Indonesia
is absolutely entitled to have a food self-sufficiency policy. That is their
right. But so too is Australia. One million hectares of Australian farmland is
4 times the size of the ACT and is too big in my view, and the Foreign
Investment Review Board should reject it.
From
an animal welfare point of view, from an economic point of view, and from a
national sovereignty point of view, we should not agree to this. Far better to
set up an abattoir in northern Australia, grow beef cattle there, process them
there, and export chilled beef as New Zealand does.
The
animal welfare shortcomings of the live animal export trade have been well
documented and are well known, so I will focus on the economic and national
sovereignty issues.
Economic Issues:
ACIL
Tasman, an Australian agricultural and economic consultancy, has found that the
domestic processing of livestock contributes more to regional economic activity
and employment than live animal exports. The profitability of northern cattle
producers could be significantly improved if they had access to a northern
cattle processing facility. They also found that a privately financed and
operated northern cattle processing facility could be economically viable and
would not require significant ongoing government financial contributions.
ACIL
Tasman determined that processing up to 400,000 cattle per annum domestically
would:
·
contribute an additional $204 million per
annum to the regional economy;
·
create an additional 1,300 jobs in the
region;
·
enable some northern Australian cattle
producers to increase their earnings before interest and tax by up to 245% by
selling heavier animals than the 350 kg limit currently imposed by the
Indonesian Government.
I
believe a value added Australian meat processing industry would provide jobs
for farmers, stock hands, truck drivers and more.
National Sovereignty Issues:
Foreign
ownership of Australian agriculture has exploded since the Global Financial
Crisis, with overseas buyers seeking approval from the Foreign Investment
Review Board (FIRB) to buy agriculture, forestry and fishing assets worth an
average of $2.5 billion per annum. This is 250 times higher than the value of
applications in 2005-06, when applications totalled just $10 million.
The
FIRB approves over 99% of applications. As a result the amount of Australian
land in foreign ownership has doubled in the past 25 years. 45 million hectares
of Australia’s agricultural land has some level of foreign ownership. It is not
just land. More than half the milk produced in Australia is now processed by
foreign-owned firms. Half the wheat export industry is controlled by foreign
companies. 60% of raw sugar production is done by foreign milling groups, and
40% of Australia’s beef and lamb is processed by foreign firms. In Queensland
foreign land ownership has quadrupled in the past 5 years to 4.4 million
hectares. In the Northern Territory, over 14 million hectares, an area larger
than the State of Victoria, is overseas owned. Over 30% of Western Australia’s
water entitlements for agriculture are overseas owned.
People
who express concern about this are likely to be greeted with dark mutterings
about Hansonism, One Nation, racism, xenophobia etc. And yet ownership of
existing dwellings by foreign non-residents is banned as “not in Australia’s national
interest.” Is this racist or xenophobic? Or are land, food, water and energy
less important than housing?
And
you can’t buy land in China, you can’t buy land in Japan, and best of luck in
the United States, New Zealand, Ireland, Brazil and many others. Are these
countries racist and xenophobic? Or are they displaying an intelligent and
far-sighted understanding of their own best interests?
What Should We Do?
In
the Indonesian case, the land buy up should not be approved. If the Indonesian
Government wants to invest in a northern Australian abattoir, that might well
be helpful. In any event, the establishment of a northern Australian abattoir
should be supported by policy makers.
More
broadly, it’s high time we had a Commonwealth foreign ownership register for
agricultural land. This will improve the transparency of foreign ownership.
Present ABS research depends on self-declaration by the companies. Its validity
cannot be examined or tested.
We have an obligation to our children and to future generations to leave them the same opportunities as we have enjoyed. If we sell off fundamental assets like land we compromise their chances. It is short-sighted and diminishes our control over our own destiny.
This is so true, exactly what I have been telling people. Why is Australian public standing for this ? A company in Indonesia can only obtain HGB which is a 30 year lease. Why is Australia selling them freehold land. Australia is selling it's future for a quick short time one off gain.
ReplyDelete