Donald Rod: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Donald Rod: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21555] 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I appreciate having a few more minutes to speak as I had not even got on to supporting my good colleague David Parker on his excellent initiative. But before I go there I want to finish talking about the amendments to the purpose clause that I have proposed on behalf of the Green Party and I am pleased to see that the Minister of Finance is with us to hear those. One of our fundamental concerns with the legislation as it stands is the extent of influence that the Minister has through his letter of direction to the Overseas Investment Commission. Although I have made considerable criticisms of the secretary of the commission in terms of how he has acted I recognise that the ministerial directive has pretty much determined how the commission operates. That has basically been—without quoting the letter in full—to facilitate overseas investment. The scrutiny function has very much taken a second-class position; the thrust has been to making it even easier for foreign investors to buy up our land our businesses and our buildings and we need some balance to that. 
Hence the amendment we are putting up to the purpose clause that public participation in decisions around overseas investment will be encouraged. I believe it is vital that the people of New Zealand have a say in whether overseas investments are appropriate rather than the regulatory authority simply carrying out the wishes of the Minister of the time—although given that the Minister is usually Labour or National there is very little difference between them in terms of their determination to make it even easier for foreign buy-ups. 
I say this not only as a citizen but also with the benefit of information from Mark Dunlop who made a submission to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I think he was very brave to do so as a former member of the Overseas Investment Commission staff. He said in his submission that the bill is fundamentally flawed and that it does not provide the framework including supporting structures and safeguards necessary to facilitate or ensure only positive and high-quality overseas investment that is beneficial to New Zealanders. He goes on to talk about the role of the regulator and said that it is simply unacceptable that the same body can act as both a compliance and enforcement agency and an advisory and facilitative one. On the one hand the commission is trying to encourage overseas investment as per the directive letter; on the other hand it is meant to be trying to ensure that compliance is maintained. Hence our amendment and hence our criticism of the commission’s job now being handed over to Land Information New Zealand. 
I finish my call by saying that I thought it was an excellent move on the part of David Parker to use this legislation to enable statutory marginal strips to be created when a foreign investor buys up land that adjoins our foreshore our significant lakes and our significant rivers. It is a great step forward for public access in New Zealand. It recognises that the lakes the rivers and the foreshore are public should be open space and therefore should be accessible. I am extremely disappointed that some parties in this House that I thought supported public access and the ability for people who enjoy the great outdoors to get access to that public space are now voting against this provision simply because there is no provision for compensation. 
There is no provision for compensation when a subdivision takes place either. Will United Future now be demanding that landowners be compensated when they proceed with a subdivision? I hope not. I hope that they will see sense. I hope that the outdoor recreation lobby and its party actually get some benefit from having its name attached to United Future and I hope that United Future will change its position on these amendments—that it will not force the Government to move its Supplementary Order Paper and backtrack on what would have been a great step forward for New Zealand and for New Zealanders especially those who enjoy the great outdoors. I am very sorry to see Dr Cullen have to back down on these provisions. They were successfully negotiated by the Labour member for Otago in the best interests of not only his constituents but also people throughout New Zealand.