Crafar sale approved
April 20th, 2012 at 11:43 am by David FarrarMaurice Williamson and Jonathan Coleman have announced:
Land Information Minister Maurice Williamson and Associate Finance Minister Jonathan Coleman have approved the new recommendation of the Overseas Investment Office (OIO) to grant consent to Milk New Zealand Holding Limited to acquire the 16 Crafar farms.
“New Zealand has a transparent set of laws and regulations around overseas investment,” Mr Williamson says.
“Those rules recognise the benefits that appropriate overseas investment can bring, while providing a range of safeguards to protect New Zealanders’ interests. They are applied evenly to all applications, regardless of where they are from.
“We have sought to apply the law in accordance with the provisions of the Overseas Investment Act and the guidance of the High Court.
“We have carefully considered the OIO’s new recommendation. The OIO sought advice from Crown Law and independent legal advice from David Goddard QC. The Ministers also sought advice and clarification from Mr Goddard.
“We are satisfied that on even the most conservative approach this application meets the criteria set out in the Act and is consistent with the High Court’s judgment.”
In other words, it would probably have been illegal to decline the application.
Dr Coleman said the consent came with stringent conditions.
“These 27 conditions have been imposed to ensure Milk New Zealand’s investment delivers substantial and identifiable benefits to New Zealand,” Dr Coleman says.
The conditions require Milk New Zealand to invest $16 million into the farms and to protect and enhance heritage sites.
“The combined effect of the benefits being delivered to New Zealand as a result of this transaction is substantial.”
It is worth noting that any NZ buyer would not have any binding conditions on them at all. They could hock them all off as individual farms.
A copy of the OIO’s new recommendation is at: http://www.linz.govt.nz/sites/default/files/docs/overseas-investment/oio-recommendation-crafar-farms-20120420.pdf
A copy of the OIO’s decision summary is at: http://www.linz.govt.nz/sites/default/files/docs/overseas-investment/decision-summary-201110035.pdf
I’m glad the Government has approved the sale. Not just because it was the law, but because China is a huge opportunity for New Zealand. The partnership between Landcorp and Shanghai Pengxin could lead to significant more opportunities in the future.
Related posts:
- Crafar deal ordered to reconsideration
- Trotter on Crafar sale
- Final Crafar hurdle defeated
- Mallard on Crafar
April 20th, 2012 at 11:47 am
Good.
Vote:Awaits howls of protest from the usual suspects.
April 20th, 2012 at 11:50 am
Excellent. Let’s hope this is a turning point for NZ policy sanity instead of headless chicken drivel.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 11:50 am
I suspect most obvious protest will be “the Government is selling our farms” – well I call BS on that – they were owned by an Australian bank as the NZ owners cocked up so badly the bank foreclosed on them. The government isn’t selling anything, the Australian bank is.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 11:54 am
gazzmaniac,
I can hear Winston’s loud moans already……..
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 11:59 am
lol “we shouldnt be selling anything to them chinese”
glad its approved.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Excellent they have already been through enough loops and ignorant xenophobic hysteria so this is the right decision. Still won’t stop people from whinging I bet. I would certainly rather this deal went through then one where tey are sold to that traitor Fay.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 12:16 pm
This will be blamed for high milk prices by the mad lefties.
Speaking of which, I thought I’d try find the most expensive bottle of milk in Wellington when I was there recently.
I found two litres for $7.99(!!!). At Commonsense Organics. Which happens to be part-owned by a candidate for, and prominent member of the Green Party.
http://www.business.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/501073
Now I’ve no issue with them charging what they like, my perception with Wellington is there are plenty of people with complete detachment from reality living there, to justify that price – a fool and his (or probably her, judging by the number of guilt-ridden middle class shrews about the place) money soon go their seperate ways.
But it does seem a bit rich when the Greens are the ones jumping up and down complaining about the price of food, and trying to legislate against much needed foreign investment in NZ. No doubt they’d find a way to exempt Mr Kebbell from their price-fixes on dairy products.
Great news on the sale going through.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 12:25 pm
Usual chorus of verbal diarrhea
Vote:from from the grandmother sellers and aherants to mamon.
April 20th, 2012 at 12:27 pm
Any colour, as long as it’s not Yellow, eh Minto? (I’m sure you’d make an exception for Pol Pot, mind).
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 12:28 pm
I’m right wing and National just lost my vote next election. Say what you like, but National WILL pay a price for their decision.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 12:30 pm
Another racist bigot shouter thats your problem you are incapable of debate
Vote:PRC supports the syrian and iranian regimes
April 20th, 2012 at 12:32 pm
mara the rules are there for a reason. You cannot blame the government for sticking to them. Oh and did they not lose your vote when land was sold to the English, Americans over the last few years? That was different right?? Racist fool…
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 12:34 pm
If that is you John Minto then I have been aching to ask you a question. Why did you protest when the Israeli girl played tennis here but not when the Zimbabwe cricket team came here for a tour? I know its off topic but I would love to know….
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 12:36 pm
Because he’s a dick, Cunningham.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 12:38 pm
National WILL pay a price for their decision.
By the next election the moronic voting public will have moved on to exciting moral panic #757805. The Crafar farms will be long forgotten.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 12:42 pm
No I am not that person,
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 12:45 pm
@minto57
It’s mammon you dipstick.
Vote:Mamon is Spanish for sucker which aptly describes your adherents.
Shouting and (badly spelled) slogans don’t add to the debate.
April 20th, 2012 at 12:47 pm
Yes the moronic public do not like this deal it stinks like all the other smelly deals.
Vote:It is about time United Future grew a backbone before the damage goes terminal
April 20th, 2012 at 12:48 pm
What a sell-out.
DPF comes to National’s aid.
Crap! the DisHon Maurice William-Sung and other National politicians have been behind the sale to China all along.
I hope the majority of the population who oppose the sale now also look at the role of taxpayer-owned Landcorp in pushing this sale of a large chunk of our arable land to Communist Beijing. And scrutinise any dairy links of Landcorp’s directors.
Dubya in his posts above in this thread raises the race card. About all that National and Beijing’s PRs can play in defence of this sell-out. Still, as anti-racists, we can now expect them to speak up on behalf of the Tibetans, the Uighurs and the ethnic Mongolians of Inner Mongolia? Yeah right.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 12:49 pm
@mara.
I’m sorry, are you saying that National has lost your vote because they _obeyed_ the Law and approved the sale of land from one foreign owner (Westpac) to another?
Vote:I may not be overly fond of the Chinese (PRC that is, not individual Chinese people, those I am acquainted with I get on well with), but I don’t see how disobeying the law and refusing to sell them the land based on their nationality (given we’ve happily sold land to other foreigners) would have been anything other than plain daft.
April 20th, 2012 at 12:50 pm
Jack5, if you want to own a farm, buy one. Otherwise button up.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 12:50 pm
Soooo pedantic
Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can not serve both God and Mammon.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 12:53 pm
” No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can not serve both God and Mammon.”
Drivel. Most likely he will hate them both.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 1:00 pm
i love hese idiots going postal over some freakin farm land.
it would be great to put all their names on a list and when it comes time to sell their house, we all get to decide who should buy it.
“oh sorry, i know that chinese fella wants to pay you 450k, but hes chinese. so youre going to sell to this piece of white trash for 350k.”
i use low numbers cause i suspect the median house price for people who oppose the sale is quite low
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 1:01 pm
My real cows milk is still 4 litres for $6, or at weekend $5.50, at two local dairies.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 1:03 pm
Sounds like the love of money to me you know avarice.
Vote:I will wait for the spell checkers and assorted plonkers
April 20th, 2012 at 1:05 pm
Dime you are racist bigot shouting
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 1:06 pm
Oh great. so apparently he worships John Minto and God. Definitely one for the Dubya dinner party list.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 1:09 pm
Thanks goodness this has gone through. A victory for people with brains
Dime at 1.00pm nails it. Petty racist lefties , only complete wollies think that Fay would do anything other than strip what ever asset was available to him on the farms. His appealing to nationalisim so he can make a killing has been sickening.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 1:12 pm
Dime is many many things. A racist is not one of them
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 1:14 pm
Just come in from rolling some re grassed paddocks, talkback is running hot. Fuck the lefty townie loons are losing their rags. Calls like “stop selling our land”, “the government would sell their grandmothers, etc,etc. Two points, it’s not your land you townie socialist bastards and if I am forced to sell to lower bidder because the socialists believe my land is theirs then I hope they will follow the same rules should they wish to sell their house in town to the Chinese. Of course their outrage is as hollow as their beliefs.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 1:24 pm
Labour’s outrage over this is of the faux variety. After all it was Labour who passed the Overseas Investmant Act 2005 which disestablished the Overseas Investment Commission, and replaced it with the OIO.
With all the poliitical scrutiny over this decision, you can be sure that Williamson and Coleman will have done everything exactly by the book, taking into account the issues raised by Justice Forrest Miller when he overturned to OIO’s initial decision. Labour is hoist by its own petard now, and the only reason for its outrage is likely to be the ethnicity of the purchasers, given the changes Labour made to the law, and subsequent land sales to non-Asians.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 1:25 pm
@minto57
“Dime you are racist bigot shouting”
How long before you are going to Godwin the thread?
Vote:Are all you lefties suffering from projection?
April 20th, 2012 at 1:27 pm
Alan Wilkinson posted at 12.50:
What is your argument in this regard, Alan Wilkinson? Does your post imply that you are pushing the libertarian view – that if you own a farm you can sell it to anyone you bloody well like?
If so, would that include selling it to al-Qaeda, Anders Breivik, or a Colombian drug cartel?
Meanwhile Pauleastbay at 1.09 joins minto57 in shouting all opposition is racist.
Maori folk opposing the sale today – are they racist? Those of us who oppose all sales to non-residents of our arable land – are we racist because of this position?
Backers of the Crafar sale to Red Beijing have little to justify their position if they can only shout all opposition to it is racism.
Chinese suffered racism in historical NZ, even more than Maori and, to a lesser extent Irish, did. In and after World War 1, German settlers and NZ-born children of children suffered physical violence and damage to property as well as similar prejudice. Was that racist, too?
It would be interesting to know if all NZ-born Chinese are happy with the sale of our land to Beijing. Similarly, some Taiwanese settlers in NZ will have mixed feelings about the Crafar-Beijing deal. If so, are they racist, too? Perhaps even some Chinese who moved from the Mainland to NZ because they wanted to be in free society, may also have mixed feelings about Beijing’s in set buying land in their new homeland. If so, is that racist?
The sale of our arable land to non-residents is wrong. National doesn’t give a stuff about it.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 1:33 pm
“If so, would that include selling it to al-Qaeda, Anders Breivik, or a Colombian drug cartel?”
lmao so thats how ya see the chinese huh
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 1:34 pm
Jack5 “Maori folk opposing the sale today – are they racist? Those of us who oppose all sales to non-residents of our arable land – are we racist because of this position?” why are you only saying it now then? Where were you and all the other fuckwits who are up in arms about this from 2000 onwards (not sure about how much land was sold to foreigners prior to this but I am sure it happened). Labour sold way more land to foreigners yet no one said a thing. That is the issue you dickhead not whether people are opposed or not. Its the timing of the opposition.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 1:36 pm
Other Andy posted at 1:25pm:
Polling indicates far more than “Lefties” oppose the sale of Crafar farms to Red Beijing.
I (now regretfully) gave both my votes to National at the last election, for example.
And what sort of label should we put on the rent-a-mob leading today’s cheering for the sell-out to Beijing. They are in cahoots with the Chinese Communist Party and they dare shout “Leftist” at us for opposing the Crafar deal?
Perhaps those in the pockets of Mao’s heritage are the Lefties.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 1:42 pm
@jack5
“The sale of our arable land to non-residents is wrong.”
That’s a valid point of view.
Vote:However that’s not what this discussion is about.
The law states that foreigners are (Under certain circumstances) allowed to buy land. Australians, Germans, Swiss, Americans have done so in the past. Why can’t the Chinese?
April 20th, 2012 at 1:49 pm
What is your argument in this regard, Alan Wilkinson? Does your post imply that you are pushing the libertarian view – that if you own a farm you can sell it to anyone you bloody well like? If so, would that include selling it to al-Qaeda, Anders Breivik, or a Colombian drug cartel?
Yes, and yes so long as they are legal purchasers. Certainly the first and third would not be since their funds would not be cleared. The second could have issues too. But that would be my business not yours.
Actually my argument is simply that when you own the farm you have a right to an opinion on the matter. You also have put your money where your mouth is – unlike those who wish to put other people’s money where their mouth is.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 1:52 pm
Cunningham posted at 1.34:
When Shania Twain bought a sheep station at Wanaka there was considerable opposition. There have been mumblings about, Irish, British, German and Dutch farmers buying land, but typically these deals have been one farm at a time, and the overseas farmers, skilled dairy men mostly, have settled in NZ and become NZ farmers.
The main reason that opposition to selling our arable land to non-residents has soared, however, is that the Crafar farms were in the spotlight for other reasons, this was the biggest land deal in recent history, and because there was an earlier Chinese deal that collapsed in ignominy. The sell-everything-mob crossed the Rubicon with the Crafar deal.
This is the reason why the Crafar deal should have been blocked, in my view (this is my response to Andy’s query at 1.42. I would add to him, that there’s another reason someone who wanted to distinguish the China purchase from the others he mentions in this post – “Australians, Germans, Swiss, Americans” – though I would not distinguish them. The reason is that New Zealanders can buy freehold land in all those countries, but not in the People’s Republic of China.
Now, Cunningham, please take a break from shouting “dickhead” at your opponents to explain what the basis of your support for the deal is? Are you a libertarian? A real estate agent? A National Party strategist?
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 1:56 pm
” Maori folk opposing the sale today – are they racist? ”
Given that Maori won’t sell any of their land to anyone, I can’t see the relevance of that question. IMO their opinions don’t matter in this debate.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 1:57 pm
Alan Wilkinson posted at 1.49:
Alan, I’ve read your posts on Kiwiblog and on the NZ Herald site etc, for some time. The position you quote doesn’t do yourself justice.
In effect you seem to be saying if you are not the owner of the Crafar farms, that is the receiver acting for the banks, you don’t have a right to an opinion on the matter.
So wouldn’t even require Overseas Investment Office approval?
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 1:57 pm
This blog by Patrick Gower is well worth a read. Key’s love of nasi goreng shows why he likes Crafar sale.
Spending some time with Key on a trade trip to Indonesia seems to have highlighted the reality of the real world to Gower, with heaps of opportunities for us not very far from here, if it’s done right. Indonesia’s population is increasing by 4m per year.
Paddy’s blog is more about sheep milk than nasi goreng.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 2:00 pm
“They are in cahoots with the Chinese Communist Party and they dare shout “Leftist” at us for opposing the Crafar deal?
Perhaps those in the pockets of Mao’s heritage are the Lefties.”
LMAO im in cahoots with the chinese communist party? go me!!
its good to see youre not hysterical jack
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 2:00 pm
WF posted at 1.56:
That’s a bit of a stretch, given that once Maori were once in possession of the whole of the archipelago we call New Zealand
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 2:03 pm
So wouldn’t even require Overseas Investment Office approval?
Certainly not under the ridiculous conditions specified by the law according to Justice Millar. There may possibly be some circumstances in which an overseas owner should be barred or subject to special conditions. I don’t recall ever hearing any but anti-competitive issues could possibly arise.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 2:07 pm
@wf
“Given that Maori won’t sell any of their land to anyone……”
Yes they do. Here are just two recent examples of Maori more than happy to flog off their assets to foreigners. Just 2 years ago Ngai Tahu sold Rakanui Station to Americans and in 2011 they sold 18,000 hectares of forest to a Swiss owned family company for 22.9 million dollars.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 2:19 pm
Other_Andy posted at 2.11:
Other_Andy are you sure they didn’t just sell the trees – the cutting rights, or the cutting and replanting rights – and kept the land?
If so this is not the same as selling freehold, as in the Crafar case.
Similarly did the Ngai Tahu sell freehold or leasehold rights?
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 2:23 pm
@jack5
“Other_Andy are you sure they didn’t just sell the trees – the cutting rights, or the cutting and replanting rights – and kept the land?”
Nope, other way around.
It is freehold.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/5712149/Ngai-Tahu-sells-Canterbury-forestry-land
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 2:29 pm
Re Other-Andy at 2.23.
Thanks for that titbit.
Now it’s just a matter of sorting out who best represents the Maori position: the North Island iwi or the pale-skinned southern tribe.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 2:43 pm
I am none of those things Jack5. Just someone who sees the unfariness of an overseas investor get completely fucked over because they come from a country kiwis don’t understand/want anything to do with. How do you know that all the land sold was to people who know how to farm? Landcorp will get a significant amount of money to operate the farms and they most certainly know how to run them. What about James Cameron. Why haven’t you even raised his purchase? I imagine he knows jack shit about farming yet no one was up in arms about his purchase were they. Whats the difference? Is it because you like his movies? Also do you agree with us buying land in South America? Our companies buy and invest all over the world and extract profits from the countries they invest in back here. The world has changed Jack5. About time you got up with the play.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 2:43 pm
I think this’ll sum up why the “selling OUR land” argument is flaky at best:
Vote:http://thenzcontrarian.blogspot.co.nz/2012/04/wailing-banshees-and-crafar-farms-saga.html
April 20th, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Final nail in the coffin of the argument for supporting the Crafar-Beijing deal…
The foreign-owned NZ Hoo-erald has thrown its weight behind the deal today editorially and in news columns.
Re Cunningham at 4.43: I oppose sale of our arable land to all non-residents.
However, we can all have opinions on good and bad foreign investment. For me good foreign investment brings new industry we wouldn’t otherwise have, such as the electronics and later biotech investments in Singapore, and the refinery at NZ’s Marsden Point. Especially after the milk-poisoning case in China, it’s hard to see what benefits the Crafar deal brings to NZ.
Still my opposition to the Crafar deal is chiefly based on the view that arable land is quite limited in this small, mountainous country, and freehold title should be reserved for residents. Leasehold, timber cutting rights etc being sold abroad – no problem in my view, but I would keep the freehold.
The Chinese seem to have the same view on their own freehold. Perhaps it’s you, Cunningham, who needs to catcht up with the changing world.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 3:30 pm
It’s not like the land is leaving New Zealand – if you’re worried about there being a war, New Zealand would commandeer the land if required. Otherwise there’s no difference – the food is produced and is sold to the foreign consumer just like it always has been.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 3:46 pm
Jack, agreeing with the Herald is always a concern but even they occasionally get things right accidentally.
The Chinese don’t have the same view of their own freehold. The Chinese Government owns everything – land, body and souls. Not anything we should aspire to copy.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 4:02 pm
The unasked question here is why the receivers were instructed to sell the farms as a block rather than individually. Normally a bank would pressure a receiver to obtain the best price for the assets to minimize the loss in the best interests of their shareholders and a receiver has a duty to maximize the value of assets sold.ANZ as the debenture or charge holder over the farms probably made some very poor decisions in continuing to fund Crafar but have also publicly stated they see China as somewhere they wish to develop their future business in. Korda Mentha the receivers ( Michael Stiassny) have a controversial history so it is possible that ANZ to curry favour with Bejing instructed the receiver to only sell as a parcel to make it more difficult for locals to acquire the farms and treat the loss resulting from receiver this way as the price of favorable treatment in China were the financial prize is potentially much greater. This is a perfectly justifiable commercial decision but the lack of transparency and the perception that our Govnt/and or its agencies have colluded in facilitating this raises questions of integrity & trust especially as the Chinese company has no experience in farming as evidenced by the fact that Landcorp will effectively be the farmer. A simple solution would have been the grant of a lease during which time the Chinese company would have the opportunity to demonstrate delivery of its promises and the gaining of the requisite experience & knowledge to allow them to satisfy the OIA requirement of experience. This result would likely have been a win win for all concerned.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 4:44 pm
Ohhh dear Minto57!
This isn’t ‘the’ John Minto is it, the commie Jew hater?
If so, calling anyone a racist bigot whilst being part of the Hone party is laughable, working for the most racist person in NZ! (oops sorry, forgetting someone once said, maori lawyer?, maori can’t be racist..*cough..*cough. if it came from a maori Academic it MUST be true)….you had your fame back in the early 80′s Minto and now you berate Israeli tennis players for the ‘palestine cause’. If you are so behind the palistinians and against Israel, as it seems you are…go and stand with them on the front line (Insert Tui ad here).
PS
Vote:Your column you had on Stuff, which espoused basically business owners=bad, workers=good…care to explain you jumping ship when McCarten fucked up running a business (Unite Union) and didn’t pay the PAYE and is now 150K in the hole…and here was you and Matt saying/telling everyone business owners are making money off the workers, seems your boss was too!!…I’m sitting comfortably, you may begin explaining any time Minto.
April 20th, 2012 at 4:46 pm
freethinker, don’t talk rot.
Firstly the appointed chargeholder was Westpac, not ANZ Bank.
Secondly, the receivers offered the farms to the market individually or as a complete package and any other combination in between.
Thirdly the suggestion that the bank would have been standing over the receivers is complete crap and I have no doubt the receivers sold the lot to the Chinese because that was the best offer. It was certainly way better than the Fay consortium offer.
Finally, the suggestion Westpac might have agreed to a sale to the Chinese purchaser to curry favour with the Chinese government…. Wow! What a vivid imagination you have.
And why the hell would Westpac and the receivers be interested in granting a lease to a purchaser when the bank is into the Crafars for a sum in excess of $200,000,000? A lease isn’t going to cut it in terms of the bank getting its money back. The suggestion that this is an appropriate alternative to an outright sale…. Well what I can say. You are a freethinker alright.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 5:30 pm
This is the right decision. Freethinker @ 4.02 , smtte is correct in that the farms were offered via Bayleys in any package the buyers wanted ( see Fran O’sullivan’s article.)
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10790264
On radio earlier it was stated that the Crafar farm deal ( in terms of area sold) is the equivalent of the average monthly sales to foreigners under the 9 years of Labour.
Shearer in recent weeks has been pushing that our future is with Asia so to come out against a deal like this is BS.
The Greens –well they are just anti progess in any form so their reaction is expected.
As for those who think this is the “end”for Key, well by the next election we should see quite abit of progress from this deal and I for one think it will be positive progress.
Vote:I would suggest that most of the anti brigade have absolutely no knowledge of exporting and don’t have a clue how hard it is.
April 20th, 2012 at 5:34 pm
Freethinker
Unfortunately, the statutory regime as it applies to the acquisition of farmland by overseas owners is not quite as loose as the opponents of the sales may suggest. Regrettably, many of those opponents somewhat reprehensibly distort the law and give the impression that the government is calling the shots and that the government has a discretion to decline consent. We have even had the likes of Duncan Garner advocating that the government could use public opinion as justification for declining consent.
Opponents of the sale rely very heavily on the prejudice created by allegations of underhand dealing, collusion, conspiracy, selling out NZ et cetera.
The first point to note is that the farms are being sold by the Receivers – not the government and not the secured creditor. As has been pointed out above, Westpac is the secured creditor in this case.
The group of companies owed Westpac somewhere in the order of $256,000,000. The receiver’s report can be found on the Company Office website for verification. In addition, there is something like it $2.5 million of unsecured creditors.
The report indicates that it is unlikely that there will be any funds available to meet unsecured creditors. Obviously, this circumstance suggests that the Receivers have their work cut out in order to satisfy the Bank lending. It is therefore extremely unlikely that anybody would have been colluding with the receivers in order to persuade them to sell as a single lot, achieving a lesser price, as some sop to the Chinese.
The Court’s decision on the Judicial review application records that these farms are in very poor condition and productivity has been poor because they have been starved of investment. They will require a major injection of capital and expertise in order to bring them up to scratch.
The next point to note is that the ministers themselves do not have a great deal of room to move. OIO officials are required to report to the Minister on any proposal and whether the proposal meets the statutory thresholds. Consent cannot be given unless these thresholds have been crossed. Consent must be given if the thresholds have been crossed. Please refer to the following quote from the recent High Court case.
“Under s 14, the Ministers, in considering whether to grant consent, must have regard to ―only the criteria and factors that apply to the relevant category of overseas investment. The Ministers must grant consent if satisfied that all of the relevant criteria in s 16 are met and must otherwise decline it.”
“Lack of transparency” is a common complaint by conspiracy theorists. It is usually made without any justification. In this case, negotiations between the receivers and the Chinese were between private individuals on a commercially sensitive matter. No one could reasonably expect those negotiations to be matters of public record. I would go further and say that the alleged lack of transparency is a nonsense. The nuts and bolts of the deal are closely scrutinised by officers in the Overseas Investment Office. They are scrutinised by the Government ministers responsible and the decision of the ministers can be reviewed judicially. Not all information is made public for obvious reasons. Matters of commercial sensitivity are rarely publicised. We have much the same issue with the Sky City deal where critics talk about deals behind closed doors. Those critics (dishonestly in my view) ignore the fact that the tendering process was open to all, the Prime Minister announced the deal well before the last election (not long after it was agreed in principle) and far from hiding anything, the government has taken the view that this is a genuinely positive and beneficial outcome for taxpayers. The avenues for ensuring compliance with OIO clearly militate against “closed-door” politically motivated decision-making. The High Court decision overturning the original consent illustrates that. [The decision did not find that the consent was politically motivated. It found that the test to be applied had been incorrectly formulated as far back as the original passing of the Act by the former Labour government]
Leasing is simply not an option. Westpac wants its money. It has been suggested on earlier threads that a leasing arrangement should be put in place. However, the only appropriate lessor is the government and it is unlikely to pick up the cheque-book every time somebody wants to sell a farm overseas.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 5:38 pm
What I see here is the avoidance of the word RACISM. Easier to say xenophobia eh? Not so loaded and half the population can’t even spell it. This reluctance obliterates the discussion we should be having, not about selling farming land at all, but selling to China which has unique needs and power. To say that we could “pull a Fiji” if the equation got too unequal is ludicrous.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 6:08 pm
@ mara (364)
Other than run an export dairy farm what else do you expect to happen on the land, for them to turn it into a PRC military training ground? Other than using it for what it is stipulated for the owners wont be able to do anything else with it. The dairying standards will be NZ standards, animal welfare will be the same, nothing will change except the owners. The land isn’t going to be uprooted and taken away and when the land is sold again the govt. of the day will again decide who can buy.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 6:34 pm
Actually this is what I don’t understand: National allows cronies of the PRC totalitarian communist regime to have ownership of NZ farm land because they are obliged to under the OIA, fair enough.
Except: National also has a blanket ban on any new Fijian ownership of NZ farmland under both sections 16)1)c) and 16)1)d) of the OIA. Well excuse me but the PRC unlike Fiji has NEVER had anything even remotely approaching a democracy or free elections. The PRC unlike Fiji has a very very long history of oppression, authoritarianism, mass slaughter of it’s citizens and is routinely persecuting and killing dissidents to this very day.
Why aren’t criteria 16)1)c) and d) of the OIA applied to the principals of Shanghai Pengxin when they clearly apply? Where is the consistency? Why National’s double standard? Are we abandoning our most basic principles which were defended with our very blood (this being commemorated this Wednesday) just for some Yuan? Is it simply because we suck up to the rich and powerful like the PRC and can bully the poor and weak like Fiji? Is New Zealand really so craven and venal now?
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 7:13 pm
“Dime is many many things. A racist is not one of them”
Sorry dime, I’m with you on this particular issue, but I remember you making the comment in the thread below so I gotta call you on it:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2012/02/general_debate_17_february_2012.html#comment-934182
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 7:18 pm
SMTCC posted at 4.46:
SMTCC has got to the core of the issue. John Ki on TV1′s Close-up tonight listed three parties that would benefit from the Crafar-China deal: the country (NZ); the buyer; and the lenders (the banks).
Westpac and other bankers caused the current problem by grossly overlending to the Crafars. Don’t bankers deserve some pain for this bad lending? You and I would if we lent money to someone who would later be unable to repay us fully.
Bankers’ overenthusiastic lending has helped send land prices sky high in the dairy boom. Now the world economy is turning sour, and the medium-term prospects for dairying are weakening with other producing countries lifting output and a likely resurgence of socialism in Europe sure to bring back agricultural subsidies and further lifts in dairy ouput.
As dairy prices fall, the banks are going to be in more trouble with their lending, and the security on this would be threatened by falling land prices. So here’s a theory: the Government is coming to the banks’ aid by ensuring international buyers will be able to come into the country and keep up land prices.
There will always be buyers because there’s lots of hot and cold cash in the world looking for land, and other potential sellers, such as Argentina and Brazil, are moving to squeeze out land sales to foreigners.
If the whole Crafar deal is about protecting the banks’ bad lending, then worse is in store. As things worsen, the Government and the banks are ready to sell the whole country to keep up land prices and protect banks’ security on their stupid lending.
So the open door to sales of our scarce arable land parallels the bailout of the banks in 2007-2008, and the guarantees of finance companies that have cost taxpayers billions.
If the Crafar deal is indeed about holding up land prices and protecting the banks, then the Government is creating moral hazard. Bank lenders will repeat their errors because they know they can sell a bit more of the country to bail themselves out.
Is the world economy going downhill? For NZ, dairy prices are falling fairly sharply. Internationally, Spain is teetering economically and China’s growth is tailing off. The Baltic Dry Index, which tracks world shipping prices for bulk cargo, looks to me to be down 40 per cent this year (though partly because Asian yards have overbuilt to stimulate their economies).
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 7:19 pm
Joseph, the silence, so far, to your question is deafening.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 7:22 pm
adze (1,242) Says:
How in the hell could you remember that and then be bothered bringing it up? If you truely recalled it then thats outstanding
I will never again suggest to myself that I have anything other than a full and fruitful exisitence -
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 7:24 pm
PEB, funny the things that stick in your mind, my missus is always on at me about forgetting stuff lol
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 7:49 pm
mara, Joseph, drivelling crap.
16.1(c)the relevant overseas person is, or (if that person is not an individual) all the individuals with control of the relevant overseas person are, of good character:
16.1(d)the relevant overseas person is not, or (if that person is not an individual) each individual with control of the relevant overseas person is not, an individual of a kind referred to in section 15 or 16 of the Immigration Act 2009 (which sections list certain persons not eligible for visas or entry permission under that Act):
How many Chinese tourists do you think have qualified for visas? That rules out (d). As for (c), China is our second largest trade partner after Australia, we have a FTA with them, there is no indication the company involved has acted unethically or been pressured to act unethically and you want to claim they are not of good character?
Get a life.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 7:54 pm
Jesus! What a bloody dreadful decision.
How could any sensible Government overlook a bid from an honourable man like Sir Michael and sell land to folks who may rip us all off in the name of profit!
Shocking stuff!
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 7:55 pm
Jack5, nice conspiracy theory. Actually while reading it, I thought you might have been phillu for a while. He seems to see conspiracy and corruption everywhere and in everything.
The reality is the government didn’t approve the sale to prop up bad lending by Westpac or as part of a new found policy to protect banks in general against bad lending decisions. The sale was approved because IT MET THE RELEVANT STATUTORY CRITERIA WHICH MEANT THE MINISTERS HAD TO APPROVE IT.
Contrary to the BS David Parker has been spinning for some time now, the ministerS do not have a discretion to decline an application which meets the relevant criteria. As a lawyer, I am personally disgusted that Parker (also a lawyer) would attempt to run this BS line when he knows better.
Frankly I doubt the government gives a fuck about bad bank lending decisions.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 7:59 pm
@Johnboy
Exactly what I thought. Why isn’t anybody raking Fay over hot coals?
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 8:00 pm
Alan, you bet me to it. Well done.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 8:01 pm
Still. Should up my returns from Rabobank!
Every cloud has an almost golden lining!!
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 8:01 pm
Sir Michael is an honourable man O_A!
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 8:10 pm
@Johnboy
Interested in a bridge Johnboy?
Vote:I have a cheap one on the books in Brooklyn.
April 20th, 2012 at 8:13 pm
I’ll swap you for the one I used to have in London before I sold it to Arizona!
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 8:22 pm
SMTCC posted at 7.55:
Better tell John Ki, then SMTCC. On Close-up tonight he listed help to the lenders (the banks) as one of three benefits of the Crafar sale to China.
And the way the Government is going at the moment, it doesn't seem to give a fuck about anything.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 8:28 pm
I watched Key on Campbell Live tonight. He made mincemeat of Campbell.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 8:31 pm
Johnboy posted at 8.01:
Johnboy, as a matter of general interest, are you talking about its interest rates, or what? Rabobank is a co-operative, but is there a way to get returns from it other than interest rates?
Or are you on a commission from it? If so I hope you’re not one of those who got Rabobank’s NZ arm into Crafar.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 8:33 pm
Thats right Alan Wilkinson, Jiang Zhaobai (the 99% owner of SPGL) was cleared by NZ on the word of the PRC Ministry of Public Security, particularly in reference to the known land deals he made in association with triad gangster Xiao Di Zhou (who is currently in prison over these same land deals involving corrupt PRC government officials). And of course being an ex combat engineer in the PLA. And his very good access and connections to Communist Party of China local officials in the Shanghai area in particular. And his extremely favourable exclusive development deals with the local PRC government in his early days. And his access to massive capital prior to the development of securities market in the PRC and Hong Kong becoming an SRA and with total control by the PRC government over foreign/internal currency.
Yeah, nothing at all to see here, move along folks. Meanwhile there is a blanket ban on Fijian citizens owning more than 5ha of rural land in NZ because of course they automatically have bad character because they come from the evil and undemocratic Fiji.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 8:33 pm
Jack5, Key said it was a benefit to the bank. He didn’t say the government could give a fuck either way whether this was in fact the case.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 8:34 pm
Interest rates Jack.
Hope they will rise once they get our money back from the sale.
How could you possibly suspect that a simple man like me was some sort of bloody money manipulator?
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 8:41 pm
Joseph: “there is a blanket ban on Fijian citizens owning more than 5ha of rural land in NZ”
Reference?
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 8:42 pm
To Johnboy’s 8.38 post:
So he doesn’t give a fuck whether people thinks he gives a fuck. He doesn’t give a fuck whether we argue on and on about whether he gives a fuck. So in the end only the Prime Minister knows whether he himself gives a fuck.
Fair-a-fuckin ‘nough.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 8:45 pm
“To Johnboy’s 8.38 post:”—eh???
Hell I thought I was pissed!
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 8:47 pm
My apologies Johnboy! Sorry to attribute that to you.
I meant SMTCC’s 8.33 post, and was responding to that.
I F’d up. Sorry again.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 8:57 pm
Joseph, to fail a good character test requires actual evidence of failure, not just allegations and smears from opponents.
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/diplomats-clear-crafar-farms-buyer-underworld-links-wb-117254
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 10:55 pm
Mr Wilkinson:
1) Here is the current NZ sanctions list against Fiji
http://www.immigration.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/5469FAF4-165B-43B8-9CC4-8B4204676ED8/0/InformationleafletonsanctionsagainstFiji.pdf
Note the long banning list at the beginning, I particularly liked item ii) the secret “the banned list” held by Immigration New Zealand, did you? By virtue of the OIA 16)1)d) they are automatically banned and the under 5ha rural land limit comes from the OIA as well, I mean you posted that part of the act yourself, did you read it?
2) Did you actually also read the article you linked above and where was I wrong about what I said earlier? To repeat: an anonymous NZ diplomat (who obviously went to the NZ Immigration and Maori TV school of background vetting) in China checked with the PRC Ministry of Security and took their word at face value that he had “no recorded convictions” but (to quote your own link) “The embassy official did confirm a historic connect between Shanghai Pengxin and Xiao. “SPGL and Mr Xiao both appear to have acquired land from a corrupt official – the official did not own the land and had no right to sell it,” the report said”. Yeah, nothing to see here, move along folks, one PRC government crony official clears another very well connected crony of corruption, I mean it’s very well know the Chinese regime is completely pure of any corruption. I’ll let people judge for themselves how diligently our very well paid diplomatic staff actually investigated. Also completely overlooking of course his connections to the PRC communist regime (but whats crushing a few dissidents – literally under tanks – between “best friends”).
3) And still no answer to my initial question from anyone: Why the double standard, why is anyone associated with the odious non-democratic Fiji regime automatically banned under the NZ OIA while it’s obviously open slather for anyone associated with the far more odious non-democratic PRC totalitarian communist regime?
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 11:07 pm
3) And still no answer——-
Ah! Because a pathetic little Banana Republic like us, with no real armed forces since ugly Helen and Goffy fucked them, but a bunch of posing Pollies can feel comfortable picking on an even smaller Banana Republic like Fiji, even if their Armed Forces would probably give us a fair run for our money. But at the same time we can’t pick on a bunch of turds like the Chinese because the bastards own half the world including us and would thrash our sad little arse’s in five minutes and our posing Pollies are shit scared of them.
That folks is Diplomacy!
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 11:23 pm
Good. Sold. Move on everybody. Not one of you would want the Chinese FTA to be terminated, well the racists would.
It was all about WHO the sale was to, rather than what benefits it would bring. It’s been mentioned before but it was already owned by an Aussie bank – and I didn’t see any complaints about that.
What do Kiwis have to fear from China? Well that’s another story.
Vote:April 20th, 2012 at 11:29 pm
Melamine in their Lion Red perhaps?
Vote:April 21st, 2012 at 1:05 am
good night racist bigot shouters your souls are so cheap
Vote:April 21st, 2012 at 7:44 am
Ah the whinging bloody hori’s are at it again. Too miserable to front with the required cash they now are going to behave like the bullies they always turn out to be. And Mr Fay is right their with them. What is it about Maori and the Irish?
Maori warn of backlash to land sale
ANDREA FOX
Last updated 05:00 21/04/2012
Maori are promising the “biggest hikoi New Zealand has ever seen” following the Government’s second green light for a sale of the 8000-hectare Crafar dairy farming estate to Chinese company Shanghai Pengxin.
Meanwhile, central North Island iwi who are part of Sir Michael Fay’s court action against the sale have confirmed they are talking to Pengxin in the hope of buying three of the 16 farms from the company.
Nigel Baker – who represents a group within the Taupo region’s Ngati Tuwharetoa iwi, which is part of Fay’s group and has met Pengxin twice seeking to buy the 1700-hectare Tauhara Crafar farm – considered ancestral land, said there would be a “very strong” Maori backlash against the latest land sale to foreigners.
But details of the protest action, which would be against the wider sovereignty issue of the sale of land to foreigners, were still secret, he said.
The saying “fat lot in their pants” comes to mind.
Vote:April 22nd, 2012 at 10:00 pm
Joseph, as you well know, the sanctions against those associated with the Fijian coup are because it recently overturned the democratically elected government.
No such event occurred in China, nor is there any likelihood of comparable sanctions by NZ having any impact on democratic progress there. Simply, the cost/benefit equation is different.
Some Fijians are being banned not because of their character, but because they are associated with the coup. If you think NZ should ban anyone associated with any undemocratic government you had better say so – and deal with the probable counter-banning retaliation against New Zealanders that would result all around the world. Otherwise you are merely posturing.
Vote: