Rod Oram was on Nine to Noon this morning with a very interesting discussion of the Crafar Farms and the host of problems with the sale. Well worth a listen.
Rod Oram was on Nine to Noon this morning with a very interesting discussion of the Crafar Farms and the host of problems with the sale. Well worth a listen.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 31st, 2012 at 9:48 pm and is filed under #ownourfuture, asset sales. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
I can’t look past Oram’s bias towards the Left, so whatever he says always has that qualification.
Any columnist who looks into the issues has to be inherently left wing, because none on the right do.
Nick, it is possible to separate an idea from the politics of its author. Funnily enough, I listened to that interview on the radio today, without knowing who the interviewee was or what his politics were. I knew he was in agreement with the sale going ahead but that he criticised the time it took to complete (way beyond what the legislation allowed, or what was helpful to business) and also mentioned the view of New Zealand governmental practice that other countries might have as evidenced in the detail of the agreement. I thought he was a bit pro-business actually, what I remember hearing this morning.
The OIO decision actually rejected the applicants assertion that they would add new business skills.
“The Overseas Investment Office considers that the Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence that it will introduce new technology or business skills into New Zealand. Expertise in dealing with the Chinese market is already present within the dairy industry. “
AS for selling into Chinese supermarkets ? Doesnt make sense as Fonterra is the marketer in this case. All the farms will do is produce raw milk and be paid Fonterras standard price.
Now if they were buying a portion of Fonterra that would make sense.
I see the WTO has recently ruled against China for illegal export taxes on raw minerals such as bauxite ( among others). But the reason why they had ‘export taxes’ was because they wanted overseas buyers to relocate their factories to China. This is of course against WTO rules.
Easy to see why Rod is so unwelcome in National circles. I do like the way that he explains his point of view in simple jargon free language.
Not sure that he is left leaning so much as incisive about the issues and as SPC says there is very little discussion from the right to counter his opinion.
Maybe the people, having become more aware of the issue of NZ land sales, will be much keener watching future sales. (And it could be said that Government mishandling of the Crafar sale has increased that awareness?)
I know that if Oram is against something it must be right.
Will he be commenting on James Cameron’s purchase. I’ll look forward to the Red Alert comment on it as well.
As Cameron is going to be living on the farm and farming it himself, it’s just a farm ownership by someone without citizenship.
““The Overseas Investment Office considers that the Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence that it will introduce new technology or business skills into New Zealand. Expertise in dealing with the Chinese market is already present within the dairy industry. “
What did they say about this for Mr Cameron?
Support for OIO decision from Chris Trotter.
See: http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/columnists/chris-trotter/6356378/Our-hands-were-tied-over-the-Crafar-farms-sale
Not what the greedies want said. Better! better! better! is the only messages allowed out:
“Fast population growth over the past decade has strained infrastructure, boosted house prices and *reduced the quality of life* in the Auckland region.”
http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/0705/RMA__Oram_Paper_May_2007.pdf
Support for OIO decision from Chris Trotter.
….
He’s all for the free movement of workers across borders so why can’t a person on a piss poor wage get a job on the wharf?
Rod Oram:
“but this is the big one: Katherine, we are talking here about a one hundred year business model and one which has screwed NZ. I’m sorry but I can’t be more blunt than that. Cast your mind back to the meat industry (for example) and the Vestey Group from the U.K who owned farms here , who owned shipping, who owned processing and they owned the Dewhurst chain of butchers shops in the U.K We made a bit of money helping them farm that and our exports looked good but very little of that stuck to the economic ribs of NZ. And if how that screwed uop the meat industry, think how it will screw the dairy industry. What Shanghai Penxian is offering is a 100 year old re run of that model. “
Katherine Ryan:
“Why then is the government doing it”
Rod Oram:
“I would argue that the government has niether the intelligence or the courage to go to the Chinese government and say: “yes we are extremely interested in your foreign investment in NZ, but let’s make it like your other investment that’s been highly productive in Taiwan (opps probably bad example), like Ireland, in other words that enables us to do something we couldn’t do ourselves. Shanghai Penxian doesn’t do that, but unfortunately this government and its economic strategy doesn’t do that. It is trying to do is push on incremental growth of existing businesses. And it
is cutting some very dangerous corners in its failure to analyse that properly. I would apply that to this to the casino issue and I would apply it time and again to the decisions it makes.
Katherine Ryan [more why, why]
Rod Oram:
“Shania Twain doesn’t have the same economic impact. It doesn’t set a precedent with a very powerfull counter party (I.e China Inc), at some time you have to draw a line . In the sand, we should have drawn it a while ago.”
Katherine Ryan:
“Why is it a Chinese bidder that has to be that line when you have someone like James Cameron buying up in the Waiarapa? Why is it now we have to draw a line in the sand?”
Rod ORam:
“First of all I want to make something incredibly clear, I’m a huge believer foreign investment but it has to be foreign investment that is good for them and good for us and this isn’t. And it’s not an anti Chinese thing. We should have drawn the line in the sand a very long time ago by approving this decision a second time the government has made it very, very much harder, particularily with applicants from the States, Germany and China who are already large investors in dairy here.”
Katherine Ryan:
“But that’s exactley the point, why now, why should this case be any different from those that have been approved?”
Rod Oram:
“There is a very important concept that applies to cases like that and I’ll draw a parralel with the RMA . If your in a water catchment and have been taking water to irrigate your farmland, and lots of other people take water and get consents. If yours is the same but if your application tips it over into over allocation, the RMA is ill equipped to deal with that. It can’t handle with our laws in NZ cumulative impact. And it is incredibly easy and just so lazy of the government to just say: “oh we have to do this because we are under pressure from China”.
Katherine Ryan:
“Why is this different. Why has this point been reach”
Rod Oram:
“This is different because unlike say, the Harvard University Endowment Fund or a German Agri business, Shanghai Penxian is an integrated marketer and producer. This throws us way back to the Vesteys of hundred years ago.”
Much of the argument seems to have been around property rights (I’ll sell my land to who ever I want to) on the right and xenophobia on the left (NZ isn’t “our” country and people should be able to come here from where ever -although don’t scab at Ports of Auckland, even if it is ninety times what you earned in bangladesh)
I agree with selling to any person moving here irrelevant of race, but selling land to and offshore company that has no intention of moving here and doesnt have a vested interesrt in NZ doing well doesnt sit right with me, irrelevant of the race.