Who is the buyer and the seller?
February 19th, 2012 at 6:43 pm by David Farrar3 News tonight mentioned the Crafar farm sale twice tonight, during their piece on the latest political poll. The words used were:
“the courts stopped the Government selling the Crafar farms to the Chinese for now”
“its decision to sell the Crafar farms to the Chinese”
First of all, why are we describing the company buying the farms as “the Chinese”.
If say Walmart was purchasing something in NZ, would the news bulletins describe it as selling to “the Americans”. The whole phrase “the Chinese” reeks to me of portraying them as one amorphous group. Shouldn’t the sale be described as to “the China based company Shanghai Pengxin”.
But not only do they get the buyer wrong, they get the seller wrong also.
The Government is selling nothing. The receivers of the Crafar farms are selling them, so the creditors will get some of their money back. Twice on TV3 it was portrayed as a Government sale.
So the overall impression is the NZ Government selling state owned land to the Chinese Government.
An accurate wording would be “the Government’s decision to approve the receivers sale of the Crafar farms to the China based Shanghai Pengxin company”. I won’t hold my breath hoping that media use an accurate description though!
Related posts:
- Fay loses on Crafar farms at Court of Appeal
- Winston’s dilemma
- Crafar deal ordered to reconsideration
- Another Hikoi
February 19th, 2012 at 6:51 pm
“It’s the Yellow Peril! THE YELLOW PERIL!!! Panic everyone!!!” – the Green Party.
Vote:February 19th, 2012 at 7:03 pm
More of the TV3 poll script is nonsense…
The Maori Party don’t hold the balance of power. Polls are indicative of current support but they don’t change the numbers that matter, seats in Parliament.
Another case of TV3 trying to talk up the importance of their own poll over real life.
Vote:February 19th, 2012 at 7:13 pm
Write to the BSA to complain.
Vote:February 19th, 2012 at 7:18 pm
>First of all, why are we describing the company buying the farms as “the Chinese”.
The Greens and NZ First are whipping up anti-Chinese hysteria. This is the result. It’s pretty shameful and you’d expect that from NZ First, but I’m surprised that the Greens have decided to compete for the redneck racist vote.
Vote:February 19th, 2012 at 7:22 pm
Dont be fucking stupid, the BSA are of the same shallow mindset.
Who would listen or even watch if accuracy of language stated the facts.
What would be the impact if the idiots were told that they had to pay the banks losses when next they visit Stacy’s loan shark mates to get the car fixed..
Vote:February 19th, 2012 at 7:47 pm
To put it bluntly its our tosser AUSTRALIAN banks along with robot bank selling NZ land to a shanghia corp probably owned by the communist army and the power brokers in what they call a govt. SO Australian banks sells NZ land to communist china. This is what the daft right wing idiot posters cannot seem to grasp. We are not selling land to the communists,its WESTPAC,ANZ etc and robot bank are selling NZ, to the communists and you lot support them, SHAME ON YOU tratiors
Vote:February 19th, 2012 at 7:49 pm
It’s amazing that investors who put their money in Finance companies and lost when they went belly-up were described as “greedy” because they were looking for an extra 2 -3% in interest. But Banks which make poor investment decisions expect to recover all their money by ramping up the value of the failed asset by selling to overseas investors.
I have read statements that if the receivers can’t sell overseas, then “the value of dairy farms in NZ will decline”. Surely the value of a dairy farm in NZ is the selling price in NZ. If no-one in NZ is prepared to pay $210 million, then the farms are not worth $210 million.
What happened to the agriculture industry in the 70′s and 80′s, the last time Queen St farmers looked for the quick buck? We seem to have short memories.
To me there is no difference between the subsidies offered then and using overseas buyers today – it will end up destroying our industry again.
Stuff the banks – take a loss and learn your bloody lesson.
Vote:February 19th, 2012 at 7:50 pm
Trouble is, the media has found a new demographic to identify with. The media is part of the 99%; instead of being 100% independent they are following 99percenter suckhole stories primarily generated by Greens, WP and Mana.
Vote:February 19th, 2012 at 7:54 pm
How do you know the company is not owned by the red army? ie, it is just a front, and, the sale is in fact to the chinese .
I don’t see a big deal here anyway.
If wal-mart was buying something here, I’d have not issue with them saying ‘the americans’.
Vote:February 19th, 2012 at 8:00 pm
NEWSFLASH……TV3 is run by pinko’s.
How is this news guys? We should all expect this from TV3,
Vote:February 19th, 2012 at 8:05 pm
TV news is shit. So is most of their so called “in depth” reporting.
TV3 is foreign owned and is shit.TV1 is owned by us and it is shit.
Vote:February 19th, 2012 at 8:09 pm
Yes, the same TV3 this government (Steven Joyce in particular) waived/delayed the payment of many millions.
Vote:The ungrateful comrades to whom this brave government is prepared to show the other cheek.
February 19th, 2012 at 8:15 pm
marcw>I have read statements that if the receivers can’t sell overseas, then “the value of dairy farms in NZ will decline”.
If the receivers have to take a $40million hit in order to pander to the anti-Chinese bigotry of Michael Fay, Winston Peters, and Russel Norman, then commercial lending in NZ will be comparatively riskier then it was previously. That means that lending to farmers, and anyone else who might attract the attentions of the left, will pay a higher interest rate to account for that risk. Some of that extra interest will be paid by export markets, assuming that our exports are still competitive. The rest will be paid by NZers in the supermarkets.
How much extra are you prepared to pay for a pint of milk, just because you’re scared of Asian people?
Vote:February 19th, 2012 at 8:29 pm
I am struggling to come up with a reason why you would ever think this. Apply the idea to anything else and it becomes painfully obvious how wrong it is.
The value of kiwifruit in NZ is the selling price in NZ.
The value of a song by a NZ artist is the selling price in NZ.
The value of a bond for a NZ company is the selling price in NZ.
No. No. No.
First of all, the value is not the price. The closest estimate of the value of a thing would be what anyone capable of paying for it is willing to pay for it.
Your protectionist mindset will destroy this country faster than any sale of farms to foreigners.
Vote:February 19th, 2012 at 8:29 pm
Neither is ‘the media’ one amorphous group (although I guess that you could argue that their general standard of newsreporting makes them one)…
Vote:February 19th, 2012 at 8:46 pm
It is difficult to say whether this is inexcusable ignorance by people who should know better or unethical misrepresentation bordering on dishonesty. I posted on this earlier in the week. Duncan Garner made the observation that the government now had “public opinion” as an “out” when it came to making the decision. He also observed that the government should put a moratorium on farm sales to overseas buyers. Garner had in front of him the Court judgment which showed how objective any decision must be. Where he got the idea that the government could take into account a subjective perception of an amorphous being such as public opinion, I have no idea. It certainly is not in the legislation. He should have known that. He was implying that the government had a discretion when it was patently obvious to him that there was no overriding discretion.
The suggestion that the government put a moratorium on sales to overseas people was also inappropriate. As DPF has pointed out above, it is not the government who is selling to overseas people. Private landowners (or in this case the receivers of a private landowner) are entering into the commitment. The government’s only role is to apply the criteria set out in the Overseas Investment Act. It cannot impose a moratorium. Muldoon tried to do that with the superannuation fund and was advised by the court that his political whim did not override and Act of Parliament.
So here we have it for instances in the space of one week where TV3 has made significant misrepresentations. They all lean in one direction. They all have the effect of creating prejudice against the government if the government does not comply. Sadly, the conclusion that these gaffes are attributable to lack of integrity rather than ignorance is becoming irresistible.
Vote:February 19th, 2012 at 8:58 pm
Pleb (with an extra e)
You really are dumb aren’t you. The ‘Australian’ banks as you call them, are more accurately Australasian banks and have NZ shareholders as well. ANZ in particular has been represented in NZ since 1840, through its forbears, and ever since has provided capital, resources, jobs, has paid taxes and dividends, and has been the model of a good corporate citizen. You don’t seem to realise that NZ did not have the capital to develop on its own, in fact still doesn’t, and we should be thankful for foreign investment. It provides jobs and capital, reduces borrowing costs, I could go on. Who do you think provides the funds for your mortgage?
Turning to the Crafar farms, most of the rhetoric here is racism, pure and simple. It’s okay if the buyers were Aussies, or Dutch, or English etc. For goodness sake, the land is going nowhere! The new owners will have to buy their goods and services locally and comply with local laws, just like anyone else.
I am sickened by the parroting of misinformation by dumb people who have no idea what they are talking about. Learn your history, for a start.
Vote:February 19th, 2012 at 9:01 pm
NZ TV News is basically one inaccuracy after another.
Vote:February 19th, 2012 at 9:39 pm
I have had a look at TV3′s news item on their website, and it really is a disgrace. That portly reporter Duncan Garner has an agenda, there’s little doubt about that. He knows it’s not the NZ Government selling the land, and his choice of words is deliberate. Very unprofessional. The corpulent crusader is setting out to advocate his POV. If he wants to do an opinion piece, fine, but don’t dress it up masquerading as news.
Vote:February 19th, 2012 at 9:43 pm
Correction: “So here we have four instances….”
Vote:Lesson to be learned: don’t type and watch cricket at the same time.
February 19th, 2012 at 9:56 pm
Clearly TV3 has an editorial bent viz this, Campbell Live every night, the doco 3 days before the election, etc etc etc etc etc.
What the BSA needs to do is to be able to do things like fine TV3 eleventy gajillion dollars payable that day, everytime they do shit like this.
I mean it’s quite obvious when it happens, one doesn’t even need an enquiry or anything. Case closed, simple as that. Eleventy gajillion dollars please. Next.
But they won’t do even this simple thing, will they. It’s not fair.
Tell me. If you were TV3 and you had an enfant terrible like Campbell running round all day spreading his poisonous thinking throughout every single TV3 tentacle, what the hell would you do about it, were you TV3?
Vote:February 19th, 2012 at 10:11 pm
Reid
Yes please — plus GST.
They can’t really measure how obnoxious Campbell is because they cannot make any realistic estimate of those who watch TV3 for the sole purpose of escaping Sainsbury.
I watch campbell from time to time because he is so unctuous that I am trying to devise a way of converting the smarm into some kind of lubricant for a rusty old lawnmower. It drips off him but seems to go to waste. There must be a very greasy pond under his desk at the end of every day.
Vote:February 19th, 2012 at 10:13 pm
Heathcote. Garner is NOT a reporter. A reporter reports. Garner takes a thread of a story and embellishes it with his own jaundiced view of the subject at hand
Vote:February 19th, 2012 at 10:15 pm
Haven’t you heard? Racism is ok in NZ if it’s east Asians at the receiving end.
Vote:February 19th, 2012 at 10:26 pm
@ davidp 08:15pm
Where did I mention chinese? I said overseas. Stop the racist attitude. If banks have to be responsible in managing the risk lending to the agricultural farming industry why is that a problem? Nowhere have I read that the Crafer farm lending was an astute and reasonable investment. Can you provide the information that it was? My whole point was that Mum and Dad investors who were looking for more than the bank rate of investment were portrayed as “greedy”.
@ Kimble 08:49
“The value of kiwifruit in NZ is the selling price in NZ.
The value of a song by a NZ artist is the selling price in NZ.
The value of a bond for a NZ company is the selling price in NZ.”
No, the value of a Kiwifruit ORCHARD is the price to buy one in NZ.
Vote:No, the value of a song to the record company is the cost to buy it by the consumer, and they adjust the price according to their market (iTunes, CD, Digirama etc.). Is the intellectual property of a song the same as say, the rights to owning the artist (source)?
My understanding is that the bond market is already an international market (by definition), that’s why a company issues bonds, and is totally irrelevant to selling a farm in NZ. A NZ farm should not be an international bond commodity unless it is set up following the rules of the bond market – isn’t this the essence of the controversy.
February 19th, 2012 at 10:36 pm
If the farms are bought by the Fay-led consortium, they will be divided up and the members of the consortium will take the individual farms they want to buy. I happen to know that one of the members of the consortium is looking to buy back a farm he sold to Crafar – and at a lower price, I might add.
Now when this happens, the farmers will assume the risk and reward of the farms, etc. Right now, the Dairy industry is hitting it’s stride, payouts are high, and international demand is still up. Right now, that might look really good for whoever owns the dairy farms. However, if there were to be a downturn in the market, the operation will become less profitable. In that circumstance economic benefit exits the country, as borrowing is needed.
If the Chinese buy the farms, however, instead of farmers that farm their own land for profit (or sharemilkers who do the same), farm managers will likely be employed on the farms. Farm managers earn pretty decent salaries, and that is a cash flow into the economy that is guaranteed regardless of fluctuating profitability. The same money will have to be spent on farm upgrades and repairs (many of which are needed on the particular farms), and the same money will have to be spent on the ongoing costs. All this is money into the economy. Add the steady income stream to farm managers, and that is creating job certainty, and there is no chance for New Zealand to become any more indebted.
I don’t know what will happen with these farms, but I suspect Pengxin will make promises about improving the farms that outdo Fay&co. Then the sale will be approved. Fay&co may well try to take it to the courts again, but that is ultimately futile.
In these sorts of things, the only winners are the lawyers.
Sincerely,
LLB Student.
PS. On the topic of TV3′s reporting. I have one word: Shit.
Vote:February 19th, 2012 at 10:49 pm
What guarantees are there that “farm managers” will be NZers? What that ANY employees will be NZers? Not to emphasise that this is a Chinese company, but how many NZers are employed in tourism companies which operate in NZ that are Chinese owned? Or Korean?
Is there anything in the terms of the sale that specifies that employees must be NZers. I doubt it as that would be commercially untenable.
Fishing quota owned by NZ and Maori interests is sold to overseas companies, and they are legally required to pay their employees the same rates as equivalent NZ crew. Yeah right.
Vote:February 19th, 2012 at 10:51 pm
Joel good observations.
Another thing going on here is the whole China-NZ relationship. As we know China reads symbolism into many actions and I rather suspect after everything which has gone down if the deal is queered there’ll be ramifications which won’t necessarily be announced but there will be.
And the govt sure knows this, of course. But it can’t work around the courts or be seen to interfere with the process.
Personally I see this as merely a reflection of Fay’s style. The guy always has a legal point up his sleeve but at the end of the day it just ends up as a giant folly, as his America’s Cup “match” played out, so this will also play out the same, I suspect. It’s not Fay’s lawyer’s faults at all of course, they’re doing their jobs and very competently indeed it appears, but you see how he turns basically what is to him a simple private money-making deal which means not a lot to him, maybe 10 mill profit at the end of the day, into a situation with significant international implications.
Isn’t he an a-hole.
Don’t answer. He might want to hire you one day, you never know.
Vote:February 19th, 2012 at 11:00 pm
To work in New Zealand they will need work permits and visas and residency etc. Even if they were not New Zealanders, they would be spending money in the NZ economy.
One of the reasons the first Chinese applicant, Natural Dairy ltd, was turned down was because they wanted to vertically integrate the process, thus outsourcing the jobs away from New Zealanders.
The application had to show economic benefit to New Zealand, and if it were going to be farmed by Chinese employees on less than standard pay for New Zealand, that would not be delivering any economic benefit.
Not to mention that Shanghai Pengxin wants to partner with (State-Owned) LandCorp, which would definitely be employing New Zealanders. I don’t know exactly how this partnership was going to work, but I assume it would involve Pengxin paying Landcorp to run the farms.
A fishing quota in our waters, on a foreign-owned vessel is a totally different matter and would not be subject to New Zealand law anyway. Really, you must be quite poorly educated on this matter. A person on board a foreign registered ship at sea is not subject to most parts of New Zealand law. If Maori companies choose to do that and neglect the opportunity to employ their own people, that is of no concern to me.
A foreign-domiciled company can not simply buy land and put foreign labour on it, at any old rate, in New Zealand – are you actually serious?
Vote:February 19th, 2012 at 11:19 pm
Thanks reid, I missed your comment before I posted the other.
Well, I don’t like him much. But if he was to hire me, hopefully on the basis that I was best for the job, I would do my best in my professional capacity. That’s how lawyers work (soulless pricks, I think the rest of society views us as?).
I’d like us to carry on having a good relationship with China. If we have to sell this piece of land, so be it. It’s not very large, in the grand scheme, and some of the fearmongering that’s been going on has been outrageous. It’s two groups that want to make profits playing off against eachother. They bring different sets of benefits to the deal, but I think on balance it must go to the highest bidder.
How much of his profits will Fay spend in the NZ economy anyway? We live in a globalised world, and trying to pretend it isn’t is totally futile. We have to be part of the global economy and use it to our advantage. China is a big part of that, whether we like it or not.
Vote:February 20th, 2012 at 12:04 am
If you think we have been privy to all the backroom deals that have been done between LandCorp and Shanghai Pengxin then you are probably Hans Christian Andersen. We will never have access to the contracts that govern this partnership should it eventuate.
So you really believe that asian tourism companies that operate in NZ are conforming to the same real conditions of employment as NZ owned operators. Pffftt. What planet are you from?
Are the asian crew of fishing companies which have purchased quota from NZ owners really working under the same conditions of employment as Kiwi crews would be if they were catching the same quota? The Labour Dept inquiries into certain disasters would suggest otherwise. My understanding is that one of the conditions of the sale of quota in the NZEZ is that this is one of the requirements.
My feelings about the sale of quota by Maori to overseas interests are that yes, it is their right to sell to the highest bidder, but when they do so to overseas companies, the income should be reallocated to Treaty settlement funds for the future. When you look at why the settlement was granted in the first place, the hypocrisy is astonishing.
Vote:February 20th, 2012 at 12:26 am
And the Gimint stopped me selling my AIA shares to the darstardly Canadians for $3.70 apiece. And those same shares are now $2.45
I feel a CLAIM coming on for theft of my property rights.
And when I get it settled after mounting a protest and baring my bum etc etc My children and my grand children will be back at the tough looking for yet another settlement because their Daddy and Gran Daddy will have told them thats how the Horis do it
Vote:February 20th, 2012 at 7:10 am
It was a TV3 (Garner) story garnished with a few poll charts.
Do TV3 ever reveal all the details of their polls? The actual questions asked? How many polled? Margin of error? Does anyone know where to see the actual poll information?
Vote:February 20th, 2012 at 7:28 am
To be fair, there is a little more to this than just anti-Chinese sentiment.
The melamine scandal is still recent enough to be creating a sense of unease when “China” and “dairy” are mentioned in the same sentence. I for one am happy to sell New Zealand’s land to international interests up to a point. But New Zealand’s reputation as a quality food producer is far too valuable to put at any risk, no matter how slight.
Vote:February 20th, 2012 at 8:16 am
“Do not attribute to malice that can be adaquately explained by incompetence” and “Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice”. Though in this case, I’d be betting on malice on the reporting, and incompetence on thinking nobody would notice.
Vote:February 20th, 2012 at 9:25 am
DISCLAIMER: The following programme, although it includes the word “News” in the title, is an entertainment programme focussed on maximising ratings and thus advertising revenue. You should not rely on the content presented as being complete or balanced.
Vote:February 20th, 2012 at 9:40 am
I agree that it’s unfair to label it as “the Chinese”-it would maybe only be fair if Shanghai Pengxin were a state-owned group.
Perhaps it’s to avoid having to pronounce Pengxin-I’ve heard some shocking attempts. Pung-shin is fairly close to the mark.
Vote:February 20th, 2012 at 9:47 am
“So you really believe that asian tourism companies that operate in NZ are conforming to the same real conditions of employment as NZ owned operators. Pffftt. What planet are you from?”
FYI arguing that people will be more will to break lthe law based on their race is an example of racism.
Vote:February 20th, 2012 at 11:02 am
@marcw
You are obviously a raving anti-Chinese conspiracy theorist. Get your sense of reality checked. I believe breaches of the law are investigated when complaints are laid. I don’t know what happens with “asian tourism companies”, but I’m inclined to think that most of them operate within the law.
The Chinese are not coming here to supplant Chinese workers onto our land at slave labour rates. In a case this high profile? Do you think the media would allow that to go unnoticed? Do you think the police would allow that to happen? I know the Chinese do business in a particularly cutthroat way, but they will not get far without scrutiny given the huge media interest in these farms.
I would be bloody surprised if the agreements reached allowed them to replace Kiwi workers with Chinese ones on less than New Zealand pay and conditions. That would not amount to “Provides economic benefit to New Zealand” as is required in the Overseas Investment Act. It would probably also place them in breach of the “good character test” which is ongoing, and if they no longer act with good character, they will be forced to sell the farm.
In fact if it turned out to be true, I would cancel my National Party membership. It won’t happen.
Vote:February 20th, 2012 at 11:38 am
The Media including particularly TV3 (Ambrose/Garner/Toofy/Armstrong and many others) lost the last election, and don’t you know it.
Vote:How dare anybody question the “integrity” of the 3rd so called estate wunderkinds.
Sales and Ratings are all that matters – remember – follow the money so TV3/Garner will put their personal spin on anything anti Key/Government, by whatever snydes they can. Nasty little fat man. Needs to stop drinking I think.
Don’t watch TV3 (or read SST) – getting terrible really, our so called Media.
February 20th, 2012 at 11:43 am
“Recently, Wenzhou’s Fortune Weekly conducted a survey of local millionaires. One question was: If forced to choose between your business and your family, which would it be? Of the respondents, 60 percent chose business, and 20 percent chose family. The other 20 percent couldn’t make up their minds.”
Vote:http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/06/instant-cities/hessler-text/2
February 20th, 2012 at 11:46 am
The Kiwi blog rentiers know what side their bread is buttered on. They go all moral… it’s disgusting, like a pig putting on a suit… auugghhhh!!!!!!
Vote:February 20th, 2012 at 11:55 am
Recently TV3 were discussing Auckland’s growth. An interviewee remarked “but you can’t stop people coming here” the interviewer failed to point out that 80% our population growth is from outside NZ…… we’ll there you go…!!??
Vote:February 20th, 2012 at 1:09 pm
TV3 is but one example of NZ media outlets always citing race, especially when people of Asian ethnicity are concerned.
This is then compounded by their deliberate mis-information as illustrated by the ‘Government has been blocked from selling the Crafar farms’. This then leads directly into statements seen and heard elsewhere such as ‘John Key selling our farms’
This mis-information is aided and abetted by politicians who should know better, such as Turei claiming ‘ John Key was selling the NZ legislature’
Many people unfortunately seem to believe this rubbish, especially that we get from TVNZ, TV3 and RNZ.
Even worse this morning on Nien to Noon the political slot with Hooton and Mike Williams discussed the Crafar issue, despite Hooton admitting he was PR lobbyist for Fay, how the hell couild that be a reasoned discussion. Like so much else on RNZ it was slanted.
NZ media is unworthy in many cases of being dignified as media.
Vote:February 20th, 2012 at 3:33 pm
I don’t have a problem with TV3 taking a pro-Labour/Green editorial slant, they should be open about it like the UK print media are.
Vote: