The emperor has no clothes. There we are. I’ve said it.

The future of Tasmanian agriculture depends on foreign investment, and that includes buying or putting money into some of our most productive farmland, some of it our most historic. It has already started.

There we are. I’ve said that, too.

According to the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia, there is $1.84 trillion of our money invested in superannuation funds. That is $1,840,000,000,000. You would like to think that with that sort of capital floating around combined with Australians’ innate sense of loyalty, we wouldn’t have any problem finding domestic investors for agricultural enterprises, wouldn’t you? Think again.

Australian superannuation funds do not invest in Australian agriculture. According to at least one prominent investor, David Williams, good riddance. All the more for him, he says. Williams is the key outside investor in Tasmania’s new irrigation schemes. He bought a huge entitlement in the Lower South Esk scheme and has already traded part of it profitably. He is also a heavy investor in the Midlands scheme.

He told The Australian newspaper’s Global Food Forum dinner in Sydney last week that politicians should not waste their breath trying to persuade our superannuation funds to invest in rural properties and enterprises. He said they had convinced themselves there were sound reasons for not doing so and it was probably futile to try to convince themselves otherwise.

“The Chinese are happy to be (in agriculture), the Australians don’t want to be there, and frankly I don’t give a rat’s whether they are or not, because there is enough money coming in from outside if you properly market it,” he is quoted as saying.

“And these guys are putting serious money into the country — not just $20 million or $50 million — so I say, don’t waste your time on the (local) super funds because they can’t compete. Sooner or later they will wake up.”

Mr Williams is critical of the move to involve the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) at a lower threshold price for property and other investments. It was $248 million and is now $15 million, which means that many more farm properties come within the purview of the FIRB, including some of Tasmania’s biggest properties.

“We must encourage, not discourage. Not only can we get access to other people’s money, the most exciting thing is that large amounts of this foreign money are going into regions of Australia that would otherwise go undeveloped,” Mr Williams told the dinner.

“They are buying food businesses that have gone unsold for years, while other businesses that were closed are being reopened using foreign capital.

“Buying business here and releasing Australian capital, investing new capital, creating jobs and breathing life into rural and regional towns and communities. What can be wrong with that?”

Nothing at all.

The Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association is not opposed to foreign investment; it encourages it, within certain parameters.

We don’t like to see agricultural land alienated to other uses. We don’t believe there should be one set of FIRB rules for government-owned investment companies, another for private investors and another for those countries with whom we have a free trade agreement. There should be one rule for all. We also favour joint ventures between Australian and foreign investors where there is to be foreign investment involved. And we would like clear guidelines that outline the national interest in terms of the capital value of land and the role of local management in these enterprises.

Current concerns around the issue of foreign investment and ownership generally reflect a poor understanding of sectoral dynamics. The reality is that the level of foreign investment and ownership in agricultural land is relatively low and has not varied much in decades. The proposed registers and databases should be for information only; and should not be used to increase regulation of investment or ownership.

If there is a real issue of concern in this debate, it is around foreign ownership and investment further down the agricultural supply chain, particularly in processing. This issue merits further investigation.

Any attempt to limit foreign investment must not impact on farmers. They must retain the right to sell their assets to the highest bidder – regardless of nationality. If there is community concern over food security or matters of national sovereignty, that is a matter for the community – and they must bear the cost of any interference in the market place.

It is not acceptable to stick our collective heads in the sand. Australian superannuation funds have shown they will not step up to the plate to invest. The consequences of restricted access to funds will be limited development, fewer jobs and an industry going backwards compared to our main competitors.

We simply can’t afford to take that risk.
TFGA chief executive Jan Davis