Garner on Xenophobia

August 11th, 2014 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

writes at the Dom Post:

So suddenly we’re all against selling off farms to foreigners. Well, it’s not really just foreigners, is it. Let’s be honest – we’re worried about the Chinese buying our farms. They’re not like us. There you go, I said it. Clearly many are thinking it. Cue Opposition politicians lining up to scratch our collective itch. Nationalism? Racism? Xenophobia? All of the above? The reality is we’ve been hocking off our farms to overseas buyers for years and no-one seemed too fussed. Australians, Germans, Russians, the Swiss and the Americans – no worries.

You expect it from NZ First, but not from .

The debate has flared up over Lochinver Station, near Taupo. A reputable Chinese company wants to buy it for $70 million. They bought Crafar Farms and, from all reports, have improved it. They promise to upgrade Lochinver and keep the 20 Kiwi staff on. The sellers, the Stevenson family, want to take the money and reinvest it in their other business interests, such as quarries, and create about 8000 jobs over time. Surely we support that – don’t we? Labour has effectively pledged to stop the sale if it gets into government. Let’s pause and consider the hypocrisy: Labour’s position is a massive change of heart.  And Winston Peters, who was in government too from 2005-2008  must have been asleep at the wheel. Labour allowed Poronui Station to be sold in 2007 – that’s the farm next door to Lochinver Station. Labour Cabinet minister David Parker even asked a question of himself in Parliament about that sale – trumpeting the benefits of .

They are such hypocrites.

In the last term of the Labour-NZ First government, an average of 762 square kilometres of land was sold every year. The amount sold in the past five years under National has been about 390sq km a year. The Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa estimates about 8 per cent of our best farmland is in foreign hands. Should we have banned film director James Cameron from buying his farms in the Wairarapa? He’s about to make Avatar 2, 3 and 4 in New Zealand and that will create hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs. Should he have been told to bugger off? Labour leader David Cunliffe is even suggesting that Australians be banned from owning big farms here too. He’s taking ‘‘advice’’ over it – which is code for he’s making up policy on the hoof.

What’s new. And for outright racism, here’s Winston:

“As they say in Beijing, two Wongs don’t make a right.”

Winston defends the joke on the basis he heard it Beijing. But jokes are all about context. When you make the joke in the context of spreading fear and phobia about Chinese, then it is not funny, but nasty.

Jamie Whyte points out:

David Cunliffe’s suggestion that Australians be banned from owning big farms invites retaliation from Australia. 500,000 Kiwis currently live in Australia and many own land there or would like to.

Last year, Cunliffe told Australian government ministers and business leaders to give Kiwis “a fair go.”

Cunliffe said it is unfair that New Zealanders in Australia are treated differently from Australians in Australia. Yet he seeks to be Prime Minister on a promise to treat Australians differently from New Zealanders.

The inevitable retaliation would have a delicious irony, with Russell Norman’s support for the policy losing him his right to buy land in his home country. But that joy will be far outweighed by the terrible losses to New Zealanders.

The freedom to move back and forth across the Tasman, and to buy and sell property in both countries, is a great advantage to New Zealanders. The government should guard it jealousy. It should not be put at risk for the cheap political purposes of a desperate politician.

Land sales are regulated. Anything over a certain size must meet a national interest test. You can debate whether the test should be altered, but those parties advocating an outright ban are trying to reintroduce Fortress New Zealand from the 1970s.

Tags: , , ,

61 Responses to “Garner on Xenophobia”

  1. seanmaitland (501 comments) says:

    I have to say, Duncan Garner is a far better written journalist than TV based one. I couldn’t stand him on TV3, felt like he was being controversial for the sake of it, so he could look like he was ‘hard hitting’. His written articles however are well written and he does a bit of research too, unlike most of the rubbish political journalists we have in New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    There is a big difference between Xenophobia and being Patriotic.

    Wanting the land in your own country to be used to benefit your own country ‘men’ more than it benefits other nations, is not ‘an unreasonable fear of something foreign’ – therefore it is not Xenophobic.

    The word is being used to make people shrink from voicing how they feel. Extremely poor application – especially when it is done to stop any open and frank discussion on a subject which New Zealanders are entitled to have an opinion on.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. kowtow (8,938 comments) says:

    It’s not xenophobia ,it’s sinophobia.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Jack5 (5,278 comments) says:

    Garner’s too busy to do much thinking these days. Tubby body, tubby brain. No consideration of the argument of those who oppose the Lochinver sale, such as the lack of reciprocity in NZ’ers buying land in China.

    No doubt Garner will cheer on the Government if it blocks dairy sales to Russia on the ground the Russians are nasty. Russia ex-KGB bad, Beijing, still run by the Communist Party, good.

    Garner needs to take a month off for some solid reading and brain unscrambling.

    As for the Wongs quip that DPF notes, wasn’t this originally made by an Australian politician in the late 1940s defending the “White Australia” immigration policy?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. tom hunter (5,134 comments) says:

    Having hammered our resident monomaniacal xenophobe on numerous occasions (I think you all know who I mean), I reluctantly submit the following article from the US Hoover Institute, The Cycles—or Stages—of Chinese History:

    The logic of strategy and all that comes from it, including the idea of the “balance of power,” for example, is inherently universal, transcendental, and timeless, but each clan, tribe, nation, and state has its own peculiar political constructs..

    The article describes the very Chinese concept of Tianxia:

    … it defines an ideal national and international system of ever-expanding concentric circles centered on a globally benevolent emperor, now Xi Jinping or more correctly perhaps, the seven-headed standing committee of the Politburo.

    The innermost circle of the Tianxia is formed by the rest of the Politburo and top Beijing officialdom, while its outermost circle comprises the Solomon Islands along with the twenty or so other utterly benighted “outer barbarian” countries that still do not recognize Beijing, preferring Taipei.

    And on and on, including all sovereign states, large and small, both already respectful (too few) and those still arrogantly vainglorious.

    The article points out that there’s nothing unique about a large country trying to do this to other nations – I’m sure our resident core of hard-line left-wingers will be quick to point to the USA – but the core of the article is the rather unique Chinese history of how to gradually convert more powerful societies into vassals that pay tribute, and the “tools” employed:

    The first barbarian-handling tool is normally translated as “corruption” in English translations, but perhaps “addiction,” or more fully “induced economic dependence” are more accurate: the originally self-sufficient Xiongnú were to be made economically dependent on Han-produced goods, starting with silk and woolen cloths instead of their own rude furs and felt. At first supplied free as unrequited tribute, these goods could still be supplied later on when the Han were stronger, but only in exchange for services rendered.

    Sounds familiar.

    The second tool of barbarian handling, is normally translated as “indoctrination”: the Xiongnú were to be persuaded to accept the authoritarian Confucian value system and the collectivistic behavioral norms of the Han,

    The much larger, longer-term benefit of the second tool was to undermine the entire political culture of the Xiongnú, and make them psychologically as well as economically dependent on the imperial radiance, which was willingly extended in brotherly fashion when the Han were weak, and then contemptuously withdrawn when the Xiongnú were reduced to vassalage.

    Of course the people who write articles like this love the idea of sophisticated, long-term strategies of which PhD thesis are made. The messy reality that often stuffs up such plans does not get much of a look-in, although in this case the authors point out that China may have moved too soon in starting to bully countries like Vietnam, Phillipines, India, etc.

    Still, it’s food for thought.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Jack5 (5,278 comments) says:

    Tom (11.13):

    Historically, it didn’t stopped the impoverished Mongolia, with a tiny population, sending its horsemen sweeping through China, the world’s biggest economy and taking it over. It’s as if NZ of today swept on the China coast with jet boats and took over. Or maybe the two battalions of the Fijian Army landed in Hastings in big fishing trawlers and took over NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. tom hunter (5,134 comments) says:

    Yes, well I was going to add that the “deep thoughts” of the article are not enhanced by a footnote describing the inner circle paying tribute to Mao’s death as including “North Vietnam”.

    The aspect of Chinese cycles that includes regularly crashing and burning should also be taken into account.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Unity (636 comments) says:

    I find it hard to reconcile allowing people to buy land here when we are not allowed to buy land in their country. I’m quite happy and find it acceptable for companies to come here and start a new business which will employ our people but I’m against them buying an existing one even if they do improve it somewhat.

    Having said that I’m totally against allowing any Islamic people into this country full stop. One only has to look at Western countries overseas who have allowed virtual indiscriminate immigration of Muslims into their country and see the problems they are now facing, especially the UK and also Australia to name two. Their religion is too extreme and at odds with our way of life and this causes all sorts of problems.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. mikenmild (12,355 comments) says:

    ‘Having said that I’m totally against allowing any Islamic people into this country full stop’
    On a thread about xenophobia. The irony, it burns.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Alan (1,087 comments) says:

    It is possible to change your mind without being a hypocrite.

    Throwing terms like that around sets a very high bar for all parties to reach.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Prince (109 comments) says:

    Peters’ ‘quip’ was actually “two wongs don’t make a white”, not …”a right”. Deeply racist and offensive, but talking directly to the no-hope losers that back him.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Rick Rowling (816 comments) says:

    We’ve been selling blocks of New Zealand off to foreigners ever since the huge sell-offs to the British in the 1840s.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Unity (636 comments) says:

    It’s common sense and true, Mikenmild. Just look around you at the countries who are now experiencing problems. I lived in the UK for 7 years in the 1990’s and even then could see what was happening. They are only now owing up to their huge mistake. We should learn from others. I don’t care whether it’s called xenophobia or not – it’s true. We are too small to have the very fabric of our society changed by a religion that would change our way of life forever if we didn’t face up to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. adc (558 comments) says:

    Peters didn’t say “two Wongs don’t make a right”, he said “two Wongs don’t make a white”.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. All_on_Red (1,743 comments) says:

    Heres a link to the definition of “sensitive” land under the Overseas Investment Act.

    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2005/0082/latest/DLM358552.html

    Land is sensitive if it is or includes this type of land
    Table 1

    … and that type exceeds this area threshold (if any)
    non-urban land 5 hectares
    land on islands specified in Part 2 of this schedule 0.4 hectares
    land on other islands (other than North or South Island, but including the islands adjacent to the North or South Island) —
    foreshore or seabed —
    bed of a lake 0.4 hectares
    land held for conservation purposes under the Conservation Act 1987 0.4 hectares
    land that a district plan or proposed district plan under the Resource Management Act 1991 provides is to be used as a reserve, as a public park, for recreation purposes, or as open space 0.4 hectares
    land subject to a heritage order, or a requirement for a heritage order, under the Resource Management Act 1991 or by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 0.4 hectares
    a historic place, historic area, wahi tapu, or wahi tapu area that is entered on the New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero or for which there is an application that is notified under section 67(4) or 68(4) of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 0.4 hectares

    Schedule 1 Part 1 Table 1: amended, on 20 May 2014, by section 107 of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 (2014 No 26).

    Its quite restrictive

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Rick Rowling (816 comments) says:

    Peters knew exactly what he was doing. He knows his constituents are old with the racist attitudes common in people from that era.

    They won’t admit it, but they think it. It’s why he always polls lower that he gets – the old racists don’t want to admit to a pollster over the phone that they support Winston, but in the privacy of the ballot box they vote for him.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Unity (636 comments) says:

    Rick, you said ‘He knows his constituents are old with the racist attitudes common in people from that era.’

    What an insult to older people. They most definitely are not racist. Older people in fact know much more about how wrong attitudes today are because they know how things used to be and can now see how far they have deteriorated. They know how everyone in this country used to get on very well together regardless of race and can now see the divisions and inequality under the law for people who do not have as little as a smidgen of Maori blood. Part-Maori have now been elevated as being special, to being partners (the Treaty didn’t create partnership), and entitled to much more than non-Maori even though we have all lived side by side, inter-married and played together for over 170 years. It’s today’s younger people who are promoting racism by allowing the divisions to not only occur but to increase beyond comprehension. Even many part-Maori today condemn the racism that is increasing in this country.

    So, with respect Rick, you have no idea what you are talking about when you say old people have racist attitudes. Nothing could be further from the truth. They want racial equality under the law. How non-racist is that?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. mikenmild (12,355 comments) says:

    ‘They know how everyone in this country used to get on very well together regardless of race’
    Which decade did you imagine that was?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Slipster (197 comments) says:

    Jack5, 11:13
    “the lack of reciprocity in NZ’ers buying land in China” — This is such an old canard it’s not even funny anymore.

    You see, China doesn’t sell land even to ITS OWN citizens. You see, they don’t allow private ownership, full stop. Everything belongs to the State. … Should we do the same? I have a strong feeling many lefties would LOVE to do the same. … Should we let them?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Bob R (1,420 comments) says:

    ***Let’s be honest – we’re worried about the Chinese buying our farms. They’re not like us. There you go, I said it. Clearly many are thinking it. Cue Opposition politicians lining up to scratch our collective itch. Nationalism? Racism? Xenophobia? All of the above? The reality is we’ve been hocking off our farms to overseas buyers for years and no-one seemed too fussed. Australians, Germans, Russians, the Swiss and the Americans – no worries.***

    Which is human nature. It’s only recently that politicians have tried to pretend this isn’t normal, universal human behaviour. It’s unfortunate, but that’s the way people evolved.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_nepotism

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Nigel Kearney (1,096 comments) says:

    No consideration of the argument of those who oppose the Lochinver sale, such as the lack of reciprocity in NZ’ers buying land in China.

    The lack of reciprocity is good. It means we can take advantage of capital flowing into New Zealand without it going in the other direction. The owners invest the money they got from the sale creating jobs and other economic activity that never would have existed otherwise. New Zealanders with money to invest are blocked from many types of overseas investment so they invest the money here instead. It’s a win-win for us.

    The anti-sales crowd try to present the issue as if the owners were giving the land away, or putting the money received into suitcases under their beds. Because that’s the only way that opposition to the sales makes sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Lance (2,713 comments) says:

    Goof grief, there was a re-run of an old “I love Lucy” show the other day.

    They went to a Chinese Restaurant and there is canned laughter at the use of chop-sticks, the Restaurateur was clearly a European badly made-up to look Chinese who spoke in the most appalling fake Chinese accent.

    So this is where Whinies old codgers are locked in time I would imagine.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. mikenmild (12,355 comments) says:

    Ever watched ‘Breakfast at Tiffany’s’? Mickey Rooney pretending to be Japanese. Cringingly awful.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Bob R (1,420 comments) says:

    It is interesting to see the old concerns about demographic change. Bertrand Russell gave a speech in Australia in 1950 noting that the concern with immigration from China was basically that they worked too hard and were accustomed to a lower standard of living :)

    http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/18160817

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Rex Widerstrom (5,013 comments) says:

    So suddenly Duncan speaks for everyone opposed to the sale of land and assets offshore and knows what “we” think.

    “We” must all look alike to him, or something.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Rex Widerstrom (5,013 comments) says:

    @BobR Funny you should say that, as apparently nothing has changed.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. hj (7,165 comments) says:

    bit of an insight into the anti-racists on the right.

    Cracks me up how people get so riled up about immigrants. Especially them chinese.

    Dime loves em – i like their food, i like their reasonably priced blow jobs, i like that they only seem to commit crimes against each other, i like that they have made me a fortune in property, i like that they built me a kick ass house.

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/05/editorials_on_immigration.html

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Odakyu-sen (858 comments) says:

    Don’t make the assumption that different groups from overseas are like “Kiwis”. A people have think about how a large influx of outsiders will change their society. If they agree that the changes will be positive, then let the outsiders come.

    The trouble with this approach is that sometimes changes happen that were never considered.

    Don’t get me wrong. As a conservative, I am not against charge per se; what I am against is allowing changes to occur without the knowledge of what will likely happen as a result.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. hj (7,165 comments) says:

    Nigel Kearney (875 comments) says:
    The lack of reciprocity is good. It means we can take advantage of capital flowing into New Zealand without it going in the other direction. The owners invest the money they got from the sale creating jobs and other economic activity that never would have existed otherwise. New Zealanders with money to invest are blocked from many types of overseas investment so they invest the money here instead. It’s a win-win for us.
    ….
    But they don’t invest in tradeables, they invest in development and enjoy the governments policies of population increase.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. hj (7,165 comments) says:

    They’re deeply racist in TeAnau

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/charlierapple/350622133/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. anticorruptionnz (215 comments) says:

    Good reason to be wary of foreigners buying up land
    Have found a report which shows it is being on sold.

    also there is doubt that the persons the OIO did due diligence on were actually the purchasers

    see http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/2014/08/08/who-really-is-buying-up-nz/
    http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/2014/08/09/a-closer-look-at-the-2-milk-new-zealand-holding-limited-companies/ http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/2014/08/10/new-revelations-of-a-foreign-company/
    http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/2014/08/11/are-crafar-synlait-and-lochinver-about-to-be-on-sold-by-the-chinese/

    Grace Haden Independent Epsom Candidate.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. hj (7,165 comments) says:

    Oram on Xenophobia

    Logically, Shanghai Pengxin’s products will leave the country at the lowest possible price and the lowest possible level of sophistication so it can capture the maximum profit in China. For example, Shanghai could export its milk powder at commodity prices and blend them into highly valuable infant formula in China.

    This model is how our primary sector now operates. For example, some 80 per cent of Fonterra’s sales are whole milk powder. It does make some infant formula. But vastly more of that is for foreign companies under their brands than for sale under its own.

    Stunning evidence for this came two years ago when Pfizer of the United States sold its human nutrition business to Nestle for US$12 billion. The bulk of the business was infant formula and its prize asset a large share of the branded market in China.

    Fonterra remains a substantial manufacturer of infant formula for the business now owned by Nestle. But its only reward is a toll fee for processing. Its farmer-shareholders’ only reward is the commodity price for the milk the sell to their co-op.

    The red meat industry differs only in one big respect. While an excellent cut of meat attracts a high price in a foreign supermarket, the upside is far less than dairy companies enjoy with infant formula. But that point is largely irrelevant. Our meat processors capture little of the value they create for others.

    This commodity trap is deeply rooted in our psyche and our economy, as the World Economic Forum proves in its annual competitiveness ranking of countries. One of its criteria is competitive advantage, with countries ranked on a scale of one (low cost natural resources) to seven (unique products and services). We score 4.1, ranking us 36th in the world.
    It also ranks value capture from one (role in the value chain is mainly confined to one step such as resource extraction) to seven (involved all the way down the value chain, capturing extra value along the way). We score 3.8, ranking us 58th.

    Some people will say: “Oh, well, we might as well approve some more foreign investment deals. They are small and won’t change things much.”

    But things are changing fast. Previous dairy farm sales to the likes of US and German investors have had little impact because they sell their milk to NZ processors. The processors, in turn, still have the opportunity to do something more valuable with it, even if they are ineffectual at doing so.

    Now, however, foreign buyers are increasingly seeking to create vertically integrated businesses.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/10363727/No-big-bucks-from-foreign-ownership-of-NZ-farms

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. hj (7,165 comments) says:

    @ Grace
    On Nine to Noon Mathew Hooten, Mike Williams, Katherine Ryan they talked about that but they claimed that the OIO would know who the shareholders were?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Bob R (1,348 comments) says:
    August 11th, 2014 at 12:05 pm

    I don’t think the fact they are Chinese has a lot to do with it – it doesn’t for me, other than they are not New Zealanders and that New Zealanders will not benefit to a high capacity from the sale.

    There will be no new employment – New Zealanders are already employed in the operation – in fact, some may even lose their jobs.

    The profits from running the operation will not be spent 100% in our economy – and so on.

    Chinese, Russian or French, I don’t care what nationality they are – nothing other than a Kiwi should not be allowed to own that much land 100% in New Zealand. Give them a quarter acre section – if after ten years they prove they have the best interests of New Zealand foremost in their plans, then maybe consider letting them have more – but until they can prove their ownership of NZ land is in the best interest of New Zealand both now and in the future – they can go fly a kite, as far as I’m concerned.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. anticorruptionnz (215 comments) says:

    @hj
    the OIO gave instructions for the company to incorporate.
    when a company was set up they ticked the box

    no one ever looked at the company registration form http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/milk-new-zealand-investment-shareholder1.pdf

    which states that the shareholder is milk New Zealand investment . There is no such company in New Zealand

    we had to dig deep and translate Chinese documents which show the company Genealogy http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/flow-chart-translation-.pdf

    This showed a British Virgin Island share holder. this company has never been mentioned or considered by the OIA. it is technically invisible. How do we know what its share holding is and any way there is no evidence that this company is the company which is the share holder in New Zealand for milk NZ holding .

    The shareholder in NZ uses an accountants address , an address which is not its registered office, that company simply does not exist it is shown on the flow chart in red http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/company-structure1-212×300.jpg, the Chinese company is shown on the flow chart in yellow it only owns one company and that company does not own property

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    The owners invest the money they got from the sale creating jobs and other economic activity

    They are already doing that – the profit they make from their current arrangement goes into the NZ economy now. But, if the operation was sold to NZ interests, not only would NZ benefit from the sale (as you have proposed) but they would also benefit in the same manner they already are from the existing operation. A NZ sale is the best thing for NZ – the alternative offers nothing more than we already have.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. davidp (3,585 comments) says:

    Idi Amin stopped Asian people from buying land in Ugands and it seemed to work out just fine. If it was good enough for Amin, it is good enough for Peters, Cunliffe, and Norman.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. anticorruptionnz (215 comments) says:

    @ judith

    I agree but there is another big loop hole , the ability for people to set up a NZ company.

    set up a NZ company using an over seas company or trust then that company becomes a share holder for another company. Use that company to buy real estate and it shows that a NZ person owns the land.

    You can also then sell the company no need to change property ownership it simply is an asset of the company and you change the director and share holders.

    She’ll be right.. too bad for our kids the land will be sold off and they will have to learn a foreign language. sad that their grand parents died for the county to see the current generation practically give it away its all bout $$$$$ and no brains.

    她馬上就

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. georgebolwing (1,011 comments) says:

    Australians are no doubt grinning about the “two wongs” quip. Winston is insisting that he was told it in China. In 1947, Arthur Caldwall, then Minister of Immigration and later (spectacularly unsuccessful) Labor Leader in the Federal Parliament made a famous comment in the House that”two Wongs do not make a White”. That quip haunted him for years. While he tried to explain it away as a jike, it was seen for what it was; a further expression of the “White Australia Policy”, of which Caldwell was a staunch supporter.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. hj (7,165 comments) says:

    Do people need to apologise for being (allegedly) xenophobic when narrow commercial interests and mass migration threaten their national identity?
    Are not our liberal elite twerps being a bit too unsympathetic (their own other).

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. anticorruptionnz (215 comments) says:

    There is a concept of Darvo deny attack reverse victim and offender it is played out daily

    those who speak up about foreign ownership are attacked and are made to feel the villains. This discourages others from speaking out.

    Go back in his troy look at the defence mechanisms, even accents identified foreigners who were then treated with suspicion.

    by all means be civil but dont sell them your land . Once you have parted with it you have lost control.

    see my latest article the NZ farms are being sold of in china link.reuters.com/cuv22w;see transaltion Hunan Roland animal husbandry Co., Ltd. http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Hunan-Roland-animal-husbandry-Co.-Ltd..pdf

    who has heard of Roland.. we will soon they are buying up NZ through the back door so what good was the due diligence ?

    our government is so Naive the Chinese must be splitting their sides laughing.. they know that their deals with Peter good fellow and Judith Collins secured their future of purchasing NZ one Farm at a time.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. georgebolwing (1,011 comments) says:

    @Grace Haden who are now being silly.

    It is well known that the Overseas investment Act has provisions (Section 7 for example), that “look through” companies seeking to own New Zealand land to the ultimate natural person owners. You simply can’t incorporate a local company and claim that it is not an “overseas person”.

    Shanghai Pengxin Group Co Limited have been very transparent about what they are doing. The website of Milk New Zealand makes this clear: http://milknewzealand.com/default.asp

    And before you get too carried away, the legal name of the company that owns the Crafer Farms was Milk New Zealand Holding Limited.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Jack5 (5,278 comments) says:

    Re Slipster, who posted at 11.58 on China not selling its land to foreigners:

    This is such an old canard it’s not even funny anymore.

    According to my dictionary, “canard” is a false rumour. China banning sales of its land is not a rumour it’s been a fact for decades. What are you trying to say?

    Nigel Kearney posted at 12.13:

    The lack of reciprocity is good. It means we can take advantage of capital flowing into New Zealand without it going in the other direction.

    Foreign investment is good only if it expands our country’s economy. There’s no proof Chinese communist oligarch money looking for a hidey-hole will do this.

    NZ isn’t alone. Brazil has just cracked down on foreigners buying its land by declaring land a strategic asset. It’s not just Chinese. Middle Eastern oil principalities and Americans have been buying land in Brazil in large amounts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Albert_Ross (337 comments) says:

    if the operation was sold to NZ interests, not only would NZ benefit from the sale

    No, NZ overall wouldn’t benefit from the sale. No new money would have been brought into NZ. And if the seller was forced to accept a lower price than he could have got from a foreign buyer, then he has endured an opportunity cost.

    What makes you so sure that profits earned by a NZ owner will be retained in NZ? Rich individuals and successful corporations don’t get to be that way by letting irrational sentiments such as patriotism dictate what they do with their money. No, they send money to wherever they think it will make the most return.

    Yes, once an individual sells land he loses control of it. That is what he is being compensated for when he agrees to the price. The rest of us, however, still have exactly as much control over that land as we had before. The law applies in just the same way to land that is owned by foreigners as it does to land that is owned by New Zealanders.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Jack5 (5,278 comments) says:

    On the Wongs and Whites quip by Peters:

    To throw a bit of light on this…

    The joke about Wongs and whites is a lousy one compared with the robust and comical way southern Chinese refer to these names.

    “Wong” is one version of the name “Wang”, which according to many sources is the most common name in China.

    In southern, Cantonese-speaking China, “Wong” is apparently the common way “Wang” and a few similar names are translated into English’s Roman alphabet.

    In Cantonese, the Chinese character for “Wong” and “Huang” and the Chinese character for “Wong” and “Wang” sound precisely the same, says Wikipedia.

    To differentiate them when speaking in Cantonese (and I may have to leave the Chinese characters out of this quote from Wikipedia):

    To differentiate the two in conversation, 黃 (Wong/Huang) is customarily referred to by native Cantonese speakers as “big belly Wong” (as the character resembles a person with a big belly) or by native Mandarin speakers as “grass-head Wong” (due to its first radical), whereas the 王 (Wong/Wang) is referred as the “three-stroke Wong” (due to its prominent 3 horizontal strokes).

    Try sorting out the Cantonese, Devoy!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Milburn35 (49 comments) says:

    Peters joke about “Wongs” is typical Winston. I read once “No more Political jokes – they get elected ” Winston is past getting elected, but he is still a political joke!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. anticorruptionnz (215 comments) says:

    @georgebolwing

    Just because it has the same name does not mean it is the same

    One John Smith is not the same as the next .

    when you assume you assume wrong.

    go through their statements in detail and you will find that what they say and what is reality do not align. the proof is in the evidence and there is no evidence other than what they state on a web site.. probably an agent copying from a script.

    lets believe everything we hear and everything we are told, lets not question or look for the evidential trail.

    as I said before She’ll be right.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. anticorruptionnz (215 comments) says:

    @ georgebolwing

    BTW the company which you refer to was formed on 26 jun 2012, it did not even exist when the oio did its due diligence

    teh one which they looked into was a Hong kong company.

    there is no obvious legal connection between the Hong Kong company and the identically named NZ company see my post http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/2014/08/09/a-closer-look-at-the-2-milk-new-zealand-holding-limited-companies/
    they are identically named however they are two separate legal persons.

    they do not appear to be related due to lack of transparency of the share holder of the NZ registered company.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Dead Earnest (160 comments) says:

    Question:
    Why is the left so upset about some Chinese buying a farm, but, aren’t at all worried about a Geman buying an election.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Jack5 (5,278 comments) says:

    Dead Earnest said at 2.57 of those opposed to foreign sales of our arable land:

    …but, aren’t at all worried about a Geman buying an election….

    Says who?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. anticorruptionnz (215 comments) says:

    The German is not buying the election as much as the corporates are .

    Not defending dot com but at least we know what he is doing .. we need to see all those who fund national and get MPs to raise glasses of milk .

    all hail Oravida. they get a minister to go out of their way at short notice, we cant even get near them to question corruption.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. hj (7,165 comments) says:

    National Policy

    Albert_Ross (258 comments) says:
    Yes, once an individual sells land he loses control of it. That is what he is being compensated for when he agrees to the price. The rest of us, however, still have exactly as much control over that land as we had before. The law applies in just the same way to land that is owned by foreigners as it does to land that is owned by New Zealanders.

    …..
    Labour Policy

    Campbell: “We are still a small export nation, we are reliant on trade. How do we not look xenophobic.”

    David Parker: “What National and Steven Joyce are saying (that this is xenophobia) it’s lamost like calling the New Zealand population racist.. If you come and live in NZ sure; that’s the way it used to be up until the 1980′s
    Campbell: “Untill Labour was in government”
    David Parker: “Right. In the 1980′s and 1990′s we made some mistakes in New Zealand and one of them was to deregulate somethings that should have been reserved for your local population. I don’t want a New Zealand sharemilker to be outbid by a wealthy person or company from overseas.

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Should-foreigners-be-allowed-to-buy-New-Zealand-land/tabid/817/articleID/355583/Default.aspx

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. hj (7,165 comments) says:

    National Policy: John Key waves his hands about “Look world: “there’s nice lands over here. Help yourself. If the peasants object we’ll call em racist and xenophobic and tell them they don’t understand economics…. Come onnnnn”

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Gulag1917 (1,083 comments) says:

    Having seen some farmland sold to the Chinese not much evidence of improvement of buildings and fencing etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. aquataur (59 comments) says:

    I think Winston was misquoted.

    Evidently he said
    “Two Wongs don’t make a white”

    Or if ACT was saying it

    “Two Wangs don’t make a Whyte”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. hj (7,165 comments) says:

    georgebolwing (638 comments) says:

    Australians are no doubt grinning about the “two wongs” quip. Winston is insisting that he was told it in China. In 1947, Arthur Caldwall, then Minister of Immigration and later (spectacularly unsuccessful) Labor Leader in the Federal Parliament made a famous comment in the House that”two Wongs do not make a White”. That quip haunted him for years. While he tried to explain it away as a jike, it was seen for what it was; a further expression of the “White Australia Policy”, of which Caldwell was a staunch supporter.
    ……
    Australians will be grinning because Arthur Caldwall regretted the joke or Australia got flooded (like NZ)?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. band4u (20 comments) says:

    It wasnt actually a joke it is a pun…a play on words. It is not racist ie not derogatory.Words like chink , wog ,hori are.

    How ironic to hear outrage about Peters pun today, from that proudly right wing Radio Live talkback host Shaun Plunket when just a few weeks ago he referred to Chinese as ‘chinks.’ I found that deeply offensive.

    I’d lay odds that most of the outraged journalists today thought Key calling Kim Dot Com Hare’s sugar Daddy acceptable .
    It appears the degree of outrage or offence varies depending on who actually says what …not the actual words themselves

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Nookin (3,561 comments) says:

    Grace
    I suspect that if you look closely enough, you will find that the company is in fact the one company and did exist at the time the OIO looked into it. it simply wasn’t registered in NZ.

    The company was required, as a condition of consent, to register under the Companies Act 1993. This is a statutory requirement in any event. See section 334.
    Sorry –no conspiracy, no ghost companies. Admittedly it can be confusing but is all above board.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. hj (7,165 comments) says:

    @ Nookin (3,067

    but the point is that when counting how much farmland is sold to foreigners those wouldn’t count?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. anticorruptionnz (215 comments) says:

    @Nookin

    there is a company in the British virgin islands but there is nothing to connect it to the NZ company that it is allegedly a share holder of.

    I woudl be like registering John smith as a shareholder and not disclosing that this john smith lives in Latvia .

    share holders need to be identifiable and verifiable .. whats the point on due diligence if we are slack on process.

    whether it is above board or not has not been proved.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Nookin (3,561 comments) says:

    From the OIO report

    “The Applicant is a Hong Kong incorporated company which is an overseas person under the Overseas Investment Act
    2005 (“the Act”).
    4. The Applicant will register as an overseas company under the New Zealand Companies Act 1993 prior to acquiring
    the Investment. The Applicant does not have any current interests in New Zealand at the date of this application.18
    5. The Applicant was formed to acquire and then own the Crafar Farms and other assets which are the subject of the
    underlying transaction and, if the opportunities arise, any future dairy or agricultural related investments by its
    parent group in New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote