Copeland Gordon: Overseas Investment Bill — First Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Overseas Investment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:18032] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 It is a bit of a mixed blessing to follow a speech like the one we have just heard from Richard Prebble of the ACT party. On the one hand I agreed with a fair bit of what he said earlier on in the speech but on the other hand right towards the end when he made the claim that he had never sold a Crown asset to overseas investors but that he had sold only Crown liabilities to them I thought to myself that we should congratulate him on his genius. Not many Kiwis can talk overseas investors into buying New Zealand - based liabilities and I think that that really is an incredible feat. I extend my congratulations to him for doing that. However I think that maybe he is a bit of a stranger to the truth on some aspects of it. 
The other irony relates to the position of New Zealand First. We had—let us put it mildly—a very impassioned speech from Craig McNair who raved on about the sale of Crown assets. The irony of that to me is that just earlier this year the Government went to New Zealand First to get its support on the foreshore and seabed legislation because it could not get the bill through without New Zealand First. The Government wanted to put the foreshore and seabed into Crown ownership which Craig McNair spent his whole speech saying was a very dangerous thing to do because the foreshore and seabed would be flogged off to overseas people. 
The very point of distinction that United Future had on that bill was to say that we should put the foreshore and seabed into the public domain to make it clear that it is not for sale to overseas people. I do not think we will ever get around to selling it but I note that little irony in the diatribe we heard from the New Zealand First member about how terrible it was to sell anything from this country to anyone from overseas. 
Richard Prebble really hit the nail on the head in many ways. The fact is that the history of this country has from its very beginning been very very influenced by overseas investment in our nation. When for example the ANZ bank tells us that it has been here since 1840 we remember that it was Australians who invested in this country and who continue to do so to this day. Overseas investment really has been a part and parcel of our history. 
The other thing that I think a lot of Kiwis overlook when they talk about the sale of land to foreigners is that it kind of depends on where people stand in the spectrum does it not? They may just have the point of view that they do not want overseas people to own New Zealand land. If asked why they will answer that it is because the buyers are foreigners. When asked why that is relevant they will answer that it is because the buyers are foreigners. In other words we get back to a sort of xenophobia on that point. 
On the other hand if one talks to New Zealand landowners—such as owners of big pieces of land of whom I know several—who actually want to sell their property and get the very best price from the market they can for the labour they have expended on that property sometimes over many generations and if the best price they can get happens to be from someone based overseas the world looks very different indeed. I do not think we should be in the business of stopping New Zealanders from freely exercising their right to sell their own property. 
With respect the New Zealand First member’s speech was limiting in that it referred to only the Crown selling things. But there is a whole other class of business activity in this country if members have not noticed—that is private business and private property ownership. One thing that goes with that reality is that those owners should have the right to transact business in the marketplace with more or less as little restraint as we can reasonably impose on them. Having said that I tell members that United Future will support this Overseas Investment Bill because I think that in a funny kind of way it probably comes down on about the right side of the ledger. 
The political reality is that there are New Zealanders who are opposed to the sale of our land to overseas owners. Therefore I think it is sensible to put some conditions in place particularly when sites are sensitive. Young Nicks Head is a case in point Cape Kidnappers is another and there are several other very sensitive pieces of land for which we should put in place some requirements because they are places that all of us value. I think it is fair and reasonable to have the requirements in this bill—which is a plan for economic development—to maintain the natural heritage and historic features of a site and to have walking access. 
Walking access is a very important issue. We in this country have a culture—and I remember the Prime Minister talking about this to Paul Holmes this morning I think on the radio—whereby we have broken away completely from British and to some extent American models. Citizens of those countries cannot walk on the beach in many places and cannot access lakes and rivers because they are privately owned. I know of places in the United States where beaches are fenced off. As one is coming along the beach one cannot get over the fence to the next bit of the beach because there is a physical barrier restraining one from doing that. 
New Zealand was founded on the basis that there should be free access that is reasonable to those parts of the country that in a very real sense are our endowment and are what we see as being universal destinations—in other words destinations that belong to all people which also includes people coming here from overseas as tourists. So I think that the walking access requirement that has been made a part of the sale of large tracts of land to overseas investors is a very good way of signalling that that is Kiwi culture. Otherwise the danger is that those people with the best will in the world will put a great big fence around a whole property and say that people cannot go there because it is theirs. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Name me one property where that’s happened. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: One situation that has caused this bill to come into being is the D’Urville Island situation. Some very real problems have arisen there not only because of the access rights but also because of the fact that there are— 
Stephen Franks 
: That land was off-limits before the foreigners bought it. I know; I tried to go there. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: OK. Well two wrongs do not make a right. The point I am making is that I sincerely believe that it was part of my heritage to be able to walk up and down quite freely on the piece of beachfront I grew up on and that is what I want my kids and my grandchildren to be able to do. I unashamedly think that that is part of Kiwi culture. This bill recognises that which is very good indeed. 
I also think with regard to the D’Urville Island situation that the new rights brought into the bill about not fulfilling the conditions of the consent are extremely important. There must logically be a way to ensure that if one puts in place conditions attaching to a sale the conditions are enforced. Otherwise they are not conditions; they are just suggestions. So I think it is exactly right to state in the bill that if one strays outside or fails to comply with the conditions on which one purchases a property then one will be subject to penalties. In extreme cases the court can order the disposal of a property to new owners who will then be subject to and have to fulfil those conditions. That would probably result in a very real loss to the foreign purchaser. 
As far as business is concerned I think I have already made United Future’s position quite clear. We welcome and should welcome business investment in New Zealand. One can think of so many examples recently of New Zealand companies successfully investing offshore. I was just reading in today’s or yesterday’s paper—I am not sure which; we are still in Tuesday after all and it has been a pretty long Tuesday—that Glassons for example is now succeeding quite well in the Australian market. That is the latest example of successful investment by a New Zealand company overseas. 
There has to be a reciprocity of course. As Richard Prebble said if we want to invest in other people’s countries then we have to reciprocate by allowing them to come and invest here. I think that everyone benefits from that. 
The last point I make is one that Richard Prebble also made. I agree with him that I have not yet seen anybody remove any land from this country. If an overseas-based person buys land here and puts money in here it creates jobs and wealth. That is the way in which our economy will grow expand and succeed in the future.