27.11.2019

New National Interest Test Proposed for New Zealand’s Overseas Investment Rules

The New Zealand Government has recently announced yet more proposed changes to New Zealand’s overseas investment rules to be introduced early next year.

The key proposed change is the introduction of a new “national interest” test which will apply to the sale of infrastructure of a certain scale.   

The Associate Minister of Finance, David Parker, noted that under the current Overseas Investment Act, the sale of strategic assets such as ports, airports, telecommunications infrastructure, electricity and other critical infrastructure are not assessed through a national interest lens.  Mr Parker stated “We are introducing a number of new powers, consistent with global best practice, to protect New Zealanders’ best interests in such important – often monopoly – assets”.  Mr Parker said the threshold for considering infrastructure sales would be $500m if the buyer was Australian, $200m from a CPTPP country and $100m from other countries.  Although no specific details regarding the elements of the new national interest test have been released, Parker advised that the national interest test is likely to be similar to that of Australia, being “… a broad discretion for the Government to reach into those transactions when it wants to and decline to approve it where we think it’s not in the interest of the country.”  In our view, it will be important that there is sufficient certainty so as to not deter foreign investment in New Zealand assets due to a lack of clarity.

Other changes include a “call in” power, with no investment threshold, for the proposed sale of New Zealand’s most strategically important assets.  This is likely to include companies developing military technology, other direct suppliers to New Zealand’s defence and security agencies and (potentially) certain key media assets.  The Government will be able to stop investments that pose a significant risk to national security or public order. It was noted that these powers are unlikely to be regularly used and would only be used where necessary for protecting New Zealand.  A further change would apply to the purchase of water bottling plants on sensitive land. Specifically, a new test which considers the impact on water quality and sustainability of a water botting enterprise where applications are made by overseas buyers to purchase such assets. 

There are also changes proposed to the enforcement powers under the Overseas Investment Act.  The maximum fine for non-compliance with the Act is currently NZ$300,000.  It is proposed that this is increased to NZ$500,000 for individuals and NZ$10m for corporates.  This illustrates the current Government’s tough stance on breaches of the Overseas Investment Act.

The Government has advised that a Bill implementing the above changes will be introduced in early 2020.  These proposed changes follow the reforms made last year which effectively banned overseas buyers (other than Australian or Singaporean citizens and permanent residents) from buying residential homes in New Zealand.

 

Do you need expert legal advice?
Contact the expert team at Hesketh Henry.
Kerry
Media contact - Kerry Browne
Please contact Kerry with any media enquiries and with any questions related to marketing or sponsorships on +64 9 375 8747 or via email.

Related Articles / Insights & Opinion

UK Court of Appeal rules that that courts can order parties to engage in ADR: Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ 1416
The England and Wales Court of Appeal (EWCA) has held that in certain circumstances, the courts can order parties to engage in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) or stay proceedings to allow the par...
24.07.2024 Posted in Construction & Disputes
Health and Safety Tiles
Updated Guidance: IOD and WorkSafe release ‘Health and Safety Governance – A Good Practice Guide’
While we wait with bated breath for the outcome in the prosecution of former Ports of Auckland CEO, Tony Gibson, officers’ duties are very much at the forefront of everyone’s mind. Section 44 of t...
23.07.2024 Posted in Employment & Health & Safety
Knowing your limits: High Court confirms liability caps in engineering consultancy agreements are consistent with Building Act duties
Design errors in a construction project can result in millions of dollars in loss.  Standard form consultancy agreements typically limit the amount that can be recovered for such errors.  The cap on...
09.07.2024 Posted in Construction & Disputes
glenn carstens peters npxXWgQZQ unsplash
Sender beware – how private are digital workplace conversations?
Following on from the recent Official Information Act request for correspondence between Ministry of Justice employees, employees may be wondering how private their online conversations with colleague...
04.07.2024 Posted in Employment
Concrete pillars impressive
TCC confirms Slip Rule limits in Adjudications
The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) has confirmed the narrow parameters of the ‘slip rule’ in the UK, which allows adjudicators to amend their determination to correct for any clerical or ...
02.07.2024 Posted in Construction & Disputes
Scots rule standard notification clause was condition precedent
In a warning for contractors, a Scottish Court has ruled that a standard form notification clause was a condition precedent to recovering time-related costs (TRCs) (FES Ltd v HFD Construction Group Lt...
01.07.2024 Posted in Construction
rape blossom
Anticipatory Repudiatory Breach and the Date of Default: Ayhan Sezer v Agroinvest
The decision in Ayhan Sezer v Agroinvest [2024] EWHC 479 (Comm) clarifies that where there has been an anticipatory repudiatory breach of contract, the “date of default” is the date of the breach ...
25.06.2024 Posted in Trade and Transport
SEND AN ENQUIRY
Send us an enquiry

For expert legal advice, please complete the form below or call us on (09) 375 8700.