SUBSCRIBER-ONLY POLL RESULT: Should the Overseas Investment Office be abolished?
See what NBR poll participants thought about Dr Whyte's opinions
The Overseas Investment Office (OIO) should not be abolished, say most NBR poll participants.
Last week, Federated Farmers backed Labour MP Stuart Nash’s call for the OIO to uphold their commitment to add value to New Zealand assets.
The Napier MP says selling off vital productive land to overseas investors who simply suck the profits out of the country is a “dead end street.”
Mr Nash says figures compiled by the Parliamentary Library show just 1.5% of all applications for sales of sensitive assets have been declined since National took office.
Federated Farmers President William Rolleston says although it supports direct overseas investment, there needs to be demonstrable benefits for sensitive assets.
He says if an investor located overseas can add something that New Zealanders can’t or won’t provide, then there is a benefit to the country.
Asked about value lost when foreign investors don’t uphold their commitments, Dr Rolleston told NBR the figures were not available, meaning it’s difficult to have a decent debate around the strengths and weaknesses.
“The trouble is that we don’t have enough information to tell whether conditions are being kept or if a previously undisclosed strategy is being followed,” he says.
Former ACT party leader Jamie Whyte claimed both Mr Nash and Dr Rolleston were confused, “as was David Cunliffe and many other politicians who peddled the same idea during the election campaign.”
“The Overseas Investment Act, which Mr Nash and Dr Rolleston wish to see enforced more rigorously, has a provision whose effect can only be to make New Zealand businesses less efficient.
“Specifically, it allows foreign purchases of a business on condition that the foreigner will increase the number of people employed by the firm.”
He added the Overseas Investment Act also allows foreign ownership if the foreigner will sell more of the goods produced to other foreigners.
“This export condition is not as damaging as the inefficiency condition but it is bizarre nevertheless.”
Dr Whyte says the problem is not a lack of zeal in enforcing the provision of the Overseas Investment Act, the problem is with its existence.
Despite Dr Whyte’s opinions, some 69% of poll participants did not see just cause for the OIO to be abolished.
Jason Walls
Thu, 15 Jan 2015
Thu, 15 Jan 2015
© All content copyright NBR. Do not reproduce in any form without permission, even if you have a paid subscription.
SUBSCRIBER-ONLY POLL RESULT: Should the Overseas Investment Office be abolished?
44394