Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:19734] 
2.  
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any further information about foreign investment in New Zealand following the Prime Minister’s answer to question for oral answer No. 5 on 30 March 2005? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. The Overseas Investment Commission advises me that the figures tabled by Mr Peters to dispute the fact that net land sales peaked in 1997 when he was Treasurer and have declined steadily under this Government were out of date and therefore wrong. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Has the Minister received any further advice in relation to information given to the House that day on declining rates under the overseas investment screening regime? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: During the period from 10 December 1996 to 14 August 1998 416 applications were approved involving 204200 hectares of freehold land. There were 12 refusals involving 565 hectares of land. Since 10 December 1999 there have been 38 refusals on land and six refusals on fisheries. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How will foreign investor confidence be affected by having as chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee a person who ran a campaign of nasty naughty crank calls against Helen Clark and her husband and why would John Tamihere say those things about his closest friend in Labour if they were not true? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member’s question as I read it is phrased in such a way that the Minister is not responsible for the answer. The Minister is not responsible for John Tamihere. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The main question was about foreign investment. My question was how foreign investor confidence will be affected by having as chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee a person who ran a campaign of nasty naughty crank calls against Helen Clark and her husband. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is a long bow. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I would have thought that particular member should be careful that he does not shoot himself in the foot with that long bow. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Minister of Finance saying that I used false figures when the figures I tabled from  
Hansard  
are those tabled by the Prime Minister; and why is he leaving out of this equation the Kaingaroa Forest sale which was agreed to by the National Government in October 1996 before I even got to be Treasurer and which appears in the 1997 figures and why is he allowing the Overseas Investment Commission to lie to him to the Prime Minister and to the House? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: On the first point the member tabled an additional table to the one tabled by the Prime Minister which had a graph. Those figures were out of date as the commission has since advised me. It is equally true that one of the largest sales approved under this Government involved forest land. It is nearly always the case that the big sales are forest land. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I would not ordinarily raise this point but it is pretty relevant for this series of questions. I therefore seek leave to table the  
Hansard 
 that sets out what was tabled and in which there is the quote: “This is the chart now properly interpreted.”—an allegation I made at the very time that Helen Clark made the statement in this House. 
Document not tabled. 
Rod Donald 
: Will the Government support my petition which was tabled today and has been signed by 7984 New Zealanders calling for land sales to foreign investors to be stopped and for tighter restrictions on the sales of businesses to foreign corporations; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. It would be impossible and absolutely stupid for New Zealand to stop all land sales to foreigners. That would include for example matters involving urban subdivisions it would involve some petrol stations and goodness knows what else would be involved in such a move. The Government supports tightening up restrictions on land sales that involve sensitive land. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Where on those figures for 1996 appears the Kaingaroa Forest sale—the very figure that puts into question those calculations in the Prime Minister’s answer and the accuracy thereof; and why is the Overseas Investment Commission being allowed to lie to Parliament when if we look at the charts the figure simply does not appear in 1996? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The figures relate to approvals given between the period from December 1996 to August 1998 when the member was Treasurer. That may be why on the New Zealand First parliamentary website that period does not appear under the member’s own section. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Can the Minister advise the House in relation to the reference to business investment contained in Rod Donald’s question that indeed the Government welcomes business investment in this country as being one means by which we can significantly grow our economy and lead to its success? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is clear that overseas business investment can contribute to economic growth in a number of ways—by producing new businesses by creating additional market opportunities by technology transfer and in a number of other ways. If we are not prepared to see that kind of investment then we will have to lift our savings rates in New Zealand very very substantially indeed if we are to provide sufficient capital for investment in our own economy. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it a fact that in October 1996 a full month before the election the transaction of a sale between a foreign interest and a New Zealand - owned operation in respect of 170000 hectares—which is the net figure the Prime Minister sought to use—in fact was settled up and completed duly subject to Overseas Investment Commission approval the interim approval having already been given; is that not therefore a figure to be set against the National Party’s record and not mine? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No because it was subject to Overseas Investment Commission approval and the member was the Minister responsible for that approval. I repeat however that the point he made in his original claims was incorrect. He did not have a higher rate of declines in applications than has been the case under this Government. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why when the Minister had the benefit of New Zealand First legislation on the question of a change regime for the Overseas Investment Commission did he take all the way to January 2002 to send it down to the Governor-General for assent; why did he do that? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Some consideration was given around that issue but in fact whereas under the previous Government it was not brought into operation—including the period when the member was Treasurer—it was brought into operation under this Government.