Land sales
January 27th, 2012 at 10:00 am by David Farrar
The small circle represents the size of the Crafar farms at 8,000 hectares. The large circle represents the amount of land sold to foreign owners under the last Labour Government at 650,000 hectares.
Under Labour, the equivalent of the Crafar farms were sold each and every month they were in office.
Related posts:
- Facts on Foreign Farm Sales
- Labour now against any land sales at all?
- Goff’s hypocrisy on foreign land sales
- Mallard on Crafar
January 27th, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Some additional facts here <a http://adamsmith.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/crafar-farms-some-facts-1/
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 2:01 pm
And how much has been sold each and every month since National came to office? Your post is meaningless without the comparison.
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 2:04 pm
Nobody cares. Sell the farms to the highest bidder. Period.
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Aha. Homepaddock has answered part of my question:
http://homepaddock.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/crafar-farm-bid-approved/
In the last two years, consent was granted for overseas persons to acquire 357,056 hectares of agricultural land.
So in just two of National’s now three-plus years in office, you have already approved selling more than half the area of farm land that Labour managed in nine years!
Sure puts your post into perspective!
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 2:08 pm
Wrong argument, DPF, yes it’s true, but the important thing is not the amount. This sort of investment, though not by Chinese of late, has been happening constantly (on a smaller scale) without hardly a peep from the media. The fact of the matter is that the OIO submits every application to rigorous investigation.
We need to remember too that any investment is good investment – being the place where business takes place is what is key to creating jobs. There is absolutely no point in blocking this investment because a wave of sinophobic public opinion is against it. Luckily, 99% of farmland is still owned and run by New Zealanders, but we live in a free market world, where both parties in government have strived (except NZF) to get free trade deals with more and more countries. We needn’t be scared of China.
This investment is partnering with Landcorp, which should in theory mean some government oversight, and some benefit flowing back to all New Zealanders – not like Michael Fay’s bid which would have seen the benefit go to a handful of already wealthy people (some of whom live overseas anyway) and iwi groups whose business acumen and benefit to their communities has been questionable. I’d like to think that Winston Peters would be equally opposed to those “treaty travellers” as he is to the Chinese investors.
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 2:21 pm
If Shearer ( recall he may be the current labour party cartaker0 was photographed eating babies you leftist lickspittles would excuse by claiming John Key was once seen kicking a dog.
Get used to opposition, its where you belong losers.
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 2:21 pm
We must be the only country in the world that wants to turn down overseas investment – and from the richest country in the world!
Vote:We are blessed in being close to China both geographically and in friendship.
January 27th, 2012 at 2:26 pm
DPF – Your diagram appears to suggest that this is the only OIA approval granted by the Govt since 2008 (which, of course, it is not). I can’t think of any other reason why you would compare the single Crafar transaction to all transactions approved between 1999 and 2008.
Can you explain why you think this information provides a useful contribution to the debate on Crafar? Because it looks a bit desperate.
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 2:32 pm
I see that No Right Turn is all upset about “Selling out New Zealand”. Strange that someone who describes himself as “Irredeemably liberal” wants to bring the power of the state to regulate who private individuals can sell their property to.
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 2:33 pm
just when one thought the spin couldnt get any worse…..
I have a dog who knows what GIGO is
9 years times 12 months equals 108 months.
650 divided by 108 = 6
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 2:38 pm
8 less 6 = 2
2 times 108 = 216 overstated
Ever thought of a career outside statistics ?
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 2:43 pm
All the diagram is showing is that the labour government over saw the selling of shitloads of land to off shore, that’s all. No where on the post does it say anything about sales under National. Its called glass houses stone etc.
The way the left has gone on you would think labour never over saw the sale of a bale of hay .
Any way good result, thats 250 million that the bank gets back and can lend out to the economy rather than write off.
Presumably theres been a few good milk cheques over the last few years as well
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 2:54 pm
Per OIO website the net increase in foreign land holdings appears to be some 77,500 hectare not the NZ herald figure quoted by Homepaddock. It would appear Herald is wrong
Net hectares per OIO definition
“Net hectares” represents the total land area proposed to be transferred into foreign ownership under consents granted during the relevant period. For example, if a New Zealander sells 10 hectares to someone from overseas, the whole 10 hectares is shown. However, if the seller was a company that was 50% New Zealand owned and 50% foreign owned then only five hectares would show in that column. Five hectares represents the “net” change in foreign ownership of New Zealand land.
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 3:05 pm
Manolo (5,979) Says:
January 27th, 2012 at 2:04 pm
Nobody cares. Sell the farms to the highest bidder. Period.
People do care, either the majority of near to it of voters were against asset sales last November.
Likewise the comparable size of the labour nats sales isn’t significant to the overall electorate who are against asset sales.
I’m personally not against this sale but do away with the political shroud.
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 3:42 pm
John Ki – Beijing’s man in NZ.
Add to the Crafar sellout these:
1. The muscling of Fonterra to sell more milk to foreign-owned competitors in NZ (chiefly Chinese owned).
2. The selldown of some key state assets, with many or most of the shares likely to be quickly flicked on to the Chinese.
The most interesting fact today, though is the lineup of the foreign-controlled mainstream media to back John Ki.
The Herald account is heavily stacked in his favour. The Stuff report’s comments are sealed off.
However, add these asset sales to Ki’s about-turn after the previous election on the smacking legislation, and you have Ki’s political obituary.
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 3:49 pm
Until the receivers were called in, the farms were run by “the poster farms for dirty dairy”, financed on loans from overseas – therefore in reality all the equity was overseas owned – and were in private ownership. Since the receiver was called in the Crafars have shown a belligerent attitude to everyone so I imagine they had the same attitude before as well.
Now the farms are owned by overseas and will be managed by Landcorp. The deal means the owners will have to expand the market for dairy in China, the farms will be staffed by New Zealanders, and the risk will lie with the overseas owners (who I think have paid too much) and New Zealands net indebtedness has decreased by $250m.
Can’t really see the downside myself. Unless you think overseas people are somehow inferior to New Zealanders.
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 3:52 pm
Never happen, nah….
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/17/terry-glavin-china-has-our-forests-now-were-sending-our-oilfields-too/
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Questions+Canadians+should+asking+about+China/6053091/story.html
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/feb/09/liu-xiaobo-he-told-truth-about-chinas-tyranny/?pagination=false
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 4:04 pm
Michael at 3.49 posted:
“financed on loans from overseas – therefore in reality all the equity was overseas owned ..”
What is this Michael? Debt is not equity. What are you on about?
AND:
“Can’t really see the downside myself. Unless you think overseas people are somehow inferior to New Zealanders.”
The “any criticism of overseas sales is racism” argument.
In fact perhaps the Chinese are superior to us in their thinking by their rigid controls on foreign investment – try getting into their core industry, steel. Funny how the countries that have practised less than fully free-market policies have thrived over the last 60 years: Germany, Japan, China…. Controlled or manipulated currencies, tight controls on foreign investment etc.
Beyond that, the Ki led obeisance to China suggests to me that NZ has never overcome its colonial cringe. Our kowtowing to Britain until the 1970s held us back. This was followed by kowtowing to the United States, which some may consider lingers on in NZ’s enthusiastic, unquestioning support of the FBI against Herr Dotcom in what may prove to be essentially a civil copyright row. Now, it is China’s turn to be venerated by Wellington.
It would be nice if our politicians showed some nationalistic backbone.
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 5:06 pm
@ Jack5; there’s just one slight glitch to your “asset sales” argument; the Crafar farms were in PRIVATE ownership, not public.
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 5:09 pm
Oh; and which government did the spadework for the China FTA? That’s right; the one in which the Rt Hon Winston Peters, Senior Citizen of St Mary’s Bay as the Foreign Minister.
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 5:13 pm
Keeping Stock
January 27th, 2012 at 5:06 pm
Nice, kapow.
and then again at 5:09
Kazaam
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 5:13 pm
David post your blog in Manderin so we can get used to our owners and masters. We owe the commies ZILLIONS so in the spirit of been SHAFTED BY NATIONAL David use manderan whatever the chinese communists use to converse with theit tenants other than shooting them.
NZ is up for sale,smile as your are evicted
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 5:16 pm
DISGUSTED by the anti-Crayfar farms debate. it is ugly racism and xenophobia (I’m with Maurice Williamson on this one).
Presumably those opposing the farms sale would not want the overseas money that made Lord of the Rings, Tintin, the Hobbit etc coming IN, and applying their logic, New Zealanders should not be allowed to buy land and businesses overseas. ??
Anti-Chinese, that’s all it is. We live in a global village and trade, or we don’t. Ridiculous.
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 5:17 pm
Of all the farm land that Labour sold to overseas investors over the 9 years, do we know how much of it was sold to China?
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 5:34 pm
Selling our productive farmland to overseas interests so they can sell the food, and make the profits?
Oh that’s real smart. Real clever.
Just the sort of “smarts” one comes to expect from right wingers who spend all day on these blogs.
And by the way, yeah, Labour was just as bad.
It’s crazy stuff, this selling of farms, as demand for food rises in the next 30 or 40 years. NZ could make billions in selling good, clean food to overseas consumers. But by selling the land, those profits will flow overseas.
Most of you clods can’t understand this, but if you try real hard, you might understand that it’s better for a kiwi farmer to have $1 million in his account and spending the cash here – than in a bank account in Berlin, Beijing, or Boston.
“Spam (479) Says:
January 27th, 2012 at 2:32 pm
I see that No Right Turn is all upset about “Selling out New Zealand”. Strange that someone who describes himself as “Irredeemably liberal” wants to bring the power of the state to regulate who private individuals can sell their property to.
”
Yeah man. Just as you can’t selling booze or baccy to an under-18 year old. Or a firearm to someone without a permit. Or deal in drugs. Or insider-trading.
Got a problem with that?
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 5:39 pm
If a majority of Kiwis oppose all farmland sales, why is neither of the two major parties listening?
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 6:27 pm
Are you sure that figure is right? 650 thousand hectares: That’s 6500 km2, which is over ten times the size of Lake Taupo (616 km2), or 15% larger than the entire Auckland Region (5600 km2)!
8000 hectares is the size of Hamilton.
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 6:34 pm
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/arable-land-hectares-wb-data.htmlArable land (hectares) in New Zealand
The Arable land (hectares) in New Zealand was 471000.00 in 2009, according to a World Bank report, published in 2010. The Arable land (hectares) in New Zealand was reported at 453000.00 in 2008, according to the World Bank. Arable land (in hectares) includes land defined by the FAO as land under temporary crops (double-cropped areas are counted once), temporary meadows for mowing or for pasture, land under market or kitchen gardens, and land temporarily fallow……….
ICMortensen you’re right
Vote:That is quite alot when we only have 471,000 ha of arable…those labour bastrads sold the lot and some on tick
January 27th, 2012 at 6:38 pm
But
dairy there is 2.1 million ha available so percentage wise 8000 ha is how much out of that amount
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 6:47 pm
and
I just got run off the road by a van loads of Chinese travelling to the central North Island wearing 4 x 4 gumboots and milking aprons, what can this mean???????
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 7:06 pm
Despite the media actually reporting all of the OIO’s extensive list of conditions attached to the sale, opponents want to brush over their intent to demagogue the issue. These conditions are the very things that mitigate against the worse case scenarios of foreign ownership and politically motivated objections to the sale are an insult to Lancorp who are mostly excellent stewards of dairy land.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You can’t ban the sale of NZ farms to overseas buyers and then expect our trading partners to allow Fonterra to acquire the controlling interest of so many overseas dairy companies thereby enriching NZ’s dairy farmers and the various industries and their employees that their high milk fat payouts help support. You sign an FTA with a country and you honour its intent and conditions. Failure to do so leads to trade wars and look what the Smoot Hawley Act trade wars in the early 1930′s led to – they helped plunge the world from a deep recession to full blown depression. I guarantee had the owners been Swiss, English or Australian the outcry would not be as great but Chinese buyer is beyond the pale to some.
Most prosperous high growth 1st world economies allow foreign nationals to acquire their assets (land and equity) and its the banana republics that have onerous and restrictive rules on foreign ownership. I wonder why that is.
Finally where were Francis X, plebe, SPC and jack5 when Labour allowed a Crafar farm A MONTH to be sold to overseas interests. Most of Shearer’s front bench signed off on those OIO requests to the sound of chirping crickets from the media.
Until NZ get wealthier and has deeper and more sophisticated capital markets, local buyers are always going to run the risk of being trumped by deeper offshore pockets. By legislatively preventing overseas sales, a left leaning government forces the value of all farms nationwide down as only less affluent local buyers will be in the market. Thats the sort of theft of wealth the Bolsheviks specialised in.
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 7:10 pm
I’m old and I watch. John Key’s honeymoon with NZ has just come to an end. Like it or not, Winston Peters is going to bring this Government down. Winnie understands, and exploits, the visceral distrust that Westeners have of China. Some say that the world is a global village, and villages trade. Yes, but they also ignore that overlords controlled peasants. China is smarter than NZ. Perhaps we overinvested in Key’s intelligence when we voted for him.
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 7:14 pm
Interestingly, Labour was instrumental in the Free Trade Agreement with China (thus becoming the first developed country in the world to have one with China) and this has already contributed billions of dollars to our economy.
You would think they were supportive, Chinese communism is rather similar to Labour’s “progressive socialism” movement. The identical aspect is nanny state politics.
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 8:15 pm
Mara, the only thing Peters is going to bring down is his own rating. His constant preying on the xenophobic vote has as limited shelf life as most of his constituency.
KIA – spot on. More common sense from our overseas based “minister of realism”.
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 8:59 pm
yep, ugly bloody xenophobia, fuck some of you seem to be real keen on Fay and co getting their hands on the farms.
Vote:Funny that, is Fay not a Swiss resident ?
January 27th, 2012 at 9:08 pm
Salacious Crumb are you old enough to vote? If so I worry. Your teachers taught you how to spell xenophobic but didn’t explain what it really meant. Somebody should but I really cannot be bothered.
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 9:14 pm
So we have sold, to foreign interests,nearly 1 million hectares of NZ Farmland, with nary a peep. But sell 8000 hecatres to chinese interests, and we all go fucking crazy? Why?
It can’t be that we are selling the land, but because of who we are selling it to this time. I thought we were better than that.
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 9:17 pm
kiwi in america, I have opposed farmland sales for years and voted for a party that has this policy.
The higher our land value, the less profit from farming land, the less tax revenue to government and less money farmers have to maintain the environment or develop added value products. It means higher offshore debt and lower GDP.
Foreigners welcome the expertise and development of Fonterra investment not the land buy up which is insignificant.
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 9:21 pm
iMP posted at 5.16:
On that argument China’s ban on selling land to foreigners and shutting foreigners out of its steel industry is racist. I don’t think so. It may be racist in Tibet, and if suppressing culture and languages is racist, in Inner Mongolia, Manchuria, and Sinkiang too. But controlling who buys your national assets isn’t racist.
Kiwi in America posted at 7.06:
Under that argument, KiA, China, banning foreigners from buying its land and stakes in its steel industry, is a mere banana republic. That’s clearly nonsense.
As for Grumpy at 8.59:
C’mon Grumpy, there are Bro’s in the Fay consortium. This isn’t about Fay and the dismemberment of NZ Rail, or racism, it’s about sale of prime dairy land overseas.
If you do want to make this a racism argument, however, consider that the genetic ancestors of Maori are the indigenous people of Taiwan. Ask them about the economic benefits of deals with China, and how they have been treated by China.
NZ and China have different sets of resources that make us good trading partners. For example, NZ has about 3.25 times as much arable land per head of population as China does. That does not mean we are required to sell these assets to China.
China isn’t required to sell to foreigners stakes in its rare-earth resources, nor should China be forced to. That’s what the European powers did to China and Japan with gunboats more than a century ago.
Nor does NZ have to sell its assets to China. China now has plenty of gunboats, but it doesn’t need to send these to get toeholds ashore here. Our politicians kowtow more readily than did the Chinese when Britain, USA, Germany, France, Japan, Russia, etc were the big guys.
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 9:41 pm
There is a question which has not as yet been given any attention by anyone in the media. That is, that if the farms are Chinese owned, what is to stop them being Chinese staffed? And if they are, what will be the NZ Farm Workers Union (or, indeed, any union’s) response – especially as they are unlikely to be allowed on the premises by the new (Chinese) owners. Perhaps some unionist in our midst can give an opinion.
I ask this question based on the Zimbabwean experience where the Chinese have managed to create self-contained enclaves in (successful) pursuit of rare earths (of which they now control 90%) It is also worth remembering that any Chinese organisation is associated with and part of the Chinese Communist Government,and that by selling our farms we are merely changing our status from being a supplier of dairy products to Mother England, to being a feeder of the Dragon. The difference is that this time we are also selling them our land, and that by such sales we are effectively becoming part of the greater Chinese Empire. By such things are Mokleys willingly caught.
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 9:45 pm
In my response I overlooked Pauleastbay who posted at 6.47:
Paul: It means someone chopped the wrong type of mushrooms into your salad.
You were hallucinating. In fact the Chinese heading up there were in suits and were being chauffered in a Mercedes convoy by Kiwi PR types.
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 10:22 pm
I was talking to an old friend this afternoon and we ended up discussing this issue, he got the better of me by saying something like:
Fonterra sells ordinary New Zealander’s milk at extraordinary prices, it justifies this by citing the international pricing for the same product.
So in a nutshell common kiwis are purchasing goods made right here on kiwi soil at the international pricing index. There’s no discount whatsoever. Naturally, our milk prices are some of the world’s most expensive because government refuses to subsidise.
Some of the same farmers are now telling us that New Zealander’s should own our own farms at whatever cost. They’re expecting government to sell the Crafar farms for forty million dollars less than that of the Chinese bid in the good name of national protection.
But is that going to change the fact that we still pay international prices for goods produced here? absolutely not. Why then, should government grant a kiwi bid a generous forty million dollar discount?
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 10:49 pm
Funny that, is Fay not a Swiss resident ?
You are right. Don’t recall seeing Fay too upset with the recent sale of 9,727 hectares of New Zealand farm land to Switzerland.
It may be racist in Tibet, and if suppressing culture and languages is racist, in Inner Mongolia, Manchuria, and Sinkiang too. But controlling who buys your national assets isn’t racist.
Really? I think these minority groups are not doing too badly compared to indigenous New Zealanders, Australians, and Americans. Most still speak their own languages for one. And they are a much bigger proportion of the population in their respective areas than is the case for indigenous peoples under Anglo Saxon rule.
As for the Manchus and Mongols, I believe it was they who invaded China with many of them becoming ‘sinified’. The Mongols originated somewhere just south of Lake Baikal, came down and killed most of the Han chinese in the area of Inner Mongolia today. The Manchus invaded China about 500 years ago and ruled the place. Sure they became assimilated. But blaming the Han chiense for this is as stupid as blamign the Celtic britons for ‘assilating’ their saxon invaders.
Vote:January 27th, 2012 at 10:50 pm
“There is absolutely no point in blocking this investment because a wave of sinophobic public opinion is against it. Luckily, 99% of farmland is still owned and run by New Zealanders, [?] but we live in a free market world, where both parties in government have strived (except NZF) to get free trade deals with more and more countries. We needn’t be scared of China.”
Vote:….
if that was true we would open our borders and allow Afganistanis , Bangladeshis, and any one from any culture or country to freely enter New Zealand to sell their labour. Then we could see first hand how free market policies make all boats rise??
January 27th, 2012 at 11:39 pm
Just heard Land Info Minister Maurice William-Sung in a CloseUp clip defending approval of the Crafar purchases. The Minister goes back, and back, and back again to alleging there is racism in opposition to the Crafar sales to China. His argument is pretty thin, in other words.
Am I right in thinking that tonight William-Sung seemed to be hinting he would take Landcorp Farming Ltd into China to run some farming there? If so, perhaps Landcorp will soon be on the auction block and at least half-owned by Beijing interests.
Meanwhile, would William-Sung please point out to his Beijing mates that shutting foreigners out of China’s vast steel industry, and out of owning land in China, may also be considered racist? And could the Right Honourable William-Sung find out please if anyone in Beijing gives a rat’s arse if gweilo round the world think China is racist.
Vote:January 28th, 2012 at 12:53 am
Oh dear. Dave A, you need to read into the perspective of all this before accusing DPF of being a hypocrite.
The fact is, Labour are opposed to this – despite allowing for a far greater percentage in their time in power to be sold. So is it one rule in opposition and another when they are Govt? Is it ok one year and not in another year?
Try again.
Vote:January 28th, 2012 at 12:54 am
“Free market” my ass.
Chinese buy up our farmland here – but don’t permit us to buyt land in their country?
Fay and his consortium used their own cash to put in a bid for the farms and the Chinese company had the backing of their government?
And some of you think this is free market? Jesus, wept. The naivete here is thick enough to spreasd with a fricken butter knife.
Meanwhile, Germans are buying up Southland, and Americans are buying up bits all over the place.
Nek minute; Key is on TV3, lying his ass off about how much land has been sold to Swiss, Aussies, Etc, and what he said about not being able to control land purchases. Crap! Parliament is sovereign. It can pass laws to control purchases and if any FTA is impinging on that sovereignty – then we change the bloody thing.
This has to be a facepalm moment!!!!!!!!!
Vote:January 28th, 2012 at 12:56 am
By the way, I asked a couple of my Republican mates in the USA about letting their land be bought by foreigners. Their response was “no fucking way!”. Ya gotta love their patriotism.
Now if only they scrapped their dairy subsidies from their Federal government, they’d have a real free market.
Vote:January 28th, 2012 at 9:09 am
To Dave A, Nick R, Rat and others who questioned DF’s manipulation of the stats to bash Labour, well done.
Surely the issue (principle) is whether we should permit sale of land to foreigners? Wasn’t it John Key who expressed concern about NZers becoming tenants in their own country? Those who argue for the benefits of foreign investment, must favour the sale of Auckland Airport to a Canadian pension fund.
Such investment has many advantages, and I acknowledge the conditions imposed on the Chinese are intended to mitigate the disadvantages. However, land is a finite commodity. Once the investment is made, the dividends have to be repatriated to the foreign investor. Also foreign investment drives up the price, which is why the domestic parties who wanted to buy the Crafar farms are crying now. They claim they were offering fair value, but in reality the Chinese were offering above fair value – i.e. a premium to the liquidators.
Vote:January 28th, 2012 at 9:10 am
Lying cretin Farrar.
You are a deceptive and dishonest pig with a diagram and post like that.
Mind you – you keep good company. Doug Graham, Wyatt Creech, John Luxton – all before the courts on charges relating to dishonesty. And Nick Smith – labelled a fabricator by ex-judge Peter Skelton over the Ecan corruption.
The National Party – the party for liars and cheats.
[DPF: 40 demerits]
Vote:January 28th, 2012 at 10:27 am
I am so so sick of National using this argument, as though there is something wrong with private individuals and companies conducting commerce with foreigners.
The argument is not “they did it more!” The argument is “it’s none of the government’s business who this private concern sells their land to”. Why is that so hard for John Key to say?
Vote:January 28th, 2012 at 11:53 am
Chinese buy up our farmland here – but don’t permit us to buyt land in their country?
What’s that got to do with anything? Chinese can’t buy land either in China. It all belongs to the government, and is leased.
They had a communist revolution 60 years ago where a whole bunch of landowners were taken out and shot. You not heard of that?
But foreigners, as Chinese do, certainly can and do invest in real estate in China (the land is leased).
http://www.propertywire.com/news/asia/china-foreign-property-investment-201104015071.html
Vote:January 28th, 2012 at 11:59 am
Whatever spin is put on things here , it does not negate the fact that almost all the public comments are negative. Many are saying they won’t vote for Key again. Why anyone voted for him in the first place is beyond me.
Vote:January 28th, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Wayne’s World at 11.53 says foreigners are now buying lease rights (in fact licence to occupy, a bit like the rights old folk get in our retirement villages, where all the capital gain goes to the developer).
However,on following his link I find that what is happening is that Chinese developers are borrowing abroad by issuing bonds. This is different from buying freehold land, as Maurice Williams-Sung and John Ki are allowing the Chinese to do in the Crafar case.
In an earlier post, Wayne’s World said this:
Really? The Tibetans got nothing like the Treaty of Waitangi. China has poured Han Chinese into Tibet, and into the Sinkiang (Xinjiang) homeland of the Uighurs, a Turkic people. Hundreds have been left dead and injured in ethnic riots in the Singkiang city of Urumqui. Ethnic Mongolians are now a minority in Inner Mongolia to Han Chinese. The Mongolian Republic (outer Mongolia) remained independent of China thanks to first, White Russian military support, then to protection by the Soviet Union. In this independent Mongolia Han Chinese make up less than 0.1 per cent of the population. There has also been violent ethnic unrest in Inner Mongolia in the last 12 months.
As for the language: NZ has set up a taxpayer-funded Maori TV channel to try to help the Maori language survive. In China, where there are several distinct spoken languages but one written language, the opposite seems to be occurring. My understanding is that pressure is on Cantonese-language TV to be replaced by Mandarin-language TV. In other words, the marvellously rich Cantonese language is under pressure from Beijing.
Vote:January 28th, 2012 at 1:00 pm
Komata
Read the bloody agreement.
Vote:Landcorp are contracted to run all the farms, in perpetuity of the ownership.
Can Landcorp employ Chinese, any more than Maori – yes if they have work permits.
January 28th, 2012 at 1:21 pm
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/asia/276939/china-region-under-lockdown-after-tibetan-protests
Vote:January 28th, 2012 at 1:35 pm
There are several stations owned by one English family in the Waikura Valley and further around East Cape.
All these stations are managed and staffed by locals. All the rates are paid to Gisborne District Council. All the wages are spent between Opotiki and Gisborne, all th GST and PAYE from these weages are paid to the New Zealnd Government
Tax on earnings for these properties are paid to the New Zweakland Governemtn as are ACC levies etc.
All these stations and farms are to the very wealthy are an investment, like gold, like shares like start up funds for companies. They are just looking for a return on investment.
If there comes a time when the arse falls out of dairy , and god forbid, these Crafar farms may come back on the market and if we have been good little soldiers we might be able to buy them, until then its really a private deal between the bank and someone with a wallet.
And as Keeping Stock stated yesterday, this is privately owned land.
Vote:January 28th, 2012 at 1:38 pm
Yep Paul (1.35 post), and New Zealanders can buy freehold land in Britain, too, and many do.
As for the talk of “private deal”, I deduce you are a libertarian, a rare breed in NZ. About as numerous as the kakapo.
Vote:January 28th, 2012 at 9:43 pm
So if I read the opponents on this thread correctly you would’ve opposed this sale regardless of the nationality of the foreigner. Let me get this straight – its OK for Fonterra to buy Swiss of German or American or Chilean dairy companies – acquisitions which bring more profits back to New Zealand, improves the efficiency and global market reach of Fonterra and the profits are spent in provincial NZ providing new jobs, keeping people in jobs and improving the GDP of the country but if a Swiss or French or Chilean (or God forbid Chinese) company wants to acquire OUR assets its not a good thing. What do you say to Swiss or French or Chilean nationals who object to this NZ company ‘stealing’ their assets and taking over their dairy industry due to Fonterra’s global muscle? Do you agree with them and tell Fonterra and the farmers of NZ – sorry mate you’re too successful and profitable you’re going to have to make do with less because of the xenophobia of others. Don’t you see how silly you all sound. Free trade always results in more not less prosperity. Does noone learn from the Smoot Hawley Act inspired global trade war.
Vote:January 28th, 2012 at 9:48 pm
An Aussie bank sells land to Chinese. And New Zealanders get upset because foreigners bought it. WTF!
Vote:January 28th, 2012 at 9:49 pm
KIA, no, it’s just sales to the Chinese, according to credible public opinion polls.
Opposition melts away for any European purchasers.
it’s racism, pure and simple.
Personally, I think a country should always keep a careful eye on such things, as our governments do, but generally, we need outside capital. And I would much rather the land was owned by Chinese, managed by Landcorp, than owned, leveraged, stripped and sold off by one of our leading Robber Barons
Vote:January 28th, 2012 at 10:12 pm
“it’s racism, pure and simple.”
Is that so? You are saying that the objection is founded solely on the ground that they are chinese and that the chinese, as a race, are objectionable and should be shunned. It has nothing, then, to do with the perception that the practices adopted by the Chinese government are unpalatable and that NZ and China do not appear to share quite the same commercial and human rights values?
On that basis, your criticisms of Israel can have no explanation other then deep seated racist views. Or you apply different standards to yourself.
Vote:January 28th, 2012 at 10:52 pm
Nookin, I would be happy if we decided trading partners on the basis of human rights. That would eliminate some major markets and suppliers, of course, like Israel, Russia, most of the rest of the Middle East and decimate our economy. What about the US, where a full six million are in corrective detention, most black, certainly poor? And about 50,000 held in permanent solitary confinement. Even China can’t match that. But hey, start a petition. I’ll support it.
I supplied cogent reasons for my post. The polling results I mentioned i think were even conducted by DPF’s company, I could be wrong, but he posted them here, anyway.
My position on the resolution of the Israel/Palestine conflict is exactly that held by the US State Department. Are they racist, too?
Vote:January 28th, 2012 at 11:01 pm
Land Sales … what really has gone wrong – we nearly doubled our population bringing in “consumers” instead of “producers” which has given us year after year negative trade balance of payments, and now we are clutching at anything possible to get finance to stay afloat, and land sales is only part of it. Unskilled polititions have let us down badly now for years, to the point where we don’t have choices anymore, so place the blame where blame is due.
Vote:January 29th, 2012 at 12:52 am
Purchase of land is not an investment in our economy, it’s speculation on an asset in a country that has no CGT.
Vote:January 29th, 2012 at 1:50 am
Jack5:
The Tibetans got nothing like the Treaty of Waitangi. China has poured Han Chinese into Tibet, and into the Sinkiang (Xinjiang) homeland of the Uighurs, a Turkic people. Hundreds have been left dead and injured in ethnic riots in the Singkiang city of Urumqui.
Well preventing Han pouring into Tibet and Xinjiang, is a bit like preventing Pakeha from ‘pouring’ into Whangerei and the Ureweras. And Tibetans and Uighurs respectively make up a far larger proportion of the population of Tibet and Xinjiang than any indigenous peoples colonised by Anglo Saxons. And they still speak their own languages. And have state sponsored TV and radio in their own languages. Way before Maori TV ever came into being. Anyone who has visited those places can tell you that.
It is Anglo Saxons who are the most greedy motherfuckers when it comes to land. The Chinese come here and pay top dollar for the Crafar farms. The poms came and swapped land for a few dirty blankets, at best, or just stole the rest.
Look at Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand, and before parts of Africa. All stolen.
And the Anglo Saxons enjoyed dominion over India, and China for over a century emptying those places of their wealth.
Think of it this way. Asians own about 7% of 1% of NZ farmland. That is 0.07%
The poms went into Zimbabwe (and Kenya) after the war and stole fucking 60% of farmland and simply drove the local inhabitants off the land. They paid nothing for it.
And yet when Mugabe wants to rid himself of these white thieves, people like Jack5 would come down on him like a ton of bricks.
In other words it is OK for whites to own 60% of the land in a black African country (for free) but not Asians 0.07% (for which they paid top dollar).
Jack5. You are a transparent racist hypocrite.
Jack5 you are
Vote:January 29th, 2012 at 5:31 pm
Wang’s — Whoops!– Wayne’s World at 1.59 (am!!!) calls Anglo-Saxons “the most greedy motherfuckers” and “white thieves” then calls me a “transparent racist hypocrite”.
Is this straight from the Mao school of propaganda, Wang or Wayne? The ethnic group you smear includes people who are quite warm towards Beijing. For example, John Ki and the Lands Baron, Maurice Williams-Sung. You mustn’t judge all Anglo-Saxons by them, but I think it’s harsh to apply these terms even to these two.
Wayne, you mistakenly think that in this thread I condemned Mugabe and Chinese in Zimbabwe.
Perhaps Wayne, you mistake me for another poster who spoke of problems with Chinese investment in Zimbabwe. Perhaps that poster in turn confused Zimbabwe with Zambia where,rightly or wrongly, there seems to be tension over the settlement of as many as 80,000 Chinese in the country. (The Guardian link below gives the background).
Wayne, you also wrote in your 1.59 post:
Of course, Wayne, Red Han Chinese have bought Tibet, Sinkiang, and Inner Mongolia from their indigenous peoples, who have been willing, indeed happy, sellers. Yeah, right. It’s a coincide that the (Han) People’s Liberation Army was chief negotiator for Beijing in these regions.
Mao and his successors in Beijing would not countenance giving these indigenous peoples equivalents of the Waitangi Treaty. If the takeover was so civilised, how, Wayne, do you explain the quite recent ethnic riots against Beijing in these three regions?
PS: By Anglo-Saxons, Wayne, I’m guessing you don’t mean all Europeans whose skin is white, but those who originate in the British Isles. Bit narrow. So is “white”. Many white-skinned people come from northern China (Manchu, Uighurs, northern Han), Japan, parts (geographic or castes of) India, Afghanistan, Turkey, Iraq, North Africa etc, etc. Also Anglo-Saxons are now pretty thoroughly intermingled with others. How about “Westerners”. That covers the point, and you can bring in the excesses of Conquistadores. And of Alexander the Great. And of the Tsars in Siberia. All non-Anglo Saxon. On the other hand, Wayne, you may think that everyone in the world under 40 is now a “greedy Western mother fucker”. Rather than Marx and Mao, what has triumphed is the international appeal of these things: American pop culture, satellite and cable TV, the Internet, Western-style capitalism, democracy, and the English language.
PPS: Ask your Beijing mates to give Cantonese a fair go on Chinese state TV.
LINK about Chinese in Zambia that may be relevant to points by Wayne and some other poster:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianweekly/story/0,,2007803,00.html
Vote:January 30th, 2012 at 3:09 am
Of course, Wayne, Red Han Chinese have bought Tibet, Sinkiang, and Inner Mongolia
The Mongolians of inner Mongolia are not indigenous. The Mongolians originated somewhere just south of Lake Baikal, came down and slaughtered the Tanguts and Han Chinese who use to live in the area of Inner Mongolia.
THe Uighers are also not indigenous to Xinjiang province.
Tibet has been part of China for centuries.
Compare the conditions of the ethnic minorities in China with the Australian aborigines, the Maoris, the Native Americans. The Anglo Saxons killed off most of them, or totally swamped them to such an extent that they can barely put up any resistance now. Whereas in China, the percentage of Uighers in Xinjiang, Tibetans in Tibet, and Mongolians in Inner Mongolia far exceeds that of the indigenous in Canada, the US, Australia, and New Zealand. And they all speak their own languages as well in everyday life. Can the same be said of the indigenous peoples in the Anglo Saxon countries outside of Britain.
As for the Chinese in Africa, of course there are positives and negatives. The Western media concentrates on the negatives. But the Africans find the positives to far outweigh the negatives. The thing is Africa, as a whole, as experienced its greatest rate of growth (4% per annum), over the past decade, which has of course corresponded with increasing Chinese engagement with the continent.
A BBC poll recently carried out:
“Asked how they view the possibility of an economically far stronger China, around four in five Nigerians and Kenyans said they looked forward to such an outcome, according to the survey of more than 28,000 people in 27 countries commissioned by the BBC World Service. “All African countries view China’s increasing economic power positively,” the survey report said”
http://en.m4.cn/archives/6679.html
Pew research polls align with the BBC results:
http://pewglobal.org/2010/06/17/obama-more-popular-abroad-than-at-home/6/
And the Africans it seems find the Chinese fairer to deal with than Westerners:
“The consensus prevails among African countries as well with regard to how they consider China’s fairness in the way it trades with its partners…….On average, in the continent, China is considered the fairest partner, with an average fairness score of 7.02 on a 0–10 scale, ahead of the US (6.61) and the EU (6.52).”
The original full report is here:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/mar11/BBCChina_Mar11_rpt.pdf
When it comes down to it, the Chinese aren’t perfect. But they sure as hell are better than European interlopers. At least the Chinese pay for the stuff they take.
And the Chinese paid top dollar for the Crafar farms. Whereas the Anglo Saxons just came and either confiscated the land outright, or paid for it in a few beads and blankets.
Vote:January 30th, 2012 at 7:34 am
This debate is not as simplistic as let the current farm owners sell farm land to whoever they want for higher prices than NZ’ers can afford. Intertwined in this is protecting the future of what is NZ’s larget export industry. It is an industry that has been built on young aspiring farmers either taking over from their parents or in the case of dairy farming often sharemilking until they have the catital to invest in a farm of their own.
By promoting foreign ownership of farms we may well be putting the ownership of farms out of the reach of young New Zealand farmers because pricing may now be determined by richer foreign countries wanting a peice of the farming pie in NZ. At present the amount of farm land owned by foreigners is in all probability very low but we need to be asking ouselves some questions is how much is too much and whether this is in the best interests of our most valuable industry.
It is irrelevent to the debate whether Labour sold more. Equally Williamsons jumping up and down about racism driving peoples objections to the Crafar deal is also irrelevant to the debate that should be had.
Now increased foreign ownership of our farms may be fine and having NZ farmers as lessees also may be a great future model but it sounds a bit fucked up to me. I do not see the benefit apart from giving some current farm owners more in the way of tax free capital gains. I do not see foreign owners bringing new production methodology, smarter management or even greater access to markets we currently do not trade with so what is the benefit apart from higher land prices and a slow erosion of our balance of payments.
It would be interesting to see how easy it is for NZ farming concerns to purhcase farm land in those countries where these foreign investors are comming from. I can imagine in some of the countries it may well be possible and others not a chance.
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 12:11 am
Wayne’s World’s 3.09 am post (given the hours you log on, are you posting from Beijing Wayne?) said:
This is Beijing propaganda, Wayne.
The Turkic Uyghurs settled in Singkiang from 830AD. They migrated from central asia in the north, but interestingly they displaced not Han Chinese but an Indo-European people.
By your argument valid, Wayne, Maori aren’t indigenous to NZ, as they came down the Pacific in canoes to this archipelago about 800-1000 years ago, more recently than the
Uyghurs moved into Sinkiang.
Wayne, your statements about Tibet are flawed, too. After being a tribute-paying state to Chinese empires, Tibet was a separate state from 630 AD.
According to Wikipedia (are you able to access that from Beijing?), Tibetans’ genes diverged from the Han Chinese pool 3000 years ago. Studies seem to indicate they have more genetic links to the Japanese than the Han Chinese do to the Japanese. The Tibetan language is quite distinct, being classified as part of the Tibeto-Burman branch of the larger Sino-Tibetan group.
Accept it. China’s claims to Tibet are weak and imperialist. China has enforced the claims in a more brutal way than NZ was colonised by the British.
Vote: