Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

First, I thank senators for their consideration of this bill. The bill is part of a broader package of tools that includes the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeover Fees Imposition Bill 2015 and the Register of Foreign Ownership of Agricultural Land Bill 2015. Combined, these legislative changes will make an important contribution to strengthening the integrity of Australia's foreign investment framework, ensuring Australia maintains a welcoming environment for investment that is not contrary to our national interest. These reforms will ensure that from 1 December 2015 Australia's foreign investment framework is more modern, less complex and better targeted to changing demands and community expectations.

With this bill the government is implementing its commitment to increase scrutiny and transparency around foreign investment in agriculture, while also responding to concerns raised by the House Economics Committee. The committee noted that a lack of compliance and enforcement of residential real estate rules is undermining the overall integrity of the foreign investment framework. These changes will deliver a robust regulatory framework, increasing community confidence and providing a predictable and welcoming environment for investors.

The Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 represents the most significant overhaul of the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 since its introduction 40 years ago. It provides essential changes to simplify the system, strengthen the framework and guarantee that the rules are enforced. It introduces additional and stricter civil and criminal penalties to ensure foreign investors and intermediaries do not profit from breaking the rules. The accompanying transfer to the Australian Taxation Office of responsibility for regulating foreign investment in residential real estate will further enable stronger enforcement and audit and compliance with the existing rules.

The bill also enables the lowering of screening thresholds for investments in Australian agriculture; this will make sure that all significant investments in this sector are scrutinised. The bill now also includes a Senate amendment around foreign ownership of water entitlements. The bill includes a sunset clause applying to the Register of Foreign Ownership of Agricultural Land Bill 2015, which commits the government to implement a register of water entitlements within 12 months. Establishing a register of water entitlements is consistent with the government's reforms to increase transparency around the legislation and foreign investment in agriculture, while ensuring the timely implementation of this important reform package.

I should reiterate that these changes are about welcoming essential foreign investment that is not contrary to our national interest—investment that strengthens Australia's economy, creates new jobs and unlocks innovation. With the passage of this bill, the government simultaneously fulfils our promise to protect our country's national interests while confirming that Australia does indeed remain 'open for business'. I commend all the amendments to the House.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We oppose these amendments because they are appalling policy. They represent a sell-out by the Liberal Party to the Greens and to the National Party. It is just as well the assistant minister wore his green tie today. This is selling out policy to the Greens and to the National Party, creating red tape and discouraging important investment in Australia. I know the assistant minister would not for a second believe in what he just moved. It would be an affront to his principles. I accept that the assistant minister has principles when it comes to economic management and this is an affront to them, as it would be to many Liberals and as it would be to the Minister for Trade and Investment, because it is bad policy.

What we see is the introduction and the escalation of discrimination in our foreign investment rules at the hands of this government. We see discrimination against countries which this government has decided should be treated differently from the United States, New Zealand and Chile, which enjoy a $1 billion threshold for foreign investment in Australia that was instigated by the then Howard government. What this legislation does and what these amendments do is reduce the threshold for scrutiny for agricultural land from $252 million to just $15 million for investors from most countries, but not the United States, New Zealand and Chile. The government has to justify this discriminatory process against China and against other countries. What is different about foreign investment from some countries which makes it worthy of greater scrutiny compared to the United States, New Zealand and Chile, which enjoy a $1 billion threshold?

The government also has to explain why agribusiness is so different to the rest of the economy. Why does agribusiness need a different threshold to financial services or telecommunications or manufacturing and other important areas of the economy? Agribusiness is a very important area of the economy, but is it really so different to those other sectors like telecommunications or the financial services sector that it requires a different regime? What is different about it? What is the government's justification for that? Well, the justification is that Barnaby Joyce is running this government's economic policy. We have seen it again and again. As former Prime Minister Keating said in a different context of a different person, I would not let him near a jam jar of five cent pieces when it comes to making economic policy. But we have this government, this Treasurer, who is happy to outsource policy to his cabinet colleague the Minister for Agriculture and, on this occasion, to do a deal with the Greens, and railing against doing deals on economic policy with the Greens and yet doing it in the Senate last night.

This is a set of propositions which has been appropriately condemned by the Business Council of Australia, by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, by the Australian Industry Group, and by the Australian Food and Grocery Council—all have supported the principled position of the Labor Party. We get a lot of calls for greater bipartisanship for good economic reform. Well, this is one where the Labor Party will call out bad economic reform. In fact, this is not reform, because reform implies a positive change. This is a retrograde change. We will not have a bar of bipartisanship on this policy because it is bad policy, and we will call it out for what it is. I know that there are many members opposite, including many cabinet ministers, who agree with us on this proposal.

It is easy to play cheap politics on foreign investment. We can all go out there and run campaigns against foreign investment. What actually shows a bit of political courage is the Labor Party coming in and supporting good policy. We will not engage in the populist nonsense that the Minister for Agriculture is engaging in. We will not engage in the cheap, grubby deal-making with the National Party that this Treasurer, this Minister for Trade and Investment and this entire government are engaged in. The now Prime Minister has done deals with the National Party on an effects test and now he is also selling out to the National Party on this matter.

I will not accept for a second members opposite—who, just a few weeks ago, were railing about the China free trade agreement—coming in here and moving amendments which effect discrimination against the world's second largest economy and investment in China. We will not accept that. We will not accept being lectured to by this bunch who engage in these sorts of deals, these sorts of poor public policy outcomes, and this appalling process that we saw in the Senate through the deal between the National Party and the Greens last night. And the Treasurer is claiming, as this government does, that they are 'open for business'. What this shows is that that is rank nonsense and hypocrisy from the government. This is a government selling out their so-called pro-foreign investment credentials and selling out all their anti-red-tape agenda for this deal with the National Party and with the Greens. Well, we will not cop it. We will stand for good policy. We will recognise that it takes more than rhetoric to get foreign investment and more than just saying that that foreign investment is vital for Australia's capital needs, but actually putting in place the mechanisms to get it. We will support good policy over this rank hypocritical nonsense.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These are great amendments and they should be supported, but can I say: wouldn't it be nice if we could debate in this parliament and in the public about preserving the right to legislate to protect our water, our environment and our labour conditions without one side calling the other racist or xenophobic or discriminatory?

That is what happened when the Greens stood up here in this parliament and said, 'Perhaps it's not a great idea to enter into trade agreements that give away our right to regulate for the best interests of the Australian people and the environment because it might affect the profits of foreign corporations.' The government railed at that and said, 'You're being racist and xenophobic.'

But now, when we are arguing exactly the same point—namely, the right to look after our water and our farmland in this country—the tables have turned and Labor are calling the Liberals xenophobic and discriminatory. There is nothing at all discriminatory about this parliament passing laws that protect the environment, make sure that we have clean air, make sure that we have clean water and make sure that people are well looked after, and that is what these amendments do.

The Greens, for a very long time, have said there is something special about land and water. There is something special in particular about water, because without good water we cannot have good agriculture. In an era of climate change, when our water and our land are under threat and under pressure like we have never seen before, and we know that we are entering a century where, unless we get climate change under control, issues of food security are going to rise higher and higher on the national agenda and become issues of national security, it makes perfect sense to say, 'We want to know who owns the water that we all rely on, that every person in this country relies on.' That is what these amendments do. These amendments mean there will be now be a register of water interests around the country so that we know who owns the water in Australia. For Labor to come here and say that that is offensive is just plain, cheap politics and it is disingenuous.

It is also the case that these amendments have secured another important reform. We are now on the road to having water treated the same as other assets, so water might be subject to a further review process. The government has committed to looking at that. What is objectionable about that? What is objectionable about treating water in the way that we treat other resources—namely, it has to be subject to some kind of test? Most right-thinking people in this country would say, 'That is a very good thing. Let's have a test before we sell off our water.'

Other disingenuous comments have been made about why there are different levels. I am sure that the Labor Party knows full well that the problem with free trade agreements is that, once you have signed up to them, they restrict your ability to legislate in the future because you have to take into account past deals. As bad as they might be, you have to take those past deals into account. That is why the Greens, unlike Labor or the coalition, have said we should not be signing up to these free trade deals that in many respects trade away our sovereignty—because in the future, if you want to do things like this, if you want laws that mean we cannot sell off our water in this country without at least a register or some kind of test, then you will be forced to have different levels because of having signed up to these trade deals. That is why we should not do them in the first place. That is why we should not do them.

So I am thrilled that these amendments have been requested, because they give effect to a longstanding Greens principle that there should be a register of overseas ownership of water in this country. We would rather have had a lower threshold for the test, down to $5 million, but we were not able to secure that. However, the move to $15 million is good, and we are very, very excited that we are on the road to water now being subject to the same kind of test that other assets are subject to so that we can have a discussion about whether it is in our national interest to sell off the water that we all rely on.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Question agreed to.