McNair Craig: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
McNair Craig: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21596] 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 In speaking in the third reading debate of the Overseas Investment Bill I point out to the House that apart from the Government which has to keep its numbers up New Zealand First is the only Opposition party that has been keeping its numbers up and it is the only Opposition party that is truly passionate about fighting against the Government on this bill. The National Party has been voting at about 19 or 20 all day long. The Greens ACT and United Future are voting down at about five. It is just ridiculous that they get up in this House and say how passionately they are against this bill in so many ways. The National Party which has been saying how bad the bill is went and voted for it. What they are doing—and my colleague Dail Jones alluded to this earlier—is positioning themselves for a coalition. The National and Labour parties are showing New Zealand that they really are together on these issues and that they really are in unison as far as foreign ownership is concerned. The chairman of the Finance and Expenditure Committee Mr Clayton Cosgrove has not been here all day as we have been speaking to this bill. He is in the same boat as the other parties and is just as bad as the other parties that were voting down— 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know that Mr Cosgrove does not need my assistance on these matters but it is completely contrary to the Standing Orders for a member to refer at any time to the absence of any member from this Chamber. The member should be reminded of that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. He is quite right on that. Perhaps the member would like to address the bill. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: I appreciate your ruling Madam Speaker as far as that is concerned but I felt I was addressing the bill in the sense that New Zealand First is the only party that has voted consistently with its full numbers all day long. It has been putting its money where its mouth is. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know that in this Chamber the convention is that we cannot question a member’s word but it will clearly be recorded in  
Hansard 
 of course that United Future has consistently voted 8 which is our number of members all day. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That was not a point of order but it was an interesting point of information. Maybe we could get to the substance of the bill if the member would like to continue. 
Peter Brown 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on the point of order but if it is a new point of order— 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just draw the House’s attention to the fact that the honourable member is not in the Opposition—he actually supports the bill. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry; this is getting a little silly. Let us get on with the substance of the debate please. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: In terms of National and Labour—Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber—being the same and joining together in coalition on this issue I have to say they are not voting together just on this bill. The Hon Dr Nick Smith from the National Party has put up a member’s bill—it is in the Local Government and Environment Committee at the moment—that basically makes the same amendment that David Parker has tried to implement into this bill. David Parker probably agrees with me on that. It is basically the same issue. That was one issue in this bill that National said it would vote against but a member of National has put up a bill which National has voted for that makes basically the exact same amendment that David Parker has put up. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Mr Parker that New Zealand First voted against that. New Zealand First does not change its position for political expediency. We do not do those kinds of things. Mr Parker put forward the amendment probably after the call-up from Michael Cullen and the spin doctors up on the ninth floor. They would have said that Labour was in trouble on this bill and that they needed to put their heads together to make it at least look as though they were trying to be tough on foreign ownership and trying to protect New Zealanders and New Zealand’s interests. They decided to have a look at Nick Smith’s bill. David Parker thought he would tweak it a little bit and tinker with it so that it could be slightly different then Labour chucked that in this bill. It is quite ironic that National and Labour—Tweedledum and Tweedledee—are joining together and doing the same thing they did in the 1980s and 1990s. It is just like when they jointly sold $16 billion worth of State-owned assets and $10 billion per year in profits went overseas. The National and Labour members think that that was a great thing for New Zealand. 
I want to say one other thing about David Parker’s amendment. Whether or not one agrees with the amendment—Richard Prebble will probably agree with me; he can tell me whether he does or whether he does not—the fact is that Labour should have decided whether it would let foreign investors into our economy or buy certain pieces of land. It should have made up its mind and decided—yes or no. But it did not. It has tried to find this halfway house—this kind of “Mugabe amendment”—and say to foreigners that they can come in and buy our land but that the Government will take a little bit of it back. It should decide—yes or no. That is what I am saying. That is what this Government has tried to do. That is what the National Party is trying to do with Nick Smith’s bill. National members are trying to say that they do not agree with this but they do because they have shown their true colours in Nick Smith’s bill. 
I want to highlight another issue. It takes us back to the first reading debate when the Labour member Dover Samuels the member for Te Tai Tokerau talked about this great utopia this great amazing thing that is going on in Northland. Foreigners are coming in and buying golf courses up in the far north. He was saying how great it is because they are employing Maori to mow the lawns and cut the trees and hedges. He thought that that was a great thing. As I was hearing that I could not believe it. Labour wants to make New Zealand a little Mexico. That is what this Government wants to do. This Government along with the National Party and other parties in this House want to subject the people of the far north—the people whom Dover Samuels represents—to being just the hired help. That is what they want to do. That is just what happens in Mexico City. 
I flew into Mexico City myself quite a few times a few years ago. We saw Mexicans running around in their little Coca-Cola vans and big beautiful Coke signs were all around the place. Those Mexicans were earning 50c an hour—and where did the money go? It went straight back to the United States where the wealth is. That is what this Labour Government and the National Party—Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber—want to do. That is what they are proving with this bill. They are showing it to the people of New Zealand. The Government has come up with some stupid amendment—some “Mugabe clause”. It is in the name of Michael Cullen but we know that David Parker pushed it. It is some kind of “Mugabe clause”— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry; I must intervene here. I understand that offence has already been taken at a reference to Mugabe in a previous speech in the debate. I ask the member to withdraw that. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: I withdraw. I am trying to say without using the exact name of that person that Labour is basically trying to— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am sorry but I am having great difficulty understanding that particular ruling. The member said that the amendment was a “Mugabe clause”. Are we protecting Mr Mugabe by not using that phrase because he is another member of the Commonwealth? Is that the reason for the ruling? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No the reason for the ruling is that previously in this debate offence was taken by a member at a reference to Mugabe and the member who made that other reference was asked to withdraw it. So in the interests of consistency it seemed to me that that was appropriate. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is a new point of order. I would really like you to think about it because it appears to me that one can describe a clause of a bill in the strongest possible terms. It seems to me that a member could describe a clause as being a “Mugabe clause” and that it would not be out of order to say that an honourable member is supporting a “Mugabe clause”. What would be out of order is to say that an honourable member is a Mr Mugabe or is a Nazi or something. But to say that the clause is a “Mugabe clause” appears to me to be valid. I raise this because I think it is quite important to be able to do that. In fact I disagree with nearly all of Mr McNair’s speech except the statement that the clause is a “Mugabe clause” and I think the honourable member should be allowed to say that it is. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for that comment. If Mr McNair had just left it at that it would have been fine. But he linked the remark with a specific member and that member had previously objected to that reference. If Mr McNair had just left it at that you would be quite right and I would not have intervened. I ask the member to continue. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: This is the kind of outrageous bill we are talking about. I want to finish up with what United Future and Labour voted for in the commentary on this bill which states: “The majority does not consider it necessary that all of the overseas investors involved in a particular transaction have relevant business experience and acumen.” Further down it states: “Such an appointment may be made to recognise local customary roles and traditions”. This is the kind of craziness that we find in this bill. There are no rules. The Government does not care who comes in. They will find any excuse to let whomever in. That is what this Government is all about. That is what this Government and the National Party—the coalition parties Labour and National—are doing with this bill. New Zealand First says it is outrageous.