I thought it may be interesting to bring up another
topic for discussion

I recently attended a house auction in my suburb
and was amazed that a rather average house sold
to a Chinese buyer for an outrageous price.
Most of the people bidding were Chinese - and one
lady was determined to have the house -
it ended up pricing several young couples out of the
market. Money did not seem to be a problem to the
Chinese buyer.

This is happening in our area and also in the inner city
of Melbourne. Apartments are
going up like weeds.
Some luxurious, others small, cheap (in quality - not price).

Are we really overdoing things to allow this to happen?
Should boundaries be set for foreign investors?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-12/selling-the-australian-property-dream-to-china/6841810

Yes Foxy, it is disturbing. Three years ago I went to auctions for
houses near where I lived and two Chinese ended up battling for the
house after the Australians dropped out.
The bidders did not look affluently dressed and one was quite young 20
and the other about 30.
The house was a two bedroom 1945 to 1950s fibro cottage on a bad block.
The older one won the auction. I followed the young one out and she
got into an old Toyota Carrola. Yet she was bidding up to $850k.

Now one swallow does not make a summer, but it fits with reports I have
read where relatives are used to purchase.
The house was rented out after sale to an Australian couple.
Overseas residents are not allowed to buy existing properties only
new properties.

At last the government has jumped on the rorts, but only the multimillion
dollar properties. The agents when I sold my house told me that
this goes on all the time. He said they cannot prove what they see,
but there is always a delay in payments.
Australians bought my house.

The shady money getting out of China has been distorting our real
estate market for some years.

Dear Bazz,

I find it very disturbing indeed that
Chinese investors are allowed so much
leeway with their purchases. Where does
their money come from and where does it
go and what are the benefits to us in
this country? Do these investors pay any taxes
or does their money go back to China?
which I suspect it does.
That has to stop.

According to Asians, the 'Skips' are slow to learn, bovine and obviously don't value their assets and Australian citizenship, or else they wouldn't be giving them away.

A question (for argument's sake), how many Labor ex-PMs are there swinging from the taxpayer's teat and using their taxpayer-funded office, staff and travel to represent, use their contacts and ease the path for Asian investors wanting to stash dough (sorry, invest) in Oz and get their student children (and um-children) citizenship (useful for obvious reasons)?

Hush now and don't you worry about any of that. It is all part of the 'diversity-Australia-has-to-have'. Tres 'Progressive', apparently. So it is back to ordering that Chinese takeaway to eat and expand while watching the chattering air-heads on The Box.

otb,

I don't think that we can blame only one
side of government. Our ex-Prime Ministers
have done quite well. All of them.

And let's not forget our signed "trade
agreements" and the selling off our agricultural
lands. As I stated - it has to stop before
there'll be nothing to sell. Then what?

Some things are worth more than money.

There's a saying amongst the Chinese in Australia: 'Aren't the Australians dumb!'

Foxy,

The best solution is to replace the GST (and other state taxes) with a broad based land tax. Then we can abolish those restrictions, safe in the knowledge that the benefits will flow to Australians.

That goes for agricultural land too.

Here are some facts to juxtapose against the xenophobia.
From the Bureau of Stats and the FIRB :

1. 88% of all Australian land is fully Australian owned. A further 5% is jointed owned by some Aust and some overseas entity with the Australian party being the majority owner. A mere 7% is majority owned by overseas entities with less than 1% being fully overseas owned.

2. Of the countries that make up these overseas owners, the biggest by far is the US, followed by Canada and Singapore. China runs fourth and way behind these others eg US ownership is three times greater than Chinese ownership.

Non-resident, non-citizens are forbidden from buying land or housing other than new apartments or houses that they intend to demolish and replace with multiple dwellings. The aim is to create a market for new construction to increase building jobs and our total housing stock.

All overseas owned housing must pay all the usual taxes and if rented out they must pay tax on any profits and withholding tax on any money repatriated.

China would be the best of two evils if we were to choose between Sharia law and or corrupt Chinese Government.

That would mean taxing many people's only asset, their home, on which they have already paid Stamp Duty and a host of other taxes too.

No doubt as a Green you would want Death Duty too, no sense in not making that final grab as well, eh?

What about everyone refusing to pay more and new taxes? To give government some incentive to manage more efficiently.

Honestly, as if the public are not aware that any new taxes are always on top of what they are paying now.

Sorry, in case anyone is confused, my post above was in reply to Aidan.

onthebeach,
"That would mean taxing many people's only asset, their home, on which they have already paid Stamp Duty and a host of other taxes too."
That is true, and it's an obvious disadvantage. It means the tax will have to be phased in very slowly, and possibly with some temporary exceptions, to avoid unfairly disadvantaging existing landowners. But the long term benefits are so great that it's worth doing despite those technical obstacles.

"No doubt as a Green..."
I am not, and never have been, a member of the Green Paarty. i support some of their policies and oppose others.

"...you would want Death Duty too, no sense in not making that final grab as well, eh?
I oppose death duties, however I am open tho the idea of treating inheritance as taxable income.

"What about everyone refusing to pay more and new taxes?"
I'm extremely stringly opposed to that, as it would make the government more reliable on old taxes like stamp duty and the GST (both of which I want to see abolished).

"To give government some incentive to manage more efficiently."
It wouldn't encourage genuine efficiency; it would encourage the government to resort to false economies.

"Honestly, as if the public are not aware that any new taxes are always on top of what they are paying now."
There is no reason why that has to b so. Taxes have been abolished before and they can be again.

Thanks for your responses.

It just showed me how little I know
on the subject. It does get me angry
though - that our cities are being
taken over - and our children are
having problems with the housing market.

I saw a program the other night about
"luxury apartments<" being built and
developed not in the inner city this time
but in Parramatta no less, at huge prices.
"Ah, well, it's still cheaper than
in Shanghai, some Chinese real estate agent stated.

I finally ended up going into the Australian
Taxation Office's website to clarify matters
for myself.

According to their site foreign residents are
apparently taxed in Australia on income earned
from their Australian investments.

Tax is generally withheld in
Australia at the time of payment.

But if you receive rental income from Australian
properties or capital gains from selling
Australian homes you must declare these amounts in
an Australian tax return.

Foreign investors cannot buy new properties unless
they're residents of Australia (even temporary
residents are allowed to buy established properties)
And they must be approved by the Foreign
Investment Review Board.

Foreign investors however - can buy vacant land, and
property that is to be re-developed. I guess loop-holes
do exist after-all.

mhaze,

It would be more interesting to see the value (as a proportion of total value) of the agricultural land owned by foreigners. Quality matters. There is a big difference between semiarid range land that might feed a few sheep or cows in a good year and prime arable land.

Currently, we are growing around 3 times as much grain as we consume ourselves in a good year, and about half as much in a drought year. Our politicians are determined to boost our population to 40 million or more, so these margins are going to go down, even if everything else stays the same. We currently have big problems with land degradation and availability of water, as can be seen from the conflict over water in the Murray Darling basin. Our agricultural production would also drop like a stone if geopolitical or other factors prevented us from importing oil or phosphate rock, and climate change is the wild card in all of this.

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2010-05-06/can-we-feed-%E2%80%9Cbig-australia%E2%80%9D

The question is whether the foreigners are just investors who want to make a profit, similar to our own people, or whether their real concern is food security for the folks back home and whether our politicians would stand up to them if we were going short ourselves.

As you can see from this fact check, many countries restrict land ownership by foreigners. Are they all xenophobic or are they dealing with rational concerns?

https://theconversation.com/factcheck-do-many-other-countries-restrict-foreign-investment-in-agricultural-land-17691

Furthermore, just because a law is on the books doesn't mean that the government will enforce it. The Australian government is only now going after illegal purchases of residential land. Whether it is really serious or just taking on a few high profile cases to create the illusion that something is being done remains to be seen. This would be hardly unique. The US has strong laws against illegal immigration and hiring illegal immigrants. The federal government has just been refusing to enforce them and actually taking states like Arizona that have been trying to enforce them to court.

Just commenting on land, it is the control by foreign interests that is relevant and remembering too that only a relative small area of this ancient land is prime agricultural and grazing land. Also, we should be talking about all overseas interests, not just one and cumulative over time (not just the current year, or selected years).

So, while the percentage controlled by overseas interests might appear small compared with the land mass, that apparent small percentage coincides with the relatively small areas where minerals or prime agricultural land are located.

While overseas investment is useful to develop, there is a difference between timely, reasonable development and the reckless exploitation and greed seen too often in the past. Noticeably, that word 'exploit' is being used again and they mean it!

The essential point that should be brought home to the feds in Canberra, is that the Australian public would see government as failing in its duty to present and future generations where it does not identify and maintain a register of prime agricultural land and other real estate that is too valuable to ever be allowed to fall under foreign control, or to be placed at risk by shortsighted greed.

Interesting article from the
Australian Financial Review:

http://www.afr.com/real-estate/chinese-investors-heat-up-australian-farm-buying-spree-20150902-gjd67t

Some more facts. I always like to go from facts to opinion - I find that works better than the reverse.

Of the 370 million hectares devoted to "Sheep Beef Cattle and Grain Farming" (ABS terminology) 87.0% is fully Australian owned and a further 6% is majority Australian owned. The remaining 7% is almost all owned by US/Canada/NZ. The portion owned by Asian interests is less than 1%.

Of the 81,180 business involved in "Sheep Beef Cattle and Grain Farming" in Australia, 99.1% are fully Australian owned and a further 0.1% are majority owned. Again the majority of the remainder are US/Canada/NZ.

There seems to be this view that if a foreigner owns or controls Australia farmland then they have total say over the produce and can take it to feed their homeland and leave us hungry. This totally, and I mean 110% totally, misunderstands how food exports work. No one can export food from Australia anywhere without the say-so of the government through export licences, trade agreements, quality-control regimes and a myriad of other devices meaning that such a scenario is dreamland.

Just conjuring up notions of a future where the food grown here isn't available here is fanciful. It can't and won't happen.

The facts are that we as a nation are running into some serious problems economically and we need foreign investment to help further develop our still largely untapped resources. We need to be open to anyone who wants to put their money here.

____________________

The reason I used the word 'xenophobic' Divergence was that, despite the fact that by far the greatest number of foreigners buying up our land and housing are westerners, everything here is about those Chinese buyers. It was always thus - every generation has its favoured bogey-man. In the 1980s it was Japan buying up all our land, now its China. I'm guessing India will be the next scary food-stealer. But at least they speak English so that's probably ok.

mhaze,

You are right to say that some people are concerned about food security. Although you could have added water and energy security as well. Hold on, that sounds serious.

It is wrong to poison the well by implying that the people expressing such concerns are dog-in-the-manger, racist, xenophobic, or any other 'negging'.

To put things into perspective, it was only public opinion that caused the federal government to reluctantly block the sale of the Kidman property, which is larger than Ireland.

http://www.realestate.com.au/blog/for-sale-a-big-chunk-of-the-australian-continent/

We're told that Chinese investors are the
biggest buyers of Australian property up
in Brisbane. Their sons and daughters need
somewhere to live whilst being educated here.

I wonder how many of us really know how much
foreign investment there is in residential
real estate, or where that investment comes
from?

In other countries buyers are required to either
have citizenship or be in the population
themselves.

According to some articles Chinese investors
are the biggest buyers of Australian property in
Brisbane. Their sons and daughters need somewhere to
live whilst being educated here.

Dear Foxy,

Don't worry, the Chinese who have being buying up everything they can get their hands on have said that they will look after the Australians. Which I suppose is a lot better deal than the Anglo-Australians have given the Australian aborigines when they stole the land from them.

'Which I suppose is a lot better deal than the Anglo-Australians have given the Australian aborigines when they stole the land from them.'

feel free to give yours back Mr Opinion.

Sorry runner but it was all gone by the time I was born.

well I am sure you can work out a rent deal with the first people Mr Opinion.

It seems that it's Australia's lifestyle and
potential profits are the main reasons why
Chinese investors are looking for houses in
Australia. And even though we're told that Australia's
property market is booming, prices were "inexpensive"
compared to Chinese big cities.

The price of a small house in Melbourne could be
equal to that of an apartment in Beijing.
The living environment in Australia is much better than
in China. Also the Chinese value education and want
their children to complete higher education. They feel
that if they buy a house in which their children can stay
whilst studying here, they will have a greater chance
of being allowed to stay in the country.

If the covert, very devious machinations to land-bank and hide massive amounts of money here is any guide, one would hope that the feds would be more interested than they are in the sources of the money and the character of those who are behind it (and are so difficult to identify).

Political pragmatism is never in short supply in Canberra.

As for citizenship, the goal is to find the most convenient base as and if required, with freeps health and so on. Maybe some sense of Oz as 'home' might develop over time, but that is not guaranteed by any means. Any stats anywhere of how many get citizenship then jet off back home or elsewhere in the world?

News reports tell us that a bank is offering its
customers no-deposit home loans so they can invest in
new apartments in Melbourne and the Gold Coast.

You wouldn't believe it but it's true. It's just that
this offer is not available to Australians.

A Chinese bank reportedly counted potential investors
by offering the deal at a conference in Shanghai last
week.

Dear Foxy,

Australia's politicians and business leaders have been selling off Australia to China since Bob Hawke came to power: the politicians for the revenue and the business leaders for the profits. Australia will soon become a Sino-Australian nation so people are just going to have to get used to a predominantly Chinese Australia or find some place to migrate to if they don't want to be part of it.

Bob Hawke is pushing every button to have South Australia as the nuke waste dump of the world.

Said Hawke "This is what my Chinese friends call the win/win situation".

Hey, might as well sell them SA as well Bob. No, wait a bit, that might make them responsible for those nuke dumps. Tears swelling in Bob's eyes at the thought. Munches cigar.

OK, so the deal is that those dumb Skippies are responsible for the waste and China gets the Sydney harbour fronts and fertile mega-acreage way away from those nukes.

Bob Hawke always said and still does that he is a Fabian and so very, very 'Progressive'. Yay for those 'useful idiots', eh Bob?

Dear Rehctub,

<<So what you are all suggesting is that half a million of inheritance per sibling is not enough. Why?>>

Because this money was already taxed when earned, in some countries and until the 1980's even here incurring >50% tax. If a certain static sum of money passes on as security for 100 generations, are you suggesting that Australia may tax it 100 more times? Even when the original sum was earned outside Australia or long before Australia even existed?

The person(s) who happen to receive the sum may only be trustees for the family's wealth and never use it themselves. That wealth could be intended to secure the family indefinitely for many generations to come, so they never have to depend and fall on states and tax-payers if they fall ill or have an accident. What right have you to touch that money only because its trustee(s) happen to live in Australia?

Oops sorry, my last comment was posted on the wrong board, please ignore it.

Dear onthebeach,

As a sociologist, it is my opinion that Bob Hawke is more than a Fabian. I think he is, and has always been, a dyed-in-the-wool communist. I think he sees the establishment of Chinese economic and cultural hegemony in Australia as a first stage to creating his dream of having a communist Australia. And all he had to do to set things in that direction was to appeal to the nation's greed during the 1980s. He offered Australians a choice between continued Anglo-Australian nation-building or economic rationalism and they took the bait, ending 200 years of British-cum-Australian culture and political unity,

Another politician whom I think is deliberately selling Australia out to the Chinese for his own personal reasons is NT Chief Minister Adam Giles. I think Giles, as an aboriginal descendant, is bitter that Australian aboriginal society has been decimated and dispossessed of their lands by White Australia. I think his sale of Port Darwin to Chinese interests was a way of saying that he would rather see his ancestors' lands in the hands of the Chinese that in the hands of White Australia.

Mr Opinion, WTF do you think "communist" means?

I don't normally have any trouble thinking of things, but I can't think of any credible definition of "communist" that would include Bob Hawke.

Aidan

Who are you to ask such questions?

Mr Opinion,

I am a participant in this discussion. Do you have a problem with that?

Why do you ask, anyway? It isn't as if I asked who you were to define "communist". I merely asked what your definition was.

Dear Mr Opinion,

For your information Mr Abbott told a 450-strong
breakfast crowd at the Westin Hotel in Sydney,

"My maternal grandfather was a lifelong unionist."

"My father reckons that, as a child in the North of
England during the Depression, he went to a kind of
communist Sunday School where they sang the Red Flag
instead of hymns. These were the disadvantages I have
had to overcome."

Here's a link by Annabel Crabb confirming
Mr Abbott's background:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-12-16/communism-the-love-rug-and-other-tony-abbott-tales/1180562

LOL Fox,

That is such innocent stuff: one of his grandparents was in union years ago and his dad tells stories about primary school in North England in the Depression.

That is Annabel Crabb's style of journalism though, plenty of snide remarks and burley for salacious speculative gossip. There is plenty of that in trashy women's and celebrity mags (women's interest again). Crabb can be entertaining but cringeworthy and repelling when she lets her natural urges take over and out come the barely concealed claws, or the sycophancy and lickspittle where fellow leftists are interviewed.

She failed with Abbott, but you have given it two spins in a row. Fail.

Many young women are insulted and repelled by Annabel Crabb's style. -With the new focus on bullying in schools it reminds them of the use made by some teachers and other girls of sarcasm, speculative gossip and other dark womens arts in bullying. Catty and cruel.

Anyhow you like it, but that says more about you (and the Crabb) than Abbott, who was frankly and innocently recounting a few images of childhood.

I don't think an influx of Chinese, particularly wealthy, well educated ones is really too bad a thing for us. Most of the Pacific island countries would collapse in no time, if not for the hard work & industry of their Chinese citizens.

What's more they do integrate over a period, not all that much longer than Europeans. With any luck, they will help us deal with the Muslims, when the time comes, & will be a bit less wishy washy about it than all too many of us.

Dear Hasbeen,

What's this 'us'? There's no 'us' any more. There's now 'you', 'me' and 'others'. When you say 'us' I assume you are referring to the Anglo-Australian nation that Bob Hawke began dismantling in the 1980s and politicians and business leaders have continued doing since. 'You', 'me' and the 'others' don't have a nation any more because we don't have a shared history, shared language and shared culture.

The number of Chinese immigrants in Sydney is so large that they don't need to integrate. When you walk around the streets of Sydney, catch a train, ferry or bus, or visit the major shopping centres you can see that every second person is Chinese. If you are from outside of Sydney than I suggest you come and see it for yourself if you find that hard to believe. The Chinese immigrants of today don't give two hoots about integrating into Australian society and in Sydney they congregate into very large communities in the major satellite cities of greater metropolitan Sydney. They know that Australia is gradually being transformed into a Sino-Australian nation where Chinese will become the dominant ethnic group and Chinese interests will dominate the political-economy. There's already an expression in the Chinese community which shows their contempt for non-Chinese: 'Aren't the Australians dumb?'.

otb,

Nothing is more distressing than talking to
people who don't respond the way you want.
It's perfectly understandable.

Foreign Investment Board criteria states: 'Certain categories of foreign nationals, who hold a visa that permits them to reside in Australia continuously for at least the next 12 months, may be given approval to purchase established residential real estate (that is, second hand dwellings) for use as their principal place of residence (that is, not for rental purposes) while in Australia. A condition of such purchases is that the dwelling must be sold when the foreign nationals’ temporary resident visas expire, they leave Australia, or the property is no longer used as their principal place of residence.' The Chinese are very entrepreneurial, they were not called the Jews of Asia for nothing . . . Socialism with Chinese characteristics is the mantra espoused by the Chinese Communist Party - get used to it . . . your next door neighbour may be a Party member as long purchased properties are not rigidly audited to see that the purchasers conform to 'authorised buyers'. Hey, do we want to upset the hand that feeds us after we sell them iron ore, etc - Australia may go down the gurgler!?

It is sad to see the state that the housing market has resulted in. The authorities have made it legal for foreign investors to buy local properties without any restrictions so those buyers cannot be blamed for taking advantage of the situation. They know where the money is and since money is not an issue for them, they are willing to buy at any price before renting the houses out to locals at skyrocketed prices.

Dear webbrowan,

And the reason the Baird government allows Chinese investors into the Sydney real estate market is simply to acquire State revenue from the sale of properties. Revenues that go to Baird to be used on things that are intended to make him look good in the eyes of the voters - with the aim of getting re-elected. This is just one example of how Australia's politicians have been selling Australia off to the Chinese.