was not bad enough to make United Future say it would not support the bill. If United Future had decided to oppose it at that stage those provisions would not be contained in the bill we are now debating. 
National gave United Future a hard time. We asked how that party could say it has principles and how it could put up a weak protest but support the bill—and then we suddenly realised that it must be because this is election year. We understood that a closed-door negotiation had been conducted. United Future is the only party that supported Labour in getting the bill through the select committee stage. We can tell it is election year. 
We have a lot of questions to ask David Parker. Will he abstain from voting on the bill? Will he vote against it when the Supplementary Order Paper we have been told about is introduced to remove the marginal strip provision? So I am looking forward to examining this bill in detail to learn what the Otago MP will do. He is facing a stiff challenge from our brilliant Otago candidate. She will give David Parker a hard time. 
Brian Connell 
: He’s gone. 
PANSY WONG 
: His provision is gone and the next thing left is for him to go unless he can show his constituents that he will stand up for their interests. I presume that is why he introduced that provision. He has to explain to them why he is backing off from his amendments to the bill. National is looking forward to that part of the debate and to examining the Supplementary Order Paper that will remove the compulsory acquisition of marginal strips without compensation.