Latest news with #OverseasInvestmentOffice
RNZ News
4 days ago
- Business
- RNZ News
Why has a bill to relax foreign investment rules had so little scrutiny?
By Jane Kelsey* of Photo: RNZ Analysis : While public attention has been focused on the domestic fast-track consenting process for infrastructure and mining, Associate Minister of Finance David Seymour has been pushing through another fast-track process - this time for foreign investment in New Zealand. But it has had almost no public scrutiny. If the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill becomes law, it could have far-reaching consequences. Public submissions on the bill close on 23 July. A product of the ACT-National coalition agreement , the bill commits to amend the Overseas Investment Act 2005 "to limit ministerial decision making to national security concerns and make such decision making more timely". There are valid concerns that piecemeal reforms to the current act have made it complex and unwieldy. But the new bill is equally convoluted and would significantly reduce effective scrutiny of foreign investments - especially in forestry. Step one of a three-step process set out in the bill gives the regulator - the Overseas Investment Office which sits within Land Information NZ - 15 days to decide whether a proposed investment would be a risk to New Zealand's "national interest". If they don't perceive a risk, or that initial assessment is not completed in time, the application is automatically approved. Transactions involving fisheries quotas and various land categories, or any other applications the regulator identifies, will require a "national interest" assessment under stage two. These would be assessed against a "ministerial letter" that sets out the government's general policy and preferred approach to conducting the assessment, including any conditions on approvals. Other mandatory factors to be considered in the second stage include the act's new "purpose" to increase economic opportunity through "timely consent" of less sensitive investments. The new test would allow scrutiny of the character and capability of the investor to be omitted altogether. If the regulator considers the national interest test is not met, or the transaction is "contrary to the national interest", the minister of finance then makes a decision based on their assessment of those factors. Seymour has blamed the current screening regime for low volumes of foreign investment. But Treasury's 2024 regulatory impact statement on the proposed changes to international investment screening acknowledges many other factors that influence investor decisions. Moreover, the Treasury statement acknowledges public views that foreign investment rules should "manage a wide range of risks" and "that there is inherent non-economic value in retaining domestic ownership of certain assets". Treasury officials also recognised a range of other public concerns, including profits going offshore, loss of jobs, and foreign control of iconic businesses. The regulatory impact statement did not cover these factors because it was required to consider only the coalition commitment. The Treasury panel reported "notable limitations" on the bill's quality assurance process. A fuller review was "infeasible" because it could not be completed in the time required, and would be broader than necessary to meet the coalition commitment to amend the act in the prescribed way. The requirement to implement the bill in this parliamentary term meant the options officials could consider, even within the scope of the coalition agreement, were further limited. Time constraints meant "users and key stakeholders have not been consulted", according to the Treasury statement. Environmental and other risks would have to be managed through other regulations. There is no reference to te Tiriti o Waitangi or mana whenua engagement. While the bill largely retains a version of the current screening regime for residential and farm land, it removes existing forestry activities from that definition (but not new forestry on non-forest land). It also removes extraction of water for bottling, or other bulk extraction for human consumption, from special vetting. Where sensitive land (such as islands, coastal areas, conservation and wahi tapu land) is not residential or farm land, it would be removed from special screening rules currently applied for land. Repeal of the " special forestry test " - which in practice has seen most applications approved , albeit with conditions - means most forestry investments could be fast-tracked. There would no longer be a need to consider investors' track records or apply a "benefit to New Zealand" test. Regulators may or may not be empowered to impose conditions such as replanting or cleaning up slash. The official documents don't explain the rationale for this. But it looks like a win for Regional Development Minister Shane Jones, and was perhaps the price of NZ First's support. It has potentially serious implications for forestry communities affected by climate-related disasters , however. Further weakening scrutiny and investment conditions risks intensifying the already devastating impacts of international forestry companies. Taxpayers and ratepayers pick up the costs while the companies can minimise their taxes and send profits offshore. Finally, these changes could be locked in through New Zealand's free trade agreements. Several such agreements say New Zealand's investment regime cannot become more restrictive than the 2005 act and its regulations. A " ratchet clause " would lock in any further liberalisation through this bill, from which there is no going back. However, another annex in those free trade agreements could be interpreted as allowing some flexibility to alter the screening rules and criteria in the future. None of the official documents address this crucial question. As an academic expert in this area I am uncertain about the risk. But the lack of clarity underlines the problems exemplified in this bill. It is another example of coalition agreements bypassing democratic scrutiny and informed decision making. More public debate and broad analysis is needed on the bill and its implications. *Jane Kelsey, Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau This story was originally published on The Conversation.
Otago Daily Times
08-07-2025
- Business
- Otago Daily Times
Australian mining company buys up 2800ha in South Island
File photo: Marjorie Cook Australian mining company Santana Minerals has bought more than 2800ha of Central Otago land for $25 million in preparation for its Bendigo-Ophir Gold Project. Last week, the company announced it had acquired outright Ardgour Station land near Tarras "which has competing land uses" over part of the project. The company has estimated it could extract gold worth $4.4 billion from an open pit and underground gold mine on Bendigo and Ardgour Stations. Chief executive Damian Spring said in a statement the company was pleased to have completed the "respectful and mutually beneficial" transaction with the station's owners. The agreement included a non-refundable deposit of $2m and Santana Minerals shares worth $5m, to be paid at settlement with cash consideration of $18m. The total acquisition includes four land records of title covering an estimated 2880ha of land including "all irrigable lands, water rights and infrastructure". The freehold ownership of Ardgour Station land covers the proposed location of the project's process plant and most of the infrastructure for development. "This secures our development rights for the majority of the Bendigo-Ophir Gold Project infrastructure and uncomplicates competing land uses when the project proceeds," Mr Spring said. The transaction is subject to Overseas Investment Office approval. - APL
Otago Daily Times
08-07-2025
- Business
- Otago Daily Times
Santana buys 2800ha in Central
Australian mining company Santana Minerals has bought more than 2800ha of Central Otago land for $25 million in preparation for its Bendigo-Ophir Gold Project. Last week, the company announced it had acquired outright Ardgour Station land near Tarras "which has competing land uses" over part of the project. The company has estimated it could extract gold worth $4.4 billion from an open pit and underground gold mine on Bendigo and Ardgour Stations. Chief executive Damian Spring said in a statement the company was pleased to have completed the "respectful and mutually beneficial" transaction with the station's owners. The agreement included a non-refundable deposit of $2m and Santana Minerals shares worth $5m, to be paid at settlement with cash consideration of $18m. The total acquisition includes four land records of title covering an estimated 2880ha of land including "all irrigable lands, water rights and infrastructure". The freehold ownership of Ardgour Station land covers the proposed location of the project's process plant and most of the infrastructure for development. "This secures our development rights for the majority of the Bendigo-Ophir Gold Project infrastructure and uncomplicates competing land uses when the project proceeds," Mr Spring said. The transaction is subject to Overseas Investment Office approval. — APL
NZ Herald
26-05-2025
- Business
- NZ Herald
If freezing works close, rural towns die. We need a plan to save them
In total, 95,000ha of Kiwi land was bought by foreigners and converted – or is in the process of being converted – between 2015 and 2025, according to Overseas Investment Office records. Pine trees, which are brilliant at sequestering carbon, are not completely taking over. If you look at a timeline of Google Earth satellite images from 30 years back until today, Hawke's Bay's map shows a pop-up of dark green mould-like spots, rather than a dark green wave as some would have you believe. Farmland is still in the vast majority, even if, in Tararua communities like Pongaroa, those still left feel like they're surrounded on all sides. The forestry industry adds value to our economy. China likes our timber. But the industry's ability to generate positive income while the trees actually grow means its benefits pale in comparison to the glory days of our sheep, beef and wool industries. What made those economic days so powerful and so romanticised in the Kiwi imagination is the equity the industries provided to our society. Needed a good-paying job? Go to your small town's local meatworks. Didn't like the meatworks? Join a shearing gang. No qualifications were needed and not a lot of transport – just the ability to get up, day in and day out. When meatworks began to close from the 1980s onwards, the job losses in the regions left gaping holes. Instead of shearing gangs, actual gangs began to thrive, fed a steady diet of poor and alienated youths who had no easy-money job to walk into to better themselves. Today, the remaining abattoirs are still a celebrated part of the communities they sit in, but they're also a source of constant apprehension. In Takapau or Wairoa, for example – both on the precipice of a changing landscape of pines instead of sheep – the main hope is that they'll survive another decade. Ask anyone in Wairoa what would happen if Affco were to pack up and leave. If the town is struggling now, its hope of pulling residents out of that hole would be completely hobbled without its main employer. Perhaps it's time for the Government to think about this in a different way, before it's too late for the likes of Wairoa. We need some bold thinking to find a new industry regional New Zealand can latch upon, one that can give those without qualifications a steady income, on a scale that matches that of the meatworks. One thing is for certain, forestry alone cannot. Sign up to the Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Newsroom
21-04-2025
- Business
- Newsroom
Questions raised over fishing trawlers' benefits
One of the world's largest seafood companies threatened to pull a commercial fishing vessel out of New Zealand if it didn't get Overseas Investment Office approval. Tokyo-listed Japanese company Maruha Nichiro Corporation, which has a market capitalisation of ¥155 billion ($NZ1.84b), wanted approval, through its New Zealand arm, to acquire interests in fishing quota.
