Have Your Say On Proposed Changes To The Overseas Investment Act
The bill proposes a range of amendments to the Overseas Investment Act, including to:
change the purpose statement of the Act
consolidate the national interest, benefit to New Zealand, and investor tests into a single test
require the regulator to grant consent within 15 working days unless there are reasonable grounds to consider that a risk to national interest exists
create a new regulation-making power enabling regulations to specify new classes of screened transactions that must undergo a national interest assessment.
Tell the Finance and Expenditure Committee what you think:
Make a submission on the bill by 11.59pm on Wednesday, 23 July 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
8 hours ago
- Scoop
Parliament Considering Big Changes To Employment Law
, Editor: The House Parliament has kicked off a three-week sitting block this week, and the first legislative business was initial debates and votes on three new bills. Two are contentious, including a bill to amend current Employment Relations law. Among its measures, it would restrict or even rule out grievance claims, make it harder for contractors to argue they are employees, and remove various rules relating to new employees. The minister in charge of both the bills is ACT MP Brooke van Velden. She described the intent of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill using a variety of common euphemisms (rebalancing, flexible labour markets, greater certainty, competitive business settings), but also described the proposed changes. Below are the major changes, as described by the minister herself, along with comments by opposition MPs. Hindering contractors from being declared employees by the courts "Currently a contractor can challenge their employment status in law despite being a contractor … To give greater weight to the intention of the contracting parties, the bill establishes a gateway test establishing an exclusion from the definition of 'employee' in the Employment Relations Act." - Brooke van Velden (ACT) "At the moment, there is a test of the real nature of the job … 'is this actually an employment relationship or is it a contracting relationship?' That's what our judges can do at the moment. This bill takes that away. It says if you have the word 'contractor' written in a document, then you're a contractor. Well, this is against all the international examples, this [is] totally different to the common law that applies in many other countries that we compare ourselves to, and is an absolutely disgusting, unprecedented attack on workers' rights." - Camilla Belich (Labour) Changes to personal grievance 'remedy' settings "I'm introducing a suite of changes to address this imbalance, which are: removing eligibility for any remedies for employees whose behaviour amounts to serious misconduct; removing eligibility for reinstatement into a role and compensation for employees who contribute to the situation that led to the personal grievance; clarifying that the Employment Relations Authority and Employment Court have the full spectrum of remedy reductions - up to 100 percent - available to them; requiring the Authority and Court to consider if the employee's behaviour obstructed the employer's ability to meet their obligations to act as fair and reasonable employers; and increasing the threshold for procedural error to shift the focus solely to whether any errors in the employer's process resulted in the employee being treated unfairly." - Brooke van Velden (ACT) "In an employment relationship, often there is a situation where an employee may do something that is not 100 percent perfect; an employer might do something which is not 100 percent perfect. The situation that they're bringing in says if the employee is anything less than perfect, they can't get their remedies." - Camilla Belich (Labour) "It's going to heighten the workers' vulnerability to be unjustifiably dismissed. And it's great if you have employers that are good, but, unfortunately, this opens the doors, as it does for many situations, for those worst-practising businesses and employers. That's why employees' rights were put in place in the first place. …This gives the employers more power. When you're in a climate where there isn't a heck of a lot of work, that then creates an opportunity for employers to exploit the most vulnerable." - Debbie Ngarewa-Packer (Te Pāti Māori) No personal grievance option for the well-paid "This bill introduces an income threshold of $180,000 per annum, above which a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal cannot be pursued. … By making it easier to remove poorly performing managers and executives while giving new talent a chance, I expect to help improve management capability and thereby lift economic performance across New Zealand." - Brooke van Velden (ACT) "The first thing that they're doing is actually making it so anyone earning over $180,000 in New Zealand can be fired at will." - Camilla Belich (Labour) Employer obligations to new staff "Currently, if an employer is party to a collective agreement that covers the work of the new employee, an employee's individual employment agreement terms must reflect the terms of the collective agreement for the first 30 days of their employment. This is known as the '30-day rule'. …The bill removes the requirement that the terms of a new employee's employment agreement should reflect the terms of the applicable collective agreement for the first 30 days of employment. …The employer would still need to inform an employee that a collective agreement exists." - Brooke van Velden (ACT) "The 30-day rule acts as a lifeline. It gives kaimahi time to consider union membership before being pressured into an individual agreement. Without this rule, employers could use the divide and rule tactics, which is real - the peer pressure to keep Māori kaimahi, to keep Pasifika kaimahi, to keep those who are not savvy on what their rights are, on weaker contracts from day one. And that's a really tough position to claw back from. It allows employers to opt out of collective conditions on day one, and it creates a race to the bottom." - Debbie Ngarewa-Packer (Te Pāti Māori) Union sign-up The minister in charge of the bill, Brooke van Velden did not mention this aspect of the 30-day rule: that the new law removes any obligation of employers to inform new staff of the option of joining a union, or facilitating that option. "It removes the obligation to provide an active choice in which the employer asks the employee whether they want to join their relevant union and receive that advocacy." - Ginny Andersen (Labour) A note on international obligations "We have a regulatory impact statement where all of the information in relation to international obligations is redacted. And why is this? Because we have free-trade agreements with lots of different countries that state that our employment situation should not decrease - and I bet you that that's exactly what it says in this regulatory impact statement. They won't share it with the House." - Camilla Belich (Labour) The Employment Relations Amendment Bill will be considered by the Education and Workforce Committee, which will be asking for public feedback on the bill. *RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ.
NZ Herald
11 hours ago
- NZ Herald
ANZ dismisses $300m legal settlement offer as a ‘cynical' attempt to influence law reform
'This is a very new development and we're not in a position to comment at this stage,' it said. ASB has already paid 73,000 customers $8m to rectify the disclosure mistakes it made. The $600m offer comes as the Government proposes a law change that could make it harder for the customers (and the funders of the class action) to receive very large amounts in redress. The Government wants to change the law to give the courts discretion to issue lenders fair penalties if they fail to give customers the correct information about their loans. Under the existing law, lenders that made errors between 2015 and 2019 may have to refund customers all the interest and other fees they paid for the duration of the breach, regardless of how severe it was. The proposed change is controversial because it applies to the past. The Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill attempts to ensure the law pre-2019 aligns with the law post-2019. Another contentious element of the bill, introduced by Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Scott Simpson, is that it specifically says it will apply to the ANZ/ASB case. NZ First and Act have their reservations While New Zealand First and Act supported the bill through its first reading in Parliament on May 20, neither party is particularly hot on it. NZ First deputy leader Shane Jones said his party would take advice before deciding whether to support the bill being passed into law in its current state. 'I wouldn't want to jump to any conclusion, but it's a very, very bad constitutional practice to summarily change people's rights unless there is a compelling case,' Jones said. Act leader David Seymour said his party supported the bill because it is a part of the Coalition Government. However, he wrote to Simpson (after Act supported the bill through its first reading) to raise his concerns over it applying retrospectively and targeting a matter before the courts. 'Who knows, maybe Scott [Simpson] will change his mind in response to this,' Seymour said. Parliament's Finance and Expenditure committee is considering public submissions on the bill. The bill will then need to pass its second and third readings before being enacted. Jenée Tibshraeny is the Herald's Wellington business editor, based in the parliamentary press gallery. She specialises in government and Reserve Bank policymaking, economics and banking.
Scoop
12 hours ago
- Scoop
Progress On Rates Reform - But Only Half The Picture
Federated Farmers is welcoming the Government's moves to rein in soaring council rates but says key elements are missing from the reform bill announced yesterday. "The proposed legislation rightly refocuses councils on core services - roads, water, rubbish, and basic infrastructure - something we've long called for," Federated Farmers local government spokesperson Sandra Faulkner says. "New financial performance measures, benchmarking and more regular public reporting should help drive greater transparency and accountability." But Faulkner says while the Local Government (Systems Improvements) Amendment Bill also contains some regulatory relief tweaks, it fails to address a major pressure point: the constant loading of councils with new, unfunded mandates. There's also no sign of ditching the 30% cap on uniform annual charges, or direction to councils they should use this tool more to distribute costs more fairly, instead of relying on property value-based rates that hit farmers hard. "Federated Farmers is in no doubt that many councils need to show more financial discipline. "Data shows the average dairy farmer's rates in 2024/25 were $23,000, a 25% increase in the last five years. Rates for sheep and beef farms average $19,000, a 35% increase since 2020/21. "These are huge amounts to come out of farmers' budgets year after year and our rural families are really feeling the pressure," Faulkner says. Local Government Minister Simon Watt says the Government is working at pace to develop a rates cap model, expected later this year. "Federated Farmers supports the idea - but it has to be well-designed," Faulkner says. "A lot of careful thought will be needed to get this right. There needs to be off-ramps for councils facing legitimate cost pressures for essential infrastructure like roads. "Councils still need to be well-funded in the interests of maintaining robust infrastructure." She also warns a cap could affect Local Government Funding Authority credit ratings, potentially driving up borrowing costs for councils. "The last thing councils need are higher debt interest costs from LGFA, the principal lender at competitive rates to local authorities." Faulkner says the bill and upcoming select committee hearings are a good chance to finally tackle bigger questions about council costs and funding. "Minister Watts has ruled out new taxes or revenue tools for councils, with the Government saying there's still scope to get better value from current rates. But that ignores half the equation. "The bill acknowledges council rates rises are being driven by rising council costs, particularly for critical infrastructure." The Federated Farmers 'Restoring Confidence in Local Decision-Making' blueprint calls for local road and bridge maintenance and renewal costs to be funded 90% from road user charges, rather than the current situation where ratepayers fork out just under 50% of these costs. "And we think there should be local referendums for any large council commercial projects - such as stadiums and conference centres - if they cost more than $500 per rateable property."
