O'Rourke Denis: Urgent Debates — Overseas Investment Rules—Sale of Crafar Farms 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Rourke Denis: Urgent Debates — Overseas Investment Rules—Sale of Crafar Farms 
[Sitting date: 14 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4323. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First has consistently always opposed the sale of farmland to foreigners. We are very glad to see that the Labour Party now also adopts that policy. I want to give a number of reasons for this. Firstly it causes an inexorable rise in farm prices in New Zealand. Foreigners of course are not— 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have constant interjections down this end from David Bennett over here. The interjections include such things as accusing my colleague of being a liar and various other things. Interjections should not be constant yelling and pointless yelling across the Chamber. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Well— 
David Bennett 
: Mr Speaker that’s simply not true. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I do not need any assistance. This has been quite a spirited debate and I know that when the Hon Maurice Williamson was speaking that created quite a bit of interjection and comment as well. It has been a spirited debate. I wish that all members would show some courtesy in this House and I would caution members that it is an opportunity for debate and for listening to each other and interjections should be rare and reasonable. 
DENIS O’ROURKE 
: I actually did not hear any interjections anyway. But I will repeat what I said at the beginning. First of all New Zealand First has consistently always opposed the sale of farmland to foreigners and we are glad to see that Labour has now followed that policy as well. I was beginning to say that there are a number of very good reasons for this. Firstly farm prices cause an inexorable rise of prices for farms especially for the best farmland in New Zealand. Foreigners of course are not financially constrained in the way that many New Zealanders are. So that of course leads to a significant disadvantage to people in New Zealand who want to embark upon a farming career. This is driven by a shortage of quality farmland overseas and we do not want to impose and import that problem into this country. Foreign buyers are for those reasons hungry for fertile well-watered land in the temperate zone such as particularly in this country. 
New Zealand First would impose strict restrictions on foreign ownership of farmland and we would impose the same sort of restrictions on foreigners that Kiwis face if they want to buy farmland in other countries. In relation to this as I have already indicated is the asset that this country has in abundance: fresh water. Water claims and water resources of course are closely related to the value of farming and are closely related to why so many overseas buyers want to buy farms in New Zealand. New Zealand First strongly opposes the sale of all strategic assets especially farmland and especially related water resources. We are opposed to any particular group gaining exclusive rights to what is essentially a public resource. Issues affecting the country’s fresh water as well as farmland should be considered from a national perspective. 
Another reason for opposing the sale of farmland overseas is that it does mean that New Zealand farmers are deprived of the opportunity to buy farmland at reasonable prices. It effectively does do that because it drives farm prices up and inflates farm prices. We must not see a bidding war for farms in this country driven by overseas purchasers. Included is an opportunity to develop further the New Zealand farming culture—a farming culture of great success and a farming culture of innovation. There is every possibility that that will be damaged by overseas farmers who are not part of that culture and do not have the best interests of New Zealand farming at heart. 
Furthermore another reason is a loss of New Zealand’s economic sovereignty. The sales of farms—the sales of such a strategic asset—do if they go unchecked over time mean that we become tenants in our own land and we lose sovereignty over our destiny in the long term. Economically it is very difficult to see what the benefit is of allowing the sale of farmland overseas. Overseas investors in New Zealand can still invest in other ways. They can finance New Zealanders into farms with loans and with other economic instruments. 
Another reason is that the economic reasons given by the Government for allowing this are utterly and completely inadequate. I note for example that the Prime Minister when justifying the sale of farmlands overseas said on one occasion: “Overall we’ve believed … that yes the bid by the Chinese company can add value and allow us to have good distribution into China.” That of course is an utterly inadequate reason why we should allow the sale of New Zealand farmland overseas because access to the Chinese market is simply not dependent upon Chinese farm ownership in this country. 
 The competence of overseas owners is another issue. We do not know if this goes on unchecked into the future what sort of competence overseas owners of farms in this country will have. It is all very well for the Court of Appeal and others to say that as at today this overseas purchaser looks like a competent farmer but when they sell to other overseas people or when they go ahead and farm these properties over time how can we be sure that they will be as competent as we know New Zealand farmers are? It is not necessarily a situation that will endure. 
The last reason I want to give as to why we should be so opposed to the sale of New Zealand farmland overseas is simply this: there is no guarantee that large overseas corporations will not through successive purchases of farmlands aggregate farmland one farm after the other and become so dominant that they effectively control a significant part of New Zealand’s economic resources. 
In conclusion I say that the loss of these particular properties is a black day for New Zealand. These farms will be gone for ever. What assurances have been received? 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Where are they taking them? 
DENIS O’ROURKE 
: You can hear some of the caterwauling from the other side of the House which like those assurances are empty words with absolutely no real value in them whatsoever. I might say that the vast majority of New Zealanders do not see any value in those assurances. They know in their hearts and from what they have heard that the sale of these assets of New Zealand farmland overseas cannot ever be in the interests of this country. And I say further that after all the controversy this Government still refuses to act to protect the national interest—with a small “n” of course. It may be a National interest with a large “N”—I am not sure of that—but it is certainly not a national interest with a small “n”. 
 New Zealanders have a special connection to their land and that land is being alienated. Who will defend that land in the future? It is certainly not this Government. This Government is leading this country down the road ultimately to impoverishment by selling farms to overseas farmers whose performance in the long term we cannot be sure of and whose agenda we ought to have the greatest possible suspicion of. 
The New Zealand Overseas Investment Office is itself a joke. In fact it is worse than a joke; it is a fraud. It simply rubber-stamps the transfer of assets into foreign hands. I have had personal experience of this in my work in the past as a lawyer. I have acted for purchasers of farmland and have acted for them in terms of applications to the Overseas Investment Office. I can tell you that its process is utterly inadequate and it is in fact virtually a rubber stamp. You cannot put important assets of this kind into the hands of an organisation like that. The New Zealand First position is clear: stop the sale of strategic assets especially farms and stop compromising New Zealand’s economic sovereignty in this way.