Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I support this bill but I believe it needs to go further. This is an issue I have had a longstanding interest in for a number of years. Back in 2012 I introduced a bill, co-sponsored by my then colleague Senator Christine Milne, in relation to having a much better framework of foreign investment for prime agricultural land in Australia.

It is worth mentioning what that master geopolitical strategist Henry Kissinger once said: 'Who controls the food supply controls the people.' That should be taken into account. We should also refer to Donald Rumsfeld, the master of confabulation, who came up with: 'There are things we know that we don't know.' Between them, Kissinger and Rumsfeld neatly sum up the public policy dilemma with Australia's rules on foreign investment in prime agricultural land. This is not about xenophobia. This is about having a sound policy framework in respect of our prime agricultural land. We need to question the claim that there is no reason to believe foreign investment is somehow less than beneficial if it occurs in agriculture.

Assuming that foreign investment decisions on farming are based on the same commercial considerations as foreign investment in other sectors ignores a bigger picture. We need to ask ourselves: why do other countries see Australia as such a good environment for investing in prime agricultural land? They do so because we are stable, we have a terrific clean green image for Australian agriculture and we are a place of abundance. They see investment potential for prime agricultural land. But we need to be mindful of the national interest. We need to be mindful of what Henry Kissinger once said, that food security is important. We need to ensure we have a framework that genuinely considers the national interest.

As much as it pains me to say so, it seems that the New Zealanders across the ditch have a framework for their foreign investment that is efficient, that is clear, that includes a number of set criteria for the national interest that take into account the job effects, technology transfers, what the impact will be on the market and the sector, in much more prescriptive detail than we have in Australia. We heard from the Overseas Investment Office when there was a Senate inquiry into the bills I introduced, co-sponsored with my colleague, at the time, Senator Milne. The Overseas Investment Office deals with something like 200 applications a year. They deal with them efficiently and effectively.

The threshold for the Overseas Investment Office—the equivalent of our Foreign Investment Review Board—to look at issues of foreign investment in primary cultural land is not 200 million or 300 million or 15 million, it is five hectares. It is a spatial limit. I am not suggesting for one moment that five hectares should be the appropriate limit, because it would mean that practically every agricultural land purchase by a foreign investor would be subject to that criteria. I am suggesting that a more appropriate limit would be $5 million. That does not mean it is blocked, it just means that we consider issues of the national interest, that we consider some set criteria so the Foreign Investment Review Board takes into account these factors. That is why I can foreshadow I will be moving amendments, to one of these bills, that set out the criteria based on what the New Zealanders have been doing. It hurts me to say it, that the New Zealanders do it better than we do on it, but it seems that they do. It has been worked, it has been tried and it has been proven.

There is another issue, here, that we need to take into account. I believe that we can feed the world ourselves. I am referring, specifically, to a very good opinion piece by David Farley who was the chief executive of the Australian Agricultural Company. He is well known, well regarded and a real leader and visionary in this field. In the opinion piece in The Australian Financial Review, on 7 June 2012, Mr Farley made reference to how the Gillard government was courting China to play a role in the agricultural expansion of Northern Australia.

I do not have an issue with that per se but I do agree with Senator Heffernan—that you need to take into account whether there are state owned enterprises involved. What concerns me, in questioning of the Foreign Investment Review Board through the Senate processes, is that if it is a state owned enterprise, clearly, they must get government approval in order to invest. If it is a company that, on the face of it, is not a state owned enterprise but is beholden to a massive loan from the Chinese government, for instance, the independence of that—the links with the government of China or, indeed, with any other foreign government—means it is a de facto state owned enterprise. Therefore, there should be triggers involved. I wonder whether the Foreign Investment Review Board has the requisite resources to determine the independence of a private overseas company or even a public company, in relation to these purchases.

This is the point that David Farley made almost 3½ years ago. It is worth making again, because we are losing sight of the bigger picture. Mr Farley said:

Why has the government lost confidence in local agribusiness developing our agricultural future?

He says:

Australia has a critical role to play in meeting the demand created from that expected 40 per cent increase—

in global population, which is 'forecast to peak at nine billion within 38 years'.

Sixty per cent of the food produced by our farms is exported, something that is missed with the constant focus on Australia's role in the global mining boom.

You may remember that mining boom, Mr Acting Deputy President. Sadly, it is behind us.