Bennett DavidPart 3 Enforcement and other miscellaneous mattersHon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you Mr Chair and when it comes to Part 3 of this bill it is important that we have a long debate on that since it was such a short debate on Part 2 which was an important—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. It is inappropriate for any member to question the decision of the Chair to accept a closure motion. I accepted it and it is not to be commented on.Hon DAVID BENNETT: OK. Part 3. Very sensitive day today isn't it because we've had two parts—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Order! Sit down. And you're not allowed to comment on a ruling that I've just made. That's two. Don't do it again. Third time I will terminate your speech.Hon DAVID BENNETT: Mr Chair thank you for that. So when we come to Part 3 of the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill we're talking about enforcement and other miscellaneous matters within the bill. When we look at the enforcement issue it also comes down to what you would be enforcing in the bill. It's important to look at some of the options where enforcement could come into effect.If we look at clause 22 to amend section 39 it says Regulator may require any person to provide information for statistical or monitoring purposes"—that seems like a fairly standard approach. Then you get to new section 40 in clause 23 which says "Regulator may require person who is subject to condition to provide statutory declaration"—that is also a fairly basic sort of approach. But then when we get down to clause 25 new sections 41AA to 41D we get to things like providing information or documents and confidentiality of information and documents and conditions relating to publication or disclosure of information or documents. That's where it gets a little bit more interesting because confidentiality is something that this Government is not known for. It had prided itself on having openness and transparency—that was what we were told when they started off in Government—yet we have yet to see that.I just want to give an example of how we want to see how they would relate to that confidentiality in this situation. Just take the situation of an overseas investor that wants to come to New Zealand and invest in land. That overseas investor may have a less than reputable history in their home country. They may not meet the good-faith test that one would expect. They may even have a source of income or source of assets that one would not expect. Yet when we come to that information about the confidentiality of information and documents it would be really interesting to see about the sources of those funds that come into the country and how they're used.Take that potential investor that may come in—Mr Chair it's in new section 41C inserted by clause 25 if you're looking for it there—from that overseas country. Now there's an exemption for forestry that's carved out in the legislation. So with that exemption for forestry they don't actually have to provide the information that would normally be expected. So there is an element of confidentiality there for that particular buyer.What is even more important than that—and something that hasn't really been traversed in the debate so far—is the payments that will actually be made to that investor. What will happen under this legislation is that there is an exemption for forestry but at the same time the Government is going to introduce payments to forestry. So there will be an incentive that the Government will give through its emissions trading scheme (ETS) programme for forestry. We have yet to see the amount of that incentive but we know it's coming.So effectively that foreign investor that may have a background that is less than rigorous and less than successful in the sense of a normal investor that would come in under an overseas investment regime would have a free ride to come into New Zealand to pick the best of New Zealand land that's under 1000 hectares—Andrew Bayly: Probably it's around the Waikato.Hon DAVID BENNETT: —yes it's probably in the Waikato—and to put that land into forestry and not care about it. The Minister when he spoke talked about a 1 percent return as being something that some of those investors from overseas that are just looking to park their money would be quite happy about. Now are we going to have that confidentiality clause apply when we actually have the payment that will come from the New Zealand Government to that investor? I can guarantee you—Andrew Bayly: What was that again?Hon DAVID BENNETT: That payment that will come because there will be a forestry incentive payment coming under the ETS. We know that's coming. So basically that foreign investor that might be less than reputable and not meet any criteria under New Zealand foreign investment now will get a free ride to invest in New Zealand. There will be confidentiality clauses that will apply and then there will be a payment to them from the New Zealand Government. Now we don't know whether that payment is actually going to be equal across all forestry investments or whether that payment is going to be on the basis of scale of forestry investment. We don't know if that payment would actually be there to encourage that investor to come in. There may be some other compensation that that person was looking for as well.So there's potential for this clause to be used in this bill to actually mean that it will hide information around someone that may be less than reputable and that has got a free ride to invest in New Zealand land now under this legislation by going into forestry and that will get a payment from the New Zealand Government which would exceed the 1 percent return that the Minister had said some people around the world would be quite happy with. In fact many people that are in the situation that a confidentiality clause wouldn't apply to don't want any return; they just want to park their money up for a number of years. They just want to have a balance of investments around the world because they may have business interests in their home country—Mark Patterson: You're a bit late coming to this conclusion.Hon DAVID BENNETT: —that they're not so clear about. What was that from the member across there—that member across there that has been trying to be like "We'll look after this bill."?Hon Member: He's only got about 20 more contributions before he's gone.Hon DAVID BENNETT: He has. So I think there's a real problem here with transparency for this Government because we have heard this is going to be the most transparent Government out. What is happening here is the worst kind of a foreign investor: the person that doesn't want to actually add to the New Zealand economy that actually would take a very effective dairy farm or kiwifruit farm or apple farm out of that and put it into forestry just to park their money just to have their assets there. They would be quite willing to do that knowing that they are getting a guaranteed return from the New Zealand Government on that investment and nobody would know—nobody will know.The members opposite say "Oh that will never happen. That will never happen." Well mark my words the exact people that want to come and invest in New Zealand that can't now under our current regime because they are banned—whether they've got a reputation in their country or whether the funding that they are going to bring in has a source issue or whether they are not going to add anything to the New Zealand economy; they just want to park up their assets—have now got a free ride and a free cheque. They've got a free cheque from this Government.I can't understand why the New Zealand First Party which is against foreign ownership is now enabling foreigners to come in and paying for them to come in. That's what they're going to do. The New Zealand First Party will be passing in this Parliament before the end of the year or next year a payment for forestry investment. They are paying for foreigners to buy New Zealand land. What has happened to New Zealand First? But that's what happens with Shane Jones running it and making great economic decisions!Where's the Green Party—the Green Party that's for the environment? Where are they? Why aren't they actually thinking about those kinds of potential investors that will have their hands on dirty money? There could be money from making bombs that are sold around the world. That's who the Green Party is letting come into New Zealand now and have a free investment. What's worse they're going to pay for it. They're actually going to pay for it and then nobody will ever know because of the confidentiality clauses that will be in this.So I think this is a disgrace to the New Zealand Parliament. I think it really shows how if you make legislation on the hop and you're doing it for a particular issue and not actually looking at what the practical application will be it will mean that New Zealanders are taken for a ride by the wrong people. What we need is an open transparent Government and we need to be able to know who are making these investments why they are making these investments and where the money came from."