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:21583] 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 It is with some sadness that I speak to the title of this bill because the bill has gone in the wrong direction in the Green Party’s point of view and it has even gone in the wrong direction from the point of view of the Labour members who were on the 2001 select committee inquiry into the activities of the Overseas Investment Commission. In that inquiry the Labour members and the New Zealand First member backed a number of Green Party recommendations that would have tightened up the control on foreign investment in New Zealand whereas instead this bill actually liberalises the foreign investment regime. Yes there is the smokescreen that so-called iconic sites will be more difficult to buy but nothing in this bill will actually stop them from being purchased by overseas investors and there is now every encouragement in this bill for foreign investors to come in and buy up more of our land buildings and businesses. 
I think the complete removal of any land threshold in central business districts is extraordinary. It means that there will now be absolutely no control on land and buildings being purchased in the central business districts of Auckland Wellington and Christchurch. Dr Cullen has realised his dream which is to make New Zealand one of the most liberal foreign investment regimes in the world. This legislation makes us consistent with the United States’ requirements for a free-trade agreement with it and it brings us into line with what the multinational corporations have been pushing for under the General Agreement on Trade in Services. So the title of this bill really ought to be the “Overseas Investment Liberalisation Bill” because it does nothing to achieve the stated purpose which—as the previous speaker acknowledged—is to provide that it should be a privilege for overseas persons to own or control sensitive New Zealand assets. 
I have moved one amendment to clause 2 “Commencement” to ensure that no commencement date appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council can take effect before 30 June 2006. That is to provide a cooling-off period if you like for the Government to think about the merits of this legislation or perhaps to give an incoming Government that is more progressive in its outlook than this Government the chance to amend this legislation. I think it would be entirely consistent for the Government to support that amendment because it dragged the chain over the amendments that Winston Peters managed to negotiate some time ago. They were not gazetted during the life of the National - New Zealand First Government nor during the balance of the period of National-led Government after New Zealand First left that coalition. To give some credit to Dr Cullen he did finally gazette those changes which have at least required farmland to be publicly advertised for sale in New Zealand before it is flogged off overseas—never mind how small the advertisement is. 
It is quite consistent with overseas investment legislation for the Act or regulations not to come into force straight after the Governor-General has signed them. So I would urge other parties to support delaying this legislation until at least 30 June 2006 to provide something of a cooling-off period—a buyer-beware period—so that the people of New Zealand do have the chance to vote on this issue at the election without the country being locked into a foreign investments regime that means basically that we are like the Wild West but with a sheriff who is working hand in hand with the outlaws rather than on behalf of the good citizens of this country.