Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I am supportive of the Foreign Investment Reform (Protecting Australia’s National Security) Bill 2020 and agree that the key objectives and changes made in this legislation are important. However, I do have some concerns about the levels of unfettered discretion that this bill provides to the Treasurer, and I will deal with that matter by tabling amendments at the third reading stage and speak to those concerns at that time.

To be clear, modern Australia was built in large part on foreign investment and will continue to rely heavily on it for the foreseeable future, but that doesn't mean that all foreign investment is okay or that foreign investors should have unrestrained access to our resources and economy—quite the opposite, in fact. There are many reasons why all foreign investment should be scrutinised carefully and why sometimes it must be curtailed and even prevented. For instance, broadacre prime agricultural land, genuinely strategic assets and scarce resources should always remain in Australian ownership and under Australian control. Frankly, it was utter madness to allow a foreign investor to gain control of the Port of Darwin for 99 years. You've only got to go to the website for the Port of Darwin where they boast that they are a vital defence asset. And it's madness that foreign investors own parts of the natural gas distribution network and, as the member for Kennedy has explained, our electricity generation capability. In the case of the best agricultural land, surely a better approach would be to allow only leasehold in lieu of freehold title. Unsurprisingly, foreign investment is one of the most frequent concerns raised with me by constituents—and no wonder, when 25.5 per cent of farmland in Tasmania is owned by foreign investors. I'll say that figure again: 25.5 per cent of farmland in Tasmania is owned by foreign investors, making this state together with the Northern Territory the jurisdictions with the highest proportion of foreign ownership of agricultural land. If you strip out leasehold, then Tasmania is by far the most foreign owned jurisdiction in the Commonwealth.

Of course, Tasmania is benefiting from some of these investments, with capital improvements and the creation of jobs. But there have been many, many issues over the years, most noticeably with the sale of the Van Diemen's Land Company to the Moon Lake company. Just to explain, Van Diemen's Land Company, or VDL, is the biggest dairy-producing asset in the country, encompassing more than 20 separate farms. Surely that makes it a strategic asset. Moon Lake promised, when they bought VDL, to invest about $100 million in the farms, to create about 100 jobs and to do extensive environmental improvements, and they promised that, before long, they would be flying planeloads of fresh milk directly to China. Do you know what they have achieved? None of that. They haven't invested $100 million in capital investment, they haven't created 100 jobs, they haven't done environmental improvements and they sure aren't flying planeloads of fresh milk to other countries. None of what they promised has occurred. But I recall very, very clearly that, when this deal was on the cards in Tasmania, the government and the opposition and a whole lot of others lined up in a conga line. They couldn't do the deal quick enough with Moon Lake, and they bought all the garbage that was being spooned out to them at the time by the company that would become the new owner. And who's holding that company to account? No-one. The Foreign Investment Review Board is not challenging Moon Lake, the Australian government isn't challenging Moon Lake and the Tasmanian government isn't challenging Moon Lake. And how could they when they all celebrated the sale! No wonder the community is so disillusioned with the amount and the nature of foreign investment in this country.

The government's bill today does go a way to fixing at least some of the issues, as it provides methods of enforceability and penalties if foreign investors ignore the conditions of sale imposed by the FIRB or the Treasurer. But surely it's in our nation's best interest, in the public interest, to go much further. For starters, the Foreign Investment Review Board should apply much tougher scrutiny of investment that could adversely affect Australia's agricultural, business and property sectors, including the commercial sector, as well as our cultural, environmental and heritage wellbeing. This scrutiny must apply equally to all foreign investors with no exceptions.

An example of a specific reform that the government should be pursuing is that all purchases of agricultural land worth over $2 million should go before the Foreign Investment Review Board, instead of the current threshold of $15 million. And, as I've said already, there needs to be a much greater reliance—indeed, an insistence—on land leases, instead of selling the farm with a freehold title. Also, the current business investment requirement that all acquisitions of an interest of 20 per cent or more in any Australian business valued at over $261 million should, in fact, be applied to all foreign investment. And there must be no carve-outs—this is very important—for favoured countries or countries with which we supposedly have free trade agreements. So there should be no carve outs for investors from Chile, from China, from Japan, from Korea, from Singapore, from New Zealand and even from the United States. Moreover, residential properties should be subject to tougher foreign ownership restrictions. Yes, we've gone some way, but we've got to go further. For instance, foreigners should only be able to buy residential property if it is to genuinely be their permanent residence or genuinely their place of business. And all states and territories governments need to apply a stamp duty surcharge to foreign investors.

All of what I've described would be in the public interest and enjoy strong public support, not because of racism or any spat we might have from time to time with any one country but because we are a sovereign nation with every right and, indeed, every obligation, to safeguard and enjoy our heritage, culture and resources. Sure, we are a remarkably diverse and stable multicultural nation, the equal or better of any nation on earth. I'm immensely proud of that, but that doesn't mean we should allow the fire sale to continue. The community would not accept that, and it is not in the country's interests. So I commend the government for focusing on these issues in recent times and for bringing this bill to the parliament, but I urge the government to go much further. The bill does have my support, and I look forward to attracting the government's and the opposition's support for my amendments, which will enhance the bill.

See this speech in context