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.
Mortgages are skyrocketing, rents keep increasing, two thirds of young Australians believe they will never own a home and it’s hard to blame them.
The housing unaffordability crisis is the greatest issue facing Australia. Australians want to have their hard work and savings rewarded. They want a place to call their own and a place they can stay to raise a family.
The median house price in Brisbane is 10 times the median income.[1] In Brisbane it would take the average income 13 years just to save a deposit.
Rents are also rising on the back of a record low national vacancy rate of 1%.[2] Experts consider a 3% vacancy rate to be tight, a national average of 1% is an absolute crisis.
Right now, many Australians simply cannot afford a roof over their head.
Like any market there are two things and two things only that affect housing prices: supply and demand. Decades of successive governments have mismanaged both sides of the equation.
This is how One Nation would properly manage our economy and deliver cheaper houses and cheaper rent:
Cut overseas arrivals, ban foreign ownership, increase supply and stop pumping up profits for the Big Banks.
Cut the flood of overseas arrivals
In the short term, we need to stop pouring fuel on the fire. A huge amount of overseas arrivals are driving unsustainable demand.
Excluding tourists and short stay visitors, there are currently 2.3 million visa holders in the country likely to need housing.[3]
These working visa holders, students and others are putting enormous strain on the rental market, fighting Australians for a roof over their head and driving up rent prices.
The arrivals that can afford it are also buying houses, pushing up prices even higher.
The Albanese Labor government issued a record 670,000 student visas in one year when we only have 100,000 dedicated student accommodation beds.
In addition to these 2.3 million visa holders likely to need housing, there are roughly 400,000 tourist and other visa holders in the country.
While tourism is good for Australia, in the middle of our rental shortage this high demand is motivating owners to take their properties out of the rental pool and convert them to lucrative, full-time AirBnBs.
That means less rental supply for people needing a place to live and higher rents.
2.7 million visa holders, more than 10% of Australia’s population, are in the country right now fighting Australians for a roof over their head.
The country cannot sustain this level of overseas arrivals. It must be cut to take immediate pressure off housing availability and affordability.
Why haven’t we cut arrivals already?
Powerful lobby groups who rely on high immigration have been able to falsely label anyone who talks about this problem as “racist”.
Talking about reasonable levels of immigration is about securing a prosperous future for all Australians, including those who come to the country. Ruining our economy is a bad outcome for immigrants as well.
As the problem gets even worse, even mainstream media is now being forced to acknowledge the huge negative effects Australia is seeing from an unsustainable amount of arrivals.
Homelessness is a scourge affecting all our cities, but it's particularly severe in Queensland. Post-COVID migration to the Sunshine State has exacerbated a housing shortage, with some cities recording extraordinary rent inflation. #abc730pic.twitter.com/yZUxW76iB0
The biggest winners from high house prices and big immigration are the big banks and multinational corporations relying on cheap labour.
Mortgages are so profitable for banks that they have become over-reliant on housing prices.
The ratio of borrowing for mortgages versus borrowing for business has skyrocketed to more than 200%, up from less than 40% in 1990.[3A]
That means the Big Banks are less diversified and will lose more money if housing becomes affordable.
As the Reserve Bank raises interest rates, the big banks pass that on at up to 7%, yet the banks borrowed long term funds from the RBA at just 0.1%.
They’re pocketing the huge difference leading to record-breaking profits.
There is billions of dollars at stake for the banks and other big businesses if housing became more affordable. The questions have to be asked whether government is putting the profits of greedy banks and multinational corporations ahead of Australians having affordable housing.
One Nation would never repeat the mistakes of the COVID period, where the Reserve Bank was allowed to create $500 billion out of thin air.[4]
That led to the inflation the Reserve Bank is now trying to fight and the tool it uses to do that is sending mortgage holders broke.
This only pumps up the big banks profits.
Ban Foreign Ownership
Finally, on the demand side solutions, we need to ban foreign ownership of Australian assets.
The government has no idea exactly how bad foreign purchases are.[5] A single real estate agent in Sydney sold $135 million in property to Chinese buyers in just six months.[6]
Australians can’t own a house in China, so why should we let foreign citizens buy property here?
Australian property is also a hotbed for suspected money laundering, with much of this happening in foreign connected purchases.[7]
We need to ban foreign ownership of Australian homes to decrease demand and give Australians a shot at owning their own home.
Let tradies build homes
On the supply side, government needs to get out of the way with their restrictive building codes, green land restrictions and a spider web of employment law.
Our tradies know how to build homes. Government just needs to get out of the way and let them build.
While increasing supply is an important part, it is important to note that supply can only be increased so much in the face of overwhelming demand, fuelled by overseas arrivals and foreign purchasers.
Australia has typically built homes at nearly the fastest rate in the world, fourth out of all OECD countries.[8]
Supply chain issues, high interest rates and rising construction insolvencies mean its very unlikely we will be able to easily build even more supply than the high amount we already do.[9]
Looking at how Australia punches above its weight in building houses and increasing supply already, it’s clear the biggest issue we have to fix is the demand side currently driven by overseas arrivals.[10]
One Nation would make home ownership a reality for Australians
A home is a castle.
The family unit and our society flourish when we have stable places to build our lives and raise families.
Decades of indifferent governments from both sides of politics have ruined this dream for many.
Only One Nation has the guts to make the decisions that will make the dream of home ownership a reality for all Australians.
Affordable houses, lower affordable rents and a flourishing economy is all possible under One Nation.
One million Australian homes are sitting vacant. That’s twice what we need to solve the housing crisis. They don’t need to be built they are unoccupied right now.
The government isn’t solving this problem. It pretends it doesn’t exist and doesn’t want to know how to solve it either, because it’s too busy playing at politics.
According to recent data, it’s likely that around 5000 foreign buyers could be buying as much as $5 billion worth of residential property in Australia every year.
With immigration being pushed up again in the wake of COVID, what we have is a supply and demand problem that has a simple solution – net zero immigration, meaning we don’t add to the crisis and actually introduce a ban on foreign ownership.
In a housing crisis the government needs to put Australians first.
Australia has a rental crisis and yet we continue to allow foreign entities, including shelf companies, buying and locking up homes.
According to recent publicly available data, NSW Treasury figures as much as $5 billion of residential property is purchased by foreign buyers in one year.
With one in ten homes unoccupied and the rental crisis making Australian families homeless, how dare Minister Farrell sideline my questioning for an opportunity to lobby for a bill which is nothing but a ‘drop in the ocean’ against the Australian housing crisis. A crisis that is caused by unbridled immigration and failure to even inquire as to why so many homes are vacant.
The answer to this crisis couldn’t be more clear: put Australians first!
https://img.youtube.com/vi/f_sEuwQLs7E/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-07-31 18:09:472023-07-31 18:09:50How Many Australian Homes are Foreign Owned?
I highlighted the dilemma facing Aussies who are getting squeezed out of the property market by cashed up foreign buyers.
I was told that purchasers of new properties by foreign investors are monitored through the Australian Tax Office but they were not prevented from purchasing the property.
I told the ATO that this was not good enough and asked when the government would stop selling off the farm to the detriment of Aussies at a time when there is a grave housing shortage in Australia.
Click Here for Transcript | Part 1
Senator Roberts: Thank you for being here this morning. The Foreign Investment Review Board makes recommendations to the government about approving certain large investments in projects in Australia. One concern of Australians is the seemingly large number of Australian residential homes and residential land that is being purchased by foreign investors, to the exclusion of Australian homebuyers—are you aware of that?
Mr Writer: We are certainly aware that there are publicly reported concerns about the acquisition of property by foreign investors, yes.
Senator Roberts: Anecdotal evidence is of land banking, where properties are purchased by foreign interests and then held vacant, in the middle of a housing crisis where thousands of Australians are left homeless.
From 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021, one year, there were 5,310 residential real estate purchase transactions by foreign buyers, with a total value of $4.2 billion. Eighty-six per cent of those were for new dwellings and vacant land. Minister, why does there appear to be no governance or restriction on overseas ownership of residential property in Australia?
Senator Gallagher: There is, and I’m sure officials can take you through it.
Mr Writer: There are restrictions. Generally speaking, foreign investors, in relation to residential real estate, cannot purchase existing properties. There is only one real exception, which is for temporary residents who need somewhere to live. Generally, they will only receive approval for the acquisition of newly built properties, not existing properties. That’s designed to encourage the construction of new residential properties in Australia.
Senator Roberts: So foreigners can’t buy existing property, but they can build new property?
Mr Writer: That’s correct.
Senator Roberts: Who gives the approval?
Mr Writer: In general, the residential real estate proposals are considered by the ATO under delegation from the Treasurer.
Senator Roberts: The Australian Taxation Office as designated by the treasurer?
Mr Writer: Yes.
Senator Roberts: Given that many countries do not allow foreign ownership of their residential properties, why does Australia allow foreign investment in residential property with little or no restriction?
Senator Gallagher: We’ve just gone through that there are restrictions. The other thing I would point to is the changes that we’ve put in place to double the penalties applicable to breaches of the foreign investment rules applicable to residential properties, which we implemented on 1 January. We’ve doubled the foreign investment application fees from 29 July 2022. Fees now start at $13,200 for acquisitions of residential property valued at $1 million or less and $26,400 for acquisitions of $2 million or less. The settings under the approval process are designed to increase supply, which is essentially the big challenge we’ve got in the housing market at the moment—we need more supply of housing, and that’s why the settings are targeted to increase that.
Senator Canavan: Can I ask a quick follow-up, Senator Roberts? I believe our foreign investors can buy established dwellings with approval from the FIRB. Is that correct?
Mr Writer: With approval from the ATO, yes.
Senator Canavan: How many approvals have you provided over the past year?
Mr Writer: I’d need to go to the ATO about that question, but what I can say is that in 2020-21 the total number of purchases of residential dwellings in Australia was 588,176. Of those, 4,355 concerned foreign investors.
Senator Canavan: Sorry, 355 in total?
Dr Kennedy: Yes, 4,355.
Senator Canavan: Sorry, 4,355.
Mr Writer: Yes. It’s still less than one per cent of the total.
Senator Canavan: Yes. It’s still quite a lot. That’s of established dwellings?
Mr Writer: No, that’s of all residential dwelling purchases.
Senator Canavan: Okay, so it includes, potentially, new ones. So you can’t tell me how many approvals. How many times did you reject somebody who wanted to buy an established dwelling?
Mr Writer: I’d have to take that on notice. The ATO will be here later this afternoon and may be able to answer that.
Senator Canavan: I thought it was FIRB that does that rejection.
Mr Writer: In relation to residential property, no. The ATO manages that.
Senator Canavan: Finally, the new penalties the minister mentioned—how many times has a foreigner been penalised for illegally purchasing an established residential dwelling over the past year?
Mr Writer: I couldn’t answer that. The ATO would need to respond to that.
Senator Canavan: Does it happen? Was there one?
Mr Writer: The ATO certainly took action, I think, last year, and were successful in obtaining a penalty against a foreign investor, yes.
Senator Canavan: The issue seems to be—notwithstanding your figures—anecdotally, that the foreigners are always turning up at auctions and buying established dwellings. It doesn’t seem to me that hard to get around our rules, to just get someone else to buy it in their name. Does that happen? How do we know? What sort of efforts do you put into making sure people aren’t trying to avoid these restrictions?
Ms Kelley: Again, the ATO is responsible for the compliance in that regard. I would also note that Australian citizens and temporary residents are able to purchase as well, regardless of their background.
Senator Canavan: Of course, but they could also do so on behalf of others. Is that illegal? Would it be illegal to do so on behalf of someone—
Mr Writer: That would be a scheme to avoid the application of the act. Yes, it would be.
Senator Canavan: I’m just asking. I know you’re saying the ATO is enforcing it, but presumably you’re the policy area.
Mr Writer: We are.
Senator Canavan: So how confident are you? You don’t seem to understand the details of the prosecutions that go on. How confident are you that this restriction is actually being implemented?
Mr Writer: We rely on the ATO to do this. It administers and enforces the law in accordance with the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act and the relevant policies that the successive governments have put in place around this area of activity.
Senator Gallagher: And I think the numbers that were read out before give you an indication that that—
Senator Canavan: That doesn’t go to my question, because it doesn’t capture people doing it illegally.
Senator Gallagher: No, but you were saying anecdotally, basically, that foreigners are out buying up all the houses, and I think—
Senator Canavan: You can’t even tell me how many people you prosecuted.
Senator Gallagher: It’s not about prosecution.
Senator Canavan: If you were taking this issue seriously, you’d know that, Minister.
Senator Gallagher: That doesn’t relate to prosecution, and we can deal with that through the ATO.
Senator Canavan: My question did.
Senator Gallagher: That deals to the scale.
Senator Canavan: Clearly people are not obeying the law.
Senator Gallagher: And that question has been answered, and obviously your anecdotal information is incorrect.
Senator Canavan: No, it’s not, because you don’t even have any evidence about how many prosecutions you’ve made.
Chair: Order!
Senator Canavan: You’re obviously not taking it seriously.
Chair: Order! I’d like to return to Senator Roberts, who I believe has the call. Senator Roberts.
Senator Roberts: I thank Senator Canavan for his questions. Minister, doesn’t it mean, though, with the current housing crisis, that the ability for foreigners to buy or to construct a new house crowds Australians out of the market or certainly raises the prices?
Senator Gallagher: Again, no, I wouldn’t accept that. Again, it goes to the numbers that Mr Writer has outlined. But the fact is that the settings are targeted, essentially without exemptions, to new housing supply. It’s focused on generating that new housing supply to be available for people to live in, and part of what we have to deal with in the housing market at the moment is a shortage of supply.
Senator Roberts: According to Mr Writer’s figures, 4,355 were bought by foreigners, out of 5,186. That’s almost 80 per cent.
Senator Gallagher: No. You’ve got that wrong.
Mr Writer: It’s 588,000.
Senator Roberts: I’m sorry. That’s my mistake.
Ms Kelley: It’s 0.74 per cent, to be precise.
Senator Roberts: Quite often, though, foreigners will lock up their houses rather than rent them out. So they’re vacant. They’re not available to Australians.
Mr Writer: I don’t think we can confirm that kind of statement.
Senator Roberts: That’s widely known. You won’t confirm it, because you haven’t got the exact numbers. I understand that and I appreciate that.
Mr Writer: I don’t think we have any actual evidence of that fact.
Ms Kelley: Part of the ATO’s responsibility is also around the amount of time a property is vacant and ensuring that it’s not left vacant as well. That is part of the compliance regime.
Senator Roberts: That’s the ATO’s responsibility, is it?
Ms Kelley: Yes.
Senator Roberts: So you’re just responsible for the policy?
Ms Kelley: In terms of residential real estate, Treasury has a policy responsibility. The ATO implements the policy.
Senator Roberts: Minister, wouldn’t the widening of the mandate of the FIRB to include residential purchases go a long way to slowing down the sale of residential properties to foreign speculators?
Senator Gallagher: If FIRB were assessing them?
Senator Roberts: If FIRB were extending their authority over all residential property.
Senator Gallagher: It would slow it down—is that what you’re saying?
Senator Roberts: Yes.
Senator Gallagher: I’m not sure how those two things go together. Essentially, we’ve got Treasury with the policy side of the work and the ATO then enforces those arrangements, so I’m not sure how FIRB extending reach into residential property would slow down the sale. As you’ve heard, it’s 0.75 per cent of residential sales.
Senator Roberts: So FIRB would have authority as to whether or not to approve or recommend—they don’t approve anything. They make recommendations.
Senator Gallagher: The ATO currently does. We have an approving entity that does that work—
Senator Roberts: Which basically has no teeth.
Senator Gallagher: I don’t accept that, but, by all means, put those questions to the ATO.
Senator Roberts: Isn’t it time, though, for the government to start buying back the farm and limiting sales of Australian land to Australian purchasers only, like China and several other countries do?
Senator Gallagher: No. That’s not the policy of the government. We have in place an arrangement that allows, under specific circumstances, foreign investors to purchase residential properties in this country. We’ve got those settings—they’re here; we can answer questions about them—but they are the arrangements that are in place.
Senator Roberts: I understand they’re here, but I’m saying why not change them so that only Australians can buy Australian land, not just Australian residential real estate but Australian land?
Senator Gallagher: That’s not the government’s policy. We are an open-facing economy. We are a country that has relied on foreign investment. We believe there need to be suitable controls in place to manage that, and those settings are the ones that we’ve been talking about this morning. That remains the government’s policy.
Chair: Last question, Senator Roberts.
Senator Roberts: This is not a radical thought, Minister, as many other countries protect their sovereignty by not selling their land to foreign interests. Why is it that Australians can’t buy land in those countries but foreigners from those countries can buy land in our country?
Senator Gallagher: I’m not sure of the countries that you are referring to.
Senator Roberts: China’s one of them. There are a number of countries.
Senator Gallagher: We’re here, and we do have arrangements in place, through FIRB and through the arrangements with the ATO, to put restrictions and limits on the sale of housing or, in FIRB’s case, on foreign investment matters. They are looked at and assessed against the national interest.
Senator Roberts: It’s a one-way street for foreigners. Australians can’t buy property in their countries, but they can buy it in our country.
Click Here for Transcript | Part 2
Acting Chair: Senator Roberts.
Senator Roberts: Thank you for being here tonight. My questions are in two streams: registration information for the Australian Taxation Office and foreign investment in real estate. I’ll get on with the first one.
Senator Gallagher: Senator Roberts, FIRB are no longer here.
Senator Roberts: No, it’s to the ATO. You referred me to the ATO this morning.
Senator Gallagher: That’s right; I did. That was a long time ago.
Senator Roberts: A very long time ago. I understand the registration information for the ATO was displaying incorrectly on the business and company registers. It displays a record named ‘ultimate holding for all company’. This was updated in early March. Can you please explain when this error was brought to your attention and what part you had in correcting that?
Mr Jordan: Is this on the Australian Business Register for the ABN?
Senator Roberts: I think that’s where it was, yes.
Mr Allen: I’m not aware of that issue, but I can take it on notice and come back to you.
Senator Roberts: Okay. Could you also answer these questions then please? How did that information come to be displayed on the registers in this way?
Mr Allen: Again, I’ll take that on notice.
Senator Roberts: Yes. And also take on notice what information the ATO supplied to the business registry service or ASIC that caused the registration to be displayed in this way. Can you take that on notice?
Mr Allen: Yes.
Senator Roberts: Was it an error from ASIC or the business registry service or the ATO that caused the information to be displayed in this way?
Mr Allen: I’ll take it on notice.
Senator Roberts: How did BlackRock come to be displayed as the owner of ‘ultimate holding for all company’?
Mr Allen: I’ll take it on notice.
Senator Roberts: Thank you. Can you please take on notice to provide a full chronology of this incident, including data and correspondence—who it was sent to, who it was received from and what was addressed in it?
I’m raising it because it suggests that there may be other errors for entries that are not as high profile that are still there. What routine audit of this database do you have in place to detect such errors? After this embarrassment, have you gone looking for more?
Mr Allen: I’ll take that on notice.
Senator Roberts: Thank you. That’s all on that thread. Now I’ll get on to housing. Minister, why does there appear to be little governance or restriction on overseas ownership of existing residential property and newly constructed residential property?
Senator Gallagher: I think we answered this earlier today. Weren’t the issues that were to be referred to the ATO over essentially the approval for foreign investors to buy—
Senator Roberts: I want to put it in context that the ATO understands. Many countries do not allow foreign ownership of their residential property. Why does Australia allow foreign investment in residential property with minimal restriction?
Senator Gallagher: Is that to the ATO?
Senator Roberts: It’s to you, Minister.
Senator Gallagher: As I think I went through this morning, there are restrictions in place. It is something the government—
Senator Roberts: On older properties, but not on newly constructed or first residencies; isn’t that correct?
Senator Gallagher: No. For foreign investors it is targeted at new properties, unless you get an exemption. That’s my understanding. We don’t have that group of officials here—they’ve gone—
Mr Jordan: We have a deputy commissioner of international here.
Senator Gallagher: but that was the evidence this morning.
Mr Jordan: He’s responsible for the registers that we maintain. He will try to answer any questions.
Senator Roberts: So you’re purely a registry?
Mr Thompson: No. As was touched on this morning, in the residential property space the foreign investment regime essentially seeks to promote the growth and development of housing stock. The way it does that is by restricting foreign investment to new builds, development of existing builds or vacant land. There’s only one circumstance in which approval for an established dwelling would be granted under that regime, and that’s for temporary residence. Those properties will need to be divested when that person ceases to be a temporary resident.
Senator Roberts: Established properties cannot be purchased by foreigners?
Mr Thompson: The scenario where an established property would gain approval to be purchased by a foreigner is where they’re a temporary resident.
Senator Gallagher: It’s also when it’s their primary residence, isn’t it?
Mr Thompson: They will be required to live in that—
Senator Roberts: But, other than that, they can’t purchase existing residential properties?
Mr Thompson: That’s correct.
Senator Roberts: Can they build a new property?
Mr Thompson: Broadly speaking, there are three classes of properties that a foreign resident might get approval to purchase. One would be vacant land. One would be redevelopment of an existing property—so you could perhaps subdivide and convert a single dwelling into two dwellings. One would be a new build, yes.
Senator Roberts: Thank you. Doesn’t it still mean that the system is fairly unregulated, since people can come in and develop?
Mr Thompson: There’ll be conditions around our approval, so there’ll be a time period. If you were to seek approval to develop an existing property, there would be time periods around that approval being granted, if it’s not an open-ended approval.
Senator Roberts: Do you know how many properties are being developed or redeveloped every year with foreign ownership?
Mr Thompson: I don’t have that level of detail. We have a register of foreign ownership of residential land that we publish every year. That actually breaks down transactions between vacant land, established dwellings and new dwellings. That would probably be the most disaggregated split I can provide.
Senator Roberts: I’m being asked to wind up. Minister, wouldn’t the widening of the mandate of ATO to include all residential purchases by foreign purchasers go a long way to slowing down the sale of residential properties to foreign speculators?
Senator Gallagher: They do.
Mr Jordan: I think we do. Some are not allowed—
Senator Roberts: Do you register all?
Mr Jordan: and some are allowed, depending on their circumstances. All purchases asked by foreigners to be made are looked at and regulated.
Mr Thompson: I know there was conversation this morning. It is a requirement to seek approval to purchase properties if you’re a foreign resident. We do undertake compliance activity. We do, in some cases, force a divestment of properties. There was a reference made to a civil matter in 2022 where the court imposed penalties of $250,000 on an individual for purchasing four properties without approval.
Senator Roberts: How many existing residential properties have been bought by foreign purchasers in each year over the last five years?
Senator Gallagher: We’d probably take that on notice.
Mr Thompson: Yes. We can take that on notice.
Senator Gallagher: We certainly had some figures that we gave you for the 2020-21 year. But if you want us to go back five years, we’ll take that on notice.
Senator Roberts: What monitoring is in place to keep track of foreign purchases of existing residential properties?
Acting Chair: Can I ask you to see if you can put questions on notice? We need to wind up.
Mr Thompson: I have four years.
Senator Roberts: That’d be good. I can put most questions on notice. How many residential properties, new or existing, are sitting vacant after purchase by foreign purchasers? Do you track things like that?
Mr Thompson: There is a regime that is known as the ‘vacancy theme’. Under that regime, foreign owners are required to notify us if the property is vacant. If they fail to notify us in a given period we deem the property to be vacant and there is a vacancy fee charged for that.
Senator Roberts: Thank you. I will put the rest of my questions on notice.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/RO-wkWXSXRc/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-06-08 15:57:122023-06-23 15:34:28When will the ATO stop foreign buyers?
Has your rent gone up in the previous year? Well you can thank Anthony Albanese. He’s bringing in up to 400,000 immigrants a year and every one of them needs a house too.
Transcript
As a servant to the many different people making our amazing Queensland community, I know rental prices are a savage problem. Interest rate rises are increasing mortgage repayments and forcing more investment property owners to dip into their own pockets to pay their mortgage. If owners do not have that extra money, then negative gearing is not going to help. Inflation of 7.8 per cent means that council rates, water rates, maintenance costs and insurance are making it harder and harder to hang on to investment properties.
Now the Greens propose a rent freeze, which is really a 7.8 per cent rent reduction each year that it goes on. The only effect of a rental freeze will be to drive investment property owners out of the market. Australia needs investment property owners to provide a home to people who are renting. Driving them out of the market will hurt the 400,000 new Australians who arrived last year and the one million likely to arrive during the course of this government.
Rising rentals are a product of too many people chasing too few rentals. We know 10 per cent of Australian homes are owned by investors who are not renting them out. Their investment strategy is to buy a new home and keep it locked up while it appreciates in value. Having a tenant in there is a complication they don’t want and lowers the resale value because the home is no longer new. Most of these properties are foreign-owned.
One Nation would give these owners 12 months to sell those properties to Australians. Bringing that number of homes onto the market would do more to bring prices down than a price cap. And One Nation would reduce immigration to net zero, meaning there would be only enough arrivals each year to replace those that leave. This will allow time for the housing construction industry to catch up with demand. It is about supply and demand.
These sensible, honest policies are One Nation’s solutions to high rents, which will protect real estate values from the chaos a rental cap will introduce.
Governments are destroying our country which is making it harder to stand up to China. I talked to Marcus Paul this morning about that and how I was reminded over the weekend about just how good Australian manufacturing used to be.
Transcript
[Marcus Paul] Hello, Malcolm.
[Malcolm Roberts] Good morning, Marcus, how are you?
[Marcus Paul] All right, thank you how are you?
[Malcolm Roberts] Very well, thanks.
[Marcus Paul] What do you make of it all, the drums of war beating and all this rubbish?
[Malcolm Roberts] Well, I think you summarised it very well, when you said marketing. It’s about pretending that the government is strong. Whereas in fact, I’ve just finished an inquiry report for the Northern Agenda. You know, what’s happening in our country, Marcus, is that the North is being held back along the same issues that the South is destroying. Energy, water, taxation, the basics. And the fundamental point about security is you have to have a strong economy. And the wombats in Canberra are destroying our economy through pandering to overseas bureaucrats, and selling our country out. It’s treasonous. So the fundamentals: we have to have a strong economy, a strong country, and that’s what we need to get back to.
[Marcus Paul] All right, with the fact that the, you know, the whole issue of quarantine during the pandemic, which is a federal responsibility, is being completely ballsed up, and palmed off by Morrison and his mates, with the fact that that’s completely being stuffed up. Be, you know, some of the reasons for the distraction, do you think?
[Malcolm Roberts] Possibly quite possibly, because you know, these politicians in Canberra have a habit of distracting, as you just said. But the whole pandemic has not been managed well. What we’ve got is an absence of data, that’s driving the plans. And we don’t have a plan, actually. We don’t even have a strategy. It just seems to be lurching from one thing to the next. One moment, one message to sell. Every single week, different message. There’s no coherent plan, that’s based on data. And I’ll talk more about that in a few weeks time, at senate estimates. But we need a plan for managing our economy, because that is fundamental to health. What we’re doing is destroying our economy, with some of the responses. I mean, people, you know, the Premiers of the States talk, and the Prime Minister talks about going and spending money in your state, and travelling. How the hell can people make plans when they could fly to Western Australia for example, and get locked down because they’ve got one positive test. They’d have to come back and spend $3,000 in quarantine. It’s just capricious. It’s destructive, it doesn’t consider the people.
[Marcus Paul] Your mates up there in the upper Hunter, might be as unhappy as what labor are at the moment, because I’m sorry, Pork-Barrelarow is out there with his chequebook, story this morning. And they’re promising funding to a number of women’s business organisations. While you know, there are other areas, probably should be prioritised. There’s a bit more pork barreling going on by the Berejiklian Barrilaro government, to sort of like keep your heads up on that, mate.
[Malcolm Roberts] I’m not surprised, are you?
[Marcus Paul] Well, of course not.
[Malcolm Roberts] But you know what these people are going around. What we have in this country is a system of having options every four years at the state level, every three years at the federal government level. And people don’t seem to realise that these promises have to be paid for. And who’s gonna pay for them? The very people who have taken part in the election, the voters. So, it’s a disrespectful way of running government, but it seems, the people seem to fall for it quite often. So we’ve gotta get more people aware of what’s going on in government, so that people realise that these promises are just hollow, and that they’re wasting money, quite often
[Marcus Paul] Aussie ingenuity and initiative, what’s happened to it? We used to make engines and wonderful pieces of technology.
[Malcolm Roberts] Well, you’re absolutely correct, Marcus. A lot of your listeners, the older listeners will remember names like Lister, Southern Cross, Cooper, Sundial, Barzakov. These are just some of the names on old engines, old diesel engines that were purring and puttering along at the Dalby, I went out to the Dalby Show. You know, you would have gone to shows when you were a kid.
[Marcus Paul] Oh yeah, yep.
[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah, Royal Easter, where did you grow up?
[Marcus Paul] Sydney’s West, the Luddenham Show, the Penrith Show. You know, they were wonderful.
[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah, and so what we saw at Dalby, which is west of Toowoomba on the Darling Downs, beautiful Darling Downs, it’s definitely a rural town. And we saw one whole field dedicated to 400, more than 400 engines, old engines. Had to be more than 30 years old. Some of them are a 100 years old that were puttering along, and they set a record for having the most engines running concurrently in a small area. But could you imagine this? Hundred metres long, five lines of engines, all with the enthusiasts with them, tinkering them along. You know and these engines, as I said, had to be more than 30 years old. But they worked across our country. They were essential in farming industry. Many were designed and built in Australia, highly dependable, highly reliable. Some were built under licence from overseas countries. We make none of these engines now, none at all. Yet we have great people like Jack Brabham, for example. He’s the only person ever, to have been an owner of a Formula One team, a designer of a car, and the driver, the only one ever. And he won three world champions. He’ll never be repeated. We’ve got the talent in this country. We’ve just destroyed our capacity to be productive.
[Marcus Paul] Ah, gee. All right, Malcolm. Great to have you on the programme, mate. We’ll catch up again next week. Thank you.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, Marcus. Have a good one, mate. One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts. Marcus Paul in the Morning.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/r_r5zSPt6UA/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-04-29 13:41:562021-04-29 15:57:06The Drums of War – 2SM with Marcus Paul
Last week I talked to Marcus Paul about ANZAC Day, the decision to tear up Victoria’s Chinese belt and road deal and how our politicians have no vision for this country. Transcript on my website: https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/anzac-day-lest-we-forget/
Transcript
[Marcus] As we do each and every Thursday, we catch up with One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts, G’day Malcolm, how are you?
[Malcolm] I’m well, thanks, Marcus. How are you?
[Marcus] Yeah good mate, good to talk to you. ANZAC day, a very important day on our calendar, probably one of the most important.
[Malcolm] Yes. And it really symbolises the forging of our nation, doesn’t it? Our nation officially began in 1901, but Gallipoli and ANZAC spirit was really the birthplace of Australia on the world stage.
[Marcus] Well, absolutely, and at least this year, there have been restrictions, or relaxation of COVID restrictions, which means that more and more people can take part, which is good news, but I didn’t mind the way we commemorated last year at the end of the driveway and stuff, I thought that was a really good way of personalising it for people in suburban Australia.
[Malcolm] Well, it was a way of participating, that’s for sure, but it wasn’t as good as ANZAC day. You know I’ve noticed in the last 30 years in particular, so many young kids now coming out and really celebrating and taking part. It means something to be part of that and belong to that community, that’s Australia now. So last year was a bit underplayed for me. I love ANZAC day.
[Marcus] Yeah. And you’ll be commemorating how this coming Sunday?
[Malcolm] We’ll be out at Dalby, which is a couple hundred kilometres west of Brisbane, we’ll do the dawn service there, and then we’ll go to another service in Toowoomba which you know, is a much larger town. And then we’ll go to the service there as well. And then I’ll be going to stay with my brother and sister-in-law for a little while with my wife, I’ll have the afternoon with them.
[Marcus] Lovely. Look, the Morrison government has torn up Victoria’s controversial Belt and Road agreement with the Chinese government, saying it falls foul of our national interest. It’s a move that will further inflame tensions between Canberra and Beijing. And while they’re at it, while Ms. Payne is flexing her newly-found muscle, can we perhaps ask for the Port of Darwin back?
[Malcolm] Oh, Marcus, you read my mind. Well, what about this, too? So it’s a good first step from the federal government to reclaim Victoria, but what about the restoration of our property rights? It was stolen from farmers by the Howard-Turnbull government in 1996, sorry, Turnbull wasn’t involved then, but 1996.
And the John Howard government went around the constitution and went directly to the states to steal these property rights, so the farmers wouldn’t get compensation, and the purpose? To comply with the UN’s Kyoto protocol. I am sick and tired of the federal government, Labour, and liberal, and nationals, all pushing the UN agenda, the Kyoto protocol, the Lima declaration, which savage manufacturing, the Paris agreement, on and on. We need to get our country back from the UN, and please let’s have our country back.
[Marcus] All right, tell me about this Western Australian pipeline.
[Malcolm] What an achievement that was. So Anzac day was the start of our nation on the world stage, but prior to that, even before our nation was formed in 1901, in 1896, the Western Australian premier was looking for permanent solutions to water supply in Eastern Goldfields. He commissioned Charles O’Connor, who was a competent and innovative engineer, to build a pipeline.
Now get this, this is what? 124 years ago 125 years ago one and a quarter centuries ago. It was to cover 566 kilometres from the coast, inland into Kalgoorlie, carry 23 million litres of water per day, over a lift, upward vertically at the dam site on the west coast, of 400 metres, 1400 feet. Amazing. It was the longest water supply pipeline in the world, and that’s still the case today. It was the first major pipeline in the world constructed of steel. It used more steel than any other structure in the world at the time, 70,000 tonnes.
And this O’Connor was a proven engineer, but small minded politicians ridiculed him and tried to kill it for political purposes, and they said it was too complex, would never work. Well mate, listen to some of these figures. The benefits of the pipeline were immediately apparent, and it costs two and a half million pounds, which in today’s money is 300-and-something million dollars. But in its first few years, it generated 25 million pounds worth of wealth, and today, it opens up 8 million acres of wheat cropping, that’s almost half of the nation’s wheat.
It has fine wool sheep, and mining, which was in decline before this pipeline was built in Kalgoorlie, it restarted again, and away it went, and in 2017, these are the only figures I’ve got, $11.1 billion of gold was produced in Western Australia, and much of that would have come from Kalgoorlie.
[Marcus] See why don’t we have this sort of vision today? Why are all the naysayers and objectors around, stopping this sort of vision for us to build? I mean, if we could build it back in 1896, this wonderful solution to water supply, why on earth can’t we do it in 2021?
[Malcolm] Well, vision Marcus, as you just pointed out. Vision is not about talking, and not about backstabbing, and not about putting petty agendas and personal egos and fears ahead. Vision is about a dream for something that could happen, and then having the guts to confront those fears, the political fears.
We don’t have politicians today, with very few exceptions, we don’t have politicians who will confront their fears, confront the naysayers, and stand up, and really do what’s needed for Australia. And in 100 years time or 200 years time. That’s what’s needed is politicians with courage to say what is needed.
[Marcus] Yep. Mate you don’t happen to know where this Indonesian submarine is, that’s gone missing off Bali, do you? For goodness sake?
[Malcolm] No, I don’t, but perhaps we could ask the CSIRO, because the CSIRO was in a joint venture with the Chinese government, to explore North, the coast between Australia and Papua New Guinea, can you imagine that? I’m serious!
[Marcus] I know. Talk about in our national interest! No, it’s not. Alright, mate. Good to have you on, we’ll chat next week.
[Malcolm] Same here, thanks Marcus. Enjoy the weekend, mate.
[Marcus] You too, all the best. Oh, there he is. One Nations’ Malcolm Roberts. Marcus Paul in the morning. 13 12 69, the open line number to have your say.
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.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Agz0DzzefFQ/mqdefault.jpg180320Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-03-25 07:58:322021-03-25 08:04:47How many foreign deals have we actually rejected? Questioning the Foreign Investment Review Board
Drone footage supplied courtesy of Full of BS Fishing
I travelled to Keswick Island off the coast of Mackay for Australia Day this year. While I was there I had the chance to talk to a group of local residents who are having major issues with the new owner of the head lease on the island, China Bloom. Locals allege that the developer has restricted access to the island’s airstrip and are not following the terms of use for the boat ramp.
Tourism has been decimated and it looks like the developers just want an island to use exclusively for Chinese tourism. It’s unbelievable that a foreign interest might be getting away with this right on our doorstep. China Bloom gets away with it only because the state government is not doing it’s damn job.
Transcript
Disclaimer: This transcript has been generated automatically, may contain Errors and Omissions, and is made available on the basis that the reader accepts this.
Hi, I’m Senator Malcolm Roberts. And I’m back in Mackay, after an enthralling day at Keswick Island listening to people over there. The residents have some shocking stories. It really is a microcosm of the whole of our country. Now we made a video with a group of them together and they really tell us some startling facts about what’s going on under Chinese ownership of Keswick Island. This is Australia and today’s Australia day. It’s hard to believe that this is happening, but this as I said, is a summary of what’s happening around Australia, under state and federal governments. Now the video starts a bit slowly because people are a little bit nervous but you should listen and please do, to what they start discussing. It’s amazing, what’s happening in our country, right here in Australia. Hi, I’m Senator Malcolm Roberts and I’m in Keswick Island with some of the residents of Keswick Island. And we’ve come over here to learn and to listen. And who better to hear it from, than the people themselves? Who’s going to tell us the background to what’s going on? James, Craig?
Well
Give us a bit of a history please, James.
Okay. The… I’ve owned a property here since 2003, 2004. I actually have a second property here. We built a house here with my brother, so we share it. And we’ve been here for the last 17 years, living on the island. Look, every head lessee has had their difficulties. But we have found that since China Bloom has taken over, everything’s really gone to pot. They’re really trying to force us off the island. The, the, the attitude towards all the residents has been very quiet at best. We’ve been told that we have to fill in forms to even come to our own residence on the island.
Forms?
You had to fill in a form and give them 24 hours notice to come to the island. And you have to tell every person, you have to fill out a form and tell everybody who is coming with you. You have to fill in the form to come to your own house.
Do they not know this is Australia?
Well, that’s what… I actually wrote to them And after telling them that I wouldn’t be doing it I will say, I informed them that it was extremely un-Australian to be asking something like this. They persisted with it, even two weeks ago we received another letter saying you guys are not doing what we’ve instructed you to do. And you’ve got to fill in forms. I just am ignoring all…
Is there any condition in the lease under which you signed in the first place? So you’re all lessees, right?
That’s correct.
Okay. And then what happened? When did China Bloom take over?
China Bloom took over in, around about 2019.
May?
May, June. I actually was overseas at the time, travelling and I got an email informing me that we weren’t allowed to Airbnb anymore.
So you had been running an Airbnb?
We’d been running an Airbnb, we had the reviews, as you can see this place is outstanding. I’d been, from all over the world, just saying what a beautiful place it was. You know, beautiful, we still got the reviews, you know from America, obviously a lot from Australia just saying how wonderful it was.
It is wonderful.
We had, we had, a whole lot of bookings going forward and they’ve said… they gave us seven days to block everybody coming to the island on our Airbnb. I wrote them a very polite letter saying, “Look, I’m overseas, I’m not going to argue with you about whether you’re right or wrong not allowing us to run an Airbnb. However, I have these, all of these bookings going through December, may I please use them?” And they came back and said no. At that point, I did write them a fairly terse letter saying again, I didn’t think this was very Australian and I didn’t think they actually had very much moral or sentimental value for people that have arranged and booked their holidays to come here and ask, I had to give them seven days notice to cancel.
Well, just down on the beach and driving up here with Tim I heard some pretty shocking stories. You wouldn’t believe we’re in Australia. So what are some of the restrictions they’ve put on, on people here? Capriciously?
Well, restrictions of having to fill in a form to come here. Not allowed to use the, the boat ramp anymore which we’ve been using for the last 12 years.
So that’s the way you get supplies in?
Correct. Not allowed to fly in anymore. Again, they put out a statement to say that the aerodrome’s open. Well, you would have maybe seen it today. There’s a big cross on the aerodrome and there’s an excavator on it. So I’m not too sure how they expect a plane to land on an open aerodrome with an excavator parked on the runway.
Yeah, it would be difficult.
If it is…
Unless you had a helicopter, which they have.
So they had been coming in by helicopter, and it costs $1,300, one way flight. So a round trip’s, $2,600. But again, that hasn’t happened for the last month or so. Their helicopter’s not even coming in.
And you’ve got a pilot on this, on this island?
We’ve got three, right?
Yes, we’ve got three pilots.
Craig, Reno, me.
How many times have you landed here?
Uh, 1,305 times.
1,305 times he’s landed on here.
Without incident, and the day they took over I was given 12 hours to get my plane off the island.
So there’s nothing unsafe about the airfield?
Not at all. It’s not an easy airstrip. But I maintain, if you can’t land on that airstrip you shouldn’t be flying.
How many accidents on the airstrip?
There’s been one accident, by commercial, young commercial pilot back in…
2007.
2007.
And there was an incident about fuel or something I read from a media release?
Yes. They gave me this 12 hours, no reason given at the time of why I couldn’t fly here And we, we, we come in from Mackay, we had businesses back then. And so yes… So the incident was my plane was parked right down next to the residence, the manager’s residence, and my fuel tanks were drained.
Drained?
Drained. Totally dry.
And from what I read in the media release, you got the guns or drains, checked and…
I obviously couldn’t fly, so I jumped in the boat, with some jerry cans, went to Mackay got some av gas, came back put it in the plane, flew to Mackay, flew straight to the engineers and asked them to remove my valves and put new ones in, and check them to see if there was anything wrong with them. And they said, “Nah. There’s nothing wrong with the old ones.”
So they were drained?
They were drained. Yep.
And right next to the manager’s house, for China Bloom?
Yeah, interestingly enough, yeah.
What about the, this then I’ve grilled some academics about the reef regulations that the government of the state has put in. And there’s nothing to base those reef regulations on. And those reef regulations are destroying farming and communities on the mainland. But over here, you have instances of environmental vandalism, environmental breaches of the law, and you reported them to the state government and nothing’s happened. And you have the submission for how many, how many breaches?
I’m not sure how many branches are in there, but there’s a lot.
Probably…20?
Yep
20 breaches, so to be clear here the government, the Queensland government, keeps saying it’s not a dispute with them. So let’s be very clear here. You have the Queensland government, and a lease agreement between them and the head lease. That’s an agreement, like any agreement, when you go and buy a company or buy a car there’s an agreement with a whole lot of clauses in there. These are all the clauses that they are not adhering to. And that’s why we’re approaching the government, to say, you’re not adhering to these clauses. However the government keeps saying, “No, this is a dispute between the head lessee and the sub-lessee.” We don’t have a dispute there. There’s a dispute between, what the government should be governing. And-
So the key issue is one of governance between the lease holder, who is breaking the law and breaking their lease conditions, and nothing happening about it?
Correct.
Is that right?
Yes.
And the big question, Malcolm, is why? Why? Why are they not doing anything?
Why is the government not doing anything?
If that was done on the mainland, in Australia, there would be major, major consequences. But why are they not addressing it? That’s what we wanna know.
Just to cut it down into very simple language, The very first, the very, very first condition of that head lease says this island must be used for aerodrome, marine, tourism and residential purposes. The second sentence of that head lease says, if it is not used for those purposes, the head lease must be rescinded.
Wow.
And nothing’s happening.
Let’s just see. Are they using your aerodrome? No, they’re not. Are they using marine purposes? No, they’re not. Are they using for tourism purposes? No, definitely not.
They’re stifling them.
Stopping the Airbnb. Yeah.
And are they using for residential? Well, they’re doing their best to try us all.
And business too.
Do you want to say something either?
And business was in the…
You can’t run a business..
What do you mean Brian?
Because they say you’re in breach of the lease. You cannot have a business on this island. I had a business for 12 years. I started, we started from scratch. I had partners-
What was the business?
Clearing blocks of land, which they’re now doing through their own means. They have like four guys who used to come here and clear blocks of land.
I used to do that by myself. For a number of years.
So-
When China Bloom took over, I already had previous head lessees, two of them, Vince Alexander and KDPL, who gave me permission to run my business. China Bloom didn’t give me permission to run my business, they just forced me to stop it.
Without consultation?
And now all that work is generated through and his wi- his girlfriend, Sandy through training, who now provide the labour through her company. So he’s making the money I used to get.
So there’s a conflict of interest, I think there.
So they’re telling you who you can use or can’t use for tidying your yard and maintenance?
We can’t hire Brian to clear our…
Brian probably did my block for 10 years.
Yeah.
And it’s not easy to get contractors from the mainland.
No.
$1,300 a flight.
We used to fly contractors, for example pest control in our houses. They’d fly in the morning, do a couple of houses and fly back in the afternoon and it was affordable, you shared the cost. Now you can’t fly them in, so what options do you have?
So it’s very hard, just to even maintain your land?
Correct.
And there are some stunning locations here, fabulous views.
[Tim] Could I just jump in about the helicopters and getting over to the island?
Come and speak into the microphone please, Tim.
[Tim] Well, I’m just gonna prompt you and then you can ask, just getting the number to book the helicopter, you can’t find it anywhere. I was just, I was talking about that…
So, the sole means-
[Tim] I was gonna ask you guys for the number, cause I couldn’t find it anywhere.
So the sole means of aviation access now is helicopter, and Tim was telling me, he couldn’t get the number to get the helicopter booked.
I’ve contacted this twice by email from the website, never answered me. Not once.
You see, and what’s happened with this, this, this manager that’s running the island now, he’s ended up because he thinks he’s king of the castle, he has friendships, so people that are nice to him, He will, he will allow them to come through on a helicopter but anyone he doesn’t like, he just won’t return the call.
So it costs you a lot more to get the same services done.
Or, if
If you, if you can get them.
Yeah.
It’s unaffordable for, you know, flights every time, it’s unaffordable to pay $1,300 to go, do your shopping and another $1,300 to come back.
People even ask for back flights, you know when the helicopter’s been here, they say can we get a flight back over, for a medical emergency, not emergency, but medical. No.
Yeah, we were told that there were some seats available on the helicopters for about a hundred dollars
But only for friends.
Only for friends.
But not for residents.
So they’re trying to throw you off the island, by the look of it. They’re trying to restrict what you can do. They’re also interfering with you socially. Tim was telling me about the Christmas tree, that’s been decorated by the kids here for the last 12 years. I think, Tim was it? 12 years?
Decorated by…
Kids at heart!
Kids at heart, okay. And who chopped the tree down?
Well, the workers that were here. They were instructed to do that, they said they didn’t want to
They told you they didn’t want to cut it down but they were told to.
It was, look, it was a small tree, but a huge principle. So that was just to get, to get to us. That’s the only reason they did it.
And then they cut that huge Mackay cedar down.
Yeah and they cut that…
You know the reason.
They did say it was because it was spraying out of the bank but-
There’s one on the end of the island doing the same thing.
But don’t they understand that, if you’ve got a tree that holds it together, I mean, halfway down the hill you can see where there are no trees, you’ve got a huge landslide.
Well, speaking of trees and the environment, this, I saw something, in your media release about the turtles as well. What’s going on there?
It’s been bloody ridiculous.
Yeah. It’s interesting that-
Cole?
Yeah
It’s interesting that the Christmas tree was chopped down, so, you know they’ve basically shown us their environmental credentials, or their lack of, We’ve got a thousand year old cycad here on the island, so that was planted or that grew, when the Leaning Tower of Pisa was being built, built and that can- a thousand years ago. So, you know, if they don’t look after the local environment whether it’s on land or in, on the reef how are they going to be trusted to look after a thousand year old cycad?
Right. And you’ve made, in your submission to the state government, you’ve made comments about their environmental vandalism or environmental destruction. Can you tell us about some of them? Because that’s, what Cole’s touching on.
Yeah. Well the main one that sort of kicked it all off was the grounding of the beach. So, you know, we, we witnessed a big tele handler on the beach.
A tele handler is a…
It’s a big, grabber type-
Like a grave digger
Like an earth moving..
Earth moving, okay.
Earth moving equipment. And, yeah they basically took all the dune structure and they flattened it. So from the tree line all the way down to the beach was just a nice, gentle slope.
They pushed all the sand up to the bank
I have no idea what the purpose is.
What the motivation was.
I think maybe it’s to get hours up on the tele handler But in doing that, you know, up near the beach hut there there’s information about, you know these precious dune creatures that live there and don’t destroy their habitat, and you know, look after the turtles, it’s a turtle nesting habitat,
So there’s signs saying-
Yes, there’s signs all over… There’s three different signs advising people about all this, you know, all the stuff that happens in the dune. And they go and they spread it all out evenly, just before turtle mating season. So a couple of years ago, we would have, we’ve witnessed turtle tracks coming up the beach, where turtle have tried to lay a nest, but of course there was no dunes, So of course the next high tide just washed straight over the top of it. Yeah. This has been going on for some years now.
And there’s been sightings of turtles, too.
Oh, lots.
And one, one was obviously, big, heavy and tired and had obviously laid some eggs.
Yeah. Yeah. Anyway, so that was so we were, we reported that. I think Karen reported it.
Well, I put a submission together, with three affidavits of people who saw the tele handler, and saw the turtle nest and the inundation. And photos. And I say these are location, time and date stamped photos. And I submitted it to the, Ian Hutchinson.
Who’s he?
He was the chief whip, Ian Hutchins, he’s the chief whip for Annastacia Palaszczuk,
So he’s a Labour party MP?
Yes.
Mm-hmm.
I submitted it to the Department of Environmental Science and I submitted it to GBRMPA.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.
Yeah.
And can I just add there, it was Ian Hutchins requested James to do that.
He did request me to do it.
So they know about it, requested details, given them details, nothing’s happened.
And then he came back and said “I can’t deal with”, something quite strange happened, and he just said, “I can’t deal with this, you gotta deal with the problem”…
I think he’s, he’s, Annastacia Palaszczuk’s Chief of Staff.
He was. But he’s not an MP.
He’s not an MP, so he’s not at liberty…
He was the Chief of Staff.
He’s a bureaucrat.
He’s a bureaucrat.
But, after six months, they, the Department of Environment Science came up, walked up along the beach, and said they can’t see any evidence of turtles or turtle nesting, so therefore it never happened.
Well, it’s basically, six months is in June, in June turtles don’t nest in June. They actually nest in December, I can’t imagine, at a government institution, whose task is to look after our Great Barrier Reef, and they do that.
So this was at GBRMPA, they did this?
This was the Department of Environmental Science.
And what about what was, the GBRMPA’s? The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s?
They’ve just kept very quiet.
Did they respond to you?
No.
Apparently their jurisdiction is below the low water mark, and Mackay regional council is above the high water mark. And who knows who’s in between?
Well, how has the council been on this issue?
Extremely poor, I think-
They think that it shouldn’t be them, it should be somebody else.
So everyone’s going, them
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
We’ve had, actually had, six meetings with the council over the last few years-
And nothing?
Well, they did come out here a couple months ago because there was a lot of things that were being built without permits, without engineering and that, which is their department. They did address that, to what degree we’re not really sure. But we are disappointed with their…
So the GBRMPA, is a federal agency I think, so they’ve not done anything that you’re aware of?
No.
They certainly haven’t got back to you. The state Premier’s department, the state Environmental department, the State agencies have not done anything about it, and the local council hasn’t done anything about it.
Correct.
So you’re stuck on your own facing these people.
Yeah.
We’ve written to the new Resources Minister, Scott Stewart through the member for Mackay-
How long ago?
Julieanne Gilbert. Um, just after Christmas requesting a meeting with the new minister, to try and clarify some of these issues. Now, you know, a new minister coming into a portfolio, Sure, he’s going to be a little bit in the dark. So wouldn’t you think it would be wise for him to say, “Okay, I’ve heard China Bloom’s version of this, Surely I should go and hear what residents have to say.” Now, there has been no response whatsoever from the minister’s office or from Julianne Gilbert’s office, to our request for a meeting. And I sent that letter away, Not only as a member of the Keswick Island Progress Association, but as an island resident. So that’s where it’s disappointing.
And so, Julianne, Gilbert, the member for Mackay, she’s responsible for this area?
No she’s not.
She’s actually not.
Who is your rep?
It’s, it’s actually a weird situation, because Mackay regional council are responsible for the building, environmental things on the island, but the actual rep is Whitsundays.
So that’s, uh,
What’s her name?
Amanda Camm.
Amanda Camm, yeah.
Has she done anything about it?
Unfortunately not.
She did-
She stood up in Parliament I think in December, and read out a letter but we haven’t heard anything.
She was very active in helping us initially but we haven’t-
That was before the election?
Yeah.
Yeah, before the election.
I haven’t heard much from her at all
Since the election, no?
Nothing.
No.
Realistically, all we need is maybe 3 or 4 key groups to get together around the table. We need China Bloom, we need the residents, we need the government and possibly our local member or council to sit around a table and say, ” These are our five or six main issues. How can we resolve them?” But there’s been no appetite for that whatsoever.
Okay. Tell me something more about the boat ramp that was built down there. The previous boat ramp that was denied access to and I read somewhere, I think, in your media release that this new boat ramp, which is pretty small was built, you think without approval?
That we know.
You know that?
There was no engineering, there was no permits, no environmental study,
No environmental study.
And this is actually all in the head lease, this is what they say they should be doing,
That the Queensland government should be enforcing?
Yes.
Yep.
So none of that was done. They built the first road basically on the high water mark or just below, I can take you down and show you, they threw tyres in there, they threw top soil from another illegal road in there, and it’s all just washed into the sea, you can see the tyres sitting half-
And now, on the-
Can you imagine if I even just left a single tyre on the beach in Mackay.
And you can’t use single use plastic bags anymore.
Correct.
We’re paying for them.
Yeah.
But yet they’re letting-
I can take you down there and show you-
off the road and get into the ocean.
There was a spring tide two days after they did that. And within two days it was half gone into the reef. And James has done a fantastic video, underwater showing the silk on the coral and how the cull around that area.
It’s absolutely devastated.
It’s devastated.
I think the other important thing to note is that the Department of Resources through one of their key bureaucrats, they’ve actually identified that the so-called new boat ramp is not fit for purpose.
Exactly right.
Can I just… Can I just backtrack a bit, when, a couple of head lessees ago, probably around 2008 or so, one of the head lessees approached the Queensland state government, and said he couldn’t afford to build the marina, and
So was the lease, part of the condition was building a marina?
Was you have to build a marina.
Where’s the marina?
Precisely. So he couldn’t do that. So they came to an agreement with him that he would provide a public boat ramp and a public jetty, both free of charge for the public to use. And the barge ramp, the so-called barge ramp, was the public boat ramp that was built. And it was properly engineered, and everything was done correctly through the council. And that was the ramp that was given to us to use. And at the same time, they built, they did build a jetty at that point, it wasn’t properly maintained.
And that’s the one with the two black…
Yeah.
This is the, the actual walkway has been taken back, hasn’t it?
Correct.
So it’s unusable?
Yeah, there’s-
We’re not allowed to go there.
Yeah. They’ve cut that off for us.
So then, then, when China Bloom came along, they made the airstrip an exclusion zone and they said your free, your free public boat ramp, you may not access that anymore. And now suddenly it’s become only a barge ramp, and not designed as a boat ramp. And we’ll just build you another one, but it literally took them two months to build that other one. And it just-
Totally illegal. Everything’s illegal.
Yeah, a backdoor job.
So, tell me about the national park. How much of the Island is, is leased by China Bloom? How much is national park? How much is freehold?
It’s 15%, is…
20%…
85% national park, and I’ve read that their access to the national park has been restricted, and that’s illegal, isn’t it?
That’s what I keep saying to the DNR, it is illegal. Actually it says so in the lease again, it says in the lease it refers to Clause 373, et cetera,
Th, three-
3.3?
3. 43, it says refer to this deed of agreement. And in that deed of agreement, it clearly states access to certain areas of national park. And we brought this up with the DNR and they said, “Oh it’s not part of our head lease agreement.” And we said, show us the head lease agreement. And they said, “Oh, but it doesn’t clearly state that we have to adhere to that.”
What?!
Yeah, I mean-
When you sign an agreement, there has to be a clause in there that says you must agree to it, before you-
Why put the clause in?
I know, it’s ridiculous.
Yeah.
So China Bloom also claim, and this is in your media release, the majority of them, being you guys, are in breach of their leases. And you’ve said that that is not the case. Do you want to expand on that so that people can hear?
Well, I think what that’s referring to is the people that haven’t built their houses just yet.
And one of them being Glenn Leigh-Smith.
One being Glenn Leigh-Smith, who just, yeah, he just put out a recent, pro media for China Bloom.
But he is in their pocket.
Never built on his house. But he works for them, so.
Okay.
Sorry for that.
What about, what about the, no, if it’s fact you don’t have to apologise. What about the, the people who’ve been trying to sell their houses? Well, first of all, what’s happened to the value of the properties here now, since China Bloom’s taken over and done these behaviours, and second, secondly, what is happening to the properties that you’re trying to sell? Some, some people are trying to sell?
Well our property values have gone down, this house here has gone down about probably, 75%.
Yeah, 75, 80%, I heard.
Decrease?
About 20% of what it was worth.
So just to give you an example, properties, I picked up a real, dead bargain on the property at 137,000. So they ranged between about 130,000 and 450,000 for the property, blank property.
Yep.
Some of the lessees are handing them back, at this stage.
And there’s someone trying to sell, I think and someone trying to buy his property, but they can’t settle?
Well, Lee is in that position. He’s-
Will you tell us about that?
Well, well, we went to contract-
Speak up a bit, there’s a microphone.
We went to contract on a property about six months ago and it has to go to the minister’s office, to be signed off on, which went through no problem. Went to China Bloom to be signed off, nothing. Then next thing you know, our solicitor gets a big list saying that we want this done, and we want a hundred thousand dollar security bond to make sure that you fix the solar power, a couple of minor things which would be nowhere near a hundred thousand anyway, but they don’t want to sign off. And we’re the second people, there’s more people that are trying to do the same thing. And China Bloom just will not sign the contracts, yet in the lease agreement it states that they will not impede, they are not to impede on the sale of a property.
Right. There’s a break in the lease agreement again.
Yeah.
Also, in your media release it says China Bloom claims that, it describes the residents and sub-leasers as anti-development. You’ve put up a counter to that, what is the reality? Are you anti-development?
No. I can see that.
We don’t want to lose money.
Not in the least. You know, many of their statements, if not all of them were absolutely, at best, I would say factually incorrect. I don’t want to use the L-word, but that’s how I would say that.
How can they say there’s no turtles on the island?
Well, it strikes-
I can say there’s no aerodromes, even though the aerodromes been up for four years.
It strikes me, James, as either they’re extremely incompetent or they’re lying.
Well, that’s the way I would say it.
That’s my interpretation.
It might strike me in the same way.
That’s my conclusion.
What we are anti, is anti-development that hasn’t been approved, and properly engineered and designed, because that just ends up as a disaster.
Well, I don’t think we want development at any cost. We want a sustainable island that people can live in harmony. And it’s not just residents. It’s for, it’s for all Queenslanders.
How many of you people-
It’s for all Australians.
How many of you people are here to make a quick buck? Or how many people are here to stay and enjoy yourself for a long time? That’s what comes through very, very clearly.
And in turn Malcolm, when we first all bought our land here, the future development at that stage was fantastic, wasn’t it? Peter Marshall, the original head lessee, had a fantastic… it was an eco type development. And, and that’s what we bought into. And it’s never arrived. Unfortunately, Peter couldn’t hold on to the head lease, he had other issues that need… and it was taken off him by the bank, but he, he had a fantastic vision and it’s just, it’s a shame that the next three head lessees, which the government, state government chose, have not worked out.
But the only development on this island, all the houses, were built during Vince Alexander’s time, there was nothing proposed while KDPL were here, and there’s been nothing since China Bloom took over.
Okay.
I think, you know, you as a Senator in the Australian government, I think this is an opportunity for you too, to have a look at the original sale to China Bloom. Now, who is China Bloom? Is China… What entity does China Bloom have? What resources, what, what equity do they have in China Bloom? Is it just a shelf company? Is it a $2 company in Hong Kong? You know, we’ve asked, we’ve tried to find this information but you know you as senator, and George Christensen as our local member, I would say that you would had the better chance than us to determine…
That’s actually, a property title and so on, That’s actually a state government responsibility, but I’ll see what my office can do anyway.
I think that there should be an overview of just what’s happening all around us here. And, it’s cause it’s affecting Australia.
Right.
You look at all the islands that have been sold to Chinese around here. I think there’s 6, no…
5, I think, yeah.
5.
What are they?
St. Bees, Tengolan, Lindeman, South Molle, Daydream Island.
And another big one that people don’t think of is Laguna Quays, on the mainland. It’s a big property, there’s a big resort, marina, and there’s a, it’s an unfinished three kilometre airstrip on there.
That’s the key is that, Laguna Quays, think of it this way, is Laguna Quays is very key, it’s a three kilometre. We measured it the other day, three kilometre landing strip which can land international jets. They have a huge harbour there, that’s beautifully developed. And coming from overseas, you just land there. You don’t even have to visit anywhere in Australia. You go straight from the Laguna Quays to, to the harbour of, to all these different islands.
So let’s… it’s getting close to wrap up time. So, China Bloom accuses some of the residents of building non-compliant illegal structures but in response, you said the only non-compliant and illegal structures have been built by the island manager themselves. And you’ve pointed at two specific examples, the temporary illegal boat ramp and the manager’s new double story residence.
Built without approval, structure.
Yeah.
I mean, if you did that in Mackay, the council would make you pull it down.
And we don’t know about those toilets they’ve put in at the shop either.
So we go back to that original question, why is the government not doing something about it? Why? We’d like to know why this has just been pushed under the rug.
This has got atrocious governance and loss of sovereignty stamped all over it.
Governance, the government and this state has got so many things to address. You’re saying, I’ll just quote it here: “It is our position, that number one, the head lessee must use the leased land for commercial business purposes, being tourism, residential, marine facility marine works, and aerodome purposes. And then number two, this lease may be forfeited if not used for the purpose stated above.” Let’s finish by saying, what do you want?
Them to forfeit the lease.
Yeah.
Yep.
They’re not doing their job. And it’s as simple as that.
And get a head lessee who has some interest in actually doing something…
And that’s actually touching on another point, we have three Australian investors who were shut out of this latest purchase.
Shut out.
Shut out, and they were told, two of those people have told me personally.
So Australian investors were shut out in favour of a Chinese investor
Yes.
Who is not fulfilling the, these conditions.
Correct.
Yes.
And nothing’s being done about it.
Nothing.
And that raises huge questions. That’s exactly what we’re asking. What assets do these people have, to develop this island? If it’s a, it’s a shelf company sitting in Hong Kong, where are they getting their money from? Are they getting it from within China? Are they getting it from the Chinese government? Are they getting it from the communist party?
We need some serious investigative reporting done on this. We need some digging to find out what’s behind it all.
What we wanna know, Annastacia Palaszczuk, what is she hiding from us? You know?
Okay.
Just briefly, that’s true, why doesn’t the state government meet with us, face to face?
Tell the camera. So we’ve met with them… Why doesn’t the state government why doesn’t the minister meet with us and, and go through the issues that we’ve raised? What are they scared of?
And I’ll just finish up by saying that, no one’s raised this with me, but I want to make it very clear. None of these people are endorsing me or One Nation. They’re just independent citizens. Correct? I wanna make that very clear, we’re not here to do this politically, but I am in the sense that I’m very disappointed in the state government because it’s clearly dropped the ball. Can I just say one other thing is that, so what is the motive behind all this? I would suggest that the motive behind it is to force us off the island buy our properties that are up at a basement price, and then we’ll take, whatever, or then bring in Chinese people. In China, there’s 372 billionaires. There’s 4.4 millionaires.
Yeah.
Unbelievable. You know, like this is, you know, we don’t have that wealth.
But that, that reminds me, some of you people are here as a result of your superannuation investments, right? Is that correct?
Yep. Correct.
So that’s been destroyed.
Yeah Absolutely. And this…
This is just basic human living.
This is, as James said, and Craig said earlier, at the start of this video, this is happening right around the country. This is not just a Keswick Island issue, this is a Queensland issue and an Australian issue.
It’s probably a global issue.
Maybe if you look around you, look what’s happening in China at the moment with Vietnam. They’re building walls between China and Vietnam. So, are they building walls to keep people in or to keep people out.
I don’t know, but we need to make sure we have a political system that maintains our sovereignty and our government. And I want to thank you very much. Thank you for the host for your wonderful residence.
Yeah. Thank you for coming.
Yeah, I thank you for standing up and fighting. As I said, this is not political. It’s about sovereignty and Australia. And some people say, you know, I’m from the Southern tip of Africa and I shouldn’t be here, I’m more Australian than a lot of people, like these people down there at the runway.
We welcome anyone, any colour, any religion so long as they comply with our values, uphold our laws and fit in with our philosophy.
Absolutely.
I would just hope that your visit today led to you actually writing to the Queensland government on our behalf, asking the questions to Perth and the questions we’ve put. We’re not getting a response anywhere else.
George has helped us. George Christensen has helped us.
If it’s any reassurance, we’ve asked the Premier for, data behind some of their policies. She’s pointed us to two areas, no data. So these guys are just winging it, in my experience, the, we, we will, we have come here to listen, to try and understand, one of our staff who, who is a lawyer will be getting in touch with you.
We hope you can help us with our basic human rights.
