3. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does he stand by his statement that “I am concerned about the risk that New Zealanders become tenants in their own land”; if so, what specific actions will his Government be taking?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) Link to this
Yes, and I noticed that the Leader of the Opposition used the same statement when he was getting monstered by Guyon Espiner on Q+A in the weekend, which, from what I could see, had a lot of “Qs” from Guyon Espiner and not many “As” from Phil Goff—
Mr SPEAKERI say to Ministers I have just been clamping down on questioners who sought my assistance when some of their questions were perhaps not totally compliant with the Standing Orders, but this question was a pretty fair question. It asked whether the Prime Minister stands by his statement, and if so what specific actions the Government will be taking. I am sure that if the Prime Minister waits, the questioner will not be able to resist putting a political statement into a supplementary question, which maybe will give the Prime Minister some licence. But this primary question does not have the licence for him to dump on the questioner.
Yes; and as the Minister of Finance recently announced, we will be giving Ministers extra flexibility to consider a wide range of issues, including the large-scale ownership of farmland when assessing overseas investment applications for sensitive land. In particular, two new measures will be introduced in regulations. Firstly, a new economic interest test factor will allow Ministers to consider whether New Zealand’s economic interests are adequately safeguarded and promoted. This will improve ministerial flexibility to respond to both current and future economic concerns about foreign investment, such as the large-scale ownership of farmland. Secondly, a new mitigating factor will enable Ministers to consider whether an overseas investment provides opportunities for New Zealand oversight and involvement—for example, by appointing New Zealand directors, or by establishing a head office in this country.
Was the review that his Government instituted last year into foreign investment not, in fact, about making it easier for people from overseas to buy our farmland, not harder?
There were a range of objectives for the review, but what we have found is that the changes to regulations that I have just outlined are appropriate.
When the Minister for Land Information admitted to the House last week that not one single application from a foreigner to buy land under his Government had been declined, why does the Minister then go on to say he could not promise that the new rules that the Prime Minister outlined would result in any higher rate of decline?
When his Minister for Land Information admitted to the House last week that under the National Government, not one single application from foreigners to buy farmland had been declined, why did his Minister then go on to say he could not promise that the new rules would result in any higher rate of decline?
The Minister advises me that he did not say the last bit, and I accept him at his word. But I do know that he is not a Minister who has signed off on 680,000 hectares of land being sold. He is not a Minister who has signed off on 380,000 hectares being sold in 1 year. We would rather look at a Government’s track record than at its fake promises.
Chris TremainWhat safeguards currently exist in legislation regarding the sale of New Zealand land to foreigners?
What an excellent question that is. The Overseas Investment Act lays out that foreign investment in land is acceptable only if it substantially benefits New Zealand, and this is measured in section 17 of the Act. For example, under this section Ministers have to consider whether the overseas investment will result in “the creation of new job opportunities in New Zealand … the introduction into New Zealand of new technology … increased export receipts for New Zealand exporters … the introduction into New Zealand of additional investment for development purposes”, and “increased processing in New Zealand of New Zealand’s primary products”. These are precisely the criteria that Mr Goff tried to announce in the weekend as a brand new policy. All that he did was to read out the Act that he passed in 2005.
When none of what the Prime Minister has just read out has actually stopped every application under his Government from foreigners to purchase foreign land being approved, what will he do to guarantee that young couples wanting to buy a farm of their own are not priced out of the market by wealthy overseas investors seeking to buy up land here?
Deliver to them a highly competitive economy, and tax cuts so they can afford to pay their mortgage.
I apologise to the member. I want to be able to hear. The senior Government whip does have a big voice, but I do want to be able to hear his question. I ask for a little more reasonableness in the level of the interjections.
That is another excellent question. The Overseas Investment Act lays out that foreign investment in land is acceptable only if it substantially benefits New Zealand, and this is measured in the Act. It was last reviewed in 2005, after a comprehensive review initiated by the Labour Government. A key purpose of the new Act was to ensure that foreign investment in land would be permitted only if it made a positive contribution to the economy and advanced New Zealand’s interests. Under those criteria, in the following year David Parker as the then Minister for Land Information approved the sale of 380,000 hectares of land.
If the Prime Minister is saying that nothing that the Labour Party is proposing actually alters the existing rules, why did he then describe it as being Stalinist—or is it a bit like “communism by stealth”, which he described Working for Families as being like?
The reason that I described it in that way is that I noticed in the weekend that the Leader of the Opposition likes to get out there and—
Hon Rodney HideI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, and there was a great deal of clapping because finally the Labour members were excited. But then the problem was that no one could hear the answer, because of the barracking.
The Prime Minister had not finished his answer. The question was a very provocative one, and there is nothing that the Speaker can do. It is a matter of basically letting the sides go when that happens. If the Prime Minister has not finished his answer I will invite him to finish it, and I ask that the level of interjection be no more than that which enables people at the back of the House to hear the answer.
Hon David ParkerI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order is that the Prime Minister had sat down before Rodney Hide made his point of order. [ Interruption]
Keith LockeI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In your comment just before, you said that when a question is provocative you let both sides go. That is not very satisfactory to people back at this end of the House, who cannot hear what is going on because Labour and National may be barracking at each other. I think we deserve to be able to hear what is going on.
I certainly sympathise with the member. I accept the rebuke to me. I probably should not have allowed the question, because a question like that is strictly not in order. But the House has to have a bit of fun. The member wanted to ask the question, and I am sure the Prime Minister is perfectly capable of answering it. It was my impression that he sat down because the noise level was so high that he realised that no one was hearing anything, and he expected me to do something about it. I have invited the Prime Minister to finish his answer, perhaps without being any more provocative than he has to be.
The Speaker can trust me; I will not be any more provocative than I need to be. I did not actually call the policy Stalinist, I simply said the Leader of the Opposition was having a “road to Stalin” experience. The reason why I said that was that when I looked at all the things that the Leader of the Opposition did in the weekend, I noted to myself that on foreign land, and on the cost of living, he simply cried Chicken Little.
I say to all members, but mainly to those on the National backbenches, that if some of them do not want to be thrown out today, when I am on my feet they will stop clapping and they will stop behaving like buffoons. When I am on my feet even the Prime Minister will sit down. I believe I had allowed him the time to go on long enough about the question. When I am on my feet that is the rule, or people will leave this Chamber. I will not tolerate that again today; let me make that very clear to both sides of the House.
Since none of the criteria that the Prime Minister read out from section 17 of the Act has stopped his Government declining even a single foreign application for land, does he support making changes to the overseas investment framework to ensure that sales of farmland will be declined unless the overseas purchaser also invests in significant further processing of the primary product, creating significant extra jobs?
I thought I made that quite clear in answering the primary question, when I said the National Government, after a review, has decided to make two changes to regulation in relation to economic interests and mitigating factors. They, by definition, are evidence that this Government—despite the fact that it has allowed only 30,000 hectares of land to be sold, as opposed to 680,000 hectares—still thought the law needed to be tightened up.
Because the existing framework is not stopping sales, does he support making changes to the overseas investment regime to remove the discretion of the Minister to consent to the sale overseas of any interest of 25 percent or more in monopoly infrastructure worth over $10 million; if not, why not?
No; because that is a really dumb policy. The reason that it is a really dumb policy is that it would require Infratil to start selling its overseas shareholding, it would force a New Zealand company that had about 20 percent of its shareholding overseas, like Fletcher’s, to be unable to borrow overseas, and, as Guyon Espiner proved in the weekend on Q+A, Phil Goff does not understand his own policies.
Hilary CalvertHas the Attorney-General advised the Prime Minister, following his visit to Taipā Bay in Northland last Friday, that residents and visitors feel like tenants in their own land because a group purporting to represent Ngāti Kahu have occupied the beach, declared it to be Māori land, and are physically threatening locals; if so, what is the Government doing about it?
The question is a little outside the scope of the primary question, but I am happy to help the member as far as I can. The Attorney-General has not raised the issue with me, but I have had some information from the local MP. He has told me that any coastal occupation that is taking place is happening under the current legislation. As the Prime Minister, I expect New Zealanders to abide by the law.
Will the Prime Minister assure all New Zealanders that they are citizens and not tenants, by ensuring that the Taipā Sailing Club will have support, if necessary from the police, for its race day to take place this Saturday, given that last weekend’s race had to be cancelled because the community’s safety could not be guaranteed?
That is a long way outside the primary question. I do not have any information on that matter, except to say that of course I expect the law—
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the mistake that we are making in the House is that if we go back to the primary question, we find it does not mention foreign ownership or the Overseas Investment Act. It specifically talks about people being tenants in their own land, and that is precisely the report that we are picking up on. The question is quite within the rules.
No one has ruled the question out. The Prime Minister is indicating that he had not anticipated that kind of supplementary question, based on this primary question, and that therefore he does not have the specific information. That is not an unreasonable position. I invite the Prime Minister to finish his answer.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do not have a lot of information on that question, but I do always expect the law to be obeyed and the police to enforce the law where they practically can.
Dr Russel NormanDoes the Prime Minister agree that the kind of economic interest tests or benefit tests that have been applied to overseas ownership have not protected land from falling into overseas ownership under the previous Government or the present Government, and hence will he adopt a brightline test that says any land over 5 hectares must stay in New Zealand’s ownership?