Donald Rod: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Donald Rod: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21538] 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 It will not surprise anyone in this House least of all Dr Michael Cullen that the Green Party is opposed to this bill. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Thank goodness! That’s a relief. 
ROD DONALD 
: I am glad it is a relief. Dr Cullen was worried I was going to turn round on this one. We were tempted to do so at one point actually because we are very keen on the marginal strips provisions that are contained in the bill. We disagree with the ACT party in that we do think it is appropriate for foreign investors to recognise how we do things down here—the fact that we value and treasure access to the outdoors—and that it is appropriate if a foreign investor is allowed to buy a significant piece of sensitive land beside a lake by the beach or adjoining a river to provide a marginal strip giving Kiwis access to that public open space. So at the Finance and Expenditure Committee we were very keen to support the amendments initiated by the Labour member for Otago David Parker. 
Therefore when United Future pulled the plug on those amendments by threatening to withdraw support for the bill if it did not provide for compensation for foreign landowners we gave serious consideration to supporting it at least at the second reading stage just because we think the provision of marginal strips is a positive element. But at the end of the day we decided that the bill is so bad in so many other respects that we could not bring ourselves to back it. We are extremely disappointed that United Future - Outdoor Recreation NZ has put compensation for foreign investors ahead of access to the great outdoors for Kiwi recreationalists. I think there is an inherent contradiction within United Future when it claims to be the sensible environmental party then pulls the rug out from under the very people it claims to represent. 
I turn to the bill in its broadest sense. It is a giant con job. There is no doubt about that. When Dr Cullen announced in November 2003 that he was conducting a first principles review of the Overseas Investment Act everyone knew what lay behind that smokescreen. He said that he wanted to provide greater protection from foreign ownership for iconic sites of historical cultural or environmental interest but it was clear that he would use the facade of providing that protection to sell off the buildings and businesses associated with such iconic pieces of land. That has come to pass with this piece of legislation. It is remarkably cheeky to put in the purpose clause the comment that the legislation is all about acknowledging that it is a privilege for overseas persons to own or control sensitive New Zealand assets then proceed to make it even easier for foreign investors to gobble up more of our economy and to allow not just more of our land but also more of our businesses and central business district buildings to be taken over by foreign investors. 
I would like to spend a couple of minutes pointing out that there are some good provisions in this bill and that the Green Party is grateful for them. We hope we will not see the arrival of a Supplementary Order Paper to remove these good provisions after I highlight them to the Minister. It is good to see a tightening of the monitoring regime in addition to what was already in the bill. That is a positive step. It is good to see an expansion of clause 18 to incorporate introduced wildlife alongside the provisions that are already there for indigenous wildlife. It was good to hear Government members of the select committee recognise that Treasury officials are very much on the side of foreign investors and international organisations like the World Trade Organization rather than batting for Kiwi battlers when it comes to placing appropriate controls on foreign investors. 
But this bill falls way short of the recommendations the Finance and Expenditure Committee came up with back in 2001 when we comprehensively reviewed the Overseas Investment Commission. We looked particularly at the activities of the commission in relation to the Southland Plantation Forest Co. investment and we found that the commission had fallen down badly. At best the commission claimed there would be a net marginal gain in employment as a result of the approvals it gave that led to a lot of farmland in Southland being taken over by a Japanese forestry company. But at worst we have seen a community torn apart which is why Labour members and I recommended jointly that an additional commissioner be appointed to represent the wider community and that the application of the national interest criteria be extended to all proposals not just land proposals. We can see the merit of that when we look at clause 18 of the bill. While that clause is appropriate for land it is even more appropriate for business propositions yet businesses have to pass only a good character test. So it would be sensible to extend the bill to cover all sensitive assets not just land. That will be dealt with in one of a number of amendments that we will put forward. 
We will put forward also an amendment on another issue that was highlighted by the Labour and Green select committee members back in 2001 when we agreed that the current $50 million threshold should be revised downwards. I would like to acknowledge my New Zealand First colleagues at the time for supporting the Green position that the threshold should be reduced to $10 million. That was the threshold just before the 1999 election. Mr Bolger lifted it to $50 million by sleight of hand and this Labour Government has enshrined that in the closer economic partnership agreement with Singapore. The threshold is going in the wrong direction with this bill which lifts it to $100 million. We want to take it back to $10 million. 
We—the Labour and Green select committee members—wanted the Overseas Investment Commission to consider the impact on social well-being environmental sustainability and economic sovereignty when considering an investment in New Zealand and I do not think this bill provides for that. Also we wanted a code of corporate responsibility to be introduced. I concede that the bill does now contain a definition of “good character” which is a step forward but it does not go as far as a code of corporate responsibility. The national interest test should be expanded to ensure that any investment is compatible with Treaty of Waitangi obligations a consideration that is completely absent from this bill. So instead of going forward and adopting in legislation the recommendations of the 2001 review this bill has gone backwards. It has ignored the petition of over 7000 New Zealanders calling for tighter controls on foreign investment. 
I would like to make it clear—particularly to the ACT member who perhaps tried to imply that some of us who oppose this bill are against foreigners—that the Greens are not against foreigners. We are more than happy for people of foreign descent to make New Zealand their home but if they want a slice of heaven they should have to make a commitment to this country. Almost half of our candidates in this year’s election were born overseas so we are not anti-foreigner; what we are is very pro - New Zealand. 
So we say no to land sales to foreign investors whether they are corporate or individual and we say that business investments must be greenfield investments. They must add value to our economy not subtract value from it. That has been the problem. Foreigners have taken over Tranz Rail Telecom Air New Zealand and Powerco. Many former central and local government assets have fallen into foreign hands. We have all seen the results of those takeovers yet this bill is appallingly weak when it comes to scrutinising such investments. 
I will put forward some amendments to strengthen the bill so that it genuinely allows only foreign investments that are in the best interests of New Zealand—because that is what we need. We do not want our net national debt to grow any larger than the $123 billion that it is at the moment. We do not want to be paying any more interest or dividends on foreign investment. For the year to December $8.9 billion was the balance on income because of the high level of foreign investment. We need to make our economy more self-reliant and sustainable.