O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Just before I go into the actual bill I would just like to take issue with something that the previous speaker the Hon Michael Woodhouse said. Yes we do need overseas investment in New Zealand. But he was saying that it actually frees up capital in New Zealand if an overseas investor buys off a New Zealander. However I wonder what happens when an overseas investor buys off an overseas investor; an investor in Hong Kong buys off an investor in London. I just wonder where the benefit to New Zealand arises because that is subsequent to what happens.I've heard during the debate people talking about how ownership of land is not strategic—well have a look at my surname. My surname is O'Connor. My ancestors were Irish. They left the Ireland in the 1840s as did the ancestors of many people in this House and they left because they lost control of their land. At the time there was a potato famine and they were starving there was very productive land down the middle of Ireland Ireland was a net exporter of food while its people were starving—but they had strategically lost control; they didn't own the land any more. So those who suddenly think that ownership of land means nothing in an economic world I would just ask them to have a little look at their history to ensure that doesn't happen.Saying that I agree with the previous speaker it is absolutely necessary that we actually do have foreign investment foreign capital coming into this country because failure to do so—we only have to look at a country like North Korea where they stopped any foreign capital coming in and we saw the subsequent effect. So what we are really seeking to do all the time is to get that balance.Now this bill when you look through it it's not major. It addresses things and it is given context by things that have happened before it. But actually what it is is secondary to a piece of legislation that we passed last year: the Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Act. You might remember during COVID when it looked like there may be some seriously distressed assets in New Zealand—and again all parties and I believe from memory even the ACT Party agreed with this—it was necessary to have a piece of legislation to ensure that at that time we didn't lose strategic assets because they were so distressed. That was actually dealt with. I think everyone agreed that the last thing we wanted to do at that particular time when this big mix of hedge funds or particularly funds where foreign Governments had a major part of the investment—that we didn't actually lose that.So it is very important to keep context to this discussion that we as New Zealanders wherever we come from understand getting that balance right that yes we are part of a world where the flow of capital is an important part. We saw what happened in 2008 in the global financial crisis when the flow of capital throughout the globe was threatened—that threatened us all. So getting that balance right New Zealand it is important that we are part of that.So the bill has come out of the Finance and Expenditure Committee—I was lucky enough to be on the select committee. Again it was one of these things that comes through the select committee where one comes out of it much more aware of issues that are important to our land than perhaps one did when we went in there. So making sure that issues like overseas investors coming in who already were existing investors who owned large parcels whether they should have to go through the same process again when they could show that the land that they were buying they didn't need the same level of scrutiny; they'd already been through that should we require them to do that again. So I think a very sensible solution—I wouldn't even say a compromise—reached here that where that land can be shown that it is again not of separate strategic importance a piece of land that is additional that may be even runoff land or land that winter overstock that yes you can purchase that land and don't have to go through the same system again. And that through this bill has made things very sensible.So again this bill has gone through select committee. I once again congratulate my fellow select committee. I think we had some very good submitters there that again drew our attention to things that perhaps on the surface we may not have been aware of. And if you look at the recommendations I have been through the recommendations: they will go there will be some amendments when we get to the committee of the whole House but they will be ones that I think on the recommendation of the select committee will make this bill better and will ensure that New Zealanders can be secure that we can welcome overseas investment that that investment comes in is the right investment and that it's not one that ultimately is going to threaten our strategic importance at some stage and say Who let them in? Why was that mob why was that company why was that foreign Government allowed to own this strategic part of our business?"Interestingly enough I see a member opposite who often stands in this House talking about his background with Fonterra. I'm sure he would be the first person to stand up in this House and say that it would not be a good strategy for New Zealand to lose control of Fonterra and its suppliers. I'm sure that were anyone to suggest any regime that might result in that happening he would be the first that would stand up and say "Boy we had better not make that happen."So this bill continues its way through the House thoroughly improved I believe from its select committee process. I recommend it to the House."