Sitting on a farm verandah in Whakatane as the mid-morning sun melted off the last of the night's frost, a train went by. Freshly cut trees piled on top of each other clanked their way past, breaking into the sound of the birds. I was informed they were going to Japan. In that moment, I truly visualised globalisation for the first time.
I could see trees straight from the mill, hard working local men cutting down the pines, the farms where they were being grown, the trip on the train to the harbour, the sea-bound journey to Tokyo where they would be greeted by organised and efficient Japanese wharfies. This is the journey of pinus radiata from New Zealand’s picturesque countryside to the technological Mecca of Tokyo.
I thought of all the chopsticks I threw in the bin when I was there (and felt slightly guilty); was the wood from the beautiful Bay of Plenty? It seemed a waste.
Globalisation, it's a simple turn of events; we use our land to grow goods for people who don't have the room. They give us money. We buy cars back.
The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research recently put out its 17th issue "In defence of foreign investment'. Jean-Pierre de Raad, chief executive of NZIER, prepared the case, which argued New Zealand was "inexorably intertwined with the global economy through trade and investments".
The NZIER said poll-driven reactions to the possibility of foreign investment were clearly unhelpful, yet acknowledged that "globalisation does not rest easily with all".
The report said "we have a long history of significant foreign investment. Indeed, foreigners had $293 billion invested in our $187 billion a year economy in March 2009”.
They made the same point highlighted on the front page of the August 10, 2010, Straight Furrow that land-based acquisitions by foreigners had not been particularly dramatic. Of this, Asian investment in New Zealand land was at low levels.
Is this a result of New Zealand’s desire to retain land? Seeing the Overseas Investment Office has only denied two applications in five years, it seems more probable (to me) foreign investors are a bit more business savvy.
Possibly they do some homework and research our regulations. After discovering emissions trading, council regulations and the time that it takes to get resource consent under the RMA, plus the increasing emphasis on preventing farm pollution, and the risks associated with it, not to mention general rates, they decide against it.
New Zealanders are inherently financially conservative and still invest in land rather over the stock market or going into business. Unfortunately for our economy, renting land and buying shares often pays better in the end.
For the poor farmers stuck in another ETS bureaucratic hole, who leased their land to forestry companies, being the landowner has meant they will have to foot the emissions bill (up to $18,000 per hectare) or re-plant often prime dairy land with forest, when the company that owns the trees decides to cull.
Watching the train clamber past me, en route the northern hemisphere, I realised land ownership was probably irrelevant. If the final consumer is the person who pays for the entire production process, with all those trees going offshore, they own us anyway - deed or no deed.
Email a friend