Cosgrove Clayton: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21595] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I rise to meet the challenge of Mr Simon Power and to support the bill as the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee which considered the bill. I draw on a couple of points. This is a good bill because as Dr Cullen said it tightens the enforcement regime in respect of the purchase by foreigners of New Zealand lands and other assets and investments. 
I want to touch on one thing which is that the Overseas Investment Commission will now be absorbed into Land Information New Zealand. This is a good thing because as the Minister pointed out the commission has a staff of about five. Once it goes into Land Information New Zealand of course there will be a greater resource of personnel who will be able to enforce the provisions in the agreements that are put in place for overseas investors. 
One of the biggest concerns from submitters to the Finance and Expenditure Committee was that when overseas purchasers come to do the deal to build the lodge or whatever to employ X number of people and to create economic growth and wealth those commitments are not necessarily met. I think that concern has historically been quite valid. One of the committee members Janet Mackey pointed out that there was an investment in her patch where those commitments as written in the agreements had not been met. I think even the odd member of New Zealand First—or one member—would agree with that. Historically overseas investors have come over and invested said they will employ people and said they will create jobs. They have done the deal if you will but have not lived up to the obligations. The feedback we got from a lot of the Kiwis who came to the committee was that they do not mind overseas investment but if overseas investors are obligated to do certain things then they should do them. So this bill seeks to tighten up that enforcement mechanism. 
I see that the Greens are opposed in their minority report to the Overseas Investment Commission being absorbed within Land Information New Zealand. I have to ask why. Land Information New Zealand has more people more resources and more specialists to enforce agreements—to stomp the country if necessary and ensure that investors have lived up to and are meeting their obligations such as employing people building the lodge creating some jobs and creating some wealth for the country. I would have thought it was difficult to argue against those tighter enforcement measures. 
Then we have New Zealand First which is opposed to any purchase by any foreigner of any asset investment or land in New Zealand. As the Minister pointed out that is totally illogical. The last one out switches the lights off if we call a halt to any international investment in land in this country. The New Zealand First members say no. Again I think most Kiwis would not agree with them. 
This bill in total seeks to lessen the bureaucracy. It seeks to lessen day-to-day ministerial intervention in minor land purchases—over whether someone can purchase a piece of land to put a supermarket on as the Minister said. I think this is a good bill. The Finance and Expenditure Committee members on both sides worked very very hard to try to meet some of the concerns that New Zealanders put up. I think citizens in this country do not mind foreign investment if obligations are met by the investor. One of the things the committee has been at pains to do is to ensure that there are mechanisms in the bill that will meet that. 
I conclude on one other point. There was a bizarre occasion at the committee when the Green member Rod Donald put up the following proposition. Say a foreign investor bought a flour mill—I think that was the example Mr Donald used—and then the market for flour went belly up. That investor was obligated to employ people to grind and produce flour but could not meet those obligations because the market had gone belly up. Mr Donald said that if the foreign investor wanted to close the factory down and turn it into a different business—a shoe-making factory for example—it should not be allowed. I have a couple of colleagues here who were on the committee and I have to say that we found that proposition rather bizarre. 
This is a good bill. It meets a lot of the concerns that New Zealanders have and I support it.