Not only much needed capital flows into the country , from foreigners buying in , but also the possibility of innovation . Who knows what intellectual and productivity value the new munny people will bring . We should be well pleased that we're seen as a desirable investment option .

We have only 200 years of European settlement here . That does not give us the right to develop a siege mentality towards future arrivals and/or their munny .

lets keep it simple. apply the foreign nationals own law to us. if i cant buy a house in china then a chinese person cant buy one here. i dont like hypocrasy

Bernard, I can't help but think about the fundamental and strategic difference between land ownership and company or IP ownership.

Namely, one is an abstract property, and the other one extremely concrete.

The mankind functioned rather well, albeit less efficiently, before the recent inventions of corporation and intellectual property laws.

It never functioned without a direct reliance on land, either your own or someone elses. Historically, the latter were substantially underprivileged, so much so that they had to give their lives and personal freedoms away, and work for the landowner (feudalist) with the most limited possible conventional rights, without any hope of ever getting anything but a percentage of the food they grew themselves.

Secondly, it is extremely easy to violate IP laws - especially where IP law enforcement is weak - and almost as easy to nationalise corporate entities. Nationalisation of land, on the other hand, is normally met with such a level of violet physical resistance that, to do it, someone must put their lives at risk AND also have the support of the majority of the population (which is rare, except in bolshevik revolutions and similar).

In addition, nationalisation of foreign-controlled land sounds like a bloody good pretext for declaration of war and foreign invasion.

I think the Chinese are well aware of all of this, and I think that they are in such a strong position that they won't need to sell any of their land even if the prices collapse. Au contraire, they will be incentivised to buy even more, and the "land supplier nation", under financial stress due to property bubble meltdown, may have little choice but to sell even more.

Sounds like a bloody fast way to become a colony, and also bloody ironic (in a karmic way) in the context of how New Zealand was initially usurped from the natives.

I usually come here to complain that BH is being one sided but well done.  I personally believe we live in one big open world and that capital should and does flow openly and easily across borders, but it is something that should be debated.

Sell some of these big farms off to Asian investors.  It will be better for NZ - they will pay much more than anyone else, so therefor the banks will get back a maximum of capital that they can relend and stimulate the economy with, they will employ probably more NZers than if a NZer bought it, it will keep free trade open (remember - we have a lot of business in China that could equally be snubbed out if we snub China), etc, etc.

I see land and other tangible assets are different from Intellectual Property for at least three reasons.  1) You cannot manufacture land out of nothing, and therefore it has real tangible value when things get tough  2) the land and the ability to grow food on it, to grow trees for housing and to keep warm from burning wood is a comforting thought.  3) selling off our tangible assets is not sustainable; there is only so much land (it's finite) and selling it off to temporarily fund our current standard of living seems like madness to me.  Hardly fair on future generations either.

When you say: "That would mean blocking sales of residential land, rural land and local business assets. It would also mean blocking New Zealanders from buying assets overseas."

I don't see why that would stop New Zealanders from being able to buy overseas, if those countries let us.  There are certainly countries at the moment where we are not allowed to buy their land, yet they can buy ours.

I have no problem with leasing the land out, but selling, no.

BH is of course correct - as long as we spend more than we make (both as a nation and as individuals) then one way or another the Chinese among others will own more and more assets in New Zealand. So the real debate is whether it's better for them to own our companies/IP, or our land.

BH's perspective is an interesting one - indeed it is easier to have a degree of control over land, which is immovable, than over foreign owned companies which can prove quite  transient. Certainly it invites debate - though you're not likely to get any, as New Zealanders are nothing short of zealous about land ownership.

farming is one of the few things we do better than the rest of the world

we lead the world in grassland farming

why should we sell this

this is not a chinese problem harvard are buying land in centrel otago.

the dairy industry is build on having a career pathway from worker to farm owner .this pathway is fragile enough now with out haveing investment funds buying land here. if this pathway is broken the best young farmers will not join the industry .

innovation comes from young minds carrying debt not from overseas investment funds

Hyde, Hide, who cares !

Sorry BH.  Cant agree.

NZ is its land and what it can produce .Despite attempts to diverse business the majority of overseas earnings still come from the land and that includes tourism.

 Foreign individuals who come here to live and be part of NZ are OK.  But not foreign corporations with only a dollar as its principal overriding interest and never the country's.

If it i snon-resident foreign buyers that have kept property prices high then it will be better for locals (except existing landowners) if they are not allowed to purchase.  The higher land price adversely effects the cost of living for all of us. 

Bernard you are making the horrendous mistake of assuming the next 30 years is going to be similar to the last 30 years.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The last 3 decades were about globalisation, the transient triumph of free-market economic liberalization, the unfettered growth in human populations and the dubious benefits of the information technology 'revolution'.

The next 30 years are going to be all about the dealing with the consequences of resource depletion, population over-shoot  and environmental degradation, together with the replacement of globalization by the systems that were in place 50 years or more ago.

In that context preserving 'lifeboat New Zealand' for those fortunate to be its present inhabitants becomes of prime importance. Our land, our water, our seas, and all the other resources we seemingly now take for granted will be our life support system. Many covetous (and eventually aggressive) eyes will no doubt be cast in our direction. We should be aware of this NOW.

The Chinese government and its various quasi-governmental entities have embarked on a highly aggressive resource acquisition spree all over the world - just take a look at the situation in Africa (the Sudan for example). As such it is hardly surprising that their motives are distrusted.

NZ is essentially one big farm. The world needs food, and in the future as cheap oil reduces the world's ability to support 6 billion plus humans, food is going to be in short supply. To sell off the one asset NZ has, and that which is going to make NZ an attractive place to live would be a poor strategic decision.

Having said that, in the event of food shortages and resource wars, NZ resources are likely to be taken by force.

I hear the issue of lack of capital being an issue for NZ. Is it really an issue for farming. It would seem to me that farming in NZ is actually overcapitalised - especially when you look at farm prices. They don't seem to make financial sense on a ROI viewpoint. 3-5% returns seem to be the norm.

If capital needs to flow into the farming sector by NZers then why isn't a vehicle designed so that NZers can invest in it. There is lots of cash sitting in term deposits. How about corpoatising some large NZ farms and floating them? This has happened in the US succesfully.

Exactly right AndyH. NZ'ers do not realise how valuable our abundance of water and productive farmland is in the context of a world that is fundamentally unable to sustain its population. This will be very positive for the wealth of NZ as a nation over the next 30 years. Just as Australia is getting rich selling minerals to developing nations, NZ will prosper from our ability to produce food for the worlds swelling population. I am very positive about asset values in NZ on a medium to long term view, because we are just so well positioned for the theme of the next 30 years which will be scarcity of food and water and the inability of nations to feed their populations.

On a tangent, did everyone see that Whimpy guy made $900,000? lucky b******d

"Unfortunately, the campaign's proposal to immediately block the sale of Crafar Farms to foreign interests and urgently review the Overseas Investment Act is myopic and xenophobic." "

It's a pity Bernard doesn't think more deeply instead of so facilely tossing around the word xenophobic. He deals too much in cliches within a restricted ideology which ignores far greater realities, and I mean realities.

This isn't just a question of foreign ownership. China is on the march in the Pacific. Does Hickey not know that the Australians consider it is going to be a military threat to them within 10 to 20 years?

Any Chinese owned company operates only so long as the repressive and totalitarian Chinese government allows it to. Communist China can move in and appropriate land sold ostensibly to Chinese business interests any time it wants to. It would then own actual New Zealand territory.

China's practice historically has been to establish an economic base in the country, then to start interfering politically, and finally militarily. We need better thinking from you and others like you, Mr Hickey. Above all, apart from wanting to oust American interests in the Pacific, Communist China wants an excuse to claim some ownership of Antarctica. Owning New Zealand land (if the Chinese government takes over any such company, as it can) then gives China an excuse to argue for a right (based on its then part ownership of New Zealand) for a foothold into Antarctica.

Underinformed commentators do a great deal of damage. Read up your history. Mr. Hickey. How long should we wait while Bill English is dithering?

As a fundamental principle, land (in general) should only be available for ownership by the citizens of that country. Land afterall is what defines a country. If you don't have land, you have nothing.

Wars have been fought over land, which is why I find it so abhorent that some are so ready to start selling it off a hectare at a time in exchange for worthless paper (aka fiat money)? It is pure foolishness to take such a short-sighted view, and those that do need to start thinking about future generations and not themselves. Everyone who calls themselves a New Zealander should be fighting for this one.

At the end of the day, economic issues can be easily fixed. Regaining valuable land in the future sold foolishly to foreigners will be much more of a challenge if not impossible.

If I was a plumber and I sold my tools what am I. Unemployed and prepared to accept the first job that comes along. The more plumbers that sell their tools the cheaper the cost of hiring plumbers. If I am a farmer and sell my farm what am I. The answers are the same and so is the effect of selling lots of farms at the same time.

The issue here is what’s good for New Zealand and how big might this trend be.

 Let’s say it’s just a few farms, well that’s not a huge problem but if say it ends up with say 25% of our farmers bailing to foreign interests then we have undermined our strategic cash cow and brand. I won’t repeat what’s in the Links that Les has already given above.

 What I will say is having worked and lived in Asia my comments and fears about the Chinese gaining hold of our land is a complement to their strategic intent and ability to execute on a strategy. They could wipe out Fonterra with a lower cost model any time we allow them to do so. Fly into Samoa have a look at the swimming pool in Apia (that eclipses anything here), Their many sports facilities, have a look at the new government buildings. All built with foreign aid, from China using Chinese labour and materials. Repeat that model with dairy production capability and low interest rates and Fonterra is history and frankly so is the New Zealand Dairy Brand.

 China can take all our production and so for them it’s just vertical integration to buy land, employee cheap labour (us Kiwi Indians) and transport the commodities back to China with no marketing required. It’s not rocket science Bernard. They are looking to the future and securing all the production of food water and energy they can get. They have spent 36 billion in Australia since 2005 doing just this. Buy it now and the price is largely fixed. Leave it for ten years and it could be a very different answer.  

 The issue is are we as a country happy to be a cheap labour force for those that have more capital than us right now. I’m not and have expressed that often.  The second issue is private property rights and that’s really testing our resolve for economic sovereignty.

All over the world countries protect their land for this reason and China and Samoa are but two examples.  Let them come and let them lease our land. I have no issue with that. Ownership is a completely different issue.  

Im with andyh, unfortunately the Brits never taught the Chinese how to play Cricket. Fair play is a strange western practice. 

 The Chinese are now such large buyers of  Milk that if they stop buying they will collapse the price and then start buying farmland. Then they wait for the next collapse. If people were too greedy and  too dumb to look at the returns then they take uninformed risks, they lose. Banks too deserve to lose. It will be a very different country with large foriegn corporates as the major producers.

I simply cannot believe the xenophobic and insular attitudes displayed here.  If this is symptomatic of wider NZ then shame on us.  I guess it comes from living in remote islands at the bottom of the world.

Where did your ancestors come from?  FOREIGN LANDS.   How was NZ developed? FOREIGN INVESTMENT.  How do we get to enjoy today's lifestyle?  FOREIGN CAPITAL.  Have you any objection to Dutch immigrants buying farmland here?  Or English immigrants?  Why single out Chinese?  IT'S RACISM!  Pure and simple racism.  I worked with a lovely lady in an office in NZ,  she was 4th generation NZer but of Chinese descent.  She was as kiwi as the rest of us but the racism displayed towards her was a disgrace.  What is being displayed on this blog site is no different.

We should welome foreign buyers of our farmland.  They will bring capital,  innovation,  new ideas and greater opportunities for trade.  They will spend and employ locally.  We are a trading nation, and foreign investment enhances all our lifestyles.  Don't forget also that we New Zealanders also spend and invest overseas (oh the shame of it). 

God forbid in a generation or two we might even call them New Zealanders.  I am disgusted by Bouchier and his fellow travellers.

We should welcome investment in our

Warren Buffett uses a couple of good analogies..

One is about slowly selling off the silverware, in order to maintain a standard of living beyond ones income.

The other one is about a family who slowly sells off little chunks of their land... to maintain their standard of living.

Over the long term ... the outcome is obvious.

A really good example of what happens when assets become foriegn owned.. is the Banking system.

Just before the Global crises , our major banks were repatriating about $4 billion dollars of profits per yr... back to Austrailia.

That was a major reason for our terrible Current acct deficits... which had to be financed with borrowed money. (Also, the interest that we pay on all the money we have borrowed from offshore sources..... ends up offshore as well ) 

Think of money flowing around and around... moving thru the local, domestic economy,...... Paid as wages... spent by consumers... put to work by businesses... paid as wages...etc..etc   ( think of it as re-oxygenated blood flowing around and around the body ( domestic economy) .. )

( What happens, if instead of this,billions of $ go offshore, as repatriated profits.?? ).. 

A beneficial, benevolent, "velocity of Money"  movement that is like "fresh oxygen".

Contrast that with Foreign direct investment... that obviously wants to buy our best income generating assets...  What do they do with their profits..????   Who benifits..?? who doesn,t..?? ( the way it is now, foreign investment is like a quick heroin fix which feels good in the short term, but leads to a lose of vitality in the long term.)

Foriegn direct Investment makes sense if the investment is towards something "new" that creates "New employment",..  and a "New Income stream", and new "wealth".

It makes NO SENSE, to me, to have allowed Foreign Direct Investment that simply buys our best assets and repatriates earnings....  ( that is akin to trading land for trinkets ).

That, truely is, selling the "family silverware".

There is nothing xenophobic or racist in the fact that most people intuitively know all this already.

Of course...   just my opinion.   cheers  Roelof

This debate reminds me of some kind of goose getting killed for laying golden eggs. Oh wait, we are talking about dairy farms here, not geese, how silly of me!

Past governments were stupid to fight for for free trade and allow globalization of product manufacture with the out comes being the decimation of our own manufacturing industries and current trade deficit - you could probably argue that Australian own banks owned most of this country, but nobody talks about this.

Again there are large problems for us if we sell the land under our feet, I mean, what if another country brought in their cheap work force to live and work on the land undercutting local manufacture further.  Also, with the risks with damaging our national brand image by a foreign entity make milking powder here and adding Malamin to boost the protein content.

As someone of Dutch descent , I dont believe anyone who takes up farming in New Zealand should be prevented from buying a farm . Its unfair . We second generation Immigrants have I beleive contributed to what New Zealand is today . My neighbour is a Kiwi of Asian descent alsoi second generation , and he grows vegetables whch he sells up in Auckland . He is always willing to lend a hand and he is just as hard working as any other Kiwi .

"Chinese one party democracy"

LOL! I lived in China for 7 years. If you think having to register where you live with the Police (even the local Chinese have to) is somehow better than the freedoms we have in our society then you are sadly mistaken.

Mick

And the NZ police dont know where you live? No need to register here. They already know.

What a load of whinging!..The Chinese that are here, are kiwis now.. they dont want to be a defacto province of China anymore than anyone else.

  Lets be totally clear the "a..holes".. that stuffed this country up are still stuffing it up..They screwed the working class and now they are screwing the middle class.

  The day we realise we have it all..and dont need anyone else will be the day..that the shops open again and the place gets a long needed coat of paint.

Heathcliff....   Not sure if your argument applies to the Macro level.

On the Macro level... u are describing what is happening.... but not as u meant it.

We ( NZ) are selling bits of the Farm.. We are getting good $ for those bits of the Farm...  BUT  we are not reinvesting this Capital and getting high returns.

On a Macro level ...we are actually consuming that Capital...   We are spending it.

Can u see that on a Macro level.... ???? 

Can u see the long term implications of that..????

Are u saying that $4 billion of invisibles... going offshore, every yr... is fine, with no long term implications..????

Are u saying that Current acct deficits are not a problem... with long term implications..???

cheers  Roelof

BH: "Why is rural land more precious than say the intellectual capital of our iconic manufacturer…"

Because you can't eat dishwashers and fridges, but you can grow your own food on your own land. (If it does belong to you and not someone else who has more mouths to feed than their land can provide for!)

Of course we should have this debate in broad public to make more people think about this in depth, but the essence is expressed above, and any other arguments are really a sideshow to that fact.

For the record, I have given my support to this campaign to stop sales of land to overseas owners.

Perhaps some examples of the benefits of selling off your prime land and number one export industry to foreign based entities would be in order. All those countries that have done this must be in the box seat now, right?

Come off  it, going down this road would be an indication of total national failure that would play on our collective psyche for generations. I would rather starve than see my children become slaves in their own country. 

This "Save Our Farms" group has come out the same time Kiwi/Iwi sensationalist billboards have come out.  It's fair to say there are plenty of cashed up-with-media-backing white NZers who want it the old way.  Which is wrong.  With those types financing these things it's hard to avoid the idea of xenophobia.

Meanwhile, the selling of strategic assets should be considered first for the betterment of NZ. Bill Roulston has a few good agruments such as creating jobs, but it would be like gold minings, boom bust, with welfare to pick up the pieces.

Anonymous (1.13pm)

You just don't get it, do you.  See my post at 11.58am.  The capital being introduced provides income for the NZ holder this year next year so on and so forth. The capital hasn't vanished into thin air!  The choice of its use rightly remains with the holder,  nothing unusual there.

All this nonsense about non-alignment of national interests,  off-shore political influence,  reducing tax obligations, give me a break!  Evidence please.  That's just a smokescreen for your xenophobia.

The only issue left to debate is the physical ownership of NZ rural  land.  Asian ownership of NZ primary production and corporates,  including rural supply companies, NZ consumer debt etc is an established reality and apparently acceptable. As is NZrs owning dairy farmland in Uruguy , USA etc. So no objection per see to farmland being acquired by 'foreigners', apparently.    

American Julian Robertsons, English artistocrats, Canadian forestry companies etc can all buy rural land here without too much hullabaloo so this is, distilled to its essence, all about Chinese interests physically owning NZ land. 

What differences would we notice if Crafars is bought by the Chinese?. Probably none. Laws and operational rules enforced by relevant authorities would be just as applicable. Some downstream production might be offshored but most would stay here due to the nature of dairy and all inputs including labour would continue to be local. 

Suggest it is more about a fundamental distrust of the Chinese regime -  not entirely without reason given their aggressive behaviour elsewhere, especially once they achieve critical investment mass. But NZ is not some corrupt uncontrolled African state and we are talking about a relatively small chunk of NZs dairy land. Are we not losing perspective?. Why not let them invest in selected blocks and watch them for a few years to see how they act. Rather than in a knee jerk reaction stamping our puny little feet on the toes of this superpower. 

Hmmm... seems to me that most of all of you so far in this thread would be in favour of the Government owning all the land.... given how "strategic" it is and all...

That'll work... state sponsored socialism anyone??

Meantime, while you are all so focused on beating off the 'yellow peril' German's keep turning up and writing cheques for New Zealand property...  does that worry anyone?

I'm not calling it either way...  

Don M

Wrong again.  Who said anything about bailing out Aussie banks?  Stop making assumptions.  Even if that was the case,  the reduction in bank indebtedness would mean another borrower would have access to bank lending without your 'Aussie bank' having to borrow more from overseas!

Duh.

Given your support yet? http://tinyurl.com/2f56ztr

Selling companies and IP etc offshore is fine as its not a finite resource. NZ is always full of young ideas and entrepreneurs coming thru ( allbeit with scant appreciation, assistance and financial support)

Land however, is finite and once sold to offshore interests who need food and minerals etc, its gone forever and we will loose control of our national destiny (as did our predecessors thru different circumstances)

Economic utilisation of our land for OUR benefit must be our first goal and retention of ownership by those of NZ Citizenship and Residency ( even if they are Chinese or Nigerian) must be our goal.

What we have in our our ground, in our waters and what we can produce off our land are the only things big enough in NZ to ensure our long term quality of life.

There will be hardship as our retained farmlands revalue downwards, but in the  end our future will be assured.  

Selling our dirt to faceless corporations or countries and having the money received used short term in a continuation of living beyond our means will ultimately have us down the same gurgler as we are going now (albeit a bit later on when the money's all be splurged and there aint no more. Consider how many farm sellers will reinvest some of their capital offshore eg equities, units in Qld etc..

All of us Govt, individuals, companies have to de leverage and take whatever pain it causes us to live within our means, later we readjust to the true value of what natural resources we have in ways they work for all of us not just the rich few.

We are a resource rich country and we must not sell it off, nor loose control of it.   

Don m

If rural land prices fall in value the debt servicing doesn't change one iota.  The debt doesn't fall commensurately with the land price falling!  All it will do is reduce  equity for current farmers,  perhaps making their lenders nervous,  restricting access to further borrowings,  reducing on-farm expenditure with all its downstream effects.  I don't how many farmers like the idea of their freehold equity being eroded.

At one level I agree that farm land is overpriced.  It always has been.  On an earnings multiple,  the way we value whether shares are cheap or expensive,  yes farms are way overpriced.  But other factors are at play here,  the 'lifestyle', country living at its best,  and a handy paddock for the kids' ponies etc.

Gee Darce,  that's a useful contribution to the debate.

Hi Casual Observer.  You got a bach in Tauranga?  You could live there in retirement!

Seriously,  I don't see that the payment of National Super is at risk.  You compare the cost as a percantage of GDP,  and we stack up well against other OECD countries.

I admire what you and your fellow farmers have done and doing to make your industry more competitive and productive,  but I still don't think foreign investment in farm ownership will affect your industry negatively.  If anything it will enhance it.

Anonymous

Go to www.treasury.govt.nz.  Some serious reading there,  inlcuding budget forecasts etc.  In the overview it is stated that GDP is expected to grow at a rate of 3%pa for the next four years.  That's good.   But closing our borders to foreign capital is one sure way of failing to achieve it.

I do not see any benefits for Chinese to buy NZ farm land in any ways. 

1. Will 23 jobs created in NZ justify us to sell such massive farm land?

Think about Maori People back in 40s and 50s. we do the same thing: acquire land....What the promise we made to them and what Maori people get after all?  

 2. What would be our benefits as ordinary NZers if Natural diary NZ export NZ made diary to China?  

Do we want world second highest GDP, but end up with very poor GDP per person. Natural diary NZ sell NZ made diary product to China for premium, our real benefits would be only about 23 jobs created as Chinese keep their profits, but we have to share our reputation with Chinese. If there is any problems with them, we will go down with them. Do we really want that? Think about the value of "NZ made"? especially the high risk they have including milk scandal in China and the criminal offences of the director  May Wang.  Do we really want such capital inflow???? 

3. Chinese do business in their ways. On the bright side, they say they will play in accordance with NZ law, they will do good for NZ. On the hidden side, they play tricks, they acts in a totally nasty way. That is how Chinese do business in China. Do you think they will change their way to do business if they invest in NZ? They donate a large amount of money to National Party, why? they are business man, if there is no expected return, do you think they will donate? In china, bribe government official is usual way to do business successful in China. 

4. Chinese pays higher price to purchase farm land, if it is approved, it is more even difficult for NZers to purchase farm land in the future. Then what would make us for our living if we lost our productive assets?  what would be our real benefits after all?

Finally, I have to say, I have been in NZ for 7 years originally from China, but I definitely not happy Chinese to invest our diary industry. In the short run, we may benefits from limited job creating and increase of GDP, but in the long run...it is going to be a nightmare....... 

Interesting that Kerry Hoggard is involved in this campaign, as he was on the Fletcher Challenge board when much of it was sold to overseas interests and incidentally was found guilty of insider trading a few years back.

Ponder this:

The reality is the land is not what they plan to take away - it's the resources used and return they make off the land.

Although resources used will be paid for, resources are limited, therefore depriving us of the opportunity of fully capitalising off the added value element of the return.

Do we want to allow the competition access and the opportunity to deprive us of our wealth generating resources? And do we want to cover their pollution cost in the process?

To: kin, The real Ray,m valuer, Steve-o, Nicholas Lee, Actual Professional Economist, enon e mouse, Leon Dale, Accountant, steven-orig, Don m, Confused, Neil, Amy-Sue, Mozart, Selwyn Pellett, Selwyn Pellett, Selwyn Pellett, Winston Churchill, Heathcliff, Trim Chai Latte, rk, Neil, aarron, am, Kiwi Dutchman, Anonimers, Don m, John W, Jeff M, Horace the Grump, Darce, Fungus, Benny, SImon

Much appreciate the comments

FYI and a reminder to all

We are planning to turn off unregistered "anonymous" comments from September 12.

We encourage everyone who is unregistered to register. The box on the right under the comment stream is the one. Registering also gives you the ability to edit comments, vote on comments and include links without the Captcha thingey.

Here's more detail

http://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/heres-why-wed-you-register-be-commente...

cheers

Bernard

Just got on here and read some of the comments.One thing that comes to mind is hypocrite for some comments.

I bet that some of the same people crying out for no land sale to Chinese (or anybody from another country)frequent the warehouse and go on holiday overseas to give that country our valuable money.Its just plain bloody silly talk.Show me ONE person who would refuse to sell his house to a Chinese who offers to pay over the odds and I will show you a moron.

Well, after reading most of our hosts comments on this issue he's managed to change my mind and yip..i agree this could well be a way out for our well over leverage dairy sector..i'm still having trouble coming to terms with siding with BH..

There could be a better way to sell our New Zealand property.

Why not create a "New Zealand Leasehold Title" on any land that is sold to foreigners. The lease would be a perpetual lease, and a yearly lease fee (perhaps 5% of the CV) would be charged and collected by the Government. If the property is resold to a New Zealander it would revert back to a freehold title, if it was on-sold to a new foreign owner, the lease would simply be reassigned. This could also help speed up the OIA process which is expensive and timely.

This achieves two simple things. It retains sovereign ownership of all New Zealand land, and provides a revenue base off land that would otherwise not be available. 

The reason leasing land doesn't work is from an investor's perpective it's all about controlling the property (ownership).

Patrick, would you feel confident investing good money into a house on leased land - owned by a completely non-affiliated party? "Perpetual" has the same meaning as "guarantee" - no such thing in the real world.  

Discriminate against foreign investors, as proposed, you'll find investment will fall away to almost nothing - which extends beyond land and property. Then the government will be trying to find ways to attract more foreign investment to no avail.

It astounds me that so many NZers think foreign investment in land and property is prevalent, when the reality is it's not.

You can be assured the banter being played out in the media concerning a couple of Chinese investors, backed up by Key's naive comments regarding foreign ownership, has caused more harm than good.

Which I can attest too as a foreign investor who considered NZ. Not on a small scale, and not property specific. The uncertainty and instability surrounding taxes and restrictions imposed on foreign investment means NZ is no longer a consideration. South America is more appealing.

"Luxury properties including farmland and homes are being sold to wealthy foreign investors without being available to New Zealand buyers."

And NZ properties are being offered exclusively to NZers.

Don't trust a link to "tinyurl" so no idea what you're referring too.

The point was NZers must "use foreign investment" to their advantage. To establish more wealth and create a higher standard of living. This will not be achieved if foreign investment is discounted or compromised at any level.

NZ's living standards as measured by per capita gross domestic product are 15% lower than the OECD average.

Not good when you look at some of the sub-performing countries included in the OECD.

"and that's the highest quality bullshit to be posted so far this year.! "

Wolly.. I'll take it as a compliment if what I've posted is "higher quality" than the rambling BS you produce.

Take time to read and understand what's written.. Wolly. Although doubtful, you may actually learn something.

Anonymous | 25 Aug 10, 9:42am

Re: BS and Comical. It would be if it weren't true. Take a look at balance of payments history.

For decades now, a mixture of increasing debt and assets sales has constantly sustained our GDP growth - short-term fixes that have led to our current predicament.

As a nation, we've failed to invest in generating the offshore return required.

And largely due to our most lucrative sectors being foreign owned, returns made predominantly head back offshore.

I don't think anyone is suggesting we restrict any form of foreign investment. We are discussing foreign ownership. There is a difference. And yes, we can have it both ways.

A local currency is merely one of many alternative options at our disposal. You obviously lack vision or you're a bit of a latecomer to the game.

Re: evidence of economic viability

Again, I'll refer you to our balance of payment history and also our standard of living. As a nation, we borrowed less than what we earned while at the same time our income disparity was far more balanced. This led to our high standard of living.

As this fell apart so to did our standard of living and if it wasn't for all the debt, our current standard of living would be a lot lower.

Repeating past mistakes isn't going to correct that and successfully take us forward.

If commons sense and forward planning were initially applied, we wouldn't be turning to short-sighted short-term fixes.

"foreign investment. We are discussing foreign ownership. There is a difference. "

Say no more. You're embarrasing yourself.

Anonymous | 25 Aug 10, 11:22am

*Expresses amusement*

I don't find pointing out your flawed assertions embarrassing. And your last one is indeed comical.

Why don't back your assertion and explain to everyone how you've come to the conclusion that foreign ownership and foreign investment are one in the same?

The only one embarrassing themselves here is you.

For once Bernard you seem to have the right end of the stick :)

Instead of these guys banning all sales they should be running a campaign to
"Save Our Sheep and Beef Farmers" !!!!!

The discussion needs to be had, but we also have Private Property Rights to consider.

Ban the sale of farms & they better ban the sale of all business as well, and clifftop houses in Paratai drive (where many of these self interested "save the farms" crowd come from no doubt).

Perhaps the ban on sales of new property deveopments to overseas buyers may also change the mind of the Property developer backing this, who is probably just trying to keep his land prices down so he can make more money when he develops them !

http://www.tirau.simnz.com/farm.htm

Cricky you fellas must be raking in a bit of dough with all the advertising clogging up the screen.
I disagree with Bernard when he claims that regulating the sale of NZs farmland to foreigners will decrease our standard of living, is myopic, and word of the month ‘xenophobic’. The only people to gain from cashing in to the ‘chinese are farmers (if you can call them that) that farm for capital gain (that would include all Queen St farmers). Apparently food and associated natural resources are in demand, therefore NZ is in a good position to generate a stable and sustainable income from exporting our agricultural commodities. Farmers will need to manage rising input costs, but this is where the cash margin is to be found. What needs to happen is for the capital gain cockies and their banking overlords to take a haircut, retain farmland for young NZ farmers and their families, and start making a meaningful income.

international farmer

you seem to suffer from clasic tall poppy syndrome

there are plenty of farms for sale in NZ ,at current valuations and current ebits they have never been better buying .

the question is are  you ready to take on the risks and rewards ?

or just keep writing siting behind your computer

Well, after reading through the posts I thought I would add my 2c worth.

Rural NZ is not what it once was...

It has fewer shelterbelts, fewer grassroot families(the long term ones that do all the work in the rural communities), and fewer sheep.  

It has pop up shitbox 2bdrm prefab houses filled to the brim with scummy ex crim dairy workers.

It has so called "intensive" farming practices which is basically a term for over stocking and raping the land to its last gasp, more crime (or should I just say "crime", because we never had to lock our doors/petrol tanks/chainsaws/motorbikes up before dairying arrived in the district!

And for an added bonus...we now have Nitrate levels in our (and all bores in the district) drinking water (ground water) much higher than World Health Organisation levels (recent development since dairy farmers decided to dump fert on every sq. cm of their farm instead of just the paddocks that need it every year. (if you live near an "intensive dairy farm" and draw your water from a bore call your local enviro council and get them to test the water. High Nitrate levels are dangerous to children under 5,elderly and the sick.

So in my opinion, the rural landscape can't get much worse. Chinese, Brit, German, American or Kiwi it doesn't matter. We already shit where we sleep in this country so what's the bloody difference between a Kiwi corporate or a Chinese national polluting our land and water? Everybody cares, but they are only willing to care to the point where it starts affects THEIR farming practice.

The only reason the New Zealand Dairy industry has prospered thus far on the world stage is because they have an environmental subsidy- there are no true restrictions on their farming practices, which means our environment suffers.

Water...the reason for high land prices?

I am a firm believer that irrigation is the cause for land price grief.

Before the so called dairy boom a young couple who couldnt afford to buy premium flat land could always look to the dryer, rougher country which was significantly cheaper. Now where there was once rocks and rabbit shit, we see massive irrigators, green pastures and dairy cows. There is no such thing as cheap dirt anymore. Now you cant even get a viable unit without either a silver spoon (you would need to be born with one poking out of your mouth) or a bloody rich, childless, great uncle.

The era or the family farm is no longer

As much as I despise those foreign land grabbers, I am of firm belief that a farm is private property, no different to a town house. It has a family living there, a mailbox and a (very large)mortgage attached to it. For some accountant or lawyer from Auckland to stomp their feet and shout "save the farms" , personally I think they have a bloody cheek.

Enough ranting for this evening I think.