Cullen Michael: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21541] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a short call in this debate to support my colleague the Hon Judith Tizard who moved the second reading of the bill. I wish to speak on it at just a philosophical level rather than a detailed one and light upon one small matter. 
It seems quite clear to me that we need balance in these matters particularly in relation to sensitive lands. There are concerns about excessive amounts of sensitive land passing into foreign ownership but as soon as one tries to legislate that pretty well all land cannot be taken into foreign ownership or requires some enormously complicated process in order to approve it then we make it almost impossible for a very wide range of economic development to occur within New Zealand. 
This country has always relied upon substantial amounts of foreign capital for its development. Until we lift our savings rates to a very very very much higher level than at present that will remain the case. Certainly I suggest gently to my Green colleagues that if they want to be so much in favour of New Zealand ownership and of the lifting of savings rates then they should at least begin by supporting the New Zealand Superannuation Fund instead of opposing that part of a long-term sustainable policy based upon savings that accumulated from New Zealanders. 
 The second point I would make in that respect is that land does not go away simply because somebody has bought it. In fact it is far easier to buy a factory and remove it from New Zealand than it is to buy a high-country sheep farm and remove it from New Zealand. It is very difficult to move a high-country sheep farm to some foreign country. The land does endure in a way that other economic assets do not endure. So it is important that in this bill we provide mechanisms to consider quite specifically issues around access and so on as part of the consideration of approval for foreign purchase of New Zealand land. 
I might say in that regard that the purchase of Young Nick’s Head for example turned out to be better than if the previous absentee New Zealand owner had remained there. It was a deteriorating farm with no access for New Zealanders no Government ownership of the most sensitive part of the land and a very unclear relationship in terms of the rights of local Maori to look after certain parts of that land. The new owner Mr Griffin has provided a much more satisfactory relationship. The land purchase by Shania Twain caused a great deal of interest in Otago and we were able to gain some important concessions in terms of completing a track through the South Island. 
Peter Brown 
: She’s going to sing at the Labour Party conference. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Of course Mr Brown speaking with that perfect North London accent as he does will stand up for the rights of native New Zealanders in these respects without a single conscious thought that this might involve an “h” word that we are not allowed to say within this Chamber. 
I welcome the fact that the National Party will support this bill after the amendment is moved to remove the marginal strips provisions. [ 
Interruption 
] But I would gently say to Ms Wong before she goes much further that it was her own colleague Dr Nick Smith not to be confused with Young Nick’s Head who introduced a member’s bill to provide for the compulsory acquisition of marginal strips without compensation which the National Party voted for and sent to a select committee. Now the National Party says in this bill that to act in that manner fails to recognise the foundation of our society. It is not something relatively minor; it is the foundation of our society! Ms Wong is telling us that Dr Nick Smith ignores the foundation of our society in terms of his— 
Pansy Wong 
: He does. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: He does does he? 
Pansy Wong 
: Who put that in the bill? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think he put that in the bill. Dr Nick Smith is the person who I think put that in the bill without any doubt at all because it was a bill in his name. The bill states “Dr Nick Smith” at the top of it which is usually a subtle hint for the careful reader that that is the person who put that in the bill. 
I am pleased that the National Party has done a U-turn on this. I predicted it would when Dr Smith’s bill was sent to a select committee. I am grateful for the support of United Future. I recognise that there has been an issue of principle for them in this bill which is why we have removed those provisions. I am grateful for the support of the National Party. I am baffled I have to say by the ACT party’s position on this which seems to be totally open slather but when a party is sitting on a proud 2 percent and going downwards it can be very free and easy with its principles. When one is a retiring member of a party that is sitting on 2 percent and going downwards that member can be even freer and easier with his or her principles because there is not really a lot to lose at that stage in life. 
I look forward to the Committee stage. The Government will be voting against all the amendments moved by Mr Rod Donald and we hope for support from both the National Party and United Future in that respect.