By Alex Tarrant
It won’t come as the biggest surprise in the world, but New Zealand’s foreign ownership rules are being canvassed in New Zealand First’s government formation talks with the National and Labour parties.
In fact, our whole economic paradigm since Labour won the 1984 general election sounds like it’s up for debate. That might include the way the Reserve Bank runs monetary policy - Peters told one reporter he had asked a "brilliant question" on the matter of reforming the Reserve Bank Act, although he wouldn't say whether it was being discussed.
However, don’t take that as Winston Peters leaning to the Left.
Peters wasn’t giving much away to media Monday lunchtime as he returned from a two-hour negotiating session with National. So, Interest.co.nz asked him about the HNA-UDC deal, which he has strongly opposed. Would the deal still be on if NZ First is in government?
“Look, the extraction of our ownership to foreign interests, whether it be from a present foreign interest to another foreign interest, it’s the continuing story of this country’s decline since the 14th of July 1984. Nothing has changed,” Peters said.
“But, these talks are about a change in the way this country’s run, both economically and socially,” he said.
I asked whether NZ First’s policy intentions in terms of shaking up the Overseas Investment Office’s powers and mandate were therefore a subject of the talks.
“I don’t think there’s anybody in the press gallery that would not think foreign ownership is not part of these talks. So, have you got that? It’s a yes.”
Next question: Has he found he is closer to one party – ie Labour – over policies which would change the economic and social direction of New Zealand? They do have a similar policy platform in areas like foreign ownership, after all.
“Well excuse me. You’ve got that rather wrong, haven’t you,” came the reply. “I mean, you could after the election, even if you got it wrong before the election. Get that part right. Thank you.”
Talks going well...
Meanwhile, we got all the stock answers to the regular questions. The meeting with National was “great, actually.” Peters said NZ First was likely to meet twice with National and Labour Monday as talks carry on into the night. (Update: Talks with Labour went a little longer than expected, so an afternoon meeting with National and then Labour first Tuesday morning, to keep the pattern going.)
He was still on track for making a decision on Thursday. “What we’re trying to do is, ensure that we give all sides in this negotiation a fair hearing and vice versa.”
Similar policy areas are being traversed with both parties. However, “it’s not a game of tennis here, or ping pong, it’s different discussions with different parties.”
Peters also indicated that New Zealand First would not be holding discussions with the Green Party. “How many times do I have to point out to you, from a long way out before the election, and since it, that we will be negotiating with first, the National Party and the Labour Party – not necessarily in that order – and that, that would be our sole set of discussions. Not more than that.”
Greens meet with Labour
Green Party leader James Shaw on Monday morning met with Labour, while Peters was talking to National. Speaking to media afterwards, Shaw wasn’t prepared to make any comment on the subjects discussed, going only as far as to say talks were “warm and constructive,” about “forming a government,” and canvassing “several” policy areas.
In response to a question on whether talks touched on the Greens’ core values of climate change, clean rivers and poverty, Shaw replied: “I don’t think it’s going to come as surprise to anybody the things that the Green Party is putting forward as the programme for new government. We campaigned on those things, and that’s what we’re looking for.”
Shaw said he was “highly confident” there would be a Labour-led government. “The majority of the country voted for change, and as the results showed on Saturday, that majority’s been extended out.”
He said he anticipated more meetings with Labour would be held this week. “We haven’t formed a government yet, so we’ve got to keep meeting until we do that.”
Peters: RBNZ query a "brilliant question" but can't give answer
Peters spoke to media again Monday afternoon on his way back from a meeting with the Labour Party. New to the Labour team was David Parker. His roles within the party are Spokesperson for Foreign Affairs, Environment, Water, Regulatory Reform, Entrepreneurship, & Trade and Export Growth and Shadow Attorney General.
Peters wouldn't be drawn on whether Parker's appearance meant there was discussion on Labour's water royalty policy, which Peters has said he would oppose. It is thought that Labour is well-prepared to give the policy away in negotiations with NZ First in respect to charges aimed at commercial water users; both parties agree, however, on the more targeted policy of taxing bottled water exports.
Meanwhile, Peters was asked whether his earlier comments on changing the economic direction of New Zealand meant both National and Labour needed to move on Reserve Bank reform. "Well, it's a brilliant question but I can't possibly tell you the answer to that because it's confidential," he replied.
While Labour wants to make changes including bringing unemployment under the Reserve Bank's targets - something Peters himself did through tweaked wording of the government's Policy Targets Agreement with the Bank in 1996 - Peters this time wants to go further in making the Bank use the exchange rate as its key monetary policy tool rather than the Official Cash Rate, along the lines of Singapore's set up.
Labour: Talks going well
Labour Party leader Jacinda Ardern said talks with each of New Zealand First and the Greens were going well. Watch her comments in the short video below:
81 Comments
I can understand how foreign money invested into businesses , farms , property developments , tourism sites adds to our economy , creates jobs , products and services ...
... but please , Winnie , ask the Gnats how on God's green earth does allowing non-residents-non-citizens large scale ownership of our houses in any way , shape or form benefit the average Kiwi battler on Struggle Street .... hmmmmm ?
You might care to rephrase your question as to "how foreign money invested into establishing new businesses"
A comparison is the difference in a foreign entity buying an existing residential house versus building a new residential house
I have pondered these questions on many occasions and in following it through to the very end and acknowledging "ownership" and the need for the foreign investor to extract a dividend or ROI there is no net benefit that I can find - its a fallacy
... simple soul that I am ; I remember that Chinese consortium who applied to the OIO or whatever it's called , seeking permission to buy a huge block of land from the Stewart family ... and they had a detailed proposal to create an industrial park ... and the site would have created 5000 new jobs ... but they were knocked back ...
And yet , foreigners can seemingly buy up as much of our housing stock , no questions asked ... and the net effect is no new jobs created , just more upward pressure on the prices of the existing housing stock , pushing it further out of reach of FHB's who live and work in Godzone ...
... sigh ! ... I really don't get it ....
Are you referring to the Stevenson Family of quarrying fame? I remember that proposal - the problem with these proposals is the development of the industrial park is a short-term job-creator for the construction and earthworks operators - a separate issue is the next leg along the proposal and that's to get as yet un-identified others to come in and establish new buildings to house businesses - again short-term one-offs - its the getting someone to come in and establish new businesses there and not simply transfer existing businesses from an older part of town to the new industrial park - the whole thing had a blue-sky component to it
Yes .. Stevenson's ... as far as I recall the plan envisaged 5000 new and permanent jobs at the new site after construction was completed ... and they expected a mix of new and transferred existing businesses ...
... it's not such a shabby idea to shift certain industrial operations further out from the city's CBD , and free up the land for housing projects ...
But , like I say , foreign money in these sorts of investments seems to be a net benefit to the economy and to job creation : whereas foreign money shunted into our existing houses is detrimental to FHB's in particular ... and of no real benefit long term to our wider economy ...
My confidence in him grows by the day.
Policy by policy was the only way he could approach this and I suspect minor concessions and a few baubles simply won't do - as scrutiny by the media against what he campaigned on will (I imagine) be very detailed;
In Winston we trust.
I was going to vote for him pre-Jacinda. And I would have voted for him on his policies - which align much more closely with Labour.
This country really is at a critical juncture. REALLY is.
I don't underestimate the importance of his decision and what he can negotiate.
Personally, I think National left him a few Gimmes. Things that can be enacted immediately that will also appeal to their own supporter base such as....
Super Age - they will drop it straight back to 65, as nothing has even happened yet.
and
Immigration - they have done nothing at all, so any change is a "concession"
then you have the potential to remove the Maori Electorates. That will go down relatively well with most Nats.
not really - it will be a three year delay only - as NZF wont exist next time - no matter who they go with - and lets be honest - it will get reversed by a labour government - reinstated by a national one and reversed again over the next 15 years anyway -
its a slam dunk giveaway - no cost - the tax cuts though ..... NZF voted for them - will Jacinda give them up ?
NZ First has had it's wish list of wants honed and manicured for a long time whereas Labour weren't even expecting to be in this position 3 months ago so NZ First will be a mature seasoned guide to them for sure - all labour have to do is breathe deeply, pucker up and suck a few lemons
... you do have to laugh , that Labour had 9 years in opposition ... and yet they went into the election with no detailed tax policy ...
Something as simple as that ... TAX !
... poor Jacinda ... they threw her the hospital pass of trying to explain that their tax working group would formulate something after the election ... and trust us , it'll all be good stuff .... heee heeee heeeeeee ....
If you have any belief that Winston Peters is anything but a massive egotist with no real policies listen to this interview. Peters is competent for five minutes abusing people - but can't handle any discussion of his views and can't back anything that he says
https://www.theclaritybusiness.co.nz/blog/post/20730/An-interviewing-ma…
thanks, a timely reminder of a shallow man and his "policies" ! ... NZF will eventually be flushed down no matter who he gets with .... it will be used as a mule to get into power and then will be left out to dry and erode in the cold....pity that some silly people think it is that easy to turn the clock back .... others seem to believe they can dictate their old dreams 30 odd years later and the rest of NZ will just take that with a smile ....
Behold, both Entertaining and Sad times ahead !!
You forget Winston has the Gold card and free doctors visits for children under his belt and there are many who recognize him as a politician who has delivered. Also his anti neo liberal attitude is widely shared by the public (regardless of its practicality.) The only reason NZ First will fade will be because Winston retires or dies. He has a huge amount of experience. If you read NZ history you may notice that our standard of living has been dropping consistently since the 60s regardless of whichever govt is in power: perhaps a return to old policies may change that.
I am aware of our history and regardless of good or otherwise intentions, the clock does not go back ... What happened in NZ happened also to the entire world and that is because of too many complicated matters shaping the modern world order and dominance beginning from the cold war and past 1973 changes on all fronts ( that is why governments of all colors were almost hopeless in stopping it, the best they could do is pretend to resist).
I am sorry to say this, but amidst our national pride and naivety, we tend to forget our real size and value on the world scene and how powerless we can be in the face of big tides .. a mere fact to remember before screaming too loud.
WP's comparison with Singapore and others is comparing apples with pears ... a morphine shot and total BS believed only by illiterates and naive people .... I agree that NZF will be worth nothing politically without WP ,,, BTW, his achievements mentioned above were just peanuts compared to real issues he bargained for ... and yet they got rid of him 3 times before !!
I did like your statement : " Also his anti neo liberal attitude is widely shared by the public (regardless of its practicality.) " But, What would you call someone who shares or believes impractical views and policies? Dreamers? or ...?
Strange you believe things cant go back - is there a reasoned argument behind this belief? Some of the countries that still retain high standards of living have the same political/economic rationale that NZ had in the 60s - Scandinavia. The fact we are small and remote means we can go our own way and have done consistently in the past: ACC, Pharmac, and even Rogernomics (while it followed Thatcher/Reagan, we actually went the whole hog - I'm not sure there are any other countries that have no domestic market protections yet: that's why we need Free Trade Agreements)
When you dismiss his achievements as peanuts you miss their appeal to the electorate and benefit to the public. That's what keeps him in Parliament (plus perhaps the desire to annoy the "powers that be" that cant stand him. )
As to believers in things with dubious practicalities I call them ambitious and innovators.
why do businesses have to own the land, they can lease and claim the expense back,
the business can come and go ( manufacturing moved overseas) but the land will remain and in most cases be sold off when not needed.
there is no additional economic benefit from owning the land as opposed to leasing apart from CG for a business, sometimes it works against as they are hampered by a building that needs to be maintained or redesigned, and it can be more beneficial to move to a new purpose built facility but because they already own it that holds back any decision.
When you have run current account deficits for 47 consecutive years you will have funded this very significant deficit by either printing money, borrowing offshore or selling assets to foreigners.
There are no other possible ways to solve this.
A debate about foreign ownership is actually a debate about C/A deficits.
I am of the view that fundamentally this has been caused by an over-valued exchange rate and until that is addressed we will continue to flog off our assets to fund our habit.
Other views on this logic please ?
Yes we have long-run current account deficits, but they are not large and they are getting smaller.
In the year to June they were 'only' 2.8% of GDP. It is only a few years where they are smaller. And the main times they shrink is in recessions. Recessions are when we have produced current account surpluses or tiny deficits !
And to believe they are "too large" now, you have to believe that GDP is the right measuring stick. If you use some of these more exotic yardsticks, the C/A deficit to them will be even smaller (and less relevant).
The other point is that "foreign ownership" of New Zealand is shirinking on a relative basis. That is, foreign owned assets as a percent of all assets in New Zealand is low and going down. Those that fret about this issue only ever look at the liabilities in an absolute sense, never balance it off with the assets involved. Makes for better hand-wringing I suppose.
Those that fret about this issue only ever look at the liabilities in an absolute sense, never balance it off with the assets involved. Makes for better hand-wringing I suppose.
Do you mean elevated asset values fueled by cheap debt funded speculation, underwritten by bank depositors?
Current Account to GDP ratios are totally inappropriate measures for this variable.
On this basis building prisons, fixing leaky homes and rebuilding CHCH all lower this ratio by expanding GDP yet no one seriously believes that these increase our ability to service our foreign liabilities.
While 2.8 % seems low it equates to ~ $ 7 Billion pa of incremental borrowing or assets sales. Quite a lot of houses.
A more appropriate measure is exports to foreign debts - measured on a gross basis for the simple reason it is gross debt we have to roll - not net and this is our major exposure.
These ratio's don't look so swish.
We have lived now in a very unusual low interest rate environment post the GFC which we can't assume will continue for ever. The very long run US T30 is ~ 7 % - something we should never forget !
As Buffett has stated - long run current account deficits lead to a sharecropper society - not a shareholder.
The biggest clowns are the Greens, wonder what movie James Shaw went to last night?
As for Nats and Labour they will been having a few whines with Winnie and Winnie is loving it extracting all the blood out of both of then until one falls over
The Parliamentary people are use to a circus of kindergarten kids
i believe they have been in parliament for a long long time - next they will get something done that is not a scrap from someone else's table - think insulation from the Nats for poor tenants .... oh wait rich landlords - and from labour - ????? that's right the first phone call!!
Yeah , cos there's no conceivable way the Greens and Labour are talking behind the scenes.
Sheesh , the Greens know they are going to get included , because without them there is no deal.
They clearly campaigned on changing the government, and that is what they are sticking too.
Pankies, it must be irritating for you that the debacle the Greens were faced with a few months ago is likely to be rewarded by getting on the Government benches in a few weeks. They have had to eat humble pie politically speaking, which is something National is likely to face as well, in a few days.
Yes its interesting, but really the Green's choice is be at the table with whatever crumbs they get left or sit on the cross benches. Personally I like the idea of being on the cross benches, in effect they can negotiate strong Green policy every time.
Hence I suspect WP will go with National because WP cant otherwise operate.
The sleight of hand of Slick Billy's constant repetitive refrain about his $1000 tax cut
Read carefully suckers
How many earning under $52,000 voted for him but won't get the $1000
Earn under $26000 you probably won't get anything - suckers
Remember that sing-song in the debates - $1000 tax cut
From the budget manifesto
The tax cuts are set to boost the incomes of workers earning between $26,000 and $52,000 by $560 per year and by $1000 for those earning more than $52,000
Wern't 75 % actually going to pay less tax under Labour's proposals ?.
I think National ran the most dishonest campaign we have seen in a long time . They took full advantage of Adern's "relentless positivey".
Having said that , I think the biggest mistake Labour made was not giving EVERYONE at least a small tax cut. I don't think the resulting delay in the deficit reduction would have been a major election problem .
The September newsletter from “Positive Money” (a group dedicated to creating “a money and banking system that serves a fair, democratic, and sustainable economy”) may, however, give many Labour supporters cause to wonder whether any of those assumptions were justified.
In the newsletter, two of Positive Money’s stalwarts, Don Richards and Sue Hamill, describe a “surprising and somewhat disappointing” exchange of views with Sir Michael Cullen at an election meeting in Whakatane on Friday, 15 September:
When Richard’s and Sue’s report of this encounter was drawn to my attention, I responded with the following comment:
“That is the most alarming piece of intelligence I have received in the entire course of the 2017 election campaign. It is hard to distinguish which is the most dispiriting aspect of [the] report: that Grant Robertson cannot answer basic questions on political economy without reference to his mentor, Sir Michael Cullen; or, that Sir Michael’s grasp of these issues is as woeful as Don Brash’s (who also refuses to accept that banks create money). If this truly is the level of understanding in Labour's senior ranks, then we are all - to use a technical political science term - fucked.” Read more
This subject comes up time and time again yet I don't understand how banks create money or more precisely how they can lend money they don't have in their account with the central bank. Can someone who believe Brash et al are incompetent or obfuscate please enlighten me?
Sorry, that's a clear as mud. The article goes off on tangents about capital ratios etc. I want to know how banks create money to lend? If a bank's balance sheet has $100 of loans funded by say $8 of equity and $92 of deposits, how does it create more money to lend without finding more equity or deposits?
if you are actually interested, i found http://positivemoney.org.nz/ to be the easiest to understand. If you are a TLDR kinda guy, basically it is illegal to print paper notes or mint coins, but it is not illegal to type in "$400,000" into someone's mortgage account when they settle a sale and purchase, as "electronic" money creation is neither hard paper or hard coin. Mind boggling eh... and our fellow Labour lawmakers apparently can't grasp this.
I initially was disbelieving of this a few years back when reading comments from fellow commenters on this excellent site. Now I realize I was just naïve, the banks are pillaging our citizens like every other foreign company.
The site states
The banks in essense do not have the money that they lend out to us. At best they have less than 10% that they pay interest on and create the balance (90%+) out of thin air, by simply entering the amount on a spreadsheet. We then borrow the full 100% of the loan, including the 90%+ the bank does not have and pay interest and the principal – including the bit the bank never had in the first place.
So next I need to go to a bank balance sheet in NZ and see that they have 90% of that balance sheet in free deposits.
It concerns me that Ex Expat was not aware of the fact that banks basically create a lot of money out of thin air. Yet real estate investors are among those that helped to create this situation. There is now an enormous disconnect between the amount of money owed and the value of the actual assets of many nations. The real wealth of any nation is in its material and intellectual resources and its ability to use them. It is very possible that the capitalist money system will collapse but after a period of immense upheaval the world will once again revert to a system based on a nations real assets.
How about educating me by explaining how Kiwibank is creating lots of money? I don’t see it. I have people linking to pages that don’t make sense. I look at the Kiwibank balance sheet and see deposits (mostly interest bearing) supporting assets (loans). I suspect it is you that don’t understand. Prove me wrong in your own words. Not a link to some flat earth like conspiracy page.
...read this? Might help.
http://www.interest.co.nz/comment/reply/90235/961370
The asset liability mismatch can usually be resolved by unrevealed foreign borrowing which gets turned into NZD via off balance sheet cross currency basis swaps.
The RBNZ makes a collective, ill-informed attempt to reconcile the mismatch here line 11
Yep. The biggest fraud ever committed. It is literally treason against the people by governments. It is a nation's sovereign right to print it's own currency yet the ability to create money/debt is given away to private interests. Entire nations are beholden to banks. Central banks, including the RBNZ premise of financial stability is in reality protecting the corporate banks.
That the banks create money was already known here - "The banks do create money. They have been doing it for a long time, but they didn't quite realise it, and they did not admit it. Very few did. You will find it in all sorts of documents, financial textbooks, etc. But in the intervening years, and we must all be perfectly frank about these things, there has been a development of thought, until today I doubt very much whether you would get many prominent bankers to attempt to deny that banks create credit.”
— H. W. White, Chairman of the Associated Banks of New Zealand, to the New Zealand Monetary Commission, 1955
"If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without a debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. That Government must be destroyed, or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe." (The monarchy of the money lenders.) - Lord Goschen, spokesman of the Financiers, wrote in the London Times (Quote taken from Who Rules America by C. K. Howe, and reproduced in Lincoln Money Martyred by Dr. R. E. Search)
"I have two great enemies, the Southern army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. And of the two, the bankers are my greatest foe." - Abraham Lincoln
Finally, on December 23, 1913, the U.S. Congress voted in the Federal Reserve Act, which took away from Congress the power to create money, and which handed over this power to the Federal Reserve Corporation. One of the rare Congressmen who had understood all the issue at stake in this Act, Representative Charles A. Lindbergh Sr. (Rep-Minnesota), father of the famous aviator, said:
"This Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President (Wilson) signs this bill, the invisible government of the Monetary Power will be legalized... The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill."
"Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin. Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money and control credit, and with the flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again. Take this great power away from the bankers and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this would be a better and happier world to live in. But if you want to continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money and to control credit." — Sir Josiah Stamp, Director, Bank of England, 1940
Let's shed a little more light upon the situation from multiple sources. And yes, there is a demand for more regulatory equity and capital to underpin the creation of deposits from lending. A financial stability problem arises because regulators have enabled large banks to introduce self qualified capital leverage via risk weighted asset ratios (RWA).
Hey mate, here's one useful explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JG5c8nhR3LE
The Consent of the Conned
http://www.oftwominds.com/blogoct17/conned10-17.html
There is nothing we can to do about foreign ownership. TPP and all the other FTAs will need to be rewritten. Ain't going to happen. Foreign ownership is here to stay. Our only hope is for Jacinda to stick to her guns and force renegotiation of TTP. Even then, China and Korea still can buy up large because of our agreement with Australia. Maybe we can stop the Swiss, Russians and Americans.,. But probably not. Expect to be a serf to foreign money in NZ.
tppa is not signed, Chinese FTA only includes a clause that requires them to be treated the same, problem is the south korea FTA (which is not passed yet) allows them to buy our property but it is not reciprocal so should not be that hard to change.
CER is a different class than an FTA it includes how and what citizens can claim and do in each country, i.e Australian citizens are eligible for everything a NZ citizen is in NZ
FTA's only cover trade, duties and tax treatments
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.