Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Shanghai Pengxin’

User Pays: the eventual conclusion

27 March 2012 1 comment

|

|

Superman, for hire? Not quite right, is it…

Of course, we rightly view such a scene with aversion.  Some things, we just don’t expect to see with a  price levied.

|

= 1 =

|

Our British cuzzies recently discovered this on Monday, when it was discovered that the governing UK Conservative Party’s top fundraiser Peter Cruddas, had been selling access to senior British government MPs and Ministers. The full story is worth reprinting,

|

In a sting operation, ‘The Sunday Times’  secretly videotaped fundraiser Peter Cruddas  discussing donations. The film showed him telling undercover reporters: “200 grand ($317,000), 250 is premier league … it’ll be awesome for your business.”

If donors met Cameron, Cruddas claimed in the recording, “within that room, everything is confidential and you will be able to ask him practically any question that you want.”

‘We will listen to you’
He suggested they could even influence party policy, saying: “If you are unhappy about something, we will listen to you and we will put it into the policy committee at (the prime minister’s official residence).”

Cameron responded by saying Cruddas’ actions had been “completely unacceptable.” Cruddas, a millionaire, resigned within hours of the report.

Cruddas made the remarks to two journalists he thought were international financiers and who were accompanied by a lobbyist.

“Because we depend on donors so much we have to be careful” to show “you cannot buy access,” he said according to The Sunday Times. But, he told the undercover reporters, if you donate “you could well be at a private house having a private dinner with George Osborne, David Cameron, William Hague, the chairman around the table.”

Osborne, the cabinet minister in charge of economic and financial matters, and Foreign Minister William Hague are both members of Cameron’s center-right Conservative Party, which leads the governing coalition alongside the Liberal Democrats.

Embarrassing
The funding issue is embarrassing for Cameron, who promised before coming to power in May 2010 to curb corporate lobbying, saying it was the “next big scandal waiting to happen.”

Following the report, Cameron admitted he had used his official home at 10 Downing Street to host dinners for Conservative donors.

The scandal threatened to undo Cameron’s efforts to shake off his party’s image of being too close to the interests of business and the rich as Britain undergoes an austerity program to cut its budget deficit.

“This is not the way that we raise money in the Conservative party, it should not have happened,” said Cameron. “I will make sure that there is a proper party inquiry to make sure this can’t happen again.”

While there were also tax cuts for lower earners, the government’s recent budget went down badly with many Britons, giving the impression the government was looking after the wealthy and cared little for those suffering rising unemployment and falling incomes as the economy struggles to recover from recession.

Previous attempts to reform the political funding system have foundered on the Conservatives’ reluctance to cap donations from wealthy individuals and the opposition Labour Party’s desire to avoid limits on contributions from unions.

Msnbc.com’s F. Brinley Bruton and Reuters contributed to this report.

Acknowledgement for source: MSNBC World News

|

By the next day, Britain’s Prime Minister and Leader of the UK Conservative Party, David Cameron, admitted what ‘The Sunday Times’  had uncovered,

|

Full Story

|

The article further states,

Of a dozen couples or individuals who dined with Cameron, including eight who were at a post-election celebration in July 2010, six were financiers, including three hedge fund managers, and two were property magnates. Two run manufacturing firms.

The Chequers list included the names of party treasurers as well as the millionaire property developer David Rowland and Lebanese businessman Fares Fares...

As other parties offer supporters and donors access to meetings and debates with leaders and senior officials, the Conservatives have a system for encouraging political and financial support. Their Web site offers a hierarchy of “Donors Clubs” where minimum levels of donation give increasing degrees of contact with party officials and representatives.

For the 50,000-pound ($80,000) annual membership of the “premier supporter group” – The Leader’s Group – “members are invited to join David Cameron and other senior figures from the Conservative Party at dinners, … lunches, drinks receptions, election result events and important campaign launches”. “

Cameron was at pains to reassure British voters that,

“We are more transparent than any government and any prime minister have ever been. We behaved properly.

“What Cruddas was doing was totally unacceptable.”

We have a saying here in New Zealand for that kind of statement,

|

|

Of  course, such things don’t happen here in New Zealand. Our own National Government does not do “favours” for cash donations to the Party…

|

= 2 =

|

Full Story

|

Full Story

|

Full Story

|

Full Story

|

Full Story

|

Full Story

|

Full Story

|

Full Story

|

From the Electoral Commission webpage,  “Returns of party donations exceeding $30,000“,

|

Source

|

From the Electoral Commission webpage,  “Returns of party donations exceeding $20,000“,
|

Source

|

Those are the facts, as presented from various sources.

I invite you, the reader, to draw your own conclusions, regarding the individuals; companies; their donations  and their links  to National.

(Note: The Electoral Commission webpage on returns of party donations includes donations to Labour, ACT, The Greens, and NZ First.)

|

|

= fs =

Advertisements

Al Capone lives again?

16 March 2012 6 comments

|

"Hey, mack. Ya gots somethin' I want."

|

There’s a old cliche in gangster movies that goes something like this,

Hey, Luigi, I gots an offer ya cain’t refuse!”

[cue machine guns being locked & loaded]

Ya dirty rat-

[rata-tata-tata-tata…]

It seems that our Chinese cuzzies have been watching a few too many gangster movies,

|

Source

|

Mr Cheng Li, the “political counsellor” at the Chinese Embassy in Wellington, has threatened warned ‘suggested’ that Chinese investment in NZ may be at risk if the Shanghai Pengxin deal to buy the 16 Crafar farms is not permitted to proceed.

Someone should tell Mr Li that,

  1. We are not a canton of China nor an occupied state like Tibet,
  2. New Zealanders don’t take kindly to being “leaned on”. We didn’t like it in 1984 and ’85  when  our American cuzzies   tried to pressure the Lange Government to abandon our nuclear-free policy – and we certainly don’t like it when someone  “heavys” us to make a deal we don’t want.
  3. This does not enamour New Zealanders to welcome overseas investment in our country.

It’s interesting that the OIO (Overseas Investment Office) stated that Shanghai Pengxin is a good corporate citizen. That may  certainly be, and the owners of that company are probably  Honourable Men.

The same, unfortunately cannot be said of the Chinese Government. “Monstering” us to sell, is simply  not a good look.

Go back to spying on Tibetan activists and Falun Gong members, Mr Li.

|

|

= fs =

In a matter of days… not nine months?!

16 February 2012 2 comments

 .

.

The Crafar Saga;  a time-line on the sale process,

.

5 October 2009: Crafar Farms placed into receivership, owing $216 million to creditors.

22 December 2010: Government  blocks  bid by Natural Dairy to buy the 16 Crafar farms on ‘good character’ grounds.

27 January 2011: KordaMentha accepts offer from Shanghai Pengxin International Group Ltd to buy Crafar Farms.

13 April 2011: Shanghai Pengxin lodges application with the Overseas Investment Office (OIO) to buy the Crafar farms.

26 September 2011: Crafar farms receiver KordaMentha  rejects a conditional NZ$171.5 million offer for 16 central North Island dairy farms from a group led by controversial former merchant banker Michael Fay.

26 November 2011: Parliamentary Election

27 January 2012: Government ministers approve Shanghai Pengxin’s application to purchase 16 Crafar farms.

15 February 2012: High Court over-rules  Government’s decision consenting to Shanghai Pengxin’s application to purchase

.

The OIO spent nine months assessing the Pengxin bid, which is reported to have valued the farms at $210 million, some $40 million higher than the bid by a consortium of New Zealand bidders led by merchant banker Michael Fay.” – Source

We don’t have a clear timeframe for this process but expect to receive the resubmitted recommendation report from the Overseas Investment Office in a matter of days, not weeks.” –  Mr Williamson, Ibid

Interesting…

It  took nine months for the OIO (Overseas Investment Office) to report their decision to Ministers Williamson and Coleman, for their rubber stamp approval…

But Minister Williamson now reckons it will only a matter of days to receive the resubmitted recommendation report from the Overseas Investment Office?!?!

… and this is the government that swears, hand-on-heart, that the extraordinary delay (applications normally take 50 – 70 days to process – not nine months) in processing and approving the Crafar purchase by Shanghai Pengxin, had nothing to do with the November election?!?!

The only thing worse than lying politicians?

Politicians who don’t lie very convincingly.

What a shabby, shonkey, shameful  government we elected last year.

 .

.

Kiwis, Cows, and Canadian singers…

31 January 2012 9 comments

.

.

A little bit of recent history first…

.

As the dust settles over the sale of the Crafar Farms to Shanghai Pengxin, it may be worth looking at some aspects of how this government handled the sale, and it’s aftermath…

For starters, a time-line on the sale process,

.

5 October 2009: Crafar Farms placed into receivership, owing $216 million to creditors.

22 December 2010: Government  blocks  bid by Natural Dairy to buy the 16 Crafar farms on ‘good character’ grounds.

27 January 2011: KordaMentha accepts offer from Shanghai Pengxin International Group Ltd to buy Crafar Farms.

13 April 2011: Shanghai Pengxin lodges application with the Overseas Investment Office (OIO) to buy the Crafar farms.

26 September 2011: Crafar farms receiver KordaMentha  rejects a conditional NZ$171.5 million offer for 16 central North Island dairy farms from a group led by controversial former merchant banker Michael Fay.

27 January 2012: Government ministers approve Shanghai Pengxin’s application to purchase 16 Crafar farms.

.

The first matter that arises is the length of time from Shanghai Pengxin’s initial application (13 April 2011), to consent being issued by relevant Ministers: over nine months.

(Strangely, 13 April 2011 was a Sunday. Is it usual for government offices to be open in the weekend?)

The OIO (Overseas Investment Office) sets time limits for itself to process application,

.

Estimated decision times

There is no statutory timeframe within which an application for consent must be decided. However applications generally fall into one of three categories according to complexity with category 3 being the most complex. These categories provide a guide for how long it may take for a decision to be made:

  • Category 1 applications, where the OIO aims to make decisions within 30 working days from the date of registration. Examples include: (a) applications for consent to purchase significant business assets,
    (b) “sensitive land” decisions delegated to the OIO by Ministers that don’t fall into the categories below,
    (c) variations to existing consents.
  • Category 2 applications where the OIO aims to make decisions within 50 working days from the date of registration.  Examples include: (a) “sensitive land” applications for consent requiring Ministerial consideration e.g. the purchase non-urban land greater than five hectares in size, where it includes or adjoins other sensitive land, such as conservation land, reserves etc
    (b) applications for exemptions,
    (c) applications where the overseas person is intending to reside in New Zealand indefinitely.
  • Category 3 applications, where the OIO aims to make decisions within 70 working days from the date of the registration.  Examples include: (a) applications to acquire an interest in fishing quota,
    (b) applications that involve special land being land that includes foreshore or the bed of a river or lake,
    (c) where the applicant intends to establish a purchasing programme such as a series of land acquisitions in a specific area for a specific project,
    (d) applications in respect of which a third party submission has been received by the Ministers or the OIO,
    (e) applications where the Ministers or the OIO have decided that consultation with third parties is appropriate in considering whether or not to grant consent.

Note that these targets apply to high quality, well prepared and analysed applications, and excludes the time where the OIO is waiting for the applicant to provide further information and the time for Ministers to consider and make decisions on relevant applications. 

Source

.

Even if the Crafar farm sale had been considered as a “Category 3”  application – there is considerable difference between 70 working days (deadline around 17 June 2011) –  and nine months.

A cynic might suggest that  Ministerial approval was delayed because of last years’ election. There is considerable public opposition to farm land sales to non-New Zealanders and this would have had a profound impact on National’s electoral support.

I would go so far as to say that National would have lost another couple of percentage points (minimum) in Party Votes – and therefore lost the election itself.

It is therefore National’s “good luck” that the decision to approve the sale to Shanghai Pengxin came two months after the General Election.

.

A lot of Racist Angst or Righteous Anger?

.

The first media reports that Ministerial consent had been granted for the Shanghai Pengxin appeared around 11am on the morning of January 27.

At 11.23am, Interest.co.nz published a web story, headed, “Govt Ministers rubber stamp Overseas Investment Office approval of Shanghai Pengxin’s Crafar farms bid” .

At 11.28am, TVNZ’s website reports, “Turning down Crafar sale ‘unlawful’ – Key” .

Ten minutes later, and Scoop.co.nz, reported, “Sale of Crafar farms to Pengxin is approved”.

At 2.22pm, TVNZ’s story appeared, “Fay group fights Crafar farms sale to Chinese”.

And this appeared on TV3’s website at 4.02pm, “Parties slam Crafar farm sale to Chinese”.

There were other stories on this issue – but these carried the gist was what the media was reporting. It was undoubtedly the lead story of the day.

Media reporting on this issue was prominent and widely discussed. The nationality of the purchasers was mentioned – but mostly only  in passing.

Criticism, of which there was plenty,   rested on two major points,

  1. Loss of profits overseas,
  2. Loss of sovereignty, and the dominance of our FTA with China over local decision-making.

Both are critical issues that have a real bearing on our country’s future.

With regards to Point #1 – profits lost overseas – Green Party Agriculture spokesperson Steffan Browning said,

As food prices rise globally, selling off our productive land − such as the Crafar farms − to overseas bidders is economic folly. Foreign ownership of the Crafar farms means that the profits will flow overseas, adding further to our current account deficit. In the 12 months to September 2011, $15.2 billion flowed out of NZ to overseas owners of NZ companies and debt.” – Source

This is an issue of considerable weight, considering that New Zealand’s credit rating was downgraded last year by two credit-ratings agencies.

Anything that increases the outflow of profits from New Zealand worsens our current account.

The question then becomes – why allow it to happen if we can avoid it? Especially since we will end up paying for offshore investors’ profits, by way of increased interest rates.  Our current account deficit matters – especially when it impacts on businesses and home owners via  the interest they pay on their loans.

With regards to Point #2.  John Key stated,

And had they turned it down on the basis simply of being Chinese on their desk it would have been not only be unlawful but unacceptable.” – Source

And in the NZ Herald,

Mr Key also pointed to the Free Trade Agreement with China negotiated by the former Labour Government that contained a clause known as the Most Favoured Nation status.

That meant Chinese investment in New Zealand could not be treated differently to any other country.” – Source

So if it is true that China (or any other nation for that matter) has a “Most Favoured Nation” status, and that they are able to compete with local New Zealanders for land, businesses, contracts, etc, then I think we have a problem.

For one thing, it seemingly makes Parliament and elections an irrelevancy if we cannot restrict purchases of our assets to New Zealanders only..

Secondly, no New Zealander can hope to compete with rich overseas investors, should they have a mind to bid for an asset. Michael Fay is one of New Zealand’s richest men – and his consortium was outbid by Shanghai Pengxin by (reportedly) $30 million.

But most importantly, FTA’s are not democratic institutions. No New Zealander voter for it. Very few had a hand in agreeing to it.  Yet our FTA with China appears to take pre-eminence over Parliament?

That is a dangerous position for New Zealand to be in. Especially when we possess natural resources that other nations may covet. Our naivete may yet be our down fall.

Up until 7pm on Friday, the debate had been framed – for the most part – in economic and nationalistic terms.

Then, Maurice Williamson (Minister for Land Information/ Overseas Investment Office) and Cedric Allan (spokesman for Shanghai Pengxin) were both interviewed on TV1’s “Close Up“, that night,

.

[click on image]

.

Williamson succeeded in re-framing the debate over the Crafar deal. From economic and national sovereignty, he turned it into a race-based debate.

Williamson said,

“…New Zealanders were happy for Shania Twain to own 23,000 hectares or whatever.” – Williamson, 6.04

Actually, that’s just not true. Minister Williamson has either forgotten, or is fibbing,

.

Full Story

.

Williamson continued,

When the Americans, a huge number of Americans,  were buying it [land], not mutter. Not a murmur. Not a whisper from all of your opponants out there. But as soon as the word ‘Chinese’  was mentioned, we were opposed to it. And I have to say  that is bordering more on racism than it is on xenophobia.”  – Williamson, 6.11

The charge is repeated by agri-journalist, Richard Rennie,

We’re talking tens of thousands of hectares bought by the Italians, the Germans, even the Brits and Americans. And yet we haven’t heard a murmur from anyone in New Zealand about that.” – Source

Again, none of it is true,

.

.

“… I didn’t hear this level of protest when huge tracts of land was being sold under the Labour government…  ” – Williamson, 6.30

Then Williamson contradicted his 6.04 statement,

Well of course the public don’t like any of our land being sold to foreigners and I understand that...” – Williamson, 8.56

Maurice Williamson had been well-prepped by his media advisors. Instead of being drawn into a debate over economics, he had succeeded in reframing the issue as one of racism. And most liberal minded New Zealanders would think twice before uttering a criticism that might be construed as racist. (Those in our society who are already racist wouldn’t care a hoot and would probably vote ACT or National anyway. They are not Williamson’s intended audience.)

This is where the racism/xenophobia meme started: Friday evening, on “Close Up“, by Maurice Williamson.

Even when  we finally got to the nub of the truth, about China’s actual long-term goals, the real point by now had been lost amidst Williamson’s echoing cries of  ‘racism!’.

For the record, Shanghai Pengxin representative, Cedric Allan said,

China is looking for energy, it’s looking for water, it’s looking primarily for food…” – 7.22, Allan

Of course it is.  And the OIO decision had nicely  set in concrete China’s very long-term goals of securing food-supplies for the future,

The conditions

…Milk New Zealand must use reasonable endeavours to assist Landcorp to extend its business to, and market its products, in China” – Source

Pengxin announced in April 2011 after launching its bid for the farms that it planned to increase milk production from the Crafar farms by 10% and wanted to capture a bigger share of the Chinese market with branded, dairy-based consumer products. It said it planned to spend more than NZ$200 million to buy and upgrade the farms. It then planned to invest a further NZ$100 million on marketing cheeses, ice creams and baby formula for the Chinese market.” – Ibid

Is there anything wrong with increasing dairy exports to China?

Normally, no.  Fonterra has been developing and building our exports to the Chinese market for the past decade. With revenues of nearly $20 billion in 2010, it is one of our major industries and export earner.

But, as mentioned before, any export-revenue to China by Shanghai Pengxin-owned  farms will not come to New Zealand. They will end up in offshore bank accounts, and will be of little benefit to New Zealanders. In fact, most of the profits will vanish off-shore just as the dairy products will.

.

And topped off with some rich irony.

.

The Right have been leading the charge to support the Shanghai Pengxin deal, and accusing detractors of naked racism…

Meanwhile, the Left has countered with (credible) concerns about loss of export income…

The Right are not usually renowned for sympathatic understanding of racism against ethnic groups. They are usually more relaxed with “trashing the treaty”, mixed with a bit of Maori bashing, as  their usual ‘sporting activity’. After all, the right wing party ACT was adamant that Maori were not going to get tangata whenua-based seats on the Auckland Super Council.

The Left, on the other hand are not usually in a position where they find themselves arguing on behalf of economic benefits; current accounts; export earnings; and sound commercial practices. What next – Socialist International on the Board of Goldman Sachs? (Actually, they might not do a half-bad job, to be honest… )

.

But the final verdict?

.

Lies with the voting public.

Somehow, I doubt if the public are terribly reassured by Key’s pronouncement on this matter,

If we saw a significant buy-up of New Zealand farms, then the Government’s response would likely be to further toughen the regulations or the Overseas Investment Act, but at this point, we’re not really seeing that.” – Source

When John Campbell asked Dear Leader what constituted “a significant buy-up of New Zealand farms” (7.47) – Key was left floundering. He couldn’t name a figure. He could only waffle about vague trends. However, by the time a “trend” is established, how much of a mess will we have created for ourselves?

How much is too much?

And will our elected representatives have the wit to know when to say, “No more”?

.

The Law

Overseas Investment Act 2005

Section 16

Section 17

Section 18

The OIO Decision

Decision required under the Overseas Investment Act 2005: Milk New Zealand
Holding Limited

Previous Blog entries

The road to poverty?

The Great NZ Sell-Off Continues

How to lose $5.3 billion dollars without any effort at all

The second colonisation of New Zealand

The Crafar Farms – Why the delay from the OIO?

Farms, politicians, and emails

Competing against the Chinese Government…

Is this man a complete fool?

As predicted

Land Sales – a Sorry Saga of Sheer Stupidity

Mum & Dad investors?

.

.

Mum & Dad investors?

30 January 2012 4 comments

.

.
John Key laments that he could do nothing to stop the sale of the Crafar farms to overseas investors because of our Free Trade Agreement with China.  Shanghai Pengxin had as much right to bid for, and have their bid accepted, as any other bidder in this country,

.

Full Story

.

Key says that attempting to halt the sale would have meant the Chinese suing us for breaching the FTA, as he was quoted in the Otago Daily Times,

.

“Ministers could have overturned that decision, but there were no reasons to do so. The OIO correctly interpreted the legislation, and had they turned it down simply on the basis of being Chinese, it would not only be unlawful but unacceptable and would have been overturned in the courts.” ” – Source

.

In which case, how will John Key ensure that Kiwi “mum and dad” investors are allowed first option to buy shares in soon-to-be privatised state power companies – without Chinese demanding the same right to bid,

.

Full Story

.

Won’t we be sued by China  if “mum & dad” investors get first preference over countries with which we have a FTA with?

It will be interesting to see how our Dear Leader resolves this little dilemma.

.

.

As predicted…

27 January 2012 2 comments


As predicted in my post, Farms, politicians, and emails ,

This blog predicts that National will allow the OIO to permit the sale of the Crafar farms to Shanghai Pengxin, and will try to “sweeten” the deal with sale-conditions designed to satisfy public concerns.” – 24 January

.

Source

.

It is little wonder that this decision was released some nine months after the application was lodged with the Overseas Investment Commission – John Key knew that if this decision was released before November, that they would have lost the election.

This is the sort of manipulative shyster we have as our Prime Minister.

.

.

Is this man a complete fool?

.

.

5 July 2010

As a general and broader principle I think New Zealanders should be concerned if we sell huge tracts of our productive land.

“Now, that’s a challenging issue given the state of the current law and quite clearly it’s evidentially possible and has been achieved that individual farms can be sold. Looking four, five, ten years into the future I’d hate to see New Zealanders as tenants in their own country and that is a risk I think if we sell out our entire productive base, so that’s something the Government will have to consider.” – John Key

.

26 January 2012

What ministers are looking at is: Does the bid by this Chinese entity meet the regulations. If it does, they have no grounds to turn it down because if they do turn it down, then they would be subject to judicial review and they would almost certainly lose.”

“If we saw a significant buy up of New Zealand farms then the Government’s response would likely be to further toughen the regulations or the Overseas Investment Act. But at this point, we’re not really seeing that.”

A deal between Pengxin and Landcorp “could be” a good commercial proposition for the state-owned company. – John Key

.

It appears that the John Key of July 2010 is not the same John Key of January 2012. Somewhere along the way, aliens have abducted the 2010 John Key and replaced him with a doppelganger. Dang dastardly, these aliens. (Please take away that damned  clone. And you can keep the original.)

The following story is full of “Keyisms” – half-truths, mis-representations, and fudging the issue,

.

Full Story

.

Some of his statements are breath-taking in “bending” the truth,

Prime Minister John Key says he would not have a problem with state-owned Landcorp running the 16 Crafar farms under Chinese ownership. That would “not necessarily” be a case of New Zealanders becoming “tenants in their own land”, he said.”

Whut?!

Prime Minister, the definition of “tenant farmer” is as follows,

A tenant farmer is one who resides on and farms land owned by a landlord. Tenant farming is an agricultural production system in which landowners contribute their land and often a measure of operating capital and management; while tenant farmers contribute their labor along with at times varying amounts of capital and management.” – Wikipedia

Ergo; if Shanghai-Pengxin (or any other foreign investor) owns the land, and Landcorp works the land – then Landcorp is a tenant farmer.

Is there any part of that simple truism that escapes our Prime Minister?

If so, I can ask some school children to draw him some pretty pictures in coloured crayons, a-la “Seven Days“.

John Key then says,

He “had a feeling of what might happen”. “

Yeah. I bet he does.

Key goes on,

“The Government is not in one sense the arbiter of the decision about yes or no for foreign ownership of the existing Crafar Farms – that is a recommendation from the Overseas Investment Office. What the Government’s role is to determine whether the Overseas Investment Office followed the law properly,” Key said. “

To maintain the rural theme of this blog-piece: Bovine excrement!

The OIO’s rules are crystal clear,

Estimated decision times

There is no statutory timeframe within which an application for consent must be decided. However applications generally fall into one of three categories according to complexity with category 3 being the most complex. These categories provide a guide for how long it may take for a decision to be made:

  • Category 1 applications, where the OIO aims to make decisions within 30 working days from the date of registration. Examples include:  (a) applications for consent to purchase significant business assets,
    (b) “sensitive land” decisions delegated to the OIO by Ministers that don’t fall into the categories below,
    (c) variations to existing consents
  • Category 2 applications where the OIO aims to make decisions within 50 working days from the date of registration.  Examples include:  (a) “sensitive land” applications for consent requiring Ministerial consideration e.g. the purchase non-urban land greater than five hectares in size, where it includes or adjoins other sensitive land, such as conservation land, reserves etc
    (b) applications for exemptions.
  • Category 3 applications, where the OIO aims to make decisions within 70 working days from the date of the registration.  Examples include:  (a) applications to acquire an interest in fishing quota,
    (b) applications that involve special land being land that includes foreshore or the bed of a river or lake,
    (c) where the applicant intends to establish a purchasing programme such as a series of land acquisitions in a specific area for a specific project,
    (d) applications in respect of which a third party submission has been received by the Ministers or the OIO,
    (e) applications where the Ministers or the OIO have decided that consultation with third parties is appropriate in considering whether or not to grant consent.

Note that these targets apply to high quality, well prepared and analysed applications, and excludes the time where the OIO is waiting for the applicant to provide further information and the time for Ministers to consider and make decisions on relevant applications.

Source

So John Key is trying to pull a fast one in attempting to evade responsibility for any decision making on this issue.

Applications for “sensitive land” requires ministerial consent. It’s there, in black and white (and highlighted in red). If Key doesn’t understand the workings of the OIO, he has no business being Prime Minister of New Zealand.

Key waffles on,

“What ministers are looking at is: Does the bid by this Chinese entity meet the regulations. If it does, they have no grounds to turn it down because if they do turn it down, then they would be subject to judicial review and they would almost certainly lose.”

No, Prime Minister. Parliament is sovereign. Parliament makes the rules – not our Chinese (or American or Australian or German) cuzzies.

If we don’t want to sell our land – we don’t have to. Just as the Chinese Government has the ‘smarts‘ to have precisely the same laws in place in their country.

If you are telling us that we have lost control over the sale of our own land, to a foreign power, then we are in serious trouble,  Mr Prime Minister.

The Government had spent “a long time tightening up the law” around foreign ownership of land.”

Has it? Has it really?! Because I’ve emailed the government on precisely this issue and have yet to receive a reply of any description.

There is no indication whatsoever that this government has “tightened” any aspect of “foreign ownership of land”. (Except in JohnKeyland.)

Labour had negotiated the free trade agreement with China, which had given the Chinese the same rights to invest in New Zealand as the British, American, German or Australian investment.

In which case, Mr Prime Minister, why are the Chinese able to deny foreigners from buying land in China?

We cannot say we are not going to accept a bid because someone is Chinese. We can say it’s because they don’t meet certain regulations and conditions in the Overseas Investment Act but we can’t say it’s because they’re Chinese.”

Which is why many critics are also opposed to German, American, Australian, etc, buyers of our farmland. The German buy-up of Southland is also cause for concern.

We always have the power to disagree with the Overseas Investment Office but we couldn’t disagree because we don’t like the ethnicity of a buyer. We’d have to say it doesn’t meet these regulations or these terms.”

There was “a degree of subjectivity” in the tests but it was “for the most part, pretty clear cut“.”

There are plenty of reasons why Government can decline an application. Economic. Social. Environmental. Ethnicity is a straw-man argument which only John Key seems to be dredging up.

“If we saw a significant buy up of New Zealand farms then the Government’s response would likely be to further toughen the regulations or the Overseas Investment Act. But at this point, we’re not really seeing that.”

The sale of the Crafar Farms was “a significant transaction in terms of a one-off purchase” but in the overall context, it was not.”

One wonders what constitutes “a significant buy up of New Zealand farms“? Any sensible person would look at sixteen farms as being fairly significant.

If not – what is “significant”? 17 farms? 20? 50? Half the country?

A deal between Pengxin and Landcorp “could be” a good commercial proposition for the state-owned company.

With that stastement, John Key has just made a complete 180-degree ‘flip flop’, from decrying being a tenant in our own country – to being a “good commercial proposition”.

This is the man who is our Prime Minister. One who changes his values and position on issues, to suit circumstances and monetary gain. The term “amoral” only barely describes a politician of Key’s nature.

.

 

 

.

.