Connell Brian: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Connell Brian: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21564] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I have to start by responding to Michael Cullen. He is turning into a sensitive wimp. I do not know what is causing it but I suspect that the political tide is going out and his true character is emerging. 
Simon Power 
: He’s brittle. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: He is brittle that is for sure and it is starting to show. If he is going to quote me I expect him to do it accurately. What I said was that there had been 11 high-country sales. Six of those had been sold into Kiwi hands and five had gone to international interests. The five international owners have subsequently turned over those properties. Fifty percent of them—actually three of them—were sold back into Kiwi hands. My maths are much better than Michael Cullen’s because I know that that does not add up to 50 percent of the 11 original sales. That probably explains why today the Government announced a monumental cock-up to the tune of $1 billion over what are now New Zealand’s carbon liabilities instead of the $500 million positive position it tried to tell New Zealanders their country would be in when it ratified the Kyoto Protocol. 
Mr Cullen then took a cheap shot at my colleague Pansy Wong when he said that it was a National Government that drove subdivision legislation. Well there is a huge difference in driving subdivisions. Subdivisions actually add value because people want them. Then he took another cheap shot—it was a threat really—at my colleague Pansy Wong when he said that she should be very careful with her moral outrage because of something Nick Smith had done. 
Pansy Wong 
: He tried to intimidate me. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: He tried to be intimidating. Well one does not intimidate Pansy Wong as easily as that. In fact one does not intimidate anyone from the National Party as easily as that. If the Minister is so sensitive and if he is so sure in regard to the 10 pages of provisions the member for Otago put into the bill that state one can compulsorily take private property from New Zealand citizens without any compensation then will he please explain why he is moving a Supplementary Order Paper to take them out? Will the Minister take a call and explain that fact? I bet he will not. What he will do is to rage on about Pansy Wong and Nick Smith take cheap shots and try to deflect from the fact that it is his bill—a Government bill that he is sponsoring—that proposed the clause in the first place. 
It was only when he had to bow to public pressure because the tide was going out for the Labour Party and the rest of his cronies who are associated with it that he thought: “Oops I’d better try to do something.” 
But for that Supplementary Order Paper the National Party could not have supported this bill and that would have been a shame because the essence of overseas ownership of New Zealand lands subject to reasonable conditions is something I strongly support. 
I have to ask where the negative sentiment comes from that says that overseas investment is bad that it is hurting New Zealand. Overseas investors wanting to invest in New Zealand’s economy is a vote of confidence in our economy. It is not a negative sign. For goodness’ sake we are now a multicultural society! We cannot build a wall around us to try to keep the rest of the world out. It simply does not work like that. We are all immigrants starting with Kupe. Let us not forget that fact. 
I am a strong believer that investors coming to New Zealand with their hard-earned cash and wanting to invest here is something we should welcome with open arms. Arguments to the contrary are simply arguments from people with their heads in the sand who hope the world will pass them by. 
I can think of some practical examples to share with members of this Committee. I can think of a Japanese investor who bought a farm near the foothills of Rakaia who spent $600000 buying it and who everyone thought was mad— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I call Craig McNair. 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The point the National Party would like you to clarify is about Mr Connell being obviously interrupted in mid-sentence by the bell. That exact same set of circumstances occurred when Mr Donald was speaking and the Chair granted him an immediate second call despite the fact that other members of Parliament were seeking the call. Mr Connell was interrupted in mid-sentence. He sought a second call but he was not given it. I guess that what members on this side of the Chamber are now asking themselves is this: under what circumstances are second calls being granted back-to-back to some parties and not to others?