When Governments start interfering in the free exchange of property by political decree for political advantage, we risk the very basis of our property-owning society, argues Gerrard Eckhoff.
Foreign investment and ownership of farmland in New Zealand is being painted as being the same as foreign ownership of New Zealand.
The sale of farmland is the current and fashionable whipping boy to deflect attention away from the inability of this country to create real internal wealth.
Much of our farmland was developed by foreign capital by way of bank borrowings, whether by government subsidy or loans by the major New Zealand banks, which in turn borrow from overseas investors.
The sudden burst of patriotic sound bites from our political leaders opining that the sale of farms to overseas interests undermines our sovereignty and that New Zealand belongs to New Zealanders, gives real credence to Samuel Johnson's observation that "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel".
It is not unreasonable to suggest that special sites of real historical interest and value to New Zealanders should remain in New Zealand ownership but there are owners of such sites who now live overseas. Is that really a problem and does it affect who we are as a people?
Clearly, few people bother to concern themselves with the fact that the foreign-owned banks hold mortgages over most of our farmland, so they in effect have a significant input into the management of the farm.
We export 95% of our dairy products and most of our meat, so presumably it is whose name is on the title that causes the most outrage at the sale of farmland and not the sale of product overseas. It should not be forgotten that for a purchase to occur the current New Zealand owner receives a sum of money for the purchase.
I presume that that influx of capital for other local investment is acceptable so it must be the new (foreign) name on the title that is the problem. That would also tend to put those who feel so aggrieved at the loss of land in Hone Harawira's camp, as he, too, has long railed against we of (foreign) European descent owning land in New Zealand.
It also needs to be explained why it is alright for New Zealand companies to buy land in Uruguay, as they currently do, without a similar reaction from that country.
Foreigners have been accused of driving up the price of farmland.
In recent time, it was the Labour government which paid huge sums of money for farm properties, well over twice the going rate in some cases. St James Station was purchased a few years ago for $40 million by the Clark government.
Furthermore, our ACC Corporation, through its subsidiary Greenfields, was a market leader in the prices it paid for farming properties.
The Clark government and ACC competed against their own citizens and drove up the price of farm land dramatically.
Farmers will also be puzzled as to why it is perfectly in order for virtually the entire Queenstown waterfront to be in foreign ownership.
That area is regarded as one of the most iconic landscapes in this country, so how is it possible that such sites have been lost to New Zealand ownership, or does urban land not count? There can be no doubt that the rents received from that water frontage far exceed the return from any farm in New Zealand.
How many other cities have sold significant commercial buildings to foreign investors and is that really a problem?
When governments start interfering in the free exchange of property by political decree for political advantage we risk the very basis of our property-owning society that has given us a first world status.
Whether it be farms or factories, there must continue to be an open market free from political patronage or direction for all to participate in. Anything less begs the question of what is next to be state controlled after farm sales?
• Gerrard Eckhoff is a Central Otago farmer.
