Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 138834	2015-01-30 01:49:00	More Silverware Sold.	B.M. (505)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1393323	2015-02-01 08:54:00	I guess “Ignorance is Bliss”. :groan: Read the “Overseas Investment Act” and you will find that the sale of land being privately owned is not exempt from the Act, but is in fact covered by the Act which is why they had to get permission, and why it was reported. To help you out HERE (www.legislation.govt.nz) is the legislation setting out criteria. Originally, the Act was to stop exactly what is happening now. i.e. The citizens of New Zealand becoming Tenants in our own Country. I'm fully aware of the OIA, and it's intended purpose. Now, how about you answer my question - how'd you feel if the government intervened in a sale of your land, meaning you had to accept a significantly smaller sum? Also answer this one: The same plot of land is owned by a New Zealander, an American, and a Chinese.Why does it make a difference to the rest of the country,who never owned the land in the first place. And also, would you object to the American owning it? I strongly doubt it, and I also strongly doubt that your dislike of this sale has anything to do with an ideal of keeping all NZ territory owned by New Zealanders; rather, it is a dislike of Chinese that drives this belief of yours.	Nick G (16709)
1393324	2015-02-01 09:33:00	I'm fully aware of the OIA, and it's intended purpose. Now, how about you answer my question - how'd you feel if the government intervened in a sale of your land, meaning you had to accept a significantly smaller sum? Also answer this one: The same plot of land is owned by a New Zealander, an American, and a Chinese.Why does it make a difference to the rest of the country,who never owned the land in the first place. And also, would you object to the American owning it? I strongly doubt it, and I also strongly doubt that your dislike of this sale has anything to do with an ideal of keeping all NZ territory owned by New Zealanders; rather, it is a dislike of Chinese that drives this belief of yours. The Law is the Law whether it is your land or mine. That’s life. If the sale of the land is “caught” by the law then so be it. In the cases reported, if you bothered to read them all, you will find that there are a cross section of investors from Australia, Sweden, Thailand, France, Canada, and Japan, all involved in different deals, so what makes you think I just have a dislike for Chinese eludes me, because to my way of thinking they got the worst deal. To look at it from a different angle, you go and try to buy significant freehold land or buildings in any of the countries mentioned and see how you get on. I’ll tell you, the best you can hope for is a lease. They aren’t lining up to buy prime parts of NZ for the goodness of our health, trust me on that one. ;)	B.M. (505)
1393325	2015-02-01 09:40:00	The Law is the Law whether it is your land or mine. That’s life. If the sale of the land is “caught” by the law then so be it. In the cases reported, if you bothered to read them all, you will find that there are a cross section of investors from Australia, Sweden, Thailand, France, Canada, and Japan, all involved in different deals, so what makes you think I just have a dislike for Chinese eludes me, because to my way of thinking they got the worst deal. To look at it from a different angle, you go and try to buy significant freehold land or buildings in any of the countries mentioned and see how you get on. I’ll tell you, the best you can hope for is a lease. They aren’t lining up to buy prime parts of NZ for the goodness of our health, trust me on that one. ;) Are you planning on answering the questions I asked? Also, if you're taking a 'The law is the law' take - it got approval for purchase. The law is the law, suck it up and move on....or does that only apply when it suits you?	Nick G (16709)
1393326	2015-02-01 19:00:00	Are you planning on answering the questions I asked? Also, if you're taking a 'The law is the law' take - it got approval for purchase. The law is the law, suck it up and move on....or does that only apply when it suits you? The point is the land involved was caught by the Law and required Government Approval. That approval was given because the present government has a policy of selling anything it can to overseas interests. It would be interesting to know if any applications have been turned down. The nationality of those overseas investors is immaterial because it just means money earned here is moved off shore. Our Banks are a classic example, with even the BNZ being a subsidiary of the National Australia Bank. And to make things worse, the sales referred to in the linked article are only the tip of the iceberg as there have been many others including the 13,800ha Lochinver Station. Personally, I’m not interested in the nationality of the offshore buyer who is buying up the Silverware, I’m just saying it shouldn’t be allowed but the OIO is approving everything at the Governments behest. Now do you understand? :rolleyes:	B.M. (505)
1393327	2015-02-01 20:55:00	The point is the land involved was caught by the Law and required Government Approval. That approval was given because the present government has a policy of selling anything it can to overseas interests. It would be interesting to know if any applications have been turned down. The nationality of those overseas investors is immaterial because it just means money earned here is moved off shore. Our Banks are a classic example, with even the BNZ being a subsidiary of the National Australia Bank. And to make things worse, the sales referred to in the linked article are only the tip of the iceberg as there have been many others including the 13,800ha Lochinver Station. Personally, I’m not interested in the nationality of the offshore buyer who is buying up the Silverware, I’m just saying it shouldn’t be allowed but the OIO is approving everything at the Governments behest. Now do you understand? :rolleyes: I thought you were of the opinion the law was the law, and if it didn't suit you that was life? In this case, the law gave approval for the sale. The law is the law remember, so suck it up, stop whining, and move on! (Alternatively, you could accept people can disagree with the law even when it doesn't suit you). Now please answer both questions I asked in post 21.	Nick G (16709)
1393328	2015-02-01 21:30:00	I thought you were of the opinion the law was the law, and if it didn't suit you that was life? In this case, the law gave approval for the sale. The law is the law remember, so suck it up, stop whining, and move on! (Alternatively, you could accept people can disagree with the law even when it doesn't suit you). Now please answer both questions I asked in post 21. I have no idea what I haven’t already covered. All I’ve ignored until now is your off course assumption as follows: “I strongly doubt it, and I also strongly doubt that your dislike of this sale has anything to do with an ideal of keeping all NZ territory owned by New Zealanders; rather, it is a dislike of Chinese that drives this belief of yours.” Regretfully, for you, your assumption is completely wrong and I will go so far as to say the Chinese are a race that has probably caused this country the least trouble since their arrival in the Goldrush era of the1860’s. Given no less than six other nations were involved in various deals it is absurd to suggest that my opposition to selling assets to overseas buyers is because of a dislike for Chinese. Your logic defies me.	B.M. (505)
1393329	2015-02-01 22:23:00	I have no idea what I haven’t already covered. All I’ve ignored until now is your off course assumption as follows: “I strongly doubt it, and I also strongly doubt that your dislike of this sale has anything to do with an ideal of keeping all NZ territory owned by New Zealanders; rather, it is a dislike of Chinese that drives this belief of yours.” Regretfully, for you, your assumption is completely wrong and I will go so far as to say the Chinese are a race that has probably caused this country the least trouble since their arrival in the Goldrush era of the1860’s. Given no less than six other nations were involved in various deals it is absurd to suggest that my opposition to selling assets to overseas buyers is because of a dislike for Chinese. Your logic defies me. From the post I referred to: Now, how about you answer my question - how'd you feel if the government intervened in a sale of your land, meaning you had to accept a significantly smaller sum? Also answer this one: The same plot of land is owned by a New Zealander, an American, and a Chinese.Why does it make a difference to the rest of the country,who never owned the land in the first place. Two questions which you have not answered. My logic may defy you; but that is to do with you rather than my logic.	Nick G (16709)
1393330	2015-02-02 00:40:00	From the post I referred to: Now, how about you answer my question - how'd you feel if the government intervened in a sale of your land, meaning you had to accept a significantly smaller sum? Also answer this one: The same plot of land is owned by a New Zealander, an American, and a Chinese.Why does it make a difference to the rest of the country,who never owned the land in the first place. Two questions which you have not answered. My logic may defy you; but that is to do with you rather than my logic. Ok let me spell it out. Now, how about you answer my question - how'd you feel if the government intervened in a sale of your land, meaning you had to accept a significantly smaller sum? It wouldn’t worry me at all because the rules have been in place for over 40 years and are included in every Real Estate Sale and Purchase Agreement. It is not as though the goal posts have been changed and no different to Oh bugger, I have to renew my Drivers License, or get a WOF or whatever. The rules have been in place a long time and were introduced to try a curb what is happening today. Which leads me onto having found the answer to my own previous question about how many applications the OIO have turned down. Answer: None, every application has been approved. :illogical “In 2009, Wanganui brothers Allan and Frank Crafar owned 18 dairy farms and had 20,000 cows, making them New Zealand's largest family owned dairy business.[4] Following allegations of animal cruelty, they went into receivership. In 2012, 16 of their farms in the North Island were sold to a Chinese company Pengxin International Group Limited. Polls done since the sale of the Crafar Farms show an overwhelming majority of New Zealanders were worried about land sales to foreign buyers. By August 2014 the Overseas Investment Office had received a further 33 applications by foreigners to buy large blocks of farmland. They were all approved.” Moving to your Next Question. Also answer this one: The same plot of land is owned by a New Zealander, an American, and a Chinese. Why does it make a difference to the rest of the country, who never owned the land in the first place. It doesn't, providing they reside in New Zealand and the money earned in New Zealand isn’t siphoned off overseas. Remember we are talking big business and consortiums, involving 10’s of millions of shareholder $’s and all of those shareholders expect a return, so they’re here to make money not friends and effectively they will be opposition to our own businesses because they’ll produce and market in opposition to say the likes of Fonterra. I trust that clarify's the matter.	B.M. (505)
1393331	2015-02-02 03:06:00	... providing they reside in New Zealand and the money earned in New Zealand isn’t siphoned off overseas. Remember we are talking big business and consortiums, involving 10’s of millions of shareholder $’s and all of those shareholders expect a return, so they’re here to make money not friends and effectively they will be opposition to our own businesses because they’ll produce and market in opposition to say the likes of Fonterra. I trust that clarify's the matter. Right on, B.M.	rumpty (2863)
1393332	2015-02-02 09:42:00	Just a question here B.M., do you wish to stop foreign investment in New Zealand? Because it sounds a lot like it, as foreign investment will 'siphon money off overseas'. You know, of course, many New Zealanders invest in other countries, doing exactly what you seem to dislike. Also, even if you blocked foreign sale of land, foreign individuals or companies could still invest in New Zealand companies, which would result in...wait for it....some profit going overseas. The basic concept of foreign investment will always result in profits going overseas. The stated reason for your dislike of land sales to non New Zealanders is foreign profits going overseas. Would then, you propose to block all foreign investment of any kind? By the way, it is clarifies, not clarify's. Not trying to be a grammar nazi, but clarifying usually means making clear, which implies correct grammar. Oh, also - competition in a marketplace usually leads to lower prices for the consumer. Bring on competition!	Nick G (16709)
1 2 3 4 5