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

Only temporarily? It is very unusual for the chair to respond in that way, but I am grateful he did. I hope it is temporary, Mr Acting Deputy President, for the sake of your state and for the sake of the entire nation. Even though your intervention was very much out of order, I am glad you said something.

I think that we need to listen to what Mr Farley said back then, which has as much or even more resonance now because we need agricultural exports more than ever for the prosperity of our nation. Mr Farley says:

Time is of the essence in determining how we are to meet the projected global demand for food, and Australia is well positioned as we have significant natural agricultural assets that can be developed; our northern regions are ripe for expansion.

He says:

There is no time for floundering. Food demand is relentless and decisions have to be made around the scale of development and the location of ports, roads and irrigation infrastructure.

He goes on to say:

Agriculture in Australia has the ability to conduct a development of this scale and we have the resources.

He says he understands:

… why China is looking for external agricultural investments, and is exploring the role it can play in the long-awaited expansion of the Ord irrigation project. But why should China have the inside running on a project of national significance?

Before I refer to Mr Farley again, I want to make mention of the much-vaunted Northern Australia program. I know that Senator Ian Macdonald has been a passionate advocate of that, and all credit to him. I do not have a problem with having that fund; I do not have a problem with kick-starting the north of Australia; but I do have a problem if we ignore the southern states and if we ignore the abundance of southern regions, including in my home state of South Australia, where there is enormous potential, particularly with the demise of manufacturing, to grow the agricultural sector and the food-processing sector to be an economic and jobs powerhouse to fill that massive void that will be left once Holden leaves South Australia as a manufacturer at the end of 2017, with the supply chain impact that will have.

Mr Farley says:

Agriculture in Australia has the ability to conduct a development of this scale and we have the resources.

He says:

First, we have the capital, with our large superannuation base and an attractive taxation development environment. Our super funds have made it known they are keen to be involved. At the moment they are forced to invest offshore because of a shortage here of large, scalable agricultural infrastructure projects.

Second, we have the production skills—in cotton, wheat, sugar, oil seeds, rice and pastoral pursuits.

Third, Australia has a track record of successful agricultural development. There are numerous examples, including the Murray and Goulburn Valley irrigation schemes, the Darling Downs and the Victorian Mallee development.

He goes on to say:

Australia is also a global leader in agri-technology adoption, which will be important in opening up northern Australia.

What Mr Farley says, and I agree with him, is:

Our political and business leaders are arguing that we need to pay more respect to China and put more effort into our relations with the Chinese at the expense of our neighbouring South-East Asian countries.

He says:

I would say more respect should be paid to the expertise contained in our own agricultural industry and more effort put into making sure that Australia is equipped to play its role in the global demand for food.

Australia's agricultural credentials are 'undeniable', says Mr Farley.

What I am urging the parliament in the context of this debate is that this should not just be about having more transparency when it comes to foreign investment. By the way, Mr Acting Deputy President, if you want to buy a few hectares in China or Thailand—or Japan, for that matter—good luck to you. You will not be able to do it because their foreign investment rules are much stricter than ours. Even in Indonesia it has to be a joint venture, minority controlled, if you can invest at all. So let us be clear about that. We are, in relative terms, a very open economy. The concern I have is that we need that transparency to drive that public policy debate and we need to have a clear national interest test, but, if we want to look at the big picture, what we need to look at here is having an investment environment for local investment, for Australian investment, for our super funds, for the Future Fund and, indeed, if we ever get around to it, for a sovereign wealth fund, to be looking at driving growth in our agricultural sector and in agribusiness in this country—because that is the future. Agriculture is the ultimate renewable resource, it is something that there will always be a demand for and we have this tremendous clean and green reputation.

They are the matters that I think ought to be considered. I urge the government, the opposition and my crossbench colleagues, in the context of this debate, to heed the words of David Farley and other leaders in agribusiness, that we need to look at the potential for Australian investment in Australian agriculture and to have a good, solid investment environment for that. The reason why other countries are so keen to invest in our primary agricultural land is that they can see the future. They can see that what they are investing in has great long-term prospects. It is a pity that we do not see the same prospects here with investment vehicles and with the ability of superannuation funds to invest in large agriculture and related infrastructure projects.

I do support this bill. I will be moving a series of amendments to the bill. I urge my colleagues to look at the issue of criteria and a framework that is based on New Zealand's. I think we can learn from the Kiwis in relation to this. What they have is practical. It is sensible, it properly considers the national interest and it is in a framework that is efficiently administered with a minimal degree of red tape. They fast-track these matters, but they will look at them and, if a project falls at a particular hurdle because it will not be in the national interest, it will be dealt with appropriately. We need to have those more prescriptive criteria, I believe. We could learn a lot from the Overseas Investment Act of New Zealand. There are technical matters in the bill concerning the Treasurer's power to issue orders in relation to significant actions. I will deal with those in the committee stage.

Broadly and thematically, I want to emphasise that we need this transparency. We need to have a framework of being informed in our debate by having this register, and I commend the government for doing so. And I commend the Nationals for the work they have done on this. People such as former senator Barnaby Joyce, now the agriculture minister, was a great advocate of this, as was Senator Scullion, as was Senator Williams. A whole range of Nationals senators pushed this because they could understand that in the bush there was a concern about that lack of transparency.

So, I welcome this. Probably the $15 million threshold is too high; $5 million is more appropriate, given that in the 1970s it was a $1 million threshold, and if you allow for inflation then $5 million is about right. But here is an opportunity, Mr Acting Deputy President Back—and I am not sure whether you will interject again!—to, post the mining boom, look at the opportunities of Australian agriculture, not just via foreign investment and the need to have a much more transparent and accountable foreign investment regime but also to look at the potential for Australian capital, Australian superannuation funds, to be able to invest in Australian agriculture, whether it is in the north of Australia or the south of Australia or anywhere in between, to realise the full potential of this wonderful ultimate renewable resource that is agricultural produce.