Common ground at Abel Tasman National Park

Written By: - Date published: 8:30 am, February 16th, 2016 - 76 comments
Categories: Conservation, Environment, greens, labour, nz first, phil twyford, Politics - Tags:

Tasman National park beach for sale

This local campaign to buy a little nondescript beach shows that ownership of New Zealand by New Zealanders really matters politically.

Thousands of New Zealanders have pledged money to buy a bit of beach in Abel Tasman National Park. Whether they win the tender or lose it, there’s a will to collectively organize to make sure our land stays owned by New Zealanders for the benefit of all. Is this enough for the opposition parties to work together on a common policy on land ownership by foreigners?

From the New Zealand First manifesto:

Base New Zealand’s foreign investment strategy upon the premise that such investment must be in the interests of New Zealand. The private interest of foreign shareholders is not our concern, the public interest of New Zealanders is.

Establish KiwiFund as a state owned saving scheme so New Zealanders can invest in New Zealand assets and infrastructure.

Establish priorities for foreign investment in New Zealand that require such investment to bring new technology and lead to employment and export growth or import substitution.

Create a comprehensive register of foreign ownership of land.

Labour Party’s Phil Twyford last year proposed a Bill:

Labour’s Member’s Bill to ban foreign buyers from purchasing existing homes will achieve what the Government failed to in its Trans Pacific Partnership negotiations, Labour’s Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford says.

“The Government should adopt the Overseas Investment (Protection of New Zealand Homebuyers) Amendment Bill and get New Zealand the carve out Australia secured through its negotiations.

“The sovereignty of the New Zealand Parliament should never have been traded away and this Bill is a case in point.”

Stuart Nash also said, on January 7th last year:

Foreign direct investment is crucial to the continued growth of the New Zealand economy. But selling off vital productive land to overseas investors who simply suck the profits out of the country is a dead end street.”

From the Green Party policy platform:

Green Party Trade and Foreign Investment Policy:

Investment safeguards

Land ownership for New Zealand citizens and permanent residents only.

More stringent conditions on overseas investment.

A Code of Corporate Responsibility for all corporations in New Zealand.

By the thousands, and with their money in their hands, the public seems to be saying there’s a will to identify and to defend our common ground. Can the opposition find that common ground?

76 comments on “Common ground at Abel Tasman National Park ”

  • Comments are now closed

  2. mac1 2
    16 February 2016 at 9:13 am

    News is coming out that some of the land in the area under discussion in the Abel Tasman Park was basically confiscated from local Iwi without compensation for incorporation in the National Park, according to Barney Thomas of the Ngati Rarua trust. This is currently under court review, it seems.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/296619/awaroa-beach-should-be-returned-to-maori,-says-iwi

    It must indeed be galling to landowners to lose 50 acre blocks of their land by dubious procedures to see similar land in private hands next door being bought and sold for millions of dollars.

    • weka 2.1
      16 February 2016 at 9:51 am

      Thanks mac1, I’ve been wondering about that too, and whether the campaign organisers were even aware or had asked local Iwi if there were issues. I hope they did, but given NZ’s history on this it wouldn’t surprise me if they hadn’t.

      I found the RNZ article confusing about what the actual situation is. Hopefully things will get clearer.

    • alwyn 2.2
      16 February 2016 at 10:35 am

      The iwi seem to be the only sensible people with regard to this beach.
      The taxpayer should buy it, whatever the price, and transfer it into our private ownership appears to be the proposal.
      Seems about par for the course, doesn’t it? Very sensible too, I suppose.

    • millsy 2.3
      17 February 2016 at 11:32 am

      Cool, so they can just lock the damn thing away like they always do.

      Iwi have an agenda to get back ALL the national parks, and then close them off.

      • mac1 2.3.1
        17 February 2016 at 12:02 pm

        “Iwi have an agenda to get back ALL the national parks, and then close them off.”

        Evidence? Four unclear areas. 1. Iwi implies all Iwi. 2. Agenda implies common purpose, explicitly stated. 3. All means each and every national park. 4. Close them off needs further definition.

        millsy, that assertion of yours is a big one and would need to be carefully explained to avoid being written off as less than considered. Over to you.

        • millsy 2.3.1.1
          17 February 2016 at 12:12 pm

          EVERY SINGLE TIME iwi have been given back DOC/Recreational land, they have restricted access.

          90 mile beach
          Auckland’s volanic cones
          Mt Hikurangi
          Mt Tawawera
          Mt Edgecumbe
          Mt Maunganui
          Te Urewera

          Every single time.

          • millsy 2.3.1.1.1
            17 February 2016 at 12:13 pm

            You cannot even step on the summit of our mountains because iwi dont like it.

            The do have a plan to lock New Zealanders out of our country.

            • mac1 2.3.1.1.1.1
              17 February 2016 at 1:13 pm

              “You cannot even step on the summit of our mountain” That is not a prohibition, millsy, that’s a cultural preference.

              “The do have a plan to lock New Zealanders out of our country.” That’s an assertion, again for which I ask for evidence. Who said that, where did they say it, whose plan, where stated? Who’s the “the(y)”? What have they said? When? In what context?

              ‘Cos, if you can’t give me evidence, you’re making it up, or are into conspiracy theory, or stirring.

          • mac1 2.3.1.1.2
            17 February 2016 at 1:16 pm

            Again, evidence please, especially what kind of restriction, and in what context?

  3. Draco T Bastard 3
    16 February 2016 at 9:18 am

    Foreign direct investment is crucial to the continued growth of the New Zealand economy.

    No it’s not and never has been. What’s needed is huge government funded R&D – the same way that the US built their industry in fact.

    Foreign ownership needs to be banned outright.

    We do not need foreign money to utilise our own resources.

    • pete 3.1
      16 February 2016 at 10:33 am

      Do you consider, for example, a Chinese person who comes here, studies and gets temporary then permanent residency but not citizenship should be allowed to buy?

      I am always in two minds about that, as they do work and live here, yet their allegiance is to China, and few seem to want to become NZ citizens (if they do they lose their Chinese citizenship – China being the only country in the world that will not allow its citizens to have dual citizenship).

      All too often they have poor regard for our culture and zero understanding of our history.

      • alwyn 3.1.1
        16 February 2016 at 10:41 am

        “China being the only country in the world that will not allow its citizens to have dual citizenship”
        Rubbish. There are lots of countries that forbid it. Have a look at the list near the end here.
        https://www.henleyglobal.com/dual-citizenship/
        There may have been changes to the list, but I don’t think it will be too out of date.

      • Draco T Bastard 3.1.2
        16 February 2016 at 11:23 am

        No, I don’t think that permanent residents should be allowed to buy. In fact, I even go so far as to think that NZ citizens who are living offshore shouldn’t be allowed to buy either.

        • weka 3.1.2.1
          16 February 2016 at 11:52 am

          Yeah but to be fair Draco, you think there should be no private land ownership at all right?

          • marty mars 3.1.2.1.1
            16 February 2016 at 12:08 pm

            I think that and I think this land should go to the iwi.

            • weka 3.1.2.1.1.1
              16 February 2016 at 12:25 pm

              Pākehā don’t have the cultural skills to manage land collectively and do it well. I expect we could learn a lot from Māori if we stopped messing them around though.

              • alwyn …
                16 February 2016 at 12:45 pm

                “Pākehā don’t have the cultural skills …….”
                My God. What a racist bigot you are!
                I suppose you think all Italians are mobsters? All Germans are anti-Semitic?
                What other prejudices have you got tucked away?

                • weka …
                  16 February 2016 at 12:53 pm

                  I was meaning Pākehā as a culture, and I didn’t use the word ‘all’ nor did I imply that no Pākehā individuals possess such skills.

                  I’m happy for you to prove me wrong. Do point out to me where Pākehā are demonstrating good skills in managing land collectively and doing it well, I’d be intereted to know.

                  • alwyn …
                    16 February 2016 at 1:06 pm

                    “I didn’t use the word all”. When you use the word Pakeha on it’s own you mean all. Of course you “implied” all Pakeha. Don’t try and defend the indefensible. If you don’t mean it why do you say it and then try and defend it?

                    Suppose I had said “I suppose you think Italians are mobsters”. Do you think the wording is any different in its meaning?

                    I presume you will be demanding that the Green Party should drop Eugenie Sage as the Conservation spokesperson? She is a Pakeha I believe. Why it should matter whether a person is Maori or Pakeha or whatever I don’t understand but you seem to think it is important and that different races have different inherent abilities.

                    • weka …
                      16 February 2016 at 1:20 pm

                      “When you use the word Pakeha on it’s own you mean all.”

                      No, I don’t. I’ve given you an explanation of what I actually mean (and how I used the term is not uncommon), so fuck off with trying to misrepresent what I mean to my face.

                      “Suppose I had said “I suppose you think Italians are mobsters”. Do you think the wording is any different in its meaning?”

                      If you said to me “I suppose you think Italians are mobsters”, I would have said, no I don’t think Italians are mobsters. Because I know that while Italians have mobsters in their culture there aren’t enough of them to make such a generalisation. I could say that Italians eat pasta, particularly if I was comparing them to cultures that don’t, and only an idiot would take my statement to mean all Italians.

                      “I presume you will be demanding that the Green Party should drop Eugenie Sage as the Conservation spokesperson? She is a Pakeha I believe.”

                      *explains slowly, again* nor did I imply that no Pākehā individuals possess such skills.

                      Besides, I don’t consider the State’s structures around conservation to be particularly good at managing land in general (alhough some of what they do is good for the conservation estate). For instance you couldn’t use those structures and principles to house people.

                      “Why it should matter whether a person is Maori or Pakeha or whatever I don’t understand but you seem to think it is important and that different races have different inherent abilities.”

                      Because different cultures have different ways of doing things. This is why cultural diversity is good for all of us.

                      Pre-contact, Māori had intact systems of sharing land and resources collectively. That’s in pretty recent history and afaik still exists to an extent within the cultures in NZ. Pākehā have to go a long way back before you see that in British and European cultures and I don’t think that survived the diaspora. The systems we do have aren’t that good and the whole individual ownership, I can do what I want with my land thing is a big part of why we’re bad at land management. Industrial dairying and river pollution is another good example of why the State is not good at this.

                    • alwyn …
                      16 February 2016 at 1:44 pm

                      @weka
                      Can I assume you were claiming to have said.
                      “Some Pakeha don’t have the cultural skills …” Followed by the statement that “Those pakeha could learn those pakeha who do from some of the Maori who do …”.
                      That is nothing at all like what you said, but you now claim it is what you meant.

                      As for “Pre-contact, Māori had intact systems of sharing land and resources collectively.”
                      You have heard of the musket wars and people like Te Rauparaha I assume. The transfer of land ownership by Maori in those days normally meant killing the current inhabitants.

                      Give up weka. Admit you have revealed your underlying insecurities and abhorrence of European values by your insensitive remarks.

                    • weka …
                      16 February 2016 at 1:59 pm

                      I have no idea what you mean by that first dog’s breakfast of a paragraph. If you repost that using actual quotes (clearly marked) and some decent formatting, I’ll reread it.

                      The second paragraph is illogical. I’m not claiming that Māori had a perfect system. I’m saying that there were things they did that Pākehā culture doesn’t do and we could learn from that.

                      “You have heard of the musket wars and people like Te Rauparaha I assume. The transfer of land ownership by Maori in those days normally meant killing the current inhabitants.”

                      In the context of this conversation that comment just marks you as pig ignorant. Or possibly imperalist as well, because you seem to be focussed on one aspect, the violent one, to the exclusion of all else. Is that because it’s the one you recognise?

                      “Give up weka. Admit you have revealed your underlying insecurities and abhorrence of European values by your insensitive remarks”

                      Actually, I think there are many useful things from European culture too. That you have taken my comments about this particular aspect to mean that Māori are Good and Pākehā are Bad reflects your insecurities not mine. I will note that you have yet to engage with the actual point I made and you have failed to produce examples of how Pākehā manage land collectively well.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                16 February 2016 at 12:45 pm

                No we couldn’t. Māori had decreased forest cover by about 50% and annihilated at least one species before pākehā arrived.

                It’s generally a myth that indigenous peoples knew better how to look after the environment than those of Anglo-cultural. Most cultures throughout history seem to have worked on the principle that they came first and that nature was there to be used as they wished. This has resulted in the extinction of the mega-fauna that used to roam the world and other ecological changes.

                This poor stewardship has become obvious over the last few decades as the human population went well into over-reach.

                • weka …
                  16 February 2016 at 12:49 pm

                  yeah I know all that Draco, and that’s not what I was referring to.

                  It’s also a myth that indigenous peoples are as bad as European empire builders at land care. Or that Māori didn’t learn. Or that the mistake that Māori made mean they have no positives in their culture around this.

                  • Lucy …
                    16 February 2016 at 3:12 pm

                    There are a number of cultures that migrated to NZ and are referred to as Pakeha that have had the concept of communal land – the English and Irish both have an understanding of community land. Many of their descendants tried in the 70’s to go back to that with greater or lesser success. I understand the concept that you are trying to explain weka and to a large extent I agree that indigenous people are more careful with the land. I have some concerns about this deal, ultimately lots of people have put in money to make this piece of NZ part of the Government estate. However I have no trust that the Government will not at some point resell the land – land in all the Government departments have meet this fate even if they were gifted for education, cemetery etc so what is to stop a future government deciding to sell it to a developer?

                    • weka …
                      16 February 2016 at 6:42 pm

                      More careful, yes, and also just the fact that they had collective ways of managing land that wasn’t based on ownership but, if I have understood it right, on relationship, obligation and occupation. That’s radical in today’s terms, and worth looking at.

                    • Ad …
                      16 February 2016 at 9:07 pm

                      The best thing to do is absorb it into the surrounding national park – this is done by Order In Council reasonably often. Its title would then be dissolved into the whole.

                • marty mars …
                  16 February 2016 at 1:09 pm

                  Indigenous peoples DID/DO know how to live sustainably – that is how they survived?survive.

                  • alwyn …
                    16 February 2016 at 1:17 pm

                    Yeah sure.
                    You are aware that the slash and burn culture is being carried out by (shock, horror) indigenous Indonesians aren’t you?

                    Even the Left’s favourite newspaper agrees.
                    http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/nov/11/indonesia-forest-fires-explained-haze-palm-oil-timber-burning

                    • marty mars …
                      16 February 2016 at 1:19 pm

                      don’t try alwyn – it’ll only end in tears, for you…

                      “Rapid expansion of oil palm estates in Southeast Asia is being driven by rising global demand for edible oils and biofuels. Two countries – Malaysia and Indonesia – dominate world production. According to the study, an estimated 4 million hectares of land are currently under oil palm in Malaysia – with a target of planting of 60,000–100,000 hectares per year on customary lands – and over 7.5 million hectares in Indonesia, where the current rate of land clearance for oil palm exceeds 600,000 hectares per year. This paper examines how such a rapid expansion, within regulatory and procedural frameworks that were developed for small-scale informal land markets, is creating unequal relations, with little protection given to indigenous peoples’ rights as recognised in international and customary laws. Several examples are provided of cases where court rulings and international treaty bodies have concurred that violations are taking place.”

                      http://www.landcoalition.org/en/resources/palm-oil-and-indigenous-peoples-south-east-asia

                      Understand? read? understand now?

                    • weka …
                      16 February 2016 at 1:25 pm

                      “You are aware that the slash and burn culture is being carried out by (shock, horror) indigenous Indonesians aren’t you?”

                      Hang on, did you just say that all indigenous Indonesians are slash and burners?

                    • alwyn …
                      16 February 2016 at 2:01 pm

                      @Marty.
                      I did read it. It is quite clear that the activities are being carried out by indigenous Indonesians. Do you somehow distinguish “good” Indonesians, whom you call “Indigenous” and other “bad” Indonesians who are somehow mysteriously “non-indigenous”?
                      In Indonesia at least nearly all the people are Indigenous by even the loosest definition. There are very few people whose origins are from outside the area who remain there.
                      It is also, unfortunately the case that they are the ones for whom slash and burn is their historical practice of agriculture.

                    • alwyn …
                      16 February 2016 at 2:02 pm

                      @weka.
                      Actually weka I have the order of the phrases in the sentence in the reverse manner to the way you did in your statement.
                      What I have said is that all of the slash and burn activities are being done by indigenous Indonesians.
                      You said that all pakeha lack the cultural skills…..
                      Give up and apologise before you make yourself look any more silly.

                    • weka …
                      16 February 2016 at 2:06 pm

                      @alwyn, but funny how I could understand what you said anyway. Because while I took a dig at you above, I’m not being a disingenuous shit engaged in bad faith arguing. Keep on misrepresenting what I meant and I’m happy to start calling you a liar again.

                    • marty mars …
                      16 February 2016 at 2:13 pm

                      @alwyn – ignorance is your companion although sometimes idiocy pushes in. You are, once again, showing what poor comprehension and understanding you have – maybe it is just your way of trying to make sense of a mad world – who knows – I couldn’t care less about your almost complete dimness – it is funny mostly and sometimes sad – a sad little fellow you are – really, give it up fool.

                      and just to prove what a lying dickhead you are

                      “Indonesia has a population of approximately 250 million. The government recognizes 1,128 ethnic groups. The Ministry of Social Affairs identifies some indigenous communities as komunitas adat terpencil (geographically-isolated indigenous communities). However, many more peoples self-identify or are considered by others as indigenous. Recent government Acts and Decrees use the term masyarakat adat to refer to indigenous peoples.

                      The national indigenous peoples’ organization, Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara (AMAN), estimates that the number of indigenous peoples in Indonesia falls between 50 and 70 million people.”

                      http://www.iwgia.org/regions/asia/indonesia

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    16 February 2016 at 2:52 pm

                    That’s just it. They wouldn’t have been able to continue to survive if their numbers had increased beyond sustainable levels under their practices.

                    It’s essentially a numbers thing. Too many people under standard indigenous practices are no more sustainable than our standard practices today.

                    • weka …
                      16 February 2016 at 3:03 pm

                      I can’t tell what that’s in reply to but do you mean that Māori were increasing their population beyond what could be sustained? What about other indigenous groups? Because my understanding is that many had various ways of population not increasing indefinitely.

                    • marty mars …
                      16 February 2016 at 5:56 pm

                      I think it was to me.

                      “Too many people under standard indigenous practices are no more sustainable than our standard practices today.”

                      bit of a non-argument there I think, as in – we need water today, indigenous communities needed water – we both die of thirst without it.

                      In another way you are on to something because for generations indigenous peoples survived and thrived (notwithstanding some notable examples) – when things got crowded – people moved and tangata whenua have so many examples of that – even to other islands across unimaginable vast seas. This still happens now with people still moving here and so on.

                      I think the big difference is the ‘sustainable’ bit – we (us) are in denial of the limits of our world and those limits are coming to bite. Indigenous communities (in general) were always aware of the limits.

                    • Andre …
                      16 February 2016 at 6:17 pm

                      There’s plenty of examples of indigenous societies that went beyond sustainable limits and collapsed.

                      Jared Diamond’s “Collapse” has a relatively readable coverage of just a few of them.

          • Draco T Bastard 3.1.2.1.2
            16 February 2016 at 12:48 pm

            True but I don’t think that will go down well yet. Not until more people realise the failure of private ownership.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.3
        16 February 2016 at 11:34 am

        All too often they have poor regard for our culture and zero understanding of our history.

        So not understanding indigenous culture should be a barrier to citizenship. That’s going to upset lots of pakeha.

        their allegiance is to China

        Says who?

        Basing policy on this sort of racist gibberish is just the sort of thing that’s going to set off an ISDS.

        • pete 3.1.3.1
          16 February 2016 at 1:08 pm

          Not racist. A big chunk of my current working life is working with Chinese immigrants. I have utmost respect for their efforts I general. I can now even speak a little mandarin. I worked in various parts of China for many years. So no, not racist at all.

          But chinese are incredibly xenophobic. In general, the darker the skin, the less they like.

          Maybe if you were less patronising and way less ignorant of China, it’s recent history, it’s culture, you would know all this.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.3.1.1
            17 February 2016 at 7:04 am

            I’m not racist. All Chinese people are racist. 🙄

            Maybe if you were less racist and way less racist, you would be less racist.

        • pete 3.1.3.2
          16 February 2016 at 1:09 pm

          Not racist. A big chunk of my current working life is working with Chinese immigrants. I have utmost respect for their efforts I general. I can now even speak a little mandarin. I worked in various parts of China for many years. So no, not racist at all.

          But chinese are incredibly xenophobic. In general, the darker the skin, the less they like.

          Maybe if you were less patronising and way less ignorant of China, it’s recent history, it’s culture, you would know all this.

      • prickles 3.1.4
        16 February 2016 at 5:46 pm

        “All too often they have poor regard for our culture and zero understanding of our history.”

        I deal with a great number of Chinese kiwis on an almost daily basis and I find that they most commonly have great regard for our culture as well as enormous appreciation of the opportunities they have here in NZ that would simply not be available to them in China. Those I deal with have often gone out of their way to understand our history even if they do want to retain their ties to their homeland and other family members remaining in China.

    • Phil 3.2
      16 February 2016 at 11:44 am

      We do not need foreign money to utilise our own resources.

      But having foreigners pay good money for the output of our resources is pretty great, in comparison to, say, having a morning shower of milk.

  4. alwyn 4
    16 February 2016 at 10:31 am

    You can talk about the various parties land ownership policies in relation to this property but their Investment policies have absolutely nothing to do with the matter. Buying this bit of land isn’t an investment at all.
    For real bunnies have a look at
    http://www.investopedia.com/university/beginner/beginner1.asp
    Just what “return” do you expect to get, apart from the dubious pleasure of making it available to the very few people who actually have access to the area?

    • Ad 4.1
      16 February 2016 at 3:35 pm

      Alwyn, step into a policy debate. The task of policy, for real bunnies, is this:

      “A set of ideas or a plan of what to do in particular situations that has been agreed to officially by a group of people, a business organization, a government, or a political party.”

      http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/policy

      Start from there. I’m not interested in what the existing government’s policy is. I was clear in the post I was focused on a clear area of agreement for opposition parties.

      I was clear about that specific area of policy intersection.

      For example,
      – Would any of the opposition parties disagree with the idea of forming a register of all land owned by non-residents?
      – Would any of the opposition parties disagree with land ownership for New Zealand citizens and permanent residents only?
      – Would any of the opposition parties disagree with a requirement that the Overseas Investment Office be required to decline all purchases of non-industrial land?

      All a public is asking for from an alternative government, is that an alternative policy to this lot is possible. The purchase of land, as a policy, is a start.

      And yes, that policy discussion is closely related to this upsurge in interest about the sale of a local beach this week.

      Such a common policy would be a simple way to agree that the 2017 election campaign could start with a common policy platform.

      • alwyn 4.1.1
        16 February 2016 at 4:04 pm

        Very briefly, as I have to go out.
        Talking about Labour, Greens and NZF only, and ignoring the fact I don’t think those three cats in a bag could form a stable Government.

        (1) Register. Yes, that looks possible.
        (2) Land ownership. Labour and NZF wouldn’t agree to such a blanket ban. It is trivial but it would preclude Great Britain owning their High Commission for example. Large areas of farmland might be possible.
        (3) As for 2, for the same reason.

        I was only commenting on the fact that you had listed their Investment policies in a post about something that is not, in my view, an investment. It is a pet peeve of mine when non-economist friends tell me that they have “invested” in an empty section. It isn’t an investment it is speculation.

        • marty mars 4.1.1.1
          16 February 2016 at 7:05 pm

          alwyn the investment verses speculation is a topic widely misunderstood and discussed – This article may add something.

          https://blogs.cfainstitute.org/investor/2013/02/27/what-is-the-difference-between-investing-and-speculation-2/

          If the person invested in an empty section, for a long term inter-generational fund for say, grandchildren is that speculation?

          • alwyn 4.1.1.1.1
            16 February 2016 at 8:33 pm

            Your example, in my opinion, is yes. Then of course you have to remember that I trained as an economist and have the views of my profession.
            Actually bare land isn’t usually a great investment. There is no return from dividends and significant holding costs such as rates. You have to get enormous increases in price to match even bonds.

            Grahams work on investment, preferably “The Intelligent Investor” is well worth a read, if you are interested in the topic.
            So is Keyne’s “The General Theory …..”. That is worth reading just for the magnificence of his prose. You don’t have to worry about the economics. He was a wonderful writer.

            Warren Buffet is a Graham fan. On the other hand, when you consider what he said about how long he thought you should invest for and said
            “Only buy something that you’d be perfectly happy to hold if the market shut down for 10 years.” as well as “Our favorite holding period is forever.” it is difficult to see how he could be anything else.

            • marty mars 4.1.1.1.1.1
              16 February 2016 at 9:25 pm

              good oh

              I used to read a bit about it but it doesn’t really interest me now 🙂

            • Ad 4.1.1.1.1.2
              16 February 2016 at 10:17 pm

              Most Maori post-settlement agencies take the same view.

              • alwyn …
                17 February 2016 at 12:30 pm

                “take the same view”. A little cryptic I’m afraid.
                Did you mean the bit about holding for ever or the comment that bare land isn’t a good investment?
                In Wellington unfortunately the money was used to buy the old Air Force base land at Shelly Bay with no real idea of what was going to be done with it. It has just been rotting away for 7 years now.

                • Ad …
                  17 February 2016 at 3:21 pm

                  They are quite happy to sign 100-year leases, because they are confident they aren’t going anywhere.

                  Plus, their investments tend to be pretty long term as well.

                  • alwyn …
                    17 February 2016 at 6:17 pm

                    Now I follow.
                    They weren’t planning on buying bare land and leaving it vacant. Long leases to someone else who is going to do something with the land is a perfectly reasonable investment policy.
                    It was Marty’s proposal “If the person invested in an empty section” that I don’t think much of.

  5. Rae 5
    16 February 2016 at 11:47 am

    I reckon there is a big connection between public reaction to the sale of this beach and the signing of the TPP. People are really angry the govt has gone ahead and signed away our right to say no to foreign buyers.
    It is indicative of public feeling toward that and a lot of other things people are increasingly uneasy about

    • Phil 5.1
      16 February 2016 at 1:09 pm

      the govt has gone ahead and signed away our right to say no to foreign buyers.

      Ummm…. no.

      • weka 5.1.1
        16 February 2016 at 3:06 pm

        So no ISDS if a future give enacts legislation around land ownership that affects investments?

        • Phil 5.1.1.1
          16 February 2016 at 4:58 pm

          *shrugs*

          The Overseas Investment Office will still have the same powers they had before to turn down (or recommend to the minister to turn down) a foreign buyer if the purchase doesn’t meet their criteria. That’s why I said “no” to your post.

          Also, just because a dispute settlement scheme exists, it doesn’t follow that the government side of the dispute always loses.

          • Lara 5.1.1.1.1
            16 February 2016 at 5:28 pm

            It is still a costly exercise for the Government of the day to fight an ISDS case. Even if they win, it’s still costly.

            And the fact that a case could be bought against it will have an effect on what legislation the Government is prepared to consider and pass.

          • weka 5.1.1.1.2
            16 February 2016 at 5:38 pm

            That’s not what I asked though Phil. So I take it it is still true that if future govts want to enact land ownership legislation that impacts on investors it opens NZ up to ISDSs.

            (and it wasn’t my post).

          • Ad 5.1.1.1.3
            16 February 2016 at 10:15 pm

            Time for an Opposition to propose wiping out the Overseas Investment Office, and simply put all such decisions through Cabinet. Cabinet can get their analysis from any and all government departments on the costs and benefits to the country. Ministers having to take accountability for such decisions would be under greater public and media scrutiny than the Minister of Immigration when they make removal decisions. Overseas investors would get the message pretty quickly that they have to want it bad, and it better be real good.

    • Ad 5.2
      16 February 2016 at 3:39 pm

      I agree. It’s all about a feeling, as loose as ‘sovereignty’ in all its myriad definitions.

      Something about losing control of what is ‘ours’; define ‘ours’ any way you like.

      That much of the anti-TPPA surge came from Maori, who have lost most of their land over the last 150 years, is no surprise. As part of this country, they know what it is to lose control over land.

  6. Ad 6
    16 February 2016 at 4:02 pm

    Hopefully we will get an answer on the successful tenderer tomorrow.
    If the populist offer is declined, this will become a major policy issue.

    Gareth Morgan knew that an endless auction would never be won simply through popular opinion and $2 pledges:

    https://garethsworld.com/blog/economics/the-beach-the-monkey-and-rationality/

    Sure, he’s cocky. But he’s earned it. If New Zealand had 1,000 multi-millionaire philanthropists who also operated think-tanks, we would be a better country for it.

    • DoublePlusGood 6.1
      16 February 2016 at 5:54 pm

      No we wouldn’t. Multimillionaires are a highly inefficient distribution of resources and pay less tax by percentage of income. We actually couldn’t afford 1000 multi-millionaire philanthropists just on the resources they’d suck up and the lost tax dollars, without even having to consider how batty would be the ideas their think tanks would come up with.

  7. Lara 7
    16 February 2016 at 5:31 pm

    So the Greens are the only party willing to have a policy of land ownership for NZ permanent residents and citizens only.

    IMO that’s the only way to do it. All other ideas leave loopholes so large you can drive a bus through them.

    A register? What the hell for. Won’t stop land sales to foreigners.

    I wish the other parties would get the balls to stop this. But they lack courage.

    If someone doesn’t live here, isn’t a citizen or permanent resident, then they have no need to own land here. They can lease it or rent if they must.

    • alwyn 7.1
      16 February 2016 at 6:22 pm

      Can you enlighten me about exactly what the Green Party propose.
      You say
      “land ownership for NZ permanent residents and citizens only.”
      Then you say
      “If someone doesn’t live here, isn’t a citizen or permanent resident”
      They aren’t the same thing.
      Do you mean
      (1) Any permanent resident or citizen can own land regardless of where they live and in addition anyone else who lives here can own land OR
      (2) They must be a citizen or permanent resident AND live here whereas someone else who merely lives here can’t own land.
      Sorry if my question isn’t that clear. I was having trouble trying to word it.

      • Andre 7.1.1
        16 February 2016 at 6:28 pm

        Not sure if this will answer your question

        https://home.greens.org.nz/policy/summary/trade

        The relevant bits seem to be near the end

        • alwyn 7.1.1.1
          16 February 2016 at 7:04 pm

          Thank you. It would seem to be a third option I didn’t list.
          (3) Any permanent resident or citizen can own land, regardless of where they live.
          No-one else can.

          That is from “Ownership of land in Aotearoa/ New Zealand is a privilege that should be for citizens and permanent residents only”
          and “Land ownership for New Zealand citizens and permanent residents only”
          from the link you gave me.

          At least that is what I think it means.

        • Ad 7.1.1.2
          16 February 2016 at 9:03 pm

          Thankyou