Connell Brian: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Connell Brian: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21605] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Here we are on “14 June” at 9 o’clock and I thank the Government for taking us into urgency because it enables the National Party to build the collegial spirit that is so important when a party is about to go into Government. National members are very appreciative of that opportunity. We support this bill for the reasons I am about to outline. I cannot understand the attack that was made upon me by Gordon Brown. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: He’s the Deputy Prime Minister of Britain. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Mr Brown I apologise—Peter Brown. Members can see how badly he has wounded me; I cannot even remember the member’s name. However I said I could not understand that attack and I still struggle with that. 
Peter Brown said I had built an argument that anyone can come to New Zealand regardless of any criteria invest in this country and then take those resources out of this country and suck the country dry. I refer the member to my  
Hansard 
 record which will specifically state that I welcome foreign investment into this country subject to it meeting strict criteria and those criteria were set down in this bill. That is why National agrees with the thrust of this bill. It was not lost on me that Peter Brown was building an argument that there should be no foreigners or foreign capital coming into New Zealand. There he was espousing that in his strong English accent. The irony of that might have been lost on the members of New Zealand First but it certainly was not lost on me. I notice that Dail Jones has not jumped up to make an argument either given that he was born in Pakistan as I recall. Of course members of the National Party are not as difficult to deal with as some members of New Zealand First. We welcome the New Zealand First members to New Zealand and to Parliament because their diversity adds to our rich tapestry. 
Some of the arguments I have heard from members who are opposed to this bill remind me of Luddites who would like to turn the clock back. People who want to come to New Zealand to invest— 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The honourable member opened his speech by attacking Gordon Brown I think it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Britain but he then went on to say that in very short order he would explain why National supports this bill. He is running out of time and we are sitting here keenly waiting to hear that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No that is not a point of order. I do not need any assistance with this. [ 
Interruption 
] That is not a point of order either but I am sure the member is about to get to the bill. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I will now turn my attention to the bill. The bill will guarantee that New Zealand’s assets will be protected not just for the benefit of the current generation but also for future generations because it will continue to build on New Zealand’s reputation for encouraging foreign investment in this country. Those members who would build the argument that foreign investment is not important or that it has not made a contribution to New Zealand really do not have a very good understanding of economics. 
Arguments were built that New Zealanders were missing out on the ability to buy high-country stations. As Dr Cullen pointed out—and I do not find myself agreeing with him very often but he was right on this occasion—how many ordinary blokes can run down to the South Island and buy a high-country station? Very few ordinary blokes can. A few people get together form syndicates and buy high-country stations but very few ordinary people can do that. There are some clear exceptions and they were detailed in my earlier calls when I spoke on this bill. 
Ron Mark 
: The Hon Lockwood Smith could buy one! 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I would not say he is an ordinary bloke. He is a strong contributing member of the National Party which does not make him ordinary—it makes him outstanding. The point I want to make is that despite who was buying high-country stations in New Zealand before foreign capital took over some of them the stations were underperforming. They were hardly economic units. In short they were undercapitalised. I say to Mr Mark that he and I know very well that a farm cannot be turned into a productive unit unless there is sufficient capital. As a result of foreign capital being introduced to some of the high-country stations they are now strong contributors to the local community. They are employing not just one or two people but significant numbers of people and are contributing to not only the farming economy but also the tourism economy of the area because they have been able to diversify. That is what foreign capital does for the high-country farming areas around Canterbury for example. 
I ask this question of members: where has the hysteria come from that says it does us harm when people come from overseas and buy our land? If one looks at most examples— 
Craig McNair 
: $10 billion a year going out of New Zealand. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: We have listened to the member make a fool of himself so he should just be quiet for a while. If one looks at most of the examples of land purchases one sees the very converse of that takes place. Foreign investors come into New Zealand risk their capital and as a consequence jobs are created infrastructure is developed and no harm is done. The arguments presented by some members tonight are xenophobic. I am afraid that knowing some of those members as well as I do I find it difficult to say that about them but in this case I think it is very very true. 
Let us also talk about the idea that people are coming to this country and closing up high-country properties. The very converse of that is happening in fact. The people who close the gates in high-country stations are members of the Department of Conservation not foreign investors. Another example that Michael Cullen furnished was that of the singer Shania Twain. What has she done for access to the environment for people around Cromwell? She has created walkways and opened up that environment so people have more access to that countryside than they ever had before. 
I just want to finish by drawing the House’s attention to the “Mugabe clause”. I termed it that and I will not back off that one iota. That clause ran to 10 pages in this bill and it suggested that the Government would annex private property from New Zealanders. I am not joking; that is what was being suggested. That in itself was bad but even worse was that no compensation would have been offered at all. I ask members of this House to run the rule of fairness over that. Which Kiwi voters would have said that was fair? Very few. I do not hear barracking from the New Zealand First members now because they know they could not get on to the hustings and say that they were defending that. It is simply not fair. Michael Cullen had to come to the rescue and introduce Supplementary Order Paper 376 in his name which took right out of the legislation the “Mugabe clause” that his colleagues in the Finance and Expenditure Committee were trying to foist on to the people of New Zealand. That is why the New Zealand National Party was strongly opposed to the bill in the first instance. Only when that clause was removed did National say it would lend support to what was otherwise a very sensible and well-argued bill. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Before I call the next speaker I would ask members to keep the level of chatter down a bit please.