Thanks Andrew for another feel good article backed by selective data, and info about on the ball Labor has always been.

Never mind that there is much concern in the real world about investment coming from sovereign funds for good political and economic reasons.

Never mind that that the Labor govt changed its rules after legitimate complaints about foreigners buying residential properties.

Never mind that agriculture is also under the pump from foreign competition, despite our supposed comparative advantage.

Through out Australian history we have relied on development capital from overseas investors. These foreign buyers often pay a high price, plus spend further money on improvements. There are instances then of the overseas buyer incurring difficulties and being forced to sell at a loss to Australian buyers. The important thing is not that the farm gets repeatedly sold, but that Australians make a profit on the initial sale and then have the opportunity to by it back cheap.

A timely article. I'm always amazed when people fail to see the benefits of trade - both over seas and between the states. There's quite a strong push at the moment in some quarters to limit overseas investment and to re-erect trade barriers. It's much the same argument that racists use to rant against migrants.

The don't know migrants, they don't know the rules or regulation for immigration nor do they understand the economic benefits of skilled immigrants. Re offshore investment - this contributes to medical and agricultural research; it helps reciprocal trade agreements, increases the supply of taxable corporate income and more.

Why do some want to build fortress Australia? It's because for them the world is a very scary place. They see see threats where opportunities lie.

Though Chris, if we are going to be wary of foreign investment in agriculture the point in the article about Rupert Murdoch is fair, isn't it?

http://currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/

Jorge, I have never taken the Murdoch papers that seriously, although they do have a number of leading journalists.

The general theme by many of them is that free trade is our salvation.

That has never been my position, even when I wrote for Quadrant.

I understand why certain policies were promoted in recent decades, and support freer trade, but have long argued that Western societies will only support such trends as long as such societies tolerate higher and higher debt levels.

The times of supposed certainty are now being challenged, and debate (in my opinion) is not helped by simplistic propaganda pieces making out that everything is ok.

Just take the US. If it keeps going down the path it is going for the next several decades, it is doomed.

However, I am not a dogmatic protectionist, and I hope my next op ed piece can explain my thoughts about how liberalism can still prevail allowing for likely protectionist tendencies.

I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with Andrew.

Irrespective of who the owners of the farm are, they need to employ Aussies, obey the local rules, and produce food in this area, and pay tax to the ATO.

Having done so, they need to sell it, and the local market is far easier to do so. If they export, a portion of the revenue comes back to Aus.

Until they pack up the farms and ship them overseas, I am not worried.

Thanks Chris. The Murdoch press does, however, have a large share of the market and it would be fair to say that a lot of people's opinions are based on their papers. Brisbane only has one daily newspaper (The Courier Mail, News Ltd.).

I do believe free trade is beneficial to everyone, otherwise we go back to the world of 100 (or so) years ago. The question is usually how to manage it to avoid unnecessary hardships. Also, free trade is all good but I don't think we have it in any form as of yet. National boundaries, cultural differences, geopolitics etc. tend to put limits on the movement of capital and people.

Protectionist policies may have their benefits but I am not fully supportive of them. Subsidies (the usual option) tend to breed complacency and reliance, stifling innovation and efficiency and benefitting one group over another even in the same country. We periodically see new ways that protectionist policies crop up as in the trend for "regional food products" (French/Italian wines, Greek cheese, champagne etc.). It's amazing how we find new ways to make things more and more complicated.

http://currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/

Shadow minister and jorge,

Yes, I agree that a world that promotes liberalism is indeed a better world, and that Australia does benefit from investment. I know of no other ideology that offers the world and Australia better hope.

And yes, in agreement with shadow Minister, as long as stfrings are attached, let us take the investment. After all, that is how china plays the game.

But I wont be relying on Labor or any other govt to always do the right thing.

MPs and govts need to be constantly reminded about how our reliance on FDI inflows plays out in terms of the effect on the domestic population in a number of ways. If it is affecting our social fabric, housing, or industry, some commentators need to be all over it and inform debate rather than implying everything is ok

By the previous post, I am referring to the effort of many and how public opinion forces policy change, as evident in 2010 when public outrage forced Labor to change its foreign ownership rules given much purchase from offshore.

Why should Australians tolerate this at a time of record home unaffordability, and they were right to force policy change. At least, i thought so.