Cartoon by Nicholson from “The Australian” newspaper:
www.nicholsoncartoons.com.au
I am surprised by the frequency with which concerns about
foreign ownership of land in Australia are being expressed to me by friends who
have fairly sensible views on most other issues. It is almost as though
rationality disappears whenever foreign ownership and agricultural land become
linked in their minds.
My response has been along the lines that foreign ownership
of land in Australia isn’t something we should be worried about because it has
been occurring since the beginning of European settlement and, these days, accounts
for a small proportion of total agricultural land. (ABS data indicate that about
99% of Australian farm businesses are fully Australian owned and about 90% of
farmland is fully Australian owned.)
That usually provokes the assertion that Chinese ownership is new and worrying.
That usually provokes the assertion that Chinese ownership is new and worrying.
When I suggest that the new owners can’t
take the land home with them, I am asked to justify why foreigners should be
able to buy land in Australia, when Australians are not allowed to buy land in
their countries. My reply has been that Australia should adopt economic
policies that serve the interests of Australians rather than following the
policies that other countries adopt.
At that point I am asked to explain how foreign ownership of agricultural land in Australia serves Australian interests.
At that point I am asked to explain how foreign ownership of agricultural land in Australia serves Australian interests.
That might seem like a reasonable question to ask, but it is
actually a debating trick that puts the onus of proof in the wrong place. The
basis of a market economy is that economic transactions are undertaken because
they are mutually beneficial to sellers and buyers. If some third party
considers that a particular kind of transaction should not take place, the onus
should be on that party to make the case.
If an Australian wants to buy the property at a lower price, that is not a legitimate argument for preventing the property from being sold to a foreigner. If their sole objection to the transaction is that the purchaser is foreign, why is that relevant?
If an Australian wants to buy the property at a lower price, that is not a legitimate argument for preventing the property from being sold to a foreigner. If their sole objection to the transaction is that the purchaser is foreign, why is that relevant?
Unfortunately, the views I have presented above tend not to have
been particularly persuasive. My
friends seem to want me to explain how Australians can benefit from foreign
ownership of agricultural land. Well, now I have now calmed down a little, I
will try to do that.
The most obvious way Australians benefit from foreign land
ownership is from associated investments which create increased employment
opportunities, and generate additional wealth, some of which adds to government
revenues and enables more services to be provided to Australians.
So, what about the situation where the foreign owner does not undertake any new investment? In that situation it is quite likely that the former owner will invest the proceeds of the sale in ways that will generate additional income. It is also likely that the new owner will find ways to use the resources more productively, perhaps by using better management practices. The fact that a new owner is prepared to pay more than the former owner’s reserve price usually implies that the new owner can see potential to generate more income from the property than the former owner.
So, what about the situation where the foreign owner does not undertake any new investment? In that situation it is quite likely that the former owner will invest the proceeds of the sale in ways that will generate additional income. It is also likely that the new owner will find ways to use the resources more productively, perhaps by using better management practices. The fact that a new owner is prepared to pay more than the former owner’s reserve price usually implies that the new owner can see potential to generate more income from the property than the former owner.
Is there any more reason to question the benefits to
Australians of foreign investment in agricultural land than any other foreign
investment, or of new investment in agricultural land by Australians? I don’t
think so, but various arguments to the contrary are raised. It has been
suggested that ownership that is encouraged by foreign governments to improve
food security may endanger future food security of Australians. It has also
been suggested that enclaves of foreign ownership could have a deleterious cultural
impact on rural communities. The people who promote those views seem to
overlook the fact that foreign ownership or agricultural land in Australia is a
small proportion of the total.
The opponents of foreign ownership of agricultural land also
raise such issues as whether foreign firms pay tax, whether they are able to
import foreign labour more easily, and whether they can be trusted to comply with
Australian labour and environmental regulations. Those arguments seem to me to
be scraping the barrel. It is hard to see why Australian tax and regulatory
authorities should have any greater difficulty in dealing with foreigners than
with Australians.
As far as I can see there is no case for foreign ownership
of agricultural land in Australia to be subjected to more stringent regulation
than any other foreign investment in this country.
Very useful conversation. This is really very helpful to understand about buying agricultural land by foreigners. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteLand for Sale in Salem | Home for Sale in Salem
Nice Post thanks for sharing....! Buying Property in Australia For Foreigners
ReplyDelete