Sold out

107 comments on “Sold out ”

• Comments are now closed

1. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 1

   20 April 2012 at 11:59 am

   http://www.linz.govt.nz/sites/default/files/docs/overseas-investment/oio-recommendation-crafar-farms-20120420.pdf
2. vto 2

   20 April 2012 at 12:04 pm

   A few more New Zealanders just became tenants to foreign landlords…

   Our capital base just shrunk a little more …

   And these are good things how?
   • higherstandard 2.1

     20 April 2012 at 1:43 pm

     No the landlords just changed from Australian to Chinese.
   • weka 2.2

     20 April 2012 at 1:48 pm

     Don’t worry, we still own the cows. That’s the main thing, eh? 😉
3. Ben 3

   20 April 2012 at 12:10 pm

   So what’s Michael Fay’s next move?
   • Fortran 3.1

     20 April 2012 at 2:20 pm

     Ben

     With Fay’s NZ financial history we can expect anything – first thing ring Winston –
     then bitch it’s unfair – (like the bloke who hits you first).
     Fay should go home to Switzerland.
     • Robert M 3.1.1

       23 April 2012 at 1:49 pm

       I regard Micheal Fay as a rather more impressive and tenacious graduate of St Pats Silverstream than the the leading Nat Cabinet Ministers English and Finnalyson who came from that establishment and never seemed to have thrown off the hypocritical alturism that such Catholics schools attempt to implant. Both seem guilt ridden.
       It is interesting to note that the Argentine govts decision to nationalise even in a sense confiscate a 51 % stake in YPF the local oil drillers was due to the fact the Spanish Oil Barrons were about to sell their stock to the Chinese Govts oil company- and therefore the clumsy acqusition makes a bit more sense that the reports on CNN in the hours afterwards that it was incomprehensibile and madness. As the Political Scientist , Bryce Edwards said the strategic trade strategy of MFAT and the Govt of getting into bed withe Chinese Peoples Republic will come into increasing conflict with our natural orientation and comfort zone of resting with the Yanks.
4. Pete George 4

   20 April 2012 at 12:17 pm

   As expected, the Nats kept on pushing until they got the answer that they wanted.

   Odd comment – the answer is the same as last time, when it was challenged.

   Williamson said the OIO sought advice from Crown Law and independent advice from David Goddard QC in making its recommendation.

   Should National not have followed the legal recommendations?
   • jpwood 4.1

     21 April 2012 at 8:37 am

     The advice sought of course would not have been what the Government’s obligations were under the OIO, it would have been advice on how to frame the decision in a manner which makes it unreviewable.
5. Inventory2 5

   20 April 2012 at 12:31 pm

   Labour’s opposition to this sale is odd, because it was Labour who disestablished the Overseas Investment Commission replacing it with the OIO when the Overseas Investment Act 2005 was passed. Given the public and political interest in the sale, I am sure that the ministers will have followed the law to a T.

   http://www.linz.govt.nz/overseas-investment/about-oio/history-oio

   Is this the Law of Unintended Consequences?
   • ghostwhowalksnz 5.1

     20 April 2012 at 1:04 pm

     I2, labours opposition is because the government is milking the cows for the chinese -literally.

     Landcare , will depart from its normal role to become a share milker for Shanghai Pengxin.

     The chances of approval without ‘nanny state’ doing the milking/running the farm – zero
   • muzza 5.2

     20 April 2012 at 1:11 pm

     “Is this the Law of Unintended Consequences?”

     – No its called continuity of agenda, they knew exactly what the consequence would be. Why on earth do people keep making excuses, or believing that government is going to stop this sinking ship..

     Surely people must realise this by now…how many years you been following politics people, cos its seems like about 6-12 months…

     Blind is what what I call it, blind faith, apathy and laziness….clutiching at straws is another!
6. insider 6

   20 April 2012 at 1:36 pm

   So Asutralian banks sold some farms they own to some Chinese fellow who likes farming. I can just feel my sovereignty being sucked out by that

   Would anyone have cared if the Australian banks that own the farms just quietly held onto them and contracted Landcorp to run them? I doubt it would have raised a ripple.
7. WH 7

   20 April 2012 at 1:49 pm

   From a progressive perspective John Moore writes well about this see John Moore: Leftwing Xenophopia in NZ http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2012/02/guest-blog-post-john-moore-leftwing-xenophobia-in-new-zealand.html
   • Carol 7.1

     20 April 2012 at 2:07 pm

     The focus of the left should be on international solidarity between the workers, the exploited and the powerless. The international hierarchy of capitalism is another matter.
   • Draco T Bastard 7.2

     20 April 2012 at 3:30 pm

     It’s not xenophobia as we’ve constantly told you. It’s understanding that selling off the local economy to offshore owners is bad the people who depend upon that economy.
   • Bill 7.3

     20 April 2012 at 5:14 pm

     Thanks for that link WH.

     The only complaint I’d have is that he refers to ‘the standard’ as pro-Labour rather than to some posters as being pro Labour. Still…that’s an aside in an otherwise good piece.
8. Horizon 8

   20 April 2012 at 1:51 pm

   I presume this would be fine if it was just Aussies? why does it make a difference if it is Chinese people? And the amount of land here is a small fraction of what is being sold to Americans, Australians, English etc. I like Chinese people.
   • McFlock 8.1

     20 April 2012 at 2:01 pm

     Your presumption was foolish because it was so inaccurate. Therefore you must be a fool.  So the aspersions you cast just bounce off like hailstones off a house.
   • Craig Glen Eden 8.2

     20 April 2012 at 2:21 pm

     Crafar owned the Farmers he was a Kiwi to say that the Australians owned them is pure National Party desperate spin. If your logic is they own them because the bank that held the mortgages is Australian owned then they own a shit load of homes in NZ and my 2 houses are not owned by me they are owned by Aussies. Fact is I have the property titles as would have Mr Crafar.

     Jenny Shipley’s Xenophobia line just does not stack up, National Party hacks will use any excuse to sell of what’s left of our amazing country for their own selfish greed. The truth is these people will crawl up anyones arse as long as they think they will be paid for it.
     • pdubyah 8.2.1

       20 April 2012 at 3:28 pm

       “. Fact is I have the property titles as would have Mr Crafar ” who defaulted on his loans and under the terms of his mortgage (loan) to bank he has to make good the loan by sale of title, which the bank undertake. Same as they would if you didn’t pay your mortgage, a mortgagee sale
       • Craig Glen Eden 8.2.1.1

         21 April 2012 at 7:34 am

         Did the NZ Government have any control over that decision ARRRGGGH no.. So that was not A political decision to sell of NZ Land this is!!!!!! National have folded to the Chinese pressure.

         Personally I believe we need to look at keeping all Farmland now more than ever, and yes it is going to matter more and more and National have not woken up to that. NZ should not be for sale and neither should our Law.
     • insider 8.2.2

       20 April 2012 at 3:51 pm

       Did the title transfer when the receivers took over? Effective ownership power certainly did. No-one complained when that happened, yet that was a transfer to a foreign bank. Standardistas only became interested when the Chinese became interested. Then all of a sudden it was selling the birthright and a threat to sovereignty.
       • Draco T Bastard 8.2.2.1

         20 April 2012 at 4:23 pm

         I was always against selling off the country to the highest bidder. It quite simply doesn’t make any sense to do so as it removes our ability to look after ourselves.
         • insider 8.2.2.1.1

           20 April 2012 at 4:54 pm

           So you have no qualms about selling to the second highest bidder (Michael Fay)?
           • McFlock 8.2.2.1.1.1

             20 April 2012 at 5:07 pm

             Do you really think that one follows from the other?
                    
             Although in many situations it might be the wiser course of action to choose the lesser bid from two evils… 
           • Draco T Bastard 8.2.2.1.1.2

             20 April 2012 at 7:23 pm

             My preferred option is that they should have been nationalised with the banks taking the loss that they signed up for.
           • rosy 8.2.2.1.1.3

             20 April 2012 at 9:19 pm

             If not sold to Landcorp – the best option – my preference was that the farms were offered for sale individually – in New Zealand. If the banks took a hit, so be it – they’re the ones who made the bad loans.
       • Ed 8.2.2.2

         20 April 2012 at 9:21 pm

         My understanding is that a bank operating in New Zealand has to keep assets in New Zealand to meet liabilities and statutory requirements as if they were a New Zealand Bank. That is why if the bank forecloses on a loan and takes ownership, it does not have to meet OIA requirements – it has not passed into foreign ownership. The receivers were selling from New Zealand ownership – I have seen no explanation of why they chose to make this group of unconnected farms less saleable by insisting that they be sold together – if sold separately some would have been very likely to have been purchased by New Zealanders. Who the foreign buyers were is of little importance – it is the selling to overseas owners that has always been the issue.

         Are you an ‘insider’ on the National party spin machine, “insider”?
   • weka 8.3

     20 April 2012 at 2:38 pm

     “I like Chinese people.”

     What, all of them?

     I have a problem with all overseas ownership of NZ land. In this particular instance there are additional issues: China’s bad human rights record, and the connection between those buying the land and the Chinese govt. I also feel uncomfortable with the loop of the Chinese govt, Shanghai Pengxin, NZ govt/Landcare, Fonterra, and international trade agreements esp the ones that none of us know about and that undermine our sovereignty.
     • Mark L 8.3.1

       20 April 2012 at 7:22 pm

       [Deleted. ‘Mark’ is clearly a sockpuppet for ‘Wayne’ who was permanently banned some time ago…RL]
       • McFlock 8.3.1.1

         20 April 2012 at 7:30 pm

         Not getting into a big issue about the morality of defending an absolute theocratic monarchy, but Tibetans might be a bit concerned with your assertion that China doesn’t invade other countries.
             
         There were also issues with countries on other borders over the last 60 years or so, I seem to recall.
         • Mark 8.3.1.1.1

           20 April 2012 at 8:41 pm

           [Deleted. ‘Mark’ is clearly a sockpuppet for ‘Wayne’ who was permanently banned some time ago…RL]
           • McFlock 8.3.1.1.1.1

             20 April 2012 at 9:01 pm

             So if you win outright so realpolitik takes precedence, it doesn’t count as an invasion.
                 
              
              
             • Mark …

               21 April 2012 at 6:30 am

               [Deleted. ‘Mark’ is clearly a sockpuppet for ‘Wayne’ who was permanently banned some time ago…RL]
         • Colonial Viper 8.3.1.1.2

           20 April 2012 at 8:49 pm

           There were also issues with countries on other borders over the last 60 years or so, I seem to recall.

           Nah, China’s border conflicts have always tended to be small scale and lower intensity. You see, in the last 25 years they’ve decided that they can influence countries economically and industrially, without a shot being fired.
       • weka 8.3.1.2

         20 April 2012 at 8:41 pm

         Mark, don’t be pathetic. Do you really believe that China and the US and the UK are all the same? Of course all countries do shit, but it’s useful to look at what the shit is and be able to differentiate. Where did I say that a UK or US company buying land here would never have govt links? Did I not preface my comment with having a problem with all foreign ownership?

         Plus what McFlock said.
         • Mark 8.3.1.2.1

           21 April 2012 at 6:27 am

           [Deleted. ‘Mark’ is clearly a sockpuppet for ‘Wayne’ who was permanently banned some time ago…RL]
           • weka 8.3.1.2.1.1

             21 April 2012 at 10:04 am

             So tell me how the dick measuring contest helps here? I’m not really following your argument except you seem to think that because China isn’t as bad as some other countries that’s alright then.
9. Pete George 9

   20 April 2012 at 2:00 pm

   Patrick Gower blogs about the reality of what’s required for New Zealand to lift it’s trade – and allow for better wages back here. Key’s love of nasi goreng shows why he likes Crafar sale.

   Indonesia’s population is increasing by 4m per year.

   Paddy’s blog is more about sheep milk than nasi goreng.
10. deuto 10

    20 April 2012 at 2:17 pm

    Peter Dune has put out an interesting press release following the sale calling for a review of NZ ownership of productive land – http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1204/S00267/dunne-review-needed-to-protect-new-zealand-ownership.htm

    As it is reasonably short, will quote it in full:

    Friday, 20 April 2012

    Dunne: review needed to protect New Zealand ownership

    UnitedFuture leader Peter Dunne has called for a review of the Overseas Investment Act and a move to 99-year or similar long-term leases on productive farm land rather than allowing sales to overseas owners.

    Speaking after the ministerial decision announced today approving the Overseas Investment Office recommendation of the sale of the Crafar farms to Milk New Zealand Holding Ltd, Mr Dunne said New Zealanders rightly wanted a major rethink on the whole issue.

    “We only have the land that we have and once it is in foreign hands there is a high likelihood that we will never get it back.

    “You can only sell your birthright once, and it is not xenophobia or racism for a country to decide to look after the interests of its citizens – it is common sense and the duty of government,” Mr Dunne said.

    “Other countries – including China – jealously guard their own land and never allow it to be sold to foreigners.

    “We need to look as a nation at where we stand on holding our own land and we need to do so with a clear head.

    “We owe it to future generations to make sure – as the Prime Minister has said himself – that New Zealanders are not tenants in their own land,” Mr Dunne said.

    He said any review needed to focus on the sale of productive land rather than residential land for personal use. Ends
    

    I have difficulty reconciling his comments above with his probable support of (partial or full) asset sales of essential services (eg power).
    • Carol 10.1

      20 April 2012 at 2:25 pm

      Within the global capitalist hierarchy, selling land to an overseas interests gives many of the local capitalist elite (like Dunne) less power and control.
    • fender 10.2

      20 April 2012 at 2:33 pm

      Just Mr Dunne positioning himself for 2014.

      But if he has found his conscience can we assume he will no longer support selling our power companies I wonder.
      • Matt 10.2.1

        20 April 2012 at 3:22 pm

        If he’d found a conscience he’d be rallying against this selling of NZ birthright instead of just “looking at” this sort of thing at some point in the future. Fuck you, hairdo.
    • Nick K 10.3

      20 April 2012 at 9:50 pm

      Dunne’s statement is nonsense.

      “Other countries – including China – jealously guard their own land and never allow it to be sold to foreigners.

      China doesn’t even allow it’s own citizens to own land. Is that what Dunne thinks we should follow?
11. Michael Bott 11

    20 April 2012 at 2:34 pm

    This comes as no surprise. Anyway, we can’t buy their land, but they can buy ours. So now they get our land for dairying and we are left with the shit! National just talks a load of bull.
    • Nick C 11.1

      20 April 2012 at 3:10 pm

      Actually, we are left with the $210 million that they paid for the land, which represents approximatly the net present value of the land.

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

      Although if anything it could be more, as Fay was only prepared to pay $170 million.
      • Richard 11.1.1

        20 April 2012 at 3:15 pm

        Technically the Australian banks get the $210 M, which is fair because they are their farms. Not yours, not mine: theirs.
        • Colonial Viper 11.1.1.1

          20 April 2012 at 8:55 pm

          Technically the Australian banks get the $210 M, which is fair because they are their farms. Not yours, not mine: theirs.

          Richard The Sell Out loves the fact that Australian banks own the mortgages on NZ farms

          Answer: time to own the NZ banking sector
      • Draco T Bastard 11.1.2

        20 April 2012 at 3:34 pm

        Money is nothing thus we get nothing.
        • insider 11.1.2.1

          20 April 2012 at 4:53 pm

          very zen
          • Draco T Bastard 11.1.2.1.1

            20 April 2012 at 7:20 pm

            Not zen at all, just the truth.
            • Colonial Viper 11.1.2.1.1.1

              20 April 2012 at 9:50 pm

              Zen is the truth behind the truth.
12. james 111 12

    20 April 2012 at 3:21 pm

    When you sign a free trade agreement with China as Helen Clark did you have to do buisness with them.
    I believe national still has to sell another 300,000 hectares to catch up with Labour as thats what they sold to foreigners when they were in Office.
    • Draco T Bastard 12.1

      20 April 2012 at 3:38 pm

      Yes, the FTAs should never have been signed – that includes the TPPA which NACT will probably get around to signing.
13. TEA 13

    20 April 2012 at 3:52 pm

    Great.
    We sold that lot to China.
    Now – how about 49% of Landcorp to China next month . . . .

    1

    2

    3

    4
14. infused 14

    20 April 2012 at 4:10 pm

    Why is this post “The Standard” with no author?

    You wonder why every speaks to “The Standard” when you have posts like this.

    Are you speaking on behalf of the Standard or what?

    [lprent: It is breaking news using someone else’s content (within copyright restrictions). Because it is one sentence with the rest quoted from a news article.

    Doing one liners on news articles might be a speciality of other people and sites. But usually we’d just put them up as “The Standard” aka “notices and features”.

    Now I suspect I may have explained this to you before. But anyway you have been around long enough to know the answer. Have a 2 week ban. But from here on anyone asking it will get a few months for wasting my time. ]
    • infused 14.1

      20 April 2012 at 4:33 pm

      The authors should list their name then, to stop the confusion. A post as the standard, is posting as The Standard as a whole in my view.

      You might see different, but since this question comes up so often, it might pay to add some rules around posting to resolve this.

      [lprent: I just explicitly did. These are the same rules that we have had since the site came in. The updated policy now reads..

      See here for an explanation of who writes for the blog. The authors write for themselves with the following exceptions.

      1. If we are putting up material from a guest poster, then it will go up under “Guest Post” and may or may not have a name or pseudonym attached.
      2. If the site is reposting material from another site with no opinion or minimal opinion from an author, then it will go up under the name of “The Standard” (aka notices and features).
      3. There are some routine posts like the daily OpenMike that will also go up under the name of “The Standard” (aka notices and features) because they also offer no opinion.

      I also tidied up or made more explicit some of the other things in the policy. I rescind the ban on the basis that the rules weren’t clear enough (even though I suspect that you were just pushing the limits). ]
      • infused 14.1.1

        20 April 2012 at 5:11 pm

        I actually wasn’t pushing the limits on purpose. I guess I haven’t read the updated policy.
        • r0b 14.1.1.1

          20 April 2012 at 5:38 pm

          I put the post up, infused, if it matters. But as Lynn explained, if a post is mostly a quote of someone else’s work we tend not to claim “authorship”. You’ve been around here long enough to know that.
      • Lanthanide 14.1.2

        20 April 2012 at 8:00 pm

        Glad to see this outlined in the policy, it’s been long overdue.
      • felix 14.1.3

        20 April 2012 at 10:17 pm

        Not that it’s any of my business, but if “The Standard” as an author is aka “Notices and Features”, wouldn’t it be simpler and clearer and more consistent to just call that author “Notices and Features”?

        I mean I get how it works, but it does sort of seem like an invitation for people to refer to “The Standard” as an author, and quite unnecessarily.

        But like I said, none of my business.
        • lprent 14.1.3.1

          20 April 2012 at 11:07 pm

          Yeah well, it was originally “notices and features” but that did nasty things to the layout because of its length (and still will even now because we shifted the names to caps – try “Rupert the bear” for instance). When trying to think of another name for it, we ran out of ideas for names pretty fast. Bearing in mind the number of people writing notices and features even in the early days, we didn’t and still don’t want any more choices than two for a editor. Ie KISS means we have fewer screwps. It is either their opinion or it is someone elses work* and goes under the catchall of Notices and Features.

          The Standard fitted the task because it was (just) short enough and clearly wasn’t an author offering opinions and everything else onsite was – for exactly the reasons it gets criticized. Any other name will have exactly the same criticism, and despite asking a number of times I have never heard of a better name.

          From now, I will just give people a Darwin and we will find out if evolution works….

          * putting up guest posts is reserved for just a few editors…
15. Draco T Bastard 15

    20 April 2012 at 4:37 pm

    And NACT have jumped on the racism wagon – again.

    Land Information Minister Maurice Williamson says people should not object to the sale of the Crafar farms simply because the purchasers are Chinese.

    It’s got nothing to do with them being Chinese but everything to do with selling off the economy being bad for NZ.
    • James N 15.1

      21 April 2012 at 10:05 am

      Somebody in this morning’s Press pointed to the nice irony of Maurice Williamson’s announcing the Crafar sale while wearing an ANZAC poppy made in China…
16. TheContrarian 16

    20 April 2012 at 5:04 pm

    Does anyone remember that before Crafar himself went under he was looking at selling all 16 farms to cover his debt? Does anyone remember who he was looking at selling too? Hint: It wasn’t anyone in NZ. In fact he actively refused to sell to NZers.

    No one made a fuss then. But now National are in the brig is no holds barred.
    • Te Reo Putake 16.1

      20 April 2012 at 5:23 pm

      I wish National were in the brig, TC! Lock ’em and throw away the Key, I reckon.
      • TheContrarian 16.1.1

        20 April 2012 at 5:25 pm

        Well, whatever. Fact remains that Allan Crafar was going to make the sale before the government even got involved. He said quite plainly he wasn’t intresting in selling to NZ concerns. Instead he defaulted to the Aussies who sold to the Chinese. This land was never “our” land.
        • Colonial Viper 16.1.1.1

          20 April 2012 at 7:16 pm

          Thanks for backing the foreigners. You’ll get your pieces of silver in due course.
    • Draco T Bastard 16.2

      20 April 2012 at 7:18 pm

      Got any proof of that?

      IMO, I think even if it had gone to sale before the receivership there would still have been the same reaction. People are getting pissed off with seeing NZ sold to overseas owners.
      • TheContrarian 16.2.1

        21 April 2012 at 11:49 am

        Here Allan Crafar discuss selling his farm:
        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10596935
        • Draco T Bastard 16.2.1.1

          21 April 2012 at 12:10 pm

          At close to the same time. As I say, chances are that the reaction would have been the same. It’s got nothing to do with NACT and everything to do with people getting pissed off that NZ is being sold off.
      • TheContrarian 16.2.2

        21 April 2012 at 7:43 pm

        So what it is the difference between Allan Crafar owning the farms and a Chinese group owning them?
17. lefty 17

    20 April 2012 at 5:59 pm

    It was always a losing battle trying to prevent overseas ownership of any asset under existing legislation.

    The Crafur farms have served a useful purpose in terms of highlighting an issue that only a few of us have cared about in the past.

    What we need now is for political parties to make their position on this issue quite clear for the future.

    We need to know who will ban the overseas ownership of our land and critical parts of our infrastructure so we can vote accordingly in the future.
    • Carol 17.1

      20 April 2012 at 6:04 pm

      +1
    • Bill 17.2

      20 April 2012 at 6:40 pm

      I really wish people could get their heads around the fact that in ain’t our land; that it owned, run and controlled by private concerns, be they companies of whatever domicile, nz citizens or citizens of other nationalities.

      In other words the argument from many self professed leftists boils down to backing this private concern over that private concern…a bit like exhibiting fealty to a particular King or Queen and fighting their corner.

      SOE’s are a different matter insofar as they are under (very imperfect) public ownership rather than private ownership.

      And for those self professed leftists who have banged on about sovereignty over land they have no control over and yet, even when their lack of agency is pointed out to them, continue to bang on about sovereignty and how it will be lost…do you think Maori have sovereignty? I ask because the vast majority of Maori have the same control over land and resources as the vast majority of the rest of us…none. And whereas Maori sovereignty (the lack of) receives fairly widespread recognition on the left, it would appear that many on the left just cannot perceive the similarity of their own position.

      I’m curious as to why that is…
      • Carol 17.2.1

        20 April 2012 at 6:51 pm

        Several of us have replied to that, re-the control issue that you dismiss… governance is still nationally and geographically located…. so we disagree…. some of us are wondering why you can’t “get your head around” that?
        • Bill 17.2.1.1

          20 April 2012 at 8:25 pm

          Well Carol, on that stunning piece of reasoning (which simply dismisses what lies at the core of sovereignty) you’d be bemused at and not supportive of Maori issues around sovereignty then. (Along with the sveral peeps you speak on behalf of) Which is fine. Like I said, I wondered how leftists backing one private owner over another squared that with any recognition of Maori claims on sovereignty. You’ve answered. Thankyou.
          • Carol 17.2.1.1.1

            20 April 2012 at 9:02 pm

            Eh, Bill? You may have a strong belief in your own reasoning, but it doesn’t mean it’s convincing to others. Sneering at me and putting me down isn’t likely to convince me either.

            Maori sovereignty is another and more complex issue, that involves more than, and not always, European-style ownership of land – a different kind of “ownership”. And it’s not one I addressed…. I only responded to your “stunning” confidence in your own “rightness” and, your unwillingness to accept that others consider we have very good reasons for taking a different position.

            As I understand it, many Maori are not that keen on another wave of foreign capitalists buying up of NZ land… a contemporary movement of empire building without settlement.

            Maori and non-Maori Kiwi have more chance of having some influence over NZ-based capitalist power-elites, than they do foreign ones – especially foreign ones backed by a more powerful foreign government.

            I’m also against the US style of contemporary empire-building, where the US government and powerful corporates plan to continue to undermine systems and institutions many Kiwis hold dear… through the TPP etc…. which also looks to be undermining our sovereignty.
            • Bill 17.2.1.1.1.1

              20 April 2012 at 10:39 pm

              Why do you contend that questions of Maori sovereignty are more complex than any sovereignty anywhere else for anyone else? They’re not.

              If people of a particular location have control over the land and resources they have sovereignty. And if they haven’t then they don’t.

              Same applies to anyone anywhere irrespective of cultural mores. It really is very, very basic.

              And we live in a world where vast numbers of people have had their sovereignty usurped. And the resultant authorities, through various manifestations over many years and in some cases centuries ( be that as kings, popes or more abstract forms such as states or whatever) claim to excercise it legitimately on behalf and over those it disempowered. And some of the disempowered eventually believe that such an arrangement is rightful and proper and refer to the excercise of sovereignty by those authorities as though it was an expression of their very own sovereignty. And they potentially lend support to arguments, conflicts and wars to defend that authority’s sovereign right to dominion. And many, many millions have died and many, many millions have killed, maimed and tortured to defend an expression of what originally robbed them of their sovereignty.

              I’m not one of those people. You appear to be. Further, I want my sovereignty back whereas it appears that you don’t. And so we disagree on whether it matters a damn where the private owners of land might come from..
      • xtasy 17.2.2

        20 April 2012 at 9:23 pm

        Bill: You are quite right. It is the main problem, that the NZ property owning “class” have a very opportunistic and cavalier approach, not only to the state they live under, the law they have to abide, but also to “patriotism”. I have seen it first hand, how too many “Kiwis” were taking their bets and opportunities in the real estate bubble time, sold with a great gain, got their stuff shipped over to Australia and moved there afterwards.

        Others just sold off their Auckland or other over valued properties, so they could “re-invest” in a nicer property down the line in Tauranga, Hawke’s Bay, Wairarapa or Nelson area.

        NZ property owners are opportunists, and farmers are the same. They may hang in for a while, but when a nice, fat cheque gets signed and handed to them, they look up in glee, take it and run.

        That is the mentality of too many NZers, and even Maori corporates are in on the game, be this land, farming, horticulture and/or fishing. Why do you think so many accidents happen on certain fishing vessels? It is due to Maori holding companies selling out to overseas fishing vessels and operators to rip the shit out of the seas around NZ. Tha t is the bloody truth, my dear.

        The dollar bill rules, and that is John Key’s elixir.

        I am still waiting for an alternative from Shearer and the rest of Labour re-iginted, or for that sake other opposition pollies.

        At least Hone went to take a stand with the Housing NZ evicted lot in Glen Innes recently. I take my hat off for him. He at least stands up for principles and rights. Who else here does, but frivoulously indulge in sentimental or semi sentimental thoughts, not representing any solution at all for NZ!?
18. Georgecom 18

    20 April 2012 at 6:18 pm

    I was interested to hear the Government Minister (McCully?, Coleman?) on the radio driving home justifying the deal. He was asked about a possible law change to prevent the sale. Law changes apparently “take time” and there wouldn’t be time for the Government to put anything in place modifying overseas investment, if they wanted to do so.

    Funny, could have sworn the law change to help out Peter Jackson was passed in great haste. Sky City will get a law change as well.

    Guess laws get changed without proper process only when it suits Nationals interests to do so.
    • Half Crown Millionare 18.1

      20 April 2012 at 6:30 pm

      Yeah right on, A shit hot opinion.
19. xtasy 19

    20 April 2012 at 8:43 pm

    So these are a few farms, poorly managed by a Mr Crafar before, who now has jumped on the bandwagon of “patriotism”, re-enhancing is “poorly treated” symphony, which now seem to have gone to a Mainland Chinese holding company.

    Tonight the Prime Minister enjoyed “prime time” interview opportunities on TV One and TV 3. He sold his story on the Crafar Farms sale and he added his spin on the SkyCity bid for building and running an leading convention centre in Auckland City.

    No surprises there, but he got quite “matey” with Campbell on TV3 in the end, chatting about going to “the rugby”.

    Spin Master does it again, all doubts and criticism is wiped off the table with smart alec talk, cheerful comments and a grin one has to work out somehow, but which is superficial at best.

    So while all this was going on, I remain to be explained, why was Sky City even considered as the best bidder, considering that the government wants to possibly change the law, so they can increase one armed bandit machines from a present 1,600 or thereabouts to another 500?

    That is a 30 odd percentage increase on their existing machine stock!

    Farrar did try to deceive readers in his Herald post today, that this is a tiny increase on the national total of gambling machines. But he did not mention that Sky City would itself gain enormously, by having their pokies increased by about a third, pendind a requested law change.

    I ask though, where is the supposed “leader of the opposition”?

    Where is David Shearer? He does not appear much, and I do not buy the excuse that the media would not ask him for an opinion. Maybe he fears the fact that Labour, when in government, actually indulged in a lot of land and farm sales themselves? Maybe he also is shy due to Labour having opened this shit casino in the heart of Auckland in 2004 or 2005?

    I smell too much rot and cowardice here. Why not show the electorate that Labour has learned, changed course and will make the difference in future?

    So far I will not bother voting Labour ever again, with this weak show continuing. There are two other parties in opposition, at least showing a clear line, a clear position, integrity and not being afraid to make their opposition known. Where is Labour and where is Shearer?

    Maybe get this sorted before the next general election?
20. xtasy 20

    20 April 2012 at 9:37 pm

    Honestly, I cannot understand the idiocy that has taken hold of this country. Here we have a one party dictatorship, Mainland China, taking over enterprises all over the world, raising concerns everywhere, yet little dumb NZ is happy to sell farms to a questionable company that has no direct experience in farming, is managed by persons that have links to a dictatorial regime, that do not at all contribute to the economic well being of this country, that is a business based in a country flouting laws of human rights, the rule of law, is not democratic, does not allow the same rights in it’s own territory for investors from NZ, puts pressure on the present government ministers (albeit “discretely”), and not too many take a bloody stand and simply carry on as if this is just like buying a burger at a burger bar.

    Where are the remaining brain cells, please? They do not exist, and this government is taking the country to the bloody cleaners.
    • Mark 20.1

      21 April 2012 at 6:45 am

      [Deleted. ‘Mark’ is clearly a sockpuppet for ‘Wayne’ who was permanently banned some time ago…RL]
      • yeshe 20.1.1

        21 April 2012 at 9:23 am

        “Westerners just go in and steal land, and resources, and people to enrich themselves.” Yes, Mark.

        Which is exactly what Han China did to Tibet, regardless of your ignorant blathering earlier. And they did it with brutal violence, killing more than 1.4 million Tibetans. Perhaps this isn’t the place to debate it, but the environmental destruction and denuding the forests of the Tibetan plateau, the bringing of starvation and famine when the Chinese decided to grow wheat instead of barley, the imprisonment of children and whole families, the destruction of the whole Tibetan education system where only Chinese may be learned in schools …. I’ve always wanted to ask the question – if indeed Tibet belonged to China ( yeah, right !) how come they decided to treat, and continue to to treat their ‘own’ people with such cruelty ?

        Worth noting that the Chinese exerted pressure on Key that he refused to meet with HH Dalai Lama on his most recent visit here, the first NZ PM not to do so in many, many years, I think as far back as Bolger.

        I can only imagine the subterranean pressures being applied in this Crafar sale … I do wonder how Jenny Shipley sleeps at night — greed keep you warm does it ?.
      • xtasy 20.1.2

        21 April 2012 at 5:35 pm

        Dear “Mark” aka “Wayne Lo”: “And what the fuck are ‘human rights’ laws.”

        Yes, thanks for exposing your thoughts once again here. You do not really give a rat’s arse about human rights, democracy and law. I wonder what idiots are in charge at Immigration NZ these days, to allow migrants in from a dictatorship, who even support suppression of human rights, free opinion and more. It is most worrying what is happening in NZ. Seems this country is a free game for take overs from authoritarian regimes and their business operators.

        I take note also of Murray MCGully to have advised the minister in charge of the OIO that it would have dire consequences for NZ trade if the Shanghai Pengxin deal would be denied to go through. Is this still a land of freedom and democracy? No it is NOT!
21. xtasy 21

    20 April 2012 at 10:02 pm

    Labour has only ONE choice to disassociate themselves from past deed and hypocrisy! Take a bloody clear stand! Key is exactly exployting this, same as his ministers. It is time to clear up the party and get rid of a range of hypocrites from the front benches right NOW. Otherwise Labour will have NO future at all to ever lead this country again! That is my honest opinion. Shearer is a mellow, hollow, nice talking nobody who will NeVER get Labour out of the doldrums. Get rid of him!
    • Tombstone 21.1

      20 April 2012 at 10:22 pm

      Agreed and I sent a email to them to that effect because I’m done with watching Key getting away with blue bloody murder while Labour continue to do … well … nothing really. Shearer is the wrong man to lead Labour into the next election – I’m convinced of that now.
    • M 21.2

      20 April 2012 at 11:46 pm

      Hear, hear xstasy – I shall vote Mana if Shearer isn’t replaced with someone who can front up to that hustler Key. Hone is the only one empahtically stating what’s wrong in NZ.
22. infused 22

    20 April 2012 at 11:37 pm

    The TV1 and 3 interviews are great.

    Campbell gets shut down completely. http://ondemand.tv3.co.nz/Campbell-Live-Friday-April-20-2012/tabid/119/articleID/6262/MCat/73/Default.aspx

    Brings up some good points fellas.
    • Draco T Bastard 22.1

      21 April 2012 at 12:05 am

      Think I’ll go with Twitter – Key had been well trained with C/T lines and not actual points.
23. xtasy 23

    21 April 2012 at 12:04 am

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfy18_J15rE&feature=endscreen&NR=1

    get the message, perhaps, El puelo unido jamas sera vencido. Viva Allende!
24. xtasy 24

    21 April 2012 at 12:06 am

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBih0c689cI&feature=related\

    Other places prepare for revolution, Where is NZ??

    Viva Chile, viva Camilla!
    • Mark 24.1

      21 April 2012 at 6:35 am

      [Deleted. ‘Mark’ is clearly a sockpuppet for ‘Wayne’ who was permanently banned some time ago…RL]
      • xtasy 24.1.1

        21 April 2012 at 5:03 pm

        Mark: You are not by co-incidence known also as “Wayne Lo”? The nationalistic Mainland Chinese migrant excusing Chinese national thought and looking for every peculiar way to rubbish NZ and “the west”?

        Your comments are so similar. He just wrote such stuff in the Herald recently. Are you sure your name is “Mark”? And are you sure you are not a mate of Don Keypone?
      • xtasy 24.1.2

        21 April 2012 at 5:29 pm

        “Mark” clearly is known as “Wayne Lo”. The very same sentences and arguments were in a column thread on the Herald Online only a day or two ago. Watch this poster!
    • Mark 24.2

      21 April 2012 at 5:32 pm

      [Deleted. ‘Mark’ is clearly a sockpuppet for ‘Wayne’ who was permanently banned some time ago…RL]
      • xtasy 24.2.1

        21 April 2012 at 8:48 pm

        Fake “Mark”: I really look forward to deal to crap people like you! You have now exposed your false pretence and BS. We do not need people like you to immigrate to NZ and destroy this country from within. I would be most happy to sacrifice my life to fight the fraud and lies coming from people like you. There are many others also prepared for this. Do not take this lightly, dear saboteur.
      • xtasy 24.2.2

        21 April 2012 at 9:24 pm

        At least you admit that todays China is anything but revolutionary and all so much more capitalist, state capitalist that is. Even exploiting its own people on slave wages to cater for corporates from US, Europe and Japan to work their guts out for nothing, just to get foreign currency for the government, so they can by up assets internationally.

        When it comes to revolutionary spirit, you have certainly abandoned it. Get lost!

        [This guy was permanently banned for a very good reason. Usually people only get one of them for fracking about with our psuedonym policy… but almost uniquely Wayne/Mark earned one for his racist gall and sheer vileness. No need to buy into it…RL]
25. marsman 25

    21 April 2012 at 9:33 am

    One point that keeps being overlooked is that the Crafar farms were being offered for sale even individually in Singapore. It seems that Nact are adamant that the farms NOT stay in the hands of New Zealandrers, selling our country bit by bit the traitors.
    • yeshe 25.1

      21 April 2012 at 9:46 am

      +1
    • weka 25.2

      21 April 2012 at 11:40 am

      I thought the farms weren’t for sale individually, at least not in NZ. Which has been part of the problem.
      • xtasy 25.2.1

        21 April 2012 at 5:25 pm

        “marsman” obviously proved your thoughts as wrong!
26. xy 26

    22 April 2012 at 11:14 am

    In short, I’d rather sell land to North Korea for nuclear waste disposal before Michael Fay.
27. A Chinese friend 27

    26 April 2012 at 8:49 pm

    Just a tip to the webmasters.

    Wayne Lo, aka Wayne, Mark Lau, Mongol Warrior and Yihetuan, is known for trolling English-language China-related blog posts. Some blogs delete selected comments, some block him entirely, but he’s been barred all over. He’s known for sockpuppeting, posting obscene comments under other people’s names, and using multiple IPs. He also sends threatening emails to webmasters. Wayne Lo happens to be the name of an ethnic Chinese murderer who attacked whites on an American school campus.

    I doubt he’s an immigrant to NZ. He pops up online when anyone criticizes China, writes racist stuff, then gets blocked. This has been going on for years.

    I’m not a New Zealander, but sorry to hear about your farms. It’s always hard to feel like you’ve lost something from your country.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS