A Big Difference Between Investment And Cotntrol

Tuesday 24 March 2009

The Alliance Party says there should be a review of foreign investment in New Zealand – but unlike the current National Government says that there should be much stronger checks and regulation to give New Zealanders a say over their own country.

Alliance Party spokesperson Victor Billot says any moves to make it easier to sell off New Zealand's remaining assets to overseas companies will turn New Zealand into a kind of $2 shop.

"The National Party has the wrong name. They should rename themselves the TransNational Party, since they were governing in the interests of overseas corporations rather than the citizens of New Zealand."

He says around the world there is growing demand from people that they should have a say over their economic and social systems, and not be pushed aside by powerful and unaccountable private interests.

Mr Billot said the issue was not a simple case of flag waving patriotism versus globalization.

"The ownership and economic control of New Zealand has major implications for what kind of country we have, especially in areas like workers wages and conditions, the environment and economic development."

The Alliance favoured the public and community ownership of key assets and infrastructure, including electricity, rail, ports, airports, Air New Zealand, and telecommunications.

He says the Alliance led the fight against asset sales in the 1990s unlike parties like Labour who had allowed a very loose overseas investment regime to continue and who had encouraged free trade deals.

Mr Billot says that free trade agreements threaten to trap New Zealand in a situation where overseas owners could basically treat New Zealanders like tenants in their own nation.

He says it is an incredibly naive and dangerous path to open up the ownership and control of large areas of the New Zealand economy to overseas interests

Mr Billot says there is a very big difference between investment and control.

ENDS

© Scoop Media