Section 12(a) Overseas Investment Act 2005
|Decision Maker||The Minister for Land Information and the Associate Minister of Finance|
|Decision Date||12 April 2018|
|Investment||An overseas investment in sensitive land, being the Applicant's acquisition of a freehold interest in 11.4420 hectares of land at 315 and 326 Hereford Park Road, Te Puke (“Land”), through its subsidiary CPCP – Kiwifruit Limited|
|Applicant||Craigmore Permanent Crop Limited Partnership|
Hong Kong (SAR) 29.73%
United Kingdom (28.52%)
United States of America (2.96%)
New Zealand (2.28%)
|Vendor||AAJ's Kiwifruit Limited Partnership|
New Zealand (100%)
The Applicant is a limited partnership established in 2016 as a horticulture investment vehicle, and is part of the wider Craigmore Farming Group which has made numerous investments in New Zealand.
The Applicant is 97.72% owned by overseas persons but effectively controlled by non-overseas persons.
The Applicant partnered with a New Zealand owned and controlled a pack house and cool store operator for the purposes of the proposed investment.
The Applicant sought consent to acquire an operational green kiwifruit (5.96 ha) (Hayward) and avocado (2.04ha) orchard in Te Puke.
A key feature of the Applicant’s investment plan is to convert all kiwifruit on the Land to organic production for supply to Zespri, including the conversion of some of the Hayward trees to the gold variety (G3). Organic kiwifruit attracts a premium and Zespri is seeking to increase its organic supply to meet demands overseas.
The likely benefits proposed by the Applicant resulted primarily from the conversion to organic production and the conversion of some of the existing avocado trees (0.5 ha) to Hayward:
For consent to be granted, Ministers needed to be satisfied that the acquisition of the Land would benefit New Zealand and that the benefit would be substantial and identifiable.
The overall assessment, having regard to the new rural land directive, was that the overseas investment was likely to benefit New Zealand but that the benefit was not substantial and identifiable within the context of the investment.
|More information||Oliver Roberts|
PO Box 5