Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Hansard source

'Eh-eh. Australia is no good to me—I don't know what the rules are. The thresholds are ridiculous.' They are saying: 'We've had a look. The government hasn't provided any additional resources to Treasury to deal with this flood of applications Treasury is now going to receive as a result of these threshold reductions, so it is just all too hard. We will go to South America instead.'

I challenge the member for Hume, Angus Taylor, to come in here today on this appropriation debate and tell us what he thinks of the new foreign investment thresholds, as much as we understand them at this stage. He was the co-author of that report that rang the alarm bell which said: 'We must be inviting foreign capital if we are to properly grow our agriculture businesses to fully capitalise on the dining boom and to allow agriculture to drive wealth in this country in the future.' I suspect the member for Hume will not come in, because he absolutely agrees with me.

Those who understand the FIRB process know this: it is just a board. The FIRB is a board designed to build some public confidence in the system, to allow people to understand that it is not just the Treasury dealing with these matters. There is a board of non-salaried people from all walks of life—and I pay tribute to all of them, including Mr Secker, a former member of this place—that is designed to give people some confidence that other people from the community with some expertise have a role to play. But we all know how these boards work. Once a month they get a list of proposals. Treasury says: 'We've got 20 proposals to put before you.' More often than not—in fact, almost all the time—they say: 'We recommend they all be approved.' It is like going to a council meeting and getting your agenda. Some of us in this place will be familiar with that process. The board rarely challenges Treasury. In any case, well before the board gets its papers, if there is any controversial proposal in there it is already in the newspapers and the Treasurer is already all over it. Ultimately it is the Treasurer who determines these matters if there is any controversy around them whatsoever.

So what is the threshold about? If the Treasurer is concerned about a proposal and if a proposal has sparked concern in Treasury, it does not matter whether it is $1 million dollars or $250 million—the Treasury is on to it, the Treasurer is on to it and the matter will be dealt with appropriately. Hopefully, it will be handled by the Treasurer in a way that maintains and further builds confidence in the system. So the threshold is a stunt. I would not care if it were just a stunt designed to bolster the stocks of a struggling National Party in particular, but it is going to do so much harm.

See this speech in context