O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): In speaking to the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill (No 3) I'd just like to go to the heart of the bill just for anyone who's maybe watching at home or listening and who's just not quite sure. I think if one goes to section 17 in clause 9 we're really talking about the beneficial test factors and this is where the heart of it is. [Interruption] It's probably a little bit too detailed and complicated for some of the members opposite but I have much more faith in the comprehension skills of those sitting watching at home and those sitting on this side of the House. It goes to the economic benefits and I'm sure we can all agree that that's why we're here. We want to do things that economically benefit this country and also things that benefit the natural environment. These are things that are in the bill and they continue or enhance access by the public within or over sensitive land. Now I'd like to speak to that one. I was lucky enough to grow up on a farm in a farming community and access to land was never an issue. If I wanted to go somewhere go and shoot a deer or goat I just rang up the next-door farmer and it was always a matter of making sure you had permission but it wasn't an issue. I grew up with full access to the whole area of the Buller really and it was only when I moved to the North Island and went to a town in the middle of a lot of farmland I suddenly realised what it was to grow up without access to any farmland where actually you had to basically do a 15-minute car drive before you could get access to any land with that being a forest. That sort of sowed a seed in me. It is pretty necessary that people in a country do have access to that land. Now you could go to the extent that the Swedes go. The Swedes have a thing called every man's right. I'm not sure if they've made that every person's right now in light of the changes in our society but that means that essentially as long as you don't go within 10 metres of a dwelling you can actually wander anywhere around Sweden. Well no one's advocating that and I'm certainly not advocating that but it's just the extreme of understanding of how important it is that New Zealanders do actually have access to this great land of ours. So continuing down section 17(1)(e) there is also give effect to or advance a significant Government policy:". Again it's inserting that whatever the Government of the day is it's important that this legislation does protect and give any Government the ability to ensure that they can enhance and that they are not prevented from introducing policy because they haven't got control of significant access to significant land—again an important part of that.Again when I've spoken on this before there are those—and I've heard speakers opposite particularly from the ACT Party—saying that nothing is strategic about land nothing strategic about ownership. When I've spoken on this bill before just those of us here who are—well we've all come from somewhere whether it be in 1200 or latterly. Certainly my ancestors came from Ireland. Now if anyone wants to know how strategic ownership of land is important—this goes right back to section 17 and I'm very careful. I know Madam Speaker that you like to ensure that we are narrowly on the sections. Let's go to section 17 coming back to ensuring the strategic asset. So at that time there were about 8 million people living in Ireland and they lost control of their land—it was taken over by the English. Then a famine visited that land and the population reduced to less than 2 million in a very short time. The problem was that the locals had lost control of their land strategically and at that time while the population was starving those that owned the land were actually still exporting food. So if one looks for an example of losing that strategic asset or losing strategic ownership of your land that is a very good example and there's not very many people here who have come to this land wherever their ancestors come from where there won't have been a similar case of loss of control usually to another country. The extreme of that of course is by invasion by warfare. It's something that we'd all prevent because the first thing any invader does is take full control of the assets. Now we balance that—again I agree with one of the previous speakers saying that overseas investment is absolutely necessary. We only need to look for North Korea and some of those regimes to see where they turned off the overseas tap altogether and the effect that had on the population of those countries. So coming back to section 17 which I know you're very keen for me to do Madam Speaker—I keep going back to it. But these are very good examples of why this bill has become so important. Of course it is the second part of a piece of legislation. The original legislation was the urgent measures which was brought in around the COVID recovery and that was again being referred to by other speakers when we talked about where there was a danger that our economy may have collapsed. It wasn't that long ago that farms in New Zealand in the late 1980s—it was probably with a little bit of regret that I didn't whip in and buy a farm at the time myself because they were very hard to give away at the end of the 1980s because of other decisions made. So it would have been a real shame that we end up losing control or ownership. Now again there'll be those who say it doesn't matter whether we lose control because the money comes in. The problem with that though is once a piece of land in New Zealand has actually gone to overseas ownership it remains in overseas ownership. So if we get a Hong Kong corporation that owns a large chunk of Mr Brownlee's favourite area of Canterbury well that's fine. That money when it's originally sold will remain in New Zealand. It'll be reinvested in other things. However that corporation in Hong Kong that then onsells that to a corporation in New York—tell me there is actually no benefit of that because that money is essentially a transaction that takes place offshore and the benefit will accrue all offshore. So other than perhaps the transaction costs that will accrue to New Zealanders there will be no benefit. So again it's very very important that we look at what is strategically the intent of this bill. Going through the bill one of the things also I was going to look at was water—actually water extraction. Now that's one of the things that often New Zealanders become passionate about: why we've lost control of our water—well our water rights. It's not the water. That's what the commodity is and of course much of that has gone. The Waiwera water I think is owned by a Russian conglomerate over there at the moment. So that is the one thing often when New Zealanders generally are concerned and lamenting a loss overseas of a local asset. Water is actually specifically mentioned in the bill. Ministers can consider whether the transaction will or is likely to result in a positive or negative impact on water quality and sustainability—again very sensitive. It won't actually currently affect the rights of those that are extracting water. It won't be turning the tap off so to speak—if you excuse the analogy—but what it does do is that where the use of that water by foreign companies does look like it's going to have an impact on New Zealand either by way of its quality or sustainability then there is the ability for Government to act. Again one of the other important parts—and I am sort of starting to run a little bit out of time; hopefully one of the following speakers will talk about this—is the ability of overseas companies to own. Again I'll look at probably the best example—that is managed funds or the managed investment schemes. There are two categories here. If they are unlisted and the manager or trustee is an overseas person and more than 25 percent of the value of the scheme's investments are invested on behalf of overseas persons then they will come within the parameters of this bill. Also if they are a listed company and overseas persons own 50 percent or more of the value of the scheme's investments again they will come within the purview of this bill. This will not stop transactions—this is not going to turn us into North Korea. This will ensure that there is still the ability to attract overseas investment which we need and I think every speaker here has agreed we need to do. It's just ensuring that we understand that strategically in New Zealand the Government of the day is able and has the ability to ensure the decision making it has around strategy around safety around water quality and that it actually is able to do these things and that we don't become a country where it's too late essentially to turn around and try and make long-term strategic decisions for the benefit of those that come after us because the horse has bolted. So I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House."