(Government Bill 171–1, David Seymour)
From: Ukes Baha | 21 July 2025
Submitted in response to the call for public submissions on the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill
I oppose the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill in full.
While the stated intent is to simplify the overseas investment screening process, this bill instead weakens the fundamental purpose of the Act, fast-tracks foreign acquisitions of strategic assets, centralises ministerial discretion, and removes crucial safeguards protecting public interest, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and democratic accountability.
This is not a framework for better oversight — it is a legislative retreat from national stewardship, designed to serve commercial and geopolitical interests over local control and long-term wellbeing.
Changing the purpose statement of the Overseas Investment Act is not a minor revision — it redefines the entire intent of the legislation.
The current Act exists to protect sensitive land, critical infrastructure, and national interests from inappropriate foreign acquisition. This bill undermines that foundation by reorienting the law toward efficiency and economic facilitation, stripping it of its defensive and protective function.
Once the purpose is changed, all future interpretations of the Act — in courts, Cabinet, and commerce — will tilt toward enabling transactions, not scrutinising them.
The consolidation of the national interest, benefit to New Zealand, and investor tests into one "all-in-one" assessment is a fundamental weakening of the regime.
Each test was designed to serve a specific purpose:
By merging them, the government reduces transparency, eliminates multi-factor analysis, and creates a single avenue for decision-making — heavily reliant on subjective interpretation and political priorities.
This increases the risk of arbitrary approvals and legal grey zones — especially under pressure from lobbying or geopolitical leverage.
The proposed requirement that regulators grant consent within 15 working days unless there are "reasonable grounds" to identify a national interest risk prioritises speed over sovereignty.
This timeframe is dangerously short for any robust assessment of:
This is not efficiency — it is pressure-based decision-making that could easily facilitate rubber-stamping of complex, high-risk transactions with irreversible consequences.
The bill introduces a new regulation-making power allowing Cabinet to define new “classes of transactions” that trigger national interest assessments — without requiring parliamentary amendment or public debate.
This power:
Such power invites abuse, particularly under governments with privatisation or deregulation agendas. Strategic investment regulation should not be vulnerable to ad hoc, executive rule changes.
There are no protections in this bill for key sectors, such as:
Without explicit exclusions or thresholds, these vital assets are exposed to fast-tracked acquisition with minimal public visibility. This puts national infrastructure, democratic discourse, and food security at risk of long-term foreign control.
The bill is entirely silent on:
This is a profound failure — legally, morally, and constitutionally.
The omission of Māori perspectives from legislation that alters land control, resource access, and economic sovereignty repeats colonial patterns of exclusion. It also risks placing the Crown in future Treaty breach positions.
This bill significantly reduces public input, local government oversight, and judicial challenge capacity.
By:
The bill transfers sensitive national decision-making from a transparent, accountable process to a narrow executive chamber — invisible to the public and inaccessible to challenge.
This undermines public trust and weakens the legitimacy of overseas investment approvals.
This bill is not a policy upgrade — it is a systemic deregulation of foreign investment oversight disguised as efficiency.
It facilitates the faster transfer of sensitive national assets to foreign ownership, disregards indigenous rights, weakens legal protections, and empowers Cabinet at the cost of Parliament and the public.
I recommend that the Finance and Expenditure Committee:
This is a matter not only of law — but of national identity, dignity, and guardianship.
Respectfully submitted,
Ukes Baha
Public Health Advocate | Counsellor | Policy Analyst
ukesbaha.com