Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Before I make my contribution in respect of the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Legislation Amendment Bill 2015, the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Bill 2015 and the Register of Foreign Ownership of Agricultural Land Bill 2015, I want to take the opportunity to reflect on someone who I regard as my political hero. The Modest Member, Bert Kelly, was someone who argued for a globalist view in this place and, indeed, in the other place, at a time when it was an unpopular view. Indeed, the former member for Barker, the Hon. Ian McLachlan, suggested that Bert Kelly, for his services to the nation, ought to have been given a brace of knighthoods. That is why, when the member for Kennedy perhaps calls me a globalist, I like to think I can wear that tag with some honour, and I would like to take the opportunity to reflect on Bert's courage as the Modest Member. But what is lucky for me is that one can concurrently be an Australian citizen and a globalist. That was the point that Bert Kelly made in his arguments and one that ultimately won the day. I would much rather be a globalist than a protectionist. Someone might need to tell the member for Kennedy that that argument has been run and lost.

Speaking of the member for Kennedy, can I take up his challenge. I think his challenge was to identify foreign investment in this country that has been good for the national interest. What I will do is identify a couple of current investments in my electorate and then one that I am seeking to assist with which will be of immeasurable benefit to the farmers in my electorate.

The first is an investment in a mill in the small town of Tarpeena, near Nangwarry. New Forests have purchased that mill. It was part of the acquisitions as a result of the Gunns liquidation. That liquidation put in jeopardy many hundreds of jobs in my community, and if it were not for that injection of foreign capital those jobs, I am almost certain, would have been lost. So to the member for Kennedy I say: there is a rock-solid example in the forestry industry of where foreign investment in Australian agribusiness was of benefit. Another example was the now not so recent acquisition of Telopea Downs, a sprawling station not far from the South Australian border and communities such as Bordertown in my electorate. This was purchased by foreign interests, the Hassad Australia group, who not only purchased the property but then set about reclaying the property. That is a process that is incredibly intensive. They engaged local contractors, and as a result of that work the land is now much more productive and fertile and will be forevermore. So those are two clear examples which I think go some way to answering, from my electorate's perspective, the member for Kennedy's concerns.

But can I talk about a prospective investment. Very many of my electors are beef and sheep producers. Indeed, my own parents turn out a modest number of head. What we need to see—and I am sure others in the chamber will agree—is downstream processing. In agriculture, in pursuit of the national interest, we need to capture more and more of the value chain, so more and more processing facilities would be a good thing, because of course added competition drives up competition for prices at markets.

So this very week I hosted the Mayor of the City of Mount Gambier, who is a particularly active mayor and who himself had brought owners of a Chinese abattoir to Australia. Their interest in the initial stage is to get access, via the free trade agreement, to live cattle, but their long-term plan is to invest significantly in my electorate, or close to it, to establish a processing facility. I hear the member for Kennedy all the time talking about the integration of processing facilities in the protein space. This would be a novel investment in greenfield agriculture, and I can tell you that people in my electorate, particularly the farmers turning out quality stock, are screaming for those kinds of investments.

Having said all of that, can I speak to the trilogy of bills. As a candidate, there are some policy positions that you get somewhat excited about, and in the lead-up to the September 2013 election I was very keen to keep reminding the electorate that we had plans in relation to establishing a register of foreign investment. So here we are tonight, and I have my opportunity to speak on the bill that has arrived in this place. Increased transparency on all levels of foreign investment in agricultural land is an important thing. I am pleased to confirm and lend my support to this position.

The Agricultural Land Register will provide information from investors directly to the ATO. It was established on 1 July 2015. The government, as I understand it, is currently in negotiations with the states and territories to establish the register in relation to land currently held. I must say it is a bit of a disappointment of mine that that cooperation has not been forthcoming to this point, but I am sure it will be.

We are also, through the trilogy of bills, beefing up enforcement. The issue here is that there is no point having a regime underpinned by the Foreign Investment Review Board if we do not have strong criminal penalties and divestment orders to ensure that people are effectively doing the right thing.

The most important elements, in my respectful submission, of the trilogy of bills are the thresholds. As I travel around my electorate, people are concerned about foreign investment in agricultural land. They were very concerned that the level at which acquisitions would be referred to the Foreign Investment Review Board was set at $252 million. I know agricultural land is becoming more and more expensive—and for those that own it and have their superannuation tied up in it, can I say that I am pleased for them—but, even at the current rates, $252 million is an incredibly high threshold. I am much more comfortable with the new threshold set at $15 million. I am even more impressed that, in setting this threshold, we have indicated that it will be a cumulative figure. That is, if I am a foreign investor and I currently own $8 million of agricultural land and I seek to acquire another property of, let us say, an additional $8 million, it will trigger a reference to the Foreign Investment Review Board. And so it should, because but for that cumulative test we would be in a situation where people would just split up deals to the point where each deal would sit below the threshold figure, and we would be in a situation where this legislation would not operate in the way that is intended.

Of course, referral to the Foreign Investment Review Board is not a process that is cheap; nor is it a process that, by definition, means that someone who makes an application is not going to be accepted. But—back to the question of the costs of referral to the Foreign Investment Review Board—it was important to ensure that referral to that process and the costs of meeting that process were met by the applicant, and that, as well, is picked up in this trilogy of bills. We could not have a situation where the costs associated with assessing foreign land acquisition was being cross-subsidised. It very much needed to be a situation where we were ensuring a fee-for-service arrangement. So that deals with foreign investment in land.

As you heard from the member for Murray, in terms of the acquisition of agribusinesses, the rate is set at $55 million. From that, I think we can see that, as a nation—as I mentioned earlier—we are very much focused on inward investment into agribusinesses and, ideally, the establishment of fresh agribusinesses in downstream processing to allow Australian farmers and the nation to capture more of the value chain.

I often say that, in a truly globalised world economy, the one thing that will hold back Australian agriculture is insufficient capital infrastructure and insufficient capital investment in downstream processing. In this regard, the options are twofold, by definition. That investment can come in the form of domestic, or Australian, investment, or it can come in the form of foreign investment. Given the size of the Australian economy and the size of the Australian savings pool, it is not too difficult to realise that the majority of that investment will be enticed, as it has been over the history of Australia, from overseas. We ought to be doing everything we can, particularly in this greenfield agri-investment space, to entice it. As I say, it directly connects to the ability of farmers to achieve higher farm gate prices, and, as a representative of a rural and regional electorate, I need to be focused on ensuring my constituents get more and more for their product at the farm gate.

These are bills that I am excited about. They are reforms which are important. They are reforms that have been called for from across the agricultural spectrum, and they will assist this nation in pursuing its national interest. The coalition understands the opportunities that a truly globalised economy provides for Australia. Bert Kelly understood it, Ian McLachlan understood it and I understand it. That is why it disappoints me—

See this speech in context