GUEST BLOG: Tadhg Stopford – NZs Plight, Peril, Potential, & Power

OUR PLIGHT: FROM NATION TO ASSET POOL

New Zealand likes to imagine itself as small, open, and fair. But on the things that matter most – our land, our capacity to shape our own future, and our collective economic resilience – we are not where we should be.

Our politics and policy frameworks are broken.

Over the last forty years a set of policy choices has shifted the country away from building national capability and resilience toward enabling the sale and control of strategic economic assets.

We sell land.

We sell infrastructure.

We sell future income streams.

We sell control.

These shifts did not happen by accident, nor through explicit democratic consent. They emerged from an economic framework that prioritised capital mobility and deregulation over structured public-interest assessment.

In recent months Parliament passed major reforms to the Overseas Investment Act 2005 which, among other things, consolidated the existing Benefit to New Zealand test. This required investors to demonstrate clear benefits to the country; replaced now by a broader and faster ‘national interest test’ for most asset classes.

Under the new regime, sensitive decisions must now be made within short statutory timeframes and the onus has shifted from investors proving benefits to the Government identifying risks to national interest. These changes explicitly make the presumption in favour of approval unless risk is identified, rather than requiring clear benefit to be shown first.

“Foreign capital investment” is repeatedly described in official statements as “productive,” and its expansion is presented as essential for jobs and growth. The Government says that faster and simpler approval pathways for overseas investment will fix the existing regime and bring jobs, productivity, and economic opportunity.

But much foreign direct investment in New Zealand has taken the form of acquisition of existing assets rather than the creation of new productive capacity, and research suggests that productivity spillovers from foreign investment here have been limited and sector-specific rather than economy-wide.  A favourite example is the miserly and ridiculous eleven million dollars NZ earns in royalties each year from the near half billion dollars revenue of Oceana Gold

What is celebrated as “growth” often means rising asset prices and increased foreign control, rather than deeper national capability. As a result we have less control over land, less economic diversity, and less resilience in the face of shocks or global volatility.

Under the new law, the explicit requirement to demonstrate that an investment will bring benefits over and above what would occur without the investment has been replaced by a broader risk-based rationale which may consider benefits only after risks are flagged, and within tight procedural time limits.

The presumption has shifted:

Capital no longer must justify itself to the nation. The nation must now justify protecting itself from capital.

That is the plight.

THE PERIL: WHEN STEWARDSHIP IS ABANDONED

Land is not just another commodity. It is ecological, cultural, strategic, and intergenerational.

Once alienated – once control over land, water, or key infrastructure is transferred out of the hands of the public – it cannot be recreated or meaningfully reclaimed.

Ask Maori.

Regulation after sale is weaker than conditions before sale, and dispossession is largely irreversible.

That is why the Benefit to New Zealand test existed: it recognised that

• environmental damage is often irreversible,

• cultural and heritage loss cannot be monetised,

• public access, food security, and resilience matter across generations, and

• sovereignty is eroded asset by asset, decision by decision.

By narrowing the criteria and focusing first on timeliness and process efficiency, the new regime treats permanent national loss as an administrative inconvenience. It prioritises investor comfort and speed over comprehensive review of long-term public value.

This is perilous not because foreigners are bad, but because capital, when unconstrained, is amoral. It will prioritise return over stewardship, extraction over regeneration, and liquidity over continuity.

History is unequivocal on this point: societies that prioritised short-term extraction over long-term stewardship have suffered diminished capability and resilience — economically, socially, and politically.

THE POTENTIAL: DEVELOPMENT, NOT GROWTH

New Zealand is not capital-poor.

It is development-constrained by policy design.

For decades, New Zealand’s economic conversation has been shaped what I call ‘the treasury trap’. I’ve a few substacks on it.

Tadhg Stopford is a historian and teacher. Support change by purchasing your CBD hemp CBG at www.tigerdrops.co.nz