New Zealand First leader Winston Peters (left) and Act leader David Seymour (right) shake hands as they sign their new Government deal in front National leader Christopher Luxon. Photo / Mark Mitchell
New Zealand First leader Winston Peters (left) and Act leader David Seymour (right) shake hands as they sign their new Government deal in front National leader Christopher Luxon. Photo / Mark Mitchell
National’s coalition agreement with Act, which NZ First has agreed to support, states that the Government would “[a]mend the Overseas Investment Act 2005to limit ministerial decision-making to national security concerns and make such decision-making more timely”.
Loosening rules around screening overseas investment raised some eyebrows in Wellington, mainly because any change would need to be backed by NZ First, which tends to take a more hawkish view on the balance that must be struck between the opportunities and threats that come with foreign investment.
NZ First leader Winston Peters told the Herald that the policy was Act’s idea and that he was “quite happy to look at the development of it”.
“We agreed to consider the concept of there being less interference based on some fundamental principles that we all know about. We fully expect to see that, rather than decision-making where no one could work out the decision that had been made,” Peters said.
The tension is that while Peters said he is happy to be convinced of the merits of the idea by Act, he would not guaranteesupporting the change if he were not able to be persuaded.
Peters would only say that he would back any change if Seymour could convince him that it was worthwhile.
Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters said he would back the changes if Act could convince him they were worthwhile. Photo / Mark Mitchell
“On the basis that they will demonstrate to us why we need to do that - the answer is yes, and always has been,” Peters said when asked whether NZ First could guarantee its support for the change.
This appears to cut against the coalition agreement with Act, which says the new Government would support those changes.
“First, you want to find out the facts before we make any commitment about what we’re going to do,” Peters said.
He said NZ First had only had five or six meetings with Act during negotiations, which meant Act “only had so much time to make out the case”.
Because of that constraint, Peters said NZ First “took it on good faith that if you [Act] can prove it, we’ll back you”.
He compared his position to NZ First’s decision to support Act’s Treaty Principles Bill to the select committee stage, with any further support pending on the outcome of that select committee.
“We’ve said we’re going to see what the select committee says. We’ll keep our view open. We don’t believe you should judge a select committee process. It’s called democracy,” Peters said.
“Go and look at the other parties’ record on this matter. Can you show me any party that has a record of continuity and a record?” Peters said.
Currently, ministers have the final say on overseas investment decisions that fall under the Overseas Investment Act, and they must make those decisions based on criteria set out in the legislation.
Seymour told the Herald his proposal was that ministers would still have final decision-making rights, but the criteria for blocking a decision would be greatly reduced to just national security.
“The minister has the final say on whether there is a benefit to New Zealand. In our view, the minister should be responsible for whether there is a danger to New Zealand’s security,” Seymour said.
“If you have a willing buyer and a willing seller then clearly the buyer values the asset more than the seller, and the seller values the money more than the asset. The only reason to prevent that would be whether there is a threat to someone else’s security,” Seymour said.
He said a basic question would be: “Who are they and second of all, what are they trying to buy?”
One thorny problem is that the current legislation gives some power to the Minister of Fisheries, currently NZ First MP Shane Jones.
Labour’s Finance spokesman Grant Robertson, who as a minister had oversight over some decisions, told the Herald he was surprised NZ First backed such a deal.
“I would have thought New Zealand First’s founding principles included protecting New Zealand’s assets as much as possible. I find it hard to believe that Winston Peters would agree to narrow the range of things that can be considered,” Robertson said.
“I think Peters and the people who voted for him would normally be appalled by this kind of provision,” he said.
Robertson said the existing screening regime existed to get a “balance” between allowing investment into the country and protecting New Zealand’s interests.
Thomas Coughlan is Deputy Political Editor and covers politics from Parliament. He has worked for the Herald since 2021 and has worked in the press gallery since 2018.
