Foreign farm ownership merits deeper analysis

Friends came to New Zealand to manage a farm and a few years later they bought it.

Since then they have poured more money into it, increased its carrying capacity, productivity and the number of people employed on it.

They are active in the local community, their children go to local schools and they are involved with various farming organisations.

They are the positive face of overseas ownership of farmland and, in my experience, they are the rule, not the exception.

The emotive response to the idea of foreign investment suggests that many people have a more negative view.

Opposition to foreign ownership has grown more vocal over the sale of the Crafar farms.

Some of that opposition is because of the nationality of the bidder, some to foreign ownership in general.

It is difficult to counter racism or xenophobia with reason.

But there is a degree of hypocrisy in benefiting from the foreign exchange earned by New Zealand individuals and companies on farms they own in other countries, and opposing the idea of people from other places being able to own farms here.

Its not who owns the land but what they do with it that really matters.

Purchasers can't take the land away and they have to abide by district and regional plans and other regulations and laws which apply to us all.

We are a nation of immigrants and immigration contributes a growing percentage of our population increase.

Statistics New Zealand's commentary on latest population estimates said that natural increase contributed four-fifths of our population growth over the past 40 years, but in the March quarter this year the natural increase was down to only a little more than three-fifths of the growth.

If this trend continues and immigrants are excluded from purchasing farmland, the pool of people with the right to buy will get smaller, the market will contract and prices will fall.

Farmers don't need any downward pressure on land values which would impact on the equity they have in their properties.

Opposition to foreign ownership fails to acknowledge the advantages of capital injection and new ideas the purchasers bring.

Nor does it recognise the advantage for the vendor who may get a better price from the sale than if would-be purchasers were limited to locals.

However, some of the opposition is not based on the farm ownership per se, but the amount of land that might be bought and what might happen with the produce.

Concern that foreigners might buy large tracts of our land, process its produce in their own factories, ship it offshore and keep the profits there, is valid.

However, any law change should address those concerns specifically rather than limiting land sales generally.

Then, rather than getting upset over the idea of overseas ownership, we should ask why New Zealanders can't compete on the open market for the purchase of our own farms and address the causes of that.

Elspeth Ludemann is a North Otago farmer.

 

Add a Comment