Nash Stuart: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNash Stuart: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 20 August 2015. Volume:707;Page:6027. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]10.STUART NASH (Labour—Napier) to the Minister for Land Information: What is the actual dollar value of added investment that has come into New Zealand for development purposes that was promised by the 608 successful overseas purchasers of New Zealand sensitive land who promised the introduction into New Zealand of added investment for development purposes as part of their successful consent application?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Local Government) on behalf of theMinister for Land Information: As we have explained to the member before the Overseas Investment Office does not collect information like that and does not have a statutory obligation to do so. However the Minister has seen evidence—[Interruption]—no you might find this interesting—of support for foreign investment into New Zealand and that evidence shows that—Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have been down this path in previous questions and the Minister has very clearly answered the question in her first answer. I cannot believe that there is any need for any more material.Mr SPEAKER: I will explain again to Grant Robertson that I am the adjudicator as to how long a Minister takes to answer a question. I often allow the answer to go on for longer if I anticipate that the Minister is making a genuine attempt to inform the House. I accept that the member has every right to get upset if in continuing the answer it is in any way an attack on the Opposition and then I would deal with it appropriately. But at this stage I am certainly hopeful that the Minister is attempting to give an answer that is enlightening to the House and I invite the Minister to continue her answer.Hon PAULA BENNETT: What the Minister has seen is evidence of support for foreign investment into New Zealand and that evidence has quite clearly shown that over the last 16 years we have seen a number of applications—in fact 67 more applications accepted by the then Labour Government between 1999—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I was hopeful that the answer was not going to extend to that part of the answer. [Interruption] Order! If Grant Robertson has any further points of order to raise I am happy to hear them—[Interruption]—just a minute—but to continue to interject like that from his seat will only create disorder in this House.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am surprised that after that answer by the Minister you did not raise the fact that she in fact was adding to disorder in the House by directly going against the ruling that you made.Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order; that is in fact a direct challenge to me as Chair. As soon as I discovered where the answer was heading I cut the answer off completely at that stage.Stuart Nash: In light of that answer can she at least tell me—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am now having trouble hearing the question because of interjections from my right. Could the member please start the question again.Stuart Nash: Thank you Mr Speaker. In light of that answer can she at least tell me how many of the 608 successful overseas investors have actually delivered on their promise to introduce added investment into New Zealand for development purposes?Hon PAULA BENNETT: The Overseas Investment Office actually does go out there and monitor the applications as to what they have done. It has been monitoring them and certainly in her time as Minister the Minister has not seen any evidence that they have not been.Stuart Nash: Now that Steven Joyce has admitted that “We have not been as effective as other countries in ensuring that overseas investment has provided additional benefits.” when will she direct the Overseas Investment Office to start collecting all information on whether foreign buyers are keeping the promises they have made to New Zealanders?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well I want to say that we do encourage more investment into New Zealand particularly into the regions and we think that that makes a difference for them in terms of more jobs being created the amount of money that is going in there and the difference that that makes. As I say I am just genuinely surprised at the avenue that this member is choosing to go down when we actually saw 67 percent more land sold under Labour—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Stuart Nash: Does she agree with John Key that “Looking 4 5 10 years into the future I’d hate to see New Zealanders as tenants in their own country and that is a risk.”—if yes can she confirm Landcorp will not flog off its farms to foreign interests and that the iconic 13800 hectare Lochinver Station will stay in Kiwi hands?Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Paula Bennett—either of those two supplementary questions.Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes. What I certainly can confirm is that we are selling less farmland here than we certainly saw earlier. Let me give you some of the numbers. The net area of land consented since 2008 has been 310768 hectares—so around 310000. How much was actually sold between 1999 and 2008? It was 941000—941000. So yes I do agree that we will not be tenants in our own land and this side is making sure of that.Stuart Nash: How can New Zealanders have any confidence that we will not become tenants in our own land when she has not turned down one application to buy productive New Zealand land in almost 3 years?Hon PAULA BENNETT: They can have confidence because they have got a National-led Government and not a Labour-led one. They can have confidence because we actually changed the system to ensure that we have a vetting screening earlier so that when we decline they do not come up in the decline numbers but actually we are pushing them back. They can have assurance because literally hundreds of thousands fewer hectares have been sold under National than were under Labour. Look in the mirror. I am not sure I need to seek leave but I would like to table a piece of paper from my office that quite clearly states that the net area of land consented under Labour was significantly more—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I am not going to put the leave. The Minister certainly does have to seek leave to have the paper tabled but I am not going to put the leave on the basis that the information has been clearly outlaid in the answer the Minister has just given to the question. It does not add further information to the debate.