Thoughts on Foreign ownership in Australia

[eKwatee]

LOL... think about what you are saying. Where do you think the LAND comes from to build upon in built up areas? How do you think rezoning occurs? Do you think there are all these vacant blocks in the CBD waiting to be built upon?

Developers/investors often need to buy established property, sometimes many adjacent to each other, and often hold for a few years before major development. Hence, they need to be able to buy & hold existing property. Your theory would effectively put an end to that for many developments through foreign ownership prohibition.

You make a good point about Foreign investors wishing to buy several established adjoining properties to build new and I'm sure FIRB do ask the purpose behind the purchases of these established properties, again the point refers back to foreign investment into a newly constructed building and yes I see this as ok, as long as they build the thing.

Foreign investors buying for the purpose of land banking it away for many years with no intention of building anything or just putting together the DA just to on sell, I'm against.

 

[Deltaberry]

grossreal - I have no idea what you're saying... I think you're saying something along the lines of you don't want this country to sell its coal and gold to the Chinese.

a) the Chinese aren't buying gold so don't worry, you're safe on that front. You're just selling to the Americans and Canadians. Or you can stop selling to them and keep it all in these nice museums

b) the coal - well yea you can keep that in the museum too. Not sure how all our friends who've invested in Gladstone/Hunter Valley etc and people working there will feel about that.

As always, want to sell the cake and eat it too.

 

[peastman]

I don't think any of us (local or foreign) really "own" the land.
What happens if you don't pay the rates, the land is seized.

Governments let us think we own it, but they have the power to change the laws. Just look at what happened in Cuba in the early sixties. Hilton Hotels just opened their first foreign hotel in Cuba, when Castro decided no foreign ownership was permitted and just took it.

Australian politics would have to change somewhat for this to happen, but it could happen.

Knowing that laws can and are changed to suit the government that happens to be in power, is the main reason why I wont buy foreign property. And foreigners buying Australian property take the same risk, albeit a small risk.

Grossreal was saying that once its sold, its gone. That would be true for most things, but land stays here, regardless of who "owns" it. Australia will allways really own it.

 

[alexlee]

As always, possibility and probability are not the same thing.

Sure, the government COULD repeal private property ownership. The probability of it happening? Too low to be concerned about.

 

[Deltaberry]

No you don't own the land by legal definition. It's the Crown's land...

re the point about milk - well once it's sold, you can make more
As for coal and gold, well if people here have a need for it, then they shouldn't sell it.

 

[pursefattener]

I know i might not be as well informed as some here but I have a good read of the FR on a sat morning .

I note that the recievers of one of the large MIS sold all the assetts to a Canadian pension fund for less than half their likely value . Something like about 412 M....probably worth more like 1B if sold off in smaller lots . A lot of this land is in good high rain fall areas .

MIS would have to be some of the worst govt policy for a long while and is ripping off the country in my view .

I sometimes wonder how we will be able to prosper with large tracts of quality agribusiness assetts falling into control of people from south east asia .

Australians generally don't value agriculture as an investment much I reckon . To our peril ! I don't know that anyone much goes too hungry here . It may not always be this way , dunno ...

 

[Sunfish]

Personally, I encourage the foreign ownership of residential property, largely due to the pool being so big. However I am not so sure about the foreign ownership of water and agriculture assets in Australia.

Why is one good and another bad?

Personally, I was disgusted when Xtrata bought MIM for a little over a dollar/sh.

But everytime you buy some cheap imported goodie, something Australian must be sold to balance the books. We don't quite sell enough coal and iron, so someday we pay the piper.

A dollar saved from your spending account and invested in Australian assets is a blow for independence. I have a broad definition of assets. If you like art and collectables, your dollar will make the asset class a little dearer for o/s investors.

Nothing gets up my nose as much as bums whinging that Australian companies are being sold o/s. What do they do to prevent it? The Poms own Bundy Rum BTW. :EEK:

 

[meconium]

When the chips are down, where will their loyalties lie? Please, governments, wake up and stop being so naive. "

This sort of argument was used to unfairly lock up people of Italian and German descent during WW2. These were our fellow Australians being locked up - valuable, hard working people who posed no threat to "us".

How many of the so-called patriots like Grossreal, WW and CSC2 (the latter two haven't yet entered the fray) realize that the most decorated unit in over 200 years of US military history was composed of Japanese Americans who fought for their homeland (the USA) during WW2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/442nd_Infantry_Regiment_(United_States)

I'm sick of semi educated rednecks telling us that we are being taken over. I happily invest overseas. Why shouldn't foreigners have the same right?

 

[meconium]

I think all countries should only permit citizens to own land.

Using your argument here: As Canadian residents you shouldn't be even contemplating buying in Australia?! Shame on you.

 

[kathryn d]

Using your argument here: As Canadian residents you shouldn't be even contemplating buying in Australia?! Shame on you.

I don't need to.
My husband was born in Australia, and has lived in Australia for 39 years.
He can buy it

 

[BayView]

I think all countries should only permit citizens to own land.

Agreement here.

Like GR says once it's sold it's gone and there is no control over the results the new owners would create (talking more about business in this case).

Some areas need the o/s input - such as mining as was said earlier otherwise the mine might not have ever been developed, but things like resi property (and commercial) there is always plenty of local demand.

Ventures such as giant mines - I don't know enough about it, but it would seem to me that if the Gubbmint is allowing mining, and needs investment, then surely a tender would be called for? And if no Aussie companies are coming forward to take it up then open it up to other players.

 

[meconium]

'Straya forever

I'm dismayed at some of the attitudes on this thread. As Aussies, we feel we have a right to buy property overseas (check out the many threads on SS about buying in the USA, for example). But when the boot is on the other foot, we find all manner of deceitful reasons to bar foreigners from buying property here.

The one common thread I see in the anti-foreign investment brigade is a lack of a formal education. I don't mean to insult anyone here but perhaps going back to Tafe or Uni would help some of you think more critically? If that won't work, can I suggest a trip to Bali?

 

[Perp]

I heard a very simple thing the other day
you are selling the milk cow to buy a bottle of milk
what do you do for the next bottle of milk

The same as I do now, buy a carton of milk from the person who owns the cow.

I've never owned a cow, or mine, or supermarket, or car manufacturer - entities beyond my control have always owned those things, and I buy their products. Why should I care about the nationality of the owning entity? Couldn't an Australian company do the wrong thing by me just as easily as a foreign company? Both must operate under Australian law when selling me their products, so I really don't follow the logic.

 

[Melbournian]

I think all countries should only permit citizens to own land.

Well - how about multinational companies and their staff - who come here to invest in the country.

Say a japanese multinational wanted to open a factory producing electronics etc in Australia. They would want to purchase the land for security as well as to ensure that their millions dollar investment doesn't get hitched by a greedy landlord or hiking up rents. Yeah you could find a 20 year lease etc but either way it wouldn't be that attractive and wouldn't attract investment into Australia, as well as jobs, skills, training. Part of why China is booming is it is attracting a lot of foreign investment in terms of factories, R&D. A lot of other countries are trying to do this too.

Sometimes it better to look at the bigger picture.

 

[buster]

Agreement here.

Like GR says once it's sold it's gone and there is no control over the results the new owners would create (talking more about business in this case).

Some areas need the o/s input - such as mining as was said earlier otherwise the mine might not have ever been developed, but things like resi property (and commercial) there is always plenty of local demand.

Ventures such as giant mines - I don't know enough about it, but it would seem to me that if the Gubbmint is allowing mining, and needs investment, then surely a tender would be called for? And if no Aussie companies are coming forward to take it up then open it up to other players.

Where does the land go? The buyer cant take it with them. It is still there. The owner still has to comply with australian law and is still controled by what he can and cant do with it. It can still be compolsurly acquired by government and other companies for many different reasons eg. mining , roads construction, water drainage or delivery, wild life reserve or corridor etc etc etc. You might as well sell the milk because in few hours the cow will have produced some more and it does not keep for very long, If you dont sell the milk it is not viable to keep the cow, then you wont have milk. You can also sell the cow because if the cow had 3 calves you have trippled your assets. Even if you sell gold, the gold does not disappear it will probably sit in a vault and still stay there, there will just have been an exchange of papper with some lines made with ink on it. G R doesnt make sense but what I think he is saying is fairies will make gold and land disappear.

 

[kathryn d]

Where does the land go? The buyer cant take it with them. It is still there. The owner still has to comply with australian law and is still controled by what he can and cant do with it. It can still be compolsurly acquired by government and other companies for many different reasons eg. mining , roads construction, water drainage or delivery, wild life reserve or corridor etc etc etc. You might as well sell the milk because in few hours the cow will have produced some more and it does not keep for very long, If you dont sell the milk it is not viable to keep the cow, then you wont have milk. You can also sell the cow because if the cow had 3 calves you have trippled your assets. Even if you sell gold, the gold does not disappear it will probably sit in a vault and still stay there, there will just have been an exchange of papper with some lines made with ink on it. G R doesnt make sense but what I think he is saying is fairies will make gold and land disappear.

In some places, the amount of milk allowed to be produced is set. The amount you are allowed to charge is set.
A nonresident is only permitted to own a certain % of land.
Not from a third world country, but from 2 provinces in Canada. Milk=Nova Scotia, land=Prince Edward Island.

From viewing places here on Gumtree, there seems to be properties only available by leasehold in Qld.
I do not pretend to know too much about politics, as it bores me.
If a country doesn't start protecting it's resources and it's land at the start, it makes it much more difficult later on.

Yes a country can always take back the land, but that may be much harder said than done, especially if owned by foreigners, who may soon make up more than 50% of the population.

Even I wouldn't permit me, a Permanent Resident, to own land in a country I wasn't born in. Just being born in a country doesn't make you a citizen either. A family here on vacation, and then giving birth doesn't quailfy.Just thought I would add that before someone else decides to.

 

[Aaron Sice]

30 years ago, a german couldn't buy land in france.

now they can.

as we inevitably lose our trading borders and protectionist taxation systems in the benefit of free trade, our region (especially) will eventually become an EU-like 'zone' with everything from food to business to land.

'country' as we now know it is slowly dissolving. nationalistic attitudes as a front for patriotism is growing thin. racism as a front for patriotism is just cowardly.

it is now inconvenient and counter-productive for business and individuals to support closed borders. to do so also risks trade sanctions by the globalist WTO which does nothing for anyone.

you, as an individual, group, political party or leader of the free world have no power to stop it. your apathy as a voter and insatiable desire for more will inevitably win out.

not that it is a bad thing. indeed, far from it. thinking about what you want before you need it shows aptitude - buying real estate is a proven intergenerational wealth transfer.

where is this post going?

nowhere. just like arguing about protecting borders.

grain is sold to the highest bidder, regardless if it's for food, feed or biofuel. much the same that the land used to grow that grain is sold to the highest bidder regardless if it's for farming, development or landbanking.

maybe those more nationalistic than others should at least attempt to understand the merits of open borders by listening to the other side of the story and why it's being encouraged in this country.

unfortunately, i think that proposition will fall on deaf ears for a long time to come.

buster's post is entirely true. there are many safeguards and conditions that buying titles of land come with. who buys that land isn't going to change our laws, much the same that someone wearing a burqa on the street doesn't mean sharia law is coming, either.

 

[buster]

In some places, the amount of milk allowed to be produced is set. The amount you are allowed to charge is set.
A nonresident is only permitted to own a certain % of land.
Not from a third world country, but from 2 provinces in Canada. Milk=Nova Scotia, land=Prince Edward Island.

From viewing places here on Gumtree, there seems to be properties only available by leasehold in Qld.
I do not pretend to know too much about politics, as it bores me.
If a country doesn't start protecting it's resources and it's land at the start, it makes it much more difficult later on.

Yes a country can always take back the land, but that may be much harder said than done, especially if owned by foreigners, who may soon make up more than 50% of the population.

Even I wouldn't permit me, a Permanent Resident, to own land in a country I wasn't born in. Just being born in a country doesn't make you a citizen either. A family here on vacation, and then giving birth doesn't quailfy.Just thought I would add that before someone else decides to.

I am not sure what you are on about Kathryn, there are properties every where that are only avaailable by lease everywhere. What ever relevance that is. What has proprietorship got to do with protecting resources and land. It is not as any-one can buy land suceed from australia, create their own principality and not be subjected to Australian laws and controls. Alot of countries encourage and give incentives for forgein investment and development and those are the countries going ahead. As every dollar invested creates $4 in ecomic growth. What is difficult about expropriation, it doesnt even have to be said a lawyer justs writes a letter and there is SFA you can do about unless you want to spend years in court and $millions for no positive result, as their are precedents, governments including council, mining , exploration , water companies, etc, have the rights. You are better off negotiating compensation. It is done probably hundreds of times every-day. It has happened to me 3 x, once for gravel to make roads once for mineral sands exploration and mining. I take it Kathryn if a foreigner offered to buy your property for twice what is worth you wouldnt sell it, even though you know he will have to sell it for halve price in 3 years time.

 

[kathryn d]

I take it Kathryn if a foreigner offered to buy your property for twice what is worth you wouldnt sell it, even though you know he will have to sell it for halve price in 3 years time.

Of course I would, and so would most.
I am just saying, as a country, it shouldn't be permitted.

 

[Deltaberry]

Even I wouldn't permit me, a Permanent Resident, to own land in a country I wasn't born in. Just being born in a country doesn't make you a citizen either. A family here on vacation, and then giving birth doesn't quailfy.Just thought I would add that before someone else decides to.

I don't think there are many countries where permanent residents are not allowed to own land. Your suggestion will be quite ground-breaking if voters who sympathise with you ever got their say...

In any case I sense a thinly-veiled attack on certain ethnic groups which have been picking up permanent residents by large recently.

Your other point about a family being here on vacation borders on absurdity. That probably makes up 0.01% of the people who gain citizenship status by birth.

Perhaps what you're advocating is a values test. For example, if someone is not interested in cricket, footy, enjoys a good VB or loves going to Bondi, then they probably shouldn't be allowed to get citizenship. Or, for example, if you can't name the the person with the highest batting average in history then perhaps you shouldn't be a citizen. Very akin to Malaysia, where you're not a 'Malay' if you're not Muslim and your rights are reduced.

Usually though people who advocate these would probably prefer a test of 'western European heritage'. But it's probably too politically incorrect so they go with the values test