# Bananas Joyce wants end to Chinese investment in Australia



## donkeykong (11 December 2009)

From http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...t-barnaby-joyce/story-e6frg6xf-1225809228582 


> NEW opposition finance spokesman Barnaby Joyce has called for an outright ban on investment by Chinese state-owned companies in the Australian resources sector.
> 
> Senator Joyce's warning about doing business with government-owned entities yesterday came as Wayne Swan said Australia's foreign investment regime could be better explained, ordering the Foreign Investment Review Board to work closely with Australia's embassies abroad to explain foreign investment policies. Guides to Australia's investment rules written in Chinese, Japanese and Bahasa are being prepared.
> 
> ...




What a peanut, sounds like something the Socialist Alliance would come up with. Heaven forbid Abbot and Co actually get in at the next election and chase all those “slanty eyed devils” from our board rooms.


----------



## prawn_86 (11 December 2009)

*Re: Bananas Joyce wants end to Chinese investment in Australia.*

I have mixed feelings on this. I think that there should be a % limit applied to each investment, with a review if they want to go over that %.

The only reason it bothers me is that it is extremely hard for Aus co's to takeover Chinese co's. Essentially what the Chinese are doing is slowly taking over the World subtly, without the need for war. Good on them i say as they have a long term plan, but it is still slightly worrying, moreso because our pollies are so short sighted.


----------



## Aussiejeff (11 December 2009)

*Re: Bananas Joyce wants end to Chinese investment in Australia.*



prawn_86 said:


> I have mixed feelings on this. I think that there should be a % limit applied to each investment, with a review if they want to go over that %.
> 
> The only reason it bothers me is that it is extremely hard for Aus co's to takeover Chinese co's. *Essentially what the Chinese are doing is slowly taking over the World subtly, without the need for war. Good on them i say as they have a long term plan*, but it is still slightly worrying, moreso because our pollies are so short sighted.




Yes, their "long term plan" is Total World Domination. So that's ok? I guess so, since they have no real opposition - they hold all the aces in the pack? Sure, a reasonable amount of investment anywhere is totally ok. But throwing hands in the air and allowing wholesale sellout by us all to China? For what? A probable SHORT TERM GAIN in employment and GDP? What about the long term plan?

My main concern is that The Rest Of The World (including us) is blindly putting their collective futures totally in the hands of a communist Totalitarian Regime.  If you had raised this scenario a mere 10 years ago, most likely you would have been branded a loony!! Q:- WHAT IF CHINA FAILS (natural catastrophe or regime / economic collapse etc)??? 

Oh, but of course, the Chinese Communist Party has NO corruption and is run by experts who know better than any *Western* society how to steer the New World Economy eh?

Indeed.

Good luck OZ / World, then, is about all I can offer. I don't want to look further into the crystal ball than that because I have an unwelcome sense of foreboding. Must be the eternal pessimist in me?


----------



## donkeykong (11 December 2009)

*Re: Bananas Joyce wants end to Chinese investment in Australia.*

We have strong trade practice and industrial relations laws in Australia so it shouldn’t matter who runs a company, they still have to abide by the laws set out by our government. 

I guess the main reason I think this is ridiculous is that the libs/nat are supposed to be the party that are pro business, pro private enterprise, low taxes and have historical done a better job at managing the economy than labor yet the current mob just seem to come out with ill thought out sound bytes that if implemented would be disastrous for our country. I’m surprised they haven’t suggested we print more money to help the economy.

Also please note that I am not rudd groupie (i’ve never voted Labor).

PS, I think its pretty safe to say that in 2009 china is about as far away from socialist/communist ideals as a country can get.


----------



## Aussiejeff (11 December 2009)

*Re: Bananas Joyce wants end to Chinese investment in Australia.*



donkeykong said:


> We have strong trade practice and industrial relations laws in Australia so it shouldn’t matter who runs a company, they still have to abide by the laws set out by our government.
> 
> I guess the main reason I think this is ridiculous is that the libs/nat are supposed to be the party that are pro business, pro private enterprise, low taxes and have historical done a better job at managing the economy than labor yet the current mob just seem to come out with ill thought out sound bytes that if implemented would be disastrous for our country. I’m surprised they haven’t suggested we print more money to help the economy.
> 
> ...




Try telling that to millions of their own repressed people - Uigher & Tibetans come to mind.  

Only as recently as last February the US was trying to hammer them on Human Rights abuses, but were backing off because the Global financial Crisis was deemed more important an issue!  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/25/politics/100days/worldaffairs/main4828748.shtml

Suddenly, because they have got oodles of cash to splash, these BAD guys have magically transformed into GOOD guys? Not-so-squeaky-clean IMO.


----------



## bellenuit (11 December 2009)

*Re: Bananas Joyce wants end to Chinese investment in Australia.*



donkeykong said:


> We have strong trade practice and industrial relations laws in Australia so it shouldn’t matter who runs a company, they still have to abide by the laws set out by our government.
> 
> I guess the main reason I think this is ridiculous is that the libs/nat are supposed to be the party that are pro business, pro private enterprise, low taxes and have historical done a better job at managing the economy than labor yet the current mob just seem to come out with ill thought out sound bytes that if implemented would be disastrous for our country. I’m surprised they haven’t suggested we print more money to help the economy.
> 
> ...




Barnaby Joyce may be shooting from the hip in some of his recent statements, but there is some merit in what he says.

We have already seen that the laws of our country can't protect our citizens when travelling in China (Stern Hu). How are our business leaders to conduct business in China, if they can be imprisoned at the whim of the communist party on trumped up charges? What about the pressure this places on the staff of these companies that may be resident in China? How can they conduct business analysis when the information collected may be deemed to be state secrets even if available from legitimate sources?  We could of course refuse to do business in China and insist they send their representatives here. But that just backs up Joyce's point. We are then seen as discriminatory and we then have a diplomatic dispute. 

It is pro-business and pro-private enterprise to try and curtail a foreign state run enterprise taking control of the complete supply and demand relationship of our resource industry. What happens if, hypothetically, they owned a major iron ore producer, like RIO, and negotiated a price to supply Chinese steel mills (owned by the same government) with iron ore at a price considerably less than the going rate. Do we intervene and have another diplomatic dispute on our hands? Do we do nothing and have our resources robbed from underneath our eyes? Since they own both sides in the supply and demand relationship, it doesn't matter to them whether they make huge losses in the supply end, as they will recuperate them at the demand end. We are the ones that lose and our industries who need to compete don't stand a chance.


----------



## Soft Dough (11 December 2009)

*Re: Bananas Joyce wants end to Chinese investment in Australia.*

And the alternative is Rudd?

Sure let us have the chinese come in and buy our resources when there is uncertainty just to the profit handsomely when the dip ends.

AND

buy our houses and charge us ridiculous rents for the pleasure of working for them at said mines.


Total lunacy from a PM who has no idea how to run a country.  The sad part is that 60% of Australians are so stupid they voted the fool in.

Says a lot about them actually.


----------



## Beej (11 December 2009)

*Re: Bananas Joyce wants end to Chinese investment in Australia.*



bellenuit said:


> We have already seen that the laws of our country can't protect our citizens when travelling in China (Stern Hu).




Can you please explain then how the "laws of our country" (ie Australian law) protects our citizens in ANY country on the entire planet outside of Australia?

Sorry but I read a statement like the above and tune out for the rest of your post.

Cheers,

Beej


----------



## GumbyLearner (11 December 2009)

*Re: Bananas Joyce wants end to Chinese investment in Australia.*



Aussiejeff said:


> Try telling that to millions of their own repressed people - Uigher & Tibetans come to mind.
> 
> Only as recently as last February the US was trying to hammer them on Human Rights abuses, but were backing off because the Global financial Crisis was deemed more important an issue!  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/25/politics/100days/worldaffairs/main4828748.shtml
> 
> Suddenly, because they have got oodles of cash to splash, these BAD guys have magically transformed into GOOD guys? Not-so-squeaky-clean IMO.




How dare you have an opinion you insolent thought criminal AJ? (just kidding mate )

Wouldn't it be great if we could talk the Chinese into including Falun Gong members on company boards?


----------



## Happy (11 December 2009)

*Re: Bananas Joyce wants end to Chinese investment in Australia.*

Joyce has good point, but I don't think we will do anything about it.

Australia is so sorry and so afraid to upset anybody that will rather surrender than stand up.


----------



## bellenuit (11 December 2009)

*Re: Bananas Joyce wants end to Chinese investment in Australia.*



Beej said:


> Can you please explain then how the "laws of our country" (ie Australian law) protects our citizens in ANY country on the entire planet outside of Australia?
> 
> Sorry but I read a statement like the above and tune out for the rest of your post.
> 
> ...




Why tune out? It was you who seem to suggest that all would be OK because they have to abide by the trade and industrial laws in this country. I was stating the fact that our laws are useless when it comes to protecting our citizens abroad. Normally that isn't an issue when most countries adhere to conventions in regards to people's rights. But when it comes to China, the law is not there to protect its citizens but to enhance the power of the state. When the state is also the one who owns the foreign business then those laws will be used to advantage that business in whatever way it can. 

We are not talking about a back-lane repair works here, but major industries that require frequent travel to China and a significant presence on the ground in China in order to operate. When commercial information can be classified as state secrets at the whim of the government, we are not talking about the level playing field which free enterprise requires so that it can operate properly.


----------



## daki (11 December 2009)

*Re: Bananas Joyce wants end to Chinese investment in Australia.*

agreed Aus government is short sited ... but I think they are looking into it, and I'm sure they are aware of it, and situations like these ceternly keep it in mind 

anyways who cares... the reason they might be shortsited is that the world might end in 2012... BOOOOOO


----------



## boofhead (11 December 2009)

*Re: Bananas Joyce wants end to Chinese investment in Australia.*

Joyce didn't say he wanted an end to Chinese investment directly. He didn't like the idea of Chinese government based companies investing in Australia although that pretty much means all Chinese investment overseas. He makes a good point about how company issues can become diplomatic issues. Diplomatically Australia is relatively weak especially against China.


----------



## Mr J (11 December 2009)

*Re: Bananas Joyce wants end to Chinese investment in Australia.*



Aussiejeff said:


> Try telling that to millions of their own repressed people - Uigher & Tibetans come to mind.




You actually supported his point - China does not represent proper socialist or communist ideals.


----------



## dutchie (11 December 2009)

*Re: Bananas Joyce wants end to Chinese investment in Australia.*

At last a politician who is thinking about Australia's long term future and not just about cash tomorrow.

Australia must start thinking like the Chinese - long term - decades , centuries etc.

For our childrens' childrens' childrens' ..... sake.

Australia will never be a manufacturer - the three main assets we have that the rest of the world may want is food, mining & energy and brains (good education).

Food - if we can get our water problems sorted out and we can compete with rest of world with production and to market costs then good long term potential.

Mining - abundance of most, sort after, minerals  - iron, oil, gas, uranium, coal (short term) copper, gold etc.  Absolutely no need to try and develop every tin pot mine - just to make owners/directors rich at expense of long term sovereignty. 

Brains - still a market for our brains (note number of scientist etc that need to go overseas to get a run/finance). Rest of world is catching up fast and we will soon lose this market.

So for our future generations sake we should not be selling any of our land or mines to overseas interests (especially not China!).

Short term financial gains of selling the farm/mine will be paid for by our children (see current GFC - who will pay for this - our children)

The longer any mineral etc. stays in the ground - the more it is worth.


----------



## Nyden (11 December 2009)

*Re: Bananas Joyce wants end to Chinese investment in Australia.*

Sounds good to me. While we're at it though, let's put a ban on foreign property ownership as well. Australia has lost too much of, well everything, already to foreigner countries.


----------



## dbcok (11 December 2009)

*Re: Bananas Joyce wants end to Chinese investment in Australia.*

It wasn't so long ago that the cry from Queensland was that the Japanese ownership of Queensland properties posed a threat to Australia.
And before that the coming invasion of Australia from Indonesia.Queenslanders were more aware of the threat than southerners because they were closer to the danger.
Something not in the water up there-no flouride at the time?


----------



## startrader (11 December 2009)

*Re: Bananas Joyce wants end to Chinese investment in Australia.*

If you're not concerned about the Chinese buying up Australian companies, property and resources you should be.  There is no way they let other countries do the same in China.  They have trillions of dollars in US denomination which they want to get rid of asap before the US dollar becomes worthless and they are doing that by buying everything they can get their hands on around the world.  Good plan.  

You can ridicule Barnaby Joyce all you like and make out he is dumb but at least he is thinking of the long term future of this country, unlike so many short sighted politicians these days.


----------



## So_Cynical (11 December 2009)

*Re: Bananas Joyce wants end to Chinese investment in Australia.*

Barnaby Joyce is a first class idiot with the political base of a Pauline Hanson.IMO

However im of the opinion that we should look at a 4 pillars type policy for the energy and resource sector....as its arguably more important than Banking, and the 4 pillars policy has helped protect the banking industry and make it strong and robust and therefore should help the top end of the energy and resource sector....even with BHP and RIOs's duel listings.


----------



## GumbyLearner (11 December 2009)

*Re: Bananas Joyce wants end to Chinese investment in Australia.*



So_Cynical said:


> Barnaby Joyce is a first class idiot with the political base of a Pauline Hanson.IMO
> 
> However im of the opinion that we should look at a 4 pillars type policy for the energy and resource sector....as its arguably more important than Banking, and the 4 pillars policy has helped protect the banking industry and make it strong and robust and therefore should help the top end of the energy and resource sector....even with BHP and RIOs's duel listings.




Didn't Barnaby Joyce unseat One Nation Senator Len Harris?


----------



## Julia (11 December 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> Barnaby Joyce is a first class idiot with the political base of a Pauline Hanson.



He's by no means an idiot.  And I'd think his political base would be much wider than that which existed for Pauline Hanson.

He is, however, a little carried away with his new found status and needs to pull his head in a bit.  I agree with him to a considerable extent on the Chinese investment question in that I'd like to see restricted limits for their investment in Australia.

Tony Abbott issued a mild, tacit rebuke to Mr Joyce today.   Mr Abbott himself needs to avoid the same foot in mouth syndrome.  Both of them will hopefully take the summer break to come to terms with their new positions and accordingly be a little more restrained in what they blurt out to the media.

Mr Rudd is justified in suggesting they are issuing "policy on the run" at present.  It would be a pity to see what popularity they have achieved with the electorate evaporate on the basis of ill judged comments and an over-enthusiasm to rush to a press conference.


----------



## drsmith (11 December 2009)

Me thinks that Barnaby is still preaching purely from the perspective of the other side of the black stump.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 December 2009)

drsmith said:


> Me thinks that Barnaby is still preaching purely from the perspective of the other side of the black stump.




And the people beyond the black stump keep the warmeners in Priuses and city comfort through hard work in agriculture, mining and uranium and oil exploration don't forget.

So city folk should listen up to what Barnaby is saying.

gg


----------



## dbcok (12 December 2009)

As we know the FIRB is the watchdog for foreign investment,
When the Japanese investment scare was coming from Qld the largest investors ,by far, in Australia were the USA,UK and NZ.
Barnaby Joyce obviously knows Qld politics fairly well and plays on xenophobia and ignorance.
Be ignorant and alarmed !


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 December 2009)

Barnaby is a Queenslander and knows what he is talking about.

The Chinese are very tough negotiaters and a little bit of biff on our part is not going to upset them.

They have good contacts with both sides of politics, particularly Labor in NSW, so don't fret that they will go away.

They need us.

And thats where I'd personally like to keep them. Good on Joyce for speaking up for a position which any ordinary Australian would support (except basket weavers in the Southern cities).

gg


----------



## Sean K (12 December 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Good on Joyce for speaking up for a position which any ordinary Australian would support



Vote 1 BJ.


----------



## drsmith (12 December 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Barnaby is a Queenslander and knows what he is talking about.



So was Joh.


----------



## kitehigh (12 December 2009)

*Re: Bananas Joyce wants end to Chinese investment in Australia.*



dbcok said:


> It wasn't so long ago that the cry from Queensland was that the Japanese ownership of Queensland properties posed a threat to Australia.
> And before that the coming invasion of Australia from Indonesia.Queenslanders were more aware of the threat than southerners because they were closer to the danger.
> Something not in the water up there-no flouride at the time?




The Japanese buying up property is one thing, but the buying up of Australian mining companies by Chinese companies (read Chinese Govt) is a totally different prospect.  A prospect which I believe we have to be very careful in how we manage it.  Like other have mentioned I don't want to see us sell out for short term gain and than have nothing left for our future generation.  

Not sure what the last comment is suppose to mean, yes we don't have fluoride in the water and you know what I don't have a single filling.  Maybe you should research the negatives of Fluoride and become enlightened.


----------



## Tink (13 December 2009)

drsmith said:


> Me thinks that Barnaby is still preaching purely from the perspective of the other side of the black stump.






drsmith said:


> So was Joh.




Couldnt agree more

And so it starts -- back to the boondocks


----------



## explod (13 December 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Barnaby is a Queenslander and knows what he is talking about.
> 
> The Chinese are very tough negotiaters and a little bit of biff on our part is not going to upset them.
> 
> ...




At least we have a politition with the b..ls to speak out on the precarious financial perils of the money presses.

And dont you worry about us ole aerial ping pongers down south GG, we still eat you bent bananas at $7 a kilo     @#%*&XX


----------



## rcm617 (13 December 2009)

Personally I think we should be concerned about selling out resource companies to any overseas countries, especially if they are customers of our resource. Instead of pouring all our money into ever increasing house prices and the junk inside that we think we need, most imported from China, it might be prudent to think of the future. After all beside commodities what else do we produce that the world wants. If our resources are primarily owned by our customers what control of prices do we have?


----------



## Julia (13 December 2009)

Tink said:


> Couldnt agree more
> 
> And so it starts -- back to the boondocks






rcm617 said:


> Personally I think we should be concerned about selling out resource companies to any overseas countries, especially if they are customers of our resource. Instead of pouring all our money into ever increasing house prices and the junk inside that we think we need, most imported from China, it might be prudent to think of the future. After all beside commodities what else do we produce that the world wants. If our resources are primarily owned by our customers what control of prices do we have?




So Tink, rcm makes a simple but fairly relevant point, doesn't he/she?

Perhaps you could address the final sentence.

Just to be clear, I do have some concerns about Mr Joyce's undisciplined outbursts, but it's the principle of unlimited Chinese investment in Australia that we're discussing here.


----------



## explod (13 December 2009)

Julia said:


> Just to be clear, I do have some concerns about Mr Joyce's undisciplined outbursts, but it's the principle of unlimited Chinese investment in Australia that we're discussing here.




Discipline to party dogma and policy lines did not exist many years ago and the community was more productive for tangible value.  Parliamentarians spoke for the people they represented in the area from where they came.

All this pansy stuff has broken down the voice of and the democracy for the people.  Bring on more bent bananas so that we can debate issues only, not cloistered for the more wealthy vested interests.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 December 2009)

explod said:


> Discipline to party dogma and policy lines did not exist many years ago and the community was more productive for tangible value.  Parliamentarians spoke for the people they represented in the area from where they came.
> 
> All this pansy stuff has broken down the voice of and the democracy for the people.  Bring on more bent bananas so that we can debate issues only, not cloistered for the more wealthy vested interests.




Hear, hear, plod mate.

Well said.

And by the way I eat apples and pears from down south 

Thanks for being there, to keep them honest. 

gg


----------



## Robear (13 December 2009)

Barnaby is on the right track here. He may look and sound like a bit of a hayseed but he speaks without spin and obfuscation like many of his peers.

I reckon he makes a lot of sense on this issue.

The Chinese are not in the market to buy up resource companies for the good of us Aussies, thats for sure.


----------



## alphaman (14 December 2009)

I see it as a fair game. It wasn't too long ago that commodties were, just commodities. There is always a chance that the Chinese will end up overpaying.

The Chinese investment issue can be adequately addressed from an anti-competitive angle. No need to complicate it with xenophobic sentiments.


----------



## bellenuit (14 December 2009)

alphaman said:


> I see it as a fair game. It wasn't too long ago that commodties were, just commodities. There is always a chance that the Chinese will end up overpaying.
> 
> The Chinese investment issue can be adequately addressed from an anti-competitive angle. No need to complicate it with xenophobic sentiments.




Alphaman. Joyce was talking about Chinese *government* investment in key Australian industries. He didn't say that investment from Chinese companies in general was unwelcome. There is a huge difference between a government controlled entity and a private entity when it comes to such issues, as has been discussed in some of the posts above. This is not just an issue for Australia, but many other countries have similar concerns about Chinese *government* investment in their strategic industries.

By suggesting that these concerns are xenophobic is doing exactly what you are saying should be avoided. You are the one who is introducing xenophobic sentiments to a debate that is about foreign state control.


----------



## Buddy (14 December 2009)

bellenuit said:


> Alphaman. Joyce was talking about Chinese *government* investment in key Australian industries. He didn't say that investment from Chinese companies in general was unwelcome. There is a huge difference between a government controlled entity and a private entity when it comes to such issues, as has been discussed in some of the posts above. This is not just an issue for Australia, but many other countries have similar concerns about Chinese *government* investment in their strategic industries.
> 
> By suggesting that these concerns are xenophobic is doing exactly what you are saying should be avoided. You are the one who is introducing xenophobic sentiments to a debate that is about foreign state control.




I agree BN. I think some of the posters here are missing the point. BJ is not against foreign investment per se. I think what he is saying is that he is against foreign sovereign wealth funds (ie governments) investing in Australia. Nothing wrong with that and it's not xenophobic. I think he is also worried about sovereign funds controlling the total demand side of the market to their advantage, over ours (the seller). That's what the Chinese have done with the rare earths market. We, the hole diggers and sellers, have every right to protect our turf from those that would manipulate the market to their advantage. No need to get worked up about it, as it is simply all part of the game.


----------



## alphaman (14 December 2009)

bellenuit said:


> There is a huge difference between a government controlled entity and a private entity when it comes to such issues, as has been discussed in some of the posts above. This is not just an issue for Australia, but many other countries have similar concerns about Chinese *government* investment in their strategic industries.



Is there really a huge difference, or is the difference enlarged by xenophobic sentiments? I ask because other than some vague uneasiness about the Chinese government, I don't see any real discussion.

As I said, the real market issue can be handled from an anti-competitive angle. Calling for outright ban is dumb, but I don't think he's really that dumb. Most probably just doing what a politician needs to do.


----------



## Julia (14 December 2009)

bellenuit said:


> Alphaman. Joyce was talking about Chinese *government* investment in key Australian industries. He didn't say that investment from Chinese companies in general was unwelcome. There is a huge difference between a government controlled entity and a private entity when it comes to such issues, as has been discussed in some of the posts above. This is not just an issue for Australia, but many other countries have similar concerns about Chinese *government* investment in their strategic industries.
> 
> By suggesting that these concerns are xenophobic is doing exactly what you are saying should be avoided. You are the one who is introducing xenophobic sentiments to a debate that is about foreign state control.



Exactly.



alphaman said:


> Is there really a huge difference, or is the difference enlarged by xenophobic sentiments? I ask because other than some vague uneasiness about the Chinese government, I don't see any real discussion.
> 
> As I said, the real market issue can be handled from an anti-competitive angle. Calling for outright ban is dumb, but I don't think he's really that dumb. Most probably just doing what a politician needs to do.



Here is what Mr Joyce said:


> Senator Joyce said while he wasn't opposed to Chinese investment in Australia, he had concerns with a Chinese government-run enterprise owning a stake in Rio Tinto.
> 
> "If they are both the owner of the minerals in the ground in Australia and the purchaser of the minerals in China, then they'll do what any accountant will tell them to do and that is to get the cheapest price possible," Senator Joyce said.
> 
> "And if you try to dispute that, you've turned a corporate issue into a diplomatic one with an emerging superpower."


----------



## bellenuit (14 December 2009)

alphaman said:


> As I said, the real market issue can be handled from an anti-competitive angle.




I doubt if it can. The basic difference between investment from a private Chinese company and a state owned Chinese company is that the former must run at a profit to survive. The state run company can look at the big picture and make decisions that are in the interests of China long term or China as a whole that may not be in the interest of the acquired Australian company. For example, what motivation would there be for a Chinese owned BHP to hold out for a 40% increase in iron ore prices (as it has done in the past) from Chinese state owned steel mills? What competition regulation has been broken if they just continue to use the previous year's price or some other arbitrary price that is a lot less than what would have been achieved at arm's length negotiations. If the government tries to intervene in such incestuous deals, as Joyce said, commercial disputes will quickly turn into diplomatic disputes. 

I agree that Joyce shouldn't have said that there should be a total ban on all Chinese state investment in resource companies. He could have been a bit more diplomatic. Perhaps not mentioning China specifically and perhaps saying it should be decided on a case by case basis.


----------



## Beej (14 December 2009)

bellenuit said:


> I agree that Joyce shouldn't have said that there should be a total ban on all Chinese state investment in resource companies. He could have been a bit more diplomatic. Perhaps not mentioning China specifically and perhaps saying it should be decided on a case by case basis.




Yes that's what he should have said, but the problem then is he would simply be arguing for things to stay exactly as they are, as that is the current process, ie all deals reviewed by the FIRB and approved by the Treasurer. Much too mainstream an idea for Banana's Joyce!! 

Cheers,

Beej


----------



## alphaman (15 December 2009)

Julia said:


> Here is what Mr Joyce said:



Sounds scary, but very vague in how that is actually going to materialise. Just how realistic is that scenario? China taking all the resources from the rest of the world, while everyone else stands by and suffers, just because China legally owns the mines? 

Most diplomatic disputes are commercial anyway. Joyce makes it as if it's something we have never seen before.

By the way why is it that people automatically assume the Chinese government is capable of seeing the big picture and managing for the long term?


----------



## prawn_86 (15 December 2009)

alphaman said:


> By the way why is it that people automatically assume the Chinese government is capable of seeing the big picture and managing for the long term?




Because they operate on 5 and 10 yr plans, due to the ruling party not having to change with elecetions etc. And you can bet they also have private 100 year plans. Its just the way they work. Take a look back in the 1500's etc when China was a major power.


----------



## alphaman (15 December 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> Because they operate on 5 and 10 yr plans, due to the ruling party not having to change with elecetions etc. And you can bet they also have private 100 year plans. Its just the way they work.




CCP's past governing performance is actually not impressive. Sure they are making economic progress now, but come on, a trader would not remove periods of poor returns when he is assessing his own performance.

Governments by design are inefficient and incompetent. Occasionally you could get temporary outliers, but they always revert back to mediocrity. So far China has not deviated from this rule.



prawn_86 said:


> Take a look back in the 1500's etc when China was a major power.



So, how did China bully the rest of the world when it was a major power? When you compare China to the western countries and Japan, they were actually pretty meek.


----------



## bellenuit (29 December 2009)

Why Joyce is right not to cede control of key industries to Chinese government owned enterprises (notice how they are also teaching Rio a lesson by arresting Hu) .....

*Beijing's 'lesson' for Fortescue chief Andrew Forrest*

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...f-andrew-forrest/story-e6frg8zx-1225814240932

Susannah Moran From: The Australian December 29, 2009 12:00AM

*A SENIOR Chinese government official wanted majority ownership of Fortescue Metals Goup's $1.85 billion Pilbara iron ore project, claiming it was Chinese "national policy" to "obtain control", and later vowed to "teach (Fortescue) a lesson".*

That lesson, or "alternative way of co-operation", turned out to be providing information to a newspaper -- whose subsequent negative article about FMG's planned project sparked the corporate regulator's investigation and subsequent highly costly court case, which was last week comprehensively dismissed by Federal Court judge John Gilmour.

The machinations of the behind-the-scenes dealings are revealed in the 204-page judgment.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission alleged Fortescue and its chief executive, Andrew Forrest, breached the Corporations Act and that Mr Forrest was deliberately dishonest and misled the market in relation to 2004 market releases that outlined "binding contracts" made with several Chinese companies about the planned Pilbara project.

The court heard that by early 2005, the Chinese were demanding an 80 per cent majority stake in the Pilbara project, a move Fortescue was resisting.

The judgment reveals detailed conversations that Xin Lou-Lin, later to become a Fortescue consultant, had with the deputy director-general of China's National Development Reform Commission (NDRC), He Lianzhong.

Mr Xin, who was a former schoolfriend of Mr He, gave damning evidence in the case, recalling a conversation in February, the month before the article in The Australian Financial Review appeared. "The Chinese companies wanted control of FMG and as FMG was resisting, we would teach them a lesson," Mr Xin recalled Mr He saying.

Justice Gilmour said in his judgment that Mr He caused information to be provided to an AFR reporter to the effect that the agreements with the Chinese contractors to build infrastructure were not binding. The report "caused considerable public commercial distress" to Fortescue, which the judge said "was Mr He's intention".

Weeks later, Mr He used "very offensive" language when talking about Mr Forrest, the court heard.

"He, at that time, when I talked to him, he used the Chinese words called the `zhou han', which is very unusual," Mr Xin said.

"He said Andrew `bu shi' -- Forrest `shao han zhou han'. That means, that's a semi-underground word. That means in my territory somebody try to challenge me. `Zhou han' means, you know, normally it's a Mafia or underground word.

"So I told Andrew, I said, `you're in trouble'. He is so angry at you people," Mr Xin recalled of the March 2005 conversation.

After the March article, Mr He met with Mr Xin in Beijing. Mr Xin told him the Chinese contractors had made agreements, but the NDRC "had later intervened to change the position".


----------

