Posts

Foreign Buyers Snatching Houses Away From Australians in a Housing Crisis

,

The government’s lies about how many foreigners are buying houses during a housing crisis are coming back to haunt them.

Firstly, the government claims ‘foreign buyers are barely making a dent in the market’. The truth? 11% of new houses in Australia were bought by foreigners (Q4 2023). Secondly, ‘foreign buyers only go for luxury homes’. Reality: the average price of a home bought by foreigners is almost the exact same as the average house price across capital cities. That means foreign buyers are directly outbidding average Australians for an average house. Thirdly, despite saying the don’t make an impact on the housing crisis, the government is now implementing small fines for vacant homes.

Why does the government go through all of this deflection and lying when they could just take One Nation’s policy: BAN Foreign Ownership completely.

That’s just the problems with foreign ownership of housing! Never mind the next topic I asked about: letting a foreign company takeover Australia’s military warship builder…

Does this government understand anything about putting Australians first?

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to table the transcript of a broadcast by Ben Fordham. Reporting from radio station 2GB indicates that foreign buyers bought 11 per cent of all new housing stock in this country. How are you letting this many foreign buyers snap up houses out of the hands of Australian homebuyers?

Ms Kelley: As we’ve talked about previously, our latest statistics show that foreign investors purchased around 5,360 houses in the 2022-23 financial year.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s been claimed by some that foreign buyers don’t make a material impact on the average Aussie because they’re only buying trophy homes—$30 million mansions down at Point Piper and so on. Looking at the $5.3 billion for 4,700 properties purchased by foreigners, according to these figures, that’s an average price of $1.1 million. The combined capital cities average median house price is $1 million. Those foreign buyers are actually directly competing in the middle of the market, aren’t they?

Ms Kelley: I should note again that the level of foreign investment in residential real estate is under one per cent of the total purchases that occur in Australia. In terms of residential properties with values under $1 million, that accounted for about 78 per cent of the purchases.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, your government is increasing the fines and fees for foreign buyers of Australian houses. You’re acknowledging that it needs to be controlled. Why don’t you just stop fiddling around and ban foreign ownership of Australian houses altogether, like we’ve advocated, like the Canadians are now doing and like the Kiwis are now doing?

Senator Gallagher: We welcome foreign investment in our country. It plays an important role across our economy. But those changes we have announced to foreign investment, both for the application fees and double vacancy fees, are about ensuring foreign investment aligns with our agenda to lift housing supply. It’s aligning it with the other work we’ve been talking about this morning in Homes for Australia.

Senator ROBERTS: Working families who are returning home at night to sleep in their car won’t be encouraged by that. But let’s move on. How does the Foreign Investment Review Board treat defence-related companies in its approvals? If a company is producing a defence-related product, how is it treated?

Ms Kelley: The foreign investment review framework takes a case-by-case risk based approach. On 1 May the Treasurer announced a range of reforms to the framework. Under that framework we were very clear about the areas we would scrutinise more strongly. The government has made some decisions around those areas, and we are now actively implementing them.

Senator ROBERTS: It doesn’t sound like being a part of the defence industry enlivens a specific criterion in your approval process.

Mr Tinning: Yes. If it’s a national security business, which includes defence industries, then it’s subject to a zero-dollar threshold under our framework. So all foreign investment approvals—

Senator ROBERTS: So shipbuilding would be part of that, if they’re building defence vessels?

Mr Tinning: Correct. That’s right.

Senator ROBERTS: Do the current rules ever allow you to approve the sale of a sovereign defence industry asset to a foreign buyer?

Ms Kelley: That would depend.

Mr Tinning: As Ms Kelley said, it’s on a case-by-case basis, so we would need to see a specific application.

Senator ROBERTS: Why would we ever allow that?

Ms Kelley: As the minister has said, foreign investment is essential to our domestic economy and has been for decades. What the framework does is—we assess every foreign investment application in terms of our national interest and in terms of national security.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand that the potential sale of Austal to a South Korean bidder, Hanwha, had pretty much fallen off the radar. Then Minister Marles reignited it by saying, ‘I don’t see why there’d be any concerns.’ Does the defence minister’s view factor into your assessment at all—that the sale of Austal, the company that builds Australia’s warships, wouldn’t be a problem?

Ms Kelley: We take into account a range of factors when foreign investments are assessed, and the national security aspects are very important. We liaise across government for views on the issues associated with a foreign investment application and then the advice is then put forward to the Treasurer for a final decision.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, why would the defence minister say that the sale of Austal, the company that builds Australia’s warships, wouldn’t be a problem? He’s the defence minister and he’s looking at selling a maker of some of our warships.

Senator Gallagher: I haven’t seen those comments, but the defence minister would be very well briefed on all matters relating to that.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll come back to the Treasury after the opposition asks questions.

/3 Comments/by

How many foreign deals have we actually rejected? Questioning the Foreign Investment Review Board

, , ,

Despite the tough talk about foreign ownership, the government continues to allow foreign entities to buy up too much Australian land and critical infrastructure. While there is a lot of spotlight on larger deals, the government isn’t that concerned about the amount of small residential properties that are being lost to foreign ownership.

This pushes up the price of local house prices while other countries won’t even let us own property in their country. There is a difference between foreign investment and foreign ownership. Foreign investment, fine. But foreign ownership, absolutely not.

Transcript

And you have the call Senator Roberts.

[Senator Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you, Chair. Thank you all for being here today. Since the Foreign Investment Review Board lowered the dollar threshold for projects to be considered to zero, how many projects have been rejected because of unsuitability by the treasurer?

[Tom Hamilton First Assistant Secretary, Foreign Investment Division]

Senator, excuse me, Tom Hamilton First Assistant Secretary, Foreign Investment Division. I don’t have a specific response to a question in relation to the timeframe that you’ve asked. As you know, a very small number of rejections over the period of operation of the FADA itself. We work every carefully to facilitate investment into the country and we, you know, we’ve been very careful through the whole period of the $0 threshold to ensure that we are allowing investment works in the national interest.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So I understand it’s only investigated if the project is raised by someone, is that right?

[Tom Hamilton]

No, that’s not right Senator. So if- every investment that comes through under the foreign investment framework is assessed carefully by Treasury and its consult partners on a case by case basis, you referred to the $0 threshold, which is a temporary measure during the course of 2020. During that period, we looked at every proposal that came forward before the treasury in accordance with the operation of that threshold.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So can you get me the numbers?

[Tom Hamilton]

I can give you the numbers for, for the numbers that were considered. Let me start my numbers here. All right, so for the period of, in total in 2020, there were 2,943 proposals. Of those, 1,732 were not $0 threshold. So the balance were that the cases that came forward as a result of the operation of that new threshold.

[Malcolm Roberts]

And none were rejected?

[Tom Hamilton]

I don’t have that number Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Could you get me that number please?

[Tom Hamilton]

We’ll take that notice Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. When will the Commonwealth Government act to stop foreign purchases or leases of significant local real estate gems, including Keswick Island in the Whitsundays in Queensland, as foreign purchases continue to buy up local real estate, rural mining, and tourist properties?

[Minister Simon Birmingham]

Senator, a number of different waves in relation to foreign investment reform over the time, our time in government, to seek to make sure that the perspective that has long been Australia’s policy in relation to foreign investment, which is that it ought to occur, where it’s in national interest is one that is effectively applied under our foreign investment laws. You know, foreign investment is important to a country like Australia. It has continued to support economic growth, jobs growth and ultimately achieving wages and living standards above a level, certainly well above global averages and global standards commensurate with a small country in population terms able to achieve large economic outcomes, thanks to domestic growth and foreign investment activity. And so it remains important but it has to be in the national interest. And that’s why we have taken successive steps, particularly in areas of national security to make sure that we have the right safeguards there to make those decisions. Just make an observation in terms of your first question about numbers rejected as well that it’s not unusual through the screening process for applications to be withdrawn at different junctures depending upon the types of question scrutiny or otherwise perhaps that applicants find themselves facing. So numbers rejected should not be seen as the only measure of effectiveness in relation to the FIRB, the mere fact that we have the regime in place would stop some from even bothering to make an application quite clearly. And then even the process itself will occasionally deter some as they get a sense of the type of conditions or the type of rejections that or the potential for rejection that may ensue.

[Malcolm Roberts]

That’s a fair comment. I’m also interested then in the number of rejections, sorry the number that have withdrawn their applications.

[Tom Hamilton]

I mean, Senator I’ll take that on notice. I mean, one thing that we bear in mind is being very careful not to release information that might relate to the business dealings of the applicants. But we’ll take that question on notice.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Minister, I don’t think there’d be too many Australians who would argue with you that we need investment. However, there would be a lot of Australians who are upset about the control in foreign hands, and we’ve got Keswick Island, a beautiful gem in the Whitsundays, and it’s now been leased by the Queensland Government to a Chinese firm. And that is now acting like tin pot dictators over that island and trashing the barrier reef and the state government’s doing nothing. Now that’s not your responsibility to the state government as the lessee but lessor, rather, but these are the kinds of incidents that leave a bad taste in people’s mouth when we’ve got Chinese coming in here or anyone foreign and restricting what Australians can do and can’t do. And in fact, hurting our own environment. They are the things that annoy people.

[Simon Birmingham]

Look, I without personally knowing the circumstances around Keswick Island, so I’d be reluctant to comment directly on that, but as a general observation Senator Roberts you’re right, there’s a social licence aspect that goes to areas like foreign investment. It’s why making sure the Third Regime operates in the national interest has been so important to our government to seek to maintain that support for our own investment. And particularly as we face changed security risks and environments across our region to respond to that in the way in which we have structured those arrangements but indeed other things beyond our control, such as the way in which properties are operated, obviously can also undermine areas of confidence. And so all governments in that sense, have a responsibility to make sure that not only do we have effective screening but also that the laws and standards that we expect in this country, be they in relation to payment of wages and industrial conditions, be they in relation to payment of taxes, be they in relation to protection of the environment, apply equally to whoever you are. Absolutely.

[Malcolm Roberts]

And compliance with our laws. Is there any opportunity for us to contact someone in FIRB to discuss this particular issue? Do you have a review process?

[Witness]

Senator we are always happy for people to contact and give information. And I would just add to what the Minister has said that character of investors is part of the national interest tests that we look at as well. So we’re very happy for people to contact and provide information.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Okay, thank you. We will do that. Are there any more rule changes being considered to take into account the widespread purchases of Australian properties by overseas interests pushing up prices and making it harder for younger Australians to purchase a home?

[Witness]

So certainly in relation to foreign investment, as you know, the most recent and significant set of reforms came to effect from the 1st of January. The government has commenced a review of the legislation as set out in the legislation itself. That review is due for completion at the end of this year. We have made it clear in talking to stakeholders that we’re willing to, you know, hear from interested parties around the operation of the act.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Okay so then you’re just doing a review at the moment.

[Witness]

Yeah, that’s right.

[Malcolm Roberts]

No formal consideration of further changes yet.

[Witness]

Well, Senator the changes just took effect from 1 January. And so we’re actually quickly commencing our review process, which was part of what was passed in the legislation. And we’ve got until the end of this year to complete the review of the changes that were just made. So that’s why we’re sort of saying we’re very happy to hear from people because there are quite extensive legislative changes that were implemented as of 1 January.

[Malcolm Roberts]

That’s right. And we’re happy with some of them, but we’ll see how they’re implemented because it comes down to not just the legislation, but how it’s implemented. And that seems to be an area that’s wanting, especially when we see water and land and properties and essential services like electricity in foreign hands.

[Chair]

Senator Roberts, we want move rather soon.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Can I have the last question?

[Chair]

Yes.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Is it not time to consider stopping sales of Australian assets to overseas interests? Many countries do not allow foreign ownership of their land. Investment in Australia is fine and may include long-term leases but we need to sell stop selling off our country. Is there any consideration being given to at least stopping sales of land to those, citizens of those countries that don’t allow Australians to own land in their countries.

[Witness]

I think Senator, as the minister has said the positive impact of foreign investment is very, very obvious.

[Malcolm Roberts]

I don’t dispute that. I agree with that.

[Simon Birmingham]

But I think Senator Roberts, it’s particularly important given the way you frame the question there to understand the extensive restrictions that exist in relation to foreign investment in residential property. The tightened screening restrictions were put in place in relation to foreign investment in agricultural lands as well. And in terms of your question about how other countries treat us, I guess we have under our foreign investment arrangements an overall approach that sets the threshold for any country in the world and their eligibility to purchase, which usually entails more frequent screening and lower thresholds for screening. And then we have the thresholds and arrangements that are put in place under reciprocal arrangements, essentially as negotiated through our free trade agreements that do seek to provide a, usually then a slightly higher threshold for screening to apply because of the level of reciprocity that’s usually been negotiated.

[Witness]

And if I can add to what the minister said, which is all correct, the thresholds do vary. For foreign government investors, $0 threshold continues to apply. And there are some, much stricter thresholds in relation to agricultural land as well. And not withstanding the threshold, every time an investor comes to us, we look at that case very carefully.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Well perhaps, I said, I wouldn’t ask any more questions. So that was my last but perhaps I could just give you one area to consider in the future. Many foreign companies do not have to pay tax in this country, company tax. We know that, that gives them a hell of an unfair advantage over Australian companies. Maybe we should be generating more Australian investment by making sure we track tax foreigners properly. So thank you.

/by

The governance of our country is appalling

, , , ,

The governance of our country is appalling. My adjournment speech.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I draw attention to the Australian parliament’s failure to protect the interests of the Australian people. In the Senate yesterday, the Liberals, the Nationals and the Labor Party united in standing beside big banks against the interests of everyday Australians. Together they voted down my bill to prevent bank deposits being bailed in—meaning that when banks get into trouble they can steal depositors’ money.

Their madness is simple: Australia has the world’s safest banks; the only thing that could bring our banks down is a loss of confidence; that’s the very thing my bill was designed to stop. Not once has the Treasurer, the Prime Minister or APRA, the banking regulator, come out and said, ‘We will not bail in your deposits.’ It’s time the Australian people heard those words.

The right to use a banking service without losing our money is just one of many rights that everyday Australians have lost—another is the loss of property rights. Prime Minister John Howard’s government’s response to the UN’s Kyoto Protocol in 1996 was to use the deceitful trick of protecting junk vegetation from destruction. The carbon dioxide that this saved counted to our UN Kyoto targets and it still does.

It enabled his government to bypass its constitutional duty to compensate farmers for stealing their property rights. This is a perfect example of mad climate policies that are about bowing to unelected, unrepresentative foreign UN bureaucrats, rather than showing actual environmental outcomes. The land that John Howard’s capricious actions supposedly protected was not something worthwhile like an old-growth forest or repairing vegetation, no, it was agricultural land that was stolen.

John Howard’s government stole our farmers’ rights to clear junk vegetation that grows on a field not used for a few years. It prevents farmers making productive use of their land. To this day the general public think this ban on land clearing relates to actual forests. This conjures up images of evil farmers chopping down virgin forests and sending koalas of to their deaths.

The reality is this ban stops farmers clearing salt bush and junk vegetation that’s stopping productive agriculture on land that has been farmed many times. The old parties never let the truth stand in the way of virtue signalling. The Liberal-National government with John Howard as Treasurer is largely to blame for banking misconduct. It was John Howard who deregulated banking.

This exposed bank customers to the atrocious behaviour that was found during the Senate inquiry into rural and regional lending that I chaired. Our inquiry led to the banking royal commission finding even more wrongdoing. The Morrison government recently demonstrated another failure in looking after small business. Aussie company CuDeco operated the Rocklands copper mine near Cloncurry in Queensland.

It was driven into insolvency from the actions of the minority Chinese owners. The mine was sold to a local Chinese company who promptly onsold it to a Chinese government entity. China now owns an important Australian copper mine thanks to the ineffective Morrison government. The mine’s workers will never get their missing wages and local contractors are out of pocket $60 million.

The only way we will see CuDeco’s copper again is if we buy that copper inside Chinese manufactured electronics. Chinese corporations continue to cherrypick their way through our resources sector. China is buying mines, real estate, farms and even our water. I do compliment Treasurer Frydenberg though on his recent decision to block the sale of PURA milk to the Chinese, resulting in the Australian company Bega buying PURA.

It’s a welcome break after the Liberal-National and Labor parties selling Australia out for a generation. Since my return to the Senate last year the Liberal, Labor and National parties have been acting together and have voted down One Nation’s motions—many motions—to restore farmers’ water rights.

The 2007 Water Act takes their water rights and forces Aussie farmers, family farmers, off the land. Even now with all the rain this year farmers are on as little as 39 per cent allocation. Who passed the 2007 Water Act? Prime Minister John Howard. Who introduced the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in 2012? Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

The whole point of the Water Act was to remove family farms from the land, then to remove their water rights to new irrigation areas on cheap land belonging to corporate agriculture. Windfall profits all round. Australian farmers and local communities being gutted. The Australian parliament must decide whether it represents the interests of big business or the interests of everyday Australians.

/by

Questioning the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) over CuDeco

, ,

This round of questioning occurred in the October/November Hearings of Budget Estimates, focusing on large concerns I had brought to my attention over the sale of CuDeco. FIRB provides recommendations to the Government in relation to the risk of certain foreign investments.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. My questions are with regard to the sale of assets of the delisted stock exchange minor CuDeco Limited. The receivers have claimed on 12 June 2020 that approval had been recommended by FIRB for this. Would FIRB confirm whether or not it recommended that Copper Resources Australia may purchase CuDeco assets, including its major copper mine, on or shortly before that date of 12 June?

Mr Hamilton: Certainly, we’ve been following media articles in relation to CuDeco, which, as you know, entered voluntary administration in July 2019 and, as you said, was delisted from the ASX in February 2020. As you know, we don’t comment on the specifics of individual cases, but we do understand that ASIC has looked into this matter. Questions about some of the concerns that have been raised in the public around allegations of phoenixing by CuDeco should be directed to ASIC.

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that this copper mine is reputedly one of the largest in the world—or the copper reserves, sorry?

Mr Hamilton: Senator, I was not aware of that myself.

Senator ROBERTS: Was FIRB aware that Copper Resources Australia was only incorporated on 20 May 2020?

Mr Hamilton: Senator, again, I’m not aware of these details. But, as I said, we would be limited in what we would wish to talk about in a public forum in relation to these entities.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll just ask the other questions, because they raise important points, and whatever you can answer, you can answer, and whatever you can’t, tell me. Was FIRB aware that Copper Resources Australia is basically a shell company with no significant assets and lacks the funds to buy the firm, and that it had no mining experience or funds of its own to complete such a purchase?

Ms Kelley: I think that’s the matter that we said ASIC was looking into.

Senator ROBERTS: Was there a recommendation made by FIRB?

Mr Hamilton: Personally I’m not aware of that, but we would not comment on that in any case, as we’ve said.

Senator ROBERTS: Is FIRB aware that a change of beneficial ownership form 484 was submitted on 14 July 2020, shortly after the approval was given, assigning the beneficial ownership to Chinese controlled company Dragon Field International Ltd?

Mr Hamilton: I refer you to my previous answer.

Senator ROBERTS: Was FIRB aware that it has been suggested that collusion of the Chinese directors and their actions brought the company into liquidation through fraudulent conduct intended to make the company fail and make it a cheap buy?

Mr Hamilton: I refer you to my previous answer.

Senator ROBERTS: Is FIRB aware that the bid of $30 million from Copper Resources Australia promises to be paid to only non-Australian creditors when an Australian bid of $60 million—double the price—to purchase was declined by the receiver?

Mr Hamilton: Again I refer you to what I said previously.

Senator ROBERTS: Is FIRB aware that, if this purchase is allowed to proceed, Chinese interests will allegedly acquire more than $100 million of Australian assets for less than $30 million, leaving Australian investors and creditors unpaid, with reportedly the plant valued as scrap metal?

Mr Hamilton: Again I refer you to my previous answer.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you explain how this recommendation—if you made that recommendation—could be in Australia’s best interest?

Ms Kelley: We’ve noted in previous hearings that we’re very happy to discuss these sorts of matters in a private hearing. The legislation has particular constraints on us around sharing protected information, but we have previously discussed particulars of certain matters in private hearings with senators. We’re happy to consider making that offer. There is another committee looking at foreign investment. We’ve appeared before them and we anticipate we will appear before them again.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you tell me when that would be?

Ms Kelley: I’m not sure when the next one is, but I think we are scheduled to appear.

Senator ROBERTS: Can my office get a briefing from you at all? Ms Kelley: We can certainly put that to the Treasurer’s office.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’ll get back to my office?

Ms Kelley: We’ll talk to the Treasurer’s office about that.

Senator ROBERTS: And then get back, thank you.

/by