Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): I wish to speak to several points in respect of this bill. The Overseas Investment Amendment Bill (No 3) is the second overseas investment bill we have considered this evening and I will look forward to working on both of them as they progress through the Finance and Expenditure Committee.I want to speak to a point that's been raised both in respect of this bill and in respect of the previous bill and that is how to deal with businesses which are like businesses worldwide at the moment facing tough times finding it hard to get through. Businesses that could survive just with a bit of a hand—a bit of overseas investment is the particular case that we're looking at here. The line that has been taken by some people in this House is they said Well hang on a second if we're not going to have overseas investments we'll be sacrificing jobs and those are much needed jobs." Indeed we've had a Budget today which has worked on jobs so there's real focus on it. But that is to imply that all overseas investments would necessarily be turned down and they won't. What overseas investments of any particular scale need to pass is a test of whether they are not in the national interest. May I suggest that it would be quite straightforward to argue that an overseas investment that supports and creates jobs is indeed in the national interest. It is not actually a problem that it goes through a test first because that is a fairly straightforward test to pass.We have seen in recent months cases where people who have bought assets in New Zealand with Overseas Investment Office approval have been required to sell those assets because they made commitments about what they would do with the properties they bought and then didn't fulfil them. So quite properly they were asked to then sell the assets. What this suggests is that our overseas investment process is in many respects working but there are some aspects of it that we need to tidy up and that we need to do better. We can do it faster we can do it better we can cut some of the unnecessary red tape around it but we do not want to cut all the hurdles—we do not want to cut all the hurdles. Why? Because we do want to protect our assets. We do want to protect the values of New Zealand. We do want to protect those things that are precious to us such as our most valuable land such as our wonderful natural assets such as our water which will be covered in this bill. We do want to give due regard to the values that come to us from the tangata whenua and make sure that they are respected. They may not be easy things to do but they are things we ought to try to do.Now this bill will require things if it goes through like that overseas investment in farmland will be required to bring a substantial benefit to New Zealand before they can acquire farmland. That seems to me to be a reasonable thing but let's talk about that in the select committee. It will ensure that before overseas persons can bottle water on sensitive land if it goes through that we'll need to consider the impact on water quality. Will it have an adverse effect on water quality? It would be a test that an overseas investor would need to pass.So what we're trying to do is make it easier in some respects for overseas investors but not so easy that overseas investors need to have no regard for our values. That is what this bill is attempting to do. I'm sure that the select committee process will refine it. Even though as I recall members on the Opposition voted against the previous overseas investment bill that we had towards the start of this Parliament they nevertheless worked to refine the bill in the select committee in what was an excellent process. I hope that process will be replicated as we examine this bill in the months ahead. I commend this bill to the House."