McNair Craig: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
McNair Craig: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21551] 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to speak on Part 1 because of the issue that was raised by the Labour Government when it inserted clause 4(1)(b)— 
Brian Connell 
: I think it is termed the “steal clause”. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: The member on this side of the House terms it the “steal clause”. This Government had a bill that allowed for the blatant flogging of New Zealand ownership to overseas interests. Only a few months out from an election all of a sudden Government members looked at themselves and said: “Oh my goodness! We have to do something that makes it look like we are being tough on foreign investors.” That is what they did; they sat around a table late at night thinking they had to do something about that in order to give people the impression that they were trying to be tough on foreign investors. That is what they did because they knew the sentiment out in the community. They knew that an overwhelming number of people gave submissions to the select committee in opposition to the bill. They knew the public sentiment on this bill so they thought they had to do something. They got their spin machine together they flew Mr Parker up from Otago early on a Monday—instead of having him come in on an early flight on Tuesday—they racked their brains and they thought of a way to spin some sort of explanation to the public to make it look like they were working in the best interests of the people. 
 Some people could call that clause the “David Parker amendment”. I was going to call it the “smokescreen amendment”. Or it could be called the “blatant electioneering clause” as well. The Government wanted to pop in an amendment that basically would allow foreigners to buy whatever they wanted but after they had done that it would take away their riparian rights. The Government would get rid of those rights if it wanted to in certain circumstances. Basically this is a poll-driven Government and if it thinks that the polls are telling it that people are not so approving of what it is doing then—nothing to do with conviction or anything—it will act purely on the polls. Its decision would be based on that alone. I think it is quite disgraceful that the Government has come out with an amendment that as I said is such a blatant electioneering clause. 
The Government has no conviction or passion about it. Labour has turned away from its principles. It signed up to the petition that went up and down New Zealand many years ago to stop foreign ownership of land and then it went totally against its principles which was proved by its $10 billion worth of sales of State-owned assets from 1984 to 1990. Allowing for inflation and the amount of assets those State-owned enterprises owned at the time they would be worth billions of dollars to the economy now. We have $10 billion a year going out of the country now just because of foreign ownership and this Government has allowed that to happen. The Government is obviously not concerned about it because it is letting it happen; it is continuing that kind of regime. It just does not give a stuff! But the Government expects us and the people of New Zealand to believe that it is trying to do something about the foreign ownership issue by popping in a clause like that by flying David Parker up from Otago on a Monday and by getting its spin machine together to spin out a bunch of lies to the public. That is what the Government is doing.