MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201965724

Overseas investment through legal, policy and comparative law lenses: An examination of New Zealand’s approach to protecting sensitive land and the interests of future generations including comparisons with Canada and Kuwait

2020· article· en· W3201965724 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Commons (University of Waikato) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawPolitical scienceInvestment (military)EconomicsPublic administrationPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current entity is the Overseas Investment Office (OIO), which is a regulatory unit within Land Information New Zealand (a government department). The OIO is engaged with “realising the benefits of overseas investment, while protecting New Zealand’s sensitive land and assets”, which is a difficult balancing act. The Act states that it is a privilege for overseas persons to own or control sensitive New Zealand assets. New Zealand is a great place to “do business” – currently it’s ranked the best in the world. It’s also a great place in which to invest and New Zealand encourages overseas investment so long as there is a “benefit to New Zealand”. That means, any overseas person wishing to buy sensitive land or business assets must demonstrate that their investment will, or is likely to, benefit New Zealand (or any part of it, or a group of New Zealanders). If the land is over five hectares, then the benefits must be substantial and identifiable. Decision-makers take into account 21 economic, environmental and cultural factors when deciding if the overseas investor passes that test. This test is “unique among global investment screening regimes. Its closest comparator is Canada’s ‘net benefit’ test, but that focuses on economic factors”. This paper will proceed on the assumption that-in accordance with the principles and purposes of comparative law-every legal system has something to learn from every other system; knowing how other legal systems have tackled an issue can inform national lawmaking since virtually all legal systems face the same problems.9 For international scholars with an interest in overseas investment law, the paper will provide an overview of New Zealand’s unique approach. The paper will discuss what is meant by “benefit to New Zealand”, a crucial test that any potential “overseas person” must satisfy.10 The paper will also discuss the recent changes to the meaning of “sensitive land” which now includes all residential land, significant business assets and fishing quota. In a nutshell, overseas persons (or associates of overseas persons) now need prior consent from the OIO before they can purchase sensitive land or business assets. The paper will explain key legislative provisions and some recent court decisions11 one of which resulted in an order for an overseas person to divest itself of its entire interest in two properties for failure to obtain consent before purchasing, in addition to a substantial civil penalty.12 Interestingly, getting prior legal advice provides no protection from the OIO’s powers. The overall purpose of this paper is to explain how one jurisdiction (New Zealand) is managing overseas investment and how it seeks to achieve a balance between the benefits and risks.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.472

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.147
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.138 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it