- Joined
- 28 January 2009
- Posts
- 30
- Reactions
- 0
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.
Senator Joyce said that, although he welcomed foreign investment by private companies, investment in sovereign resources by government-owned businesses turned corporate disputes into diplomatic disputes.
"The difference between a corporation and a government is governments have armies, seats at the United Nations and can say the word `no' and you can't do much about it when they do," he said. "This is a confusion I don't want my nation to get into."
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
He was responding to an attack by the Treasurer, who said Senator Joyce's views on foreign investment came from the "reactionary fringe".
In an address to the business group Global Foundation yesterday, Mr Swan said Chinese foreign investment was controversial, as were previous waves of investment from Japan, the US and Britain. "Each successive wave of foreign investment reinforced a pattern we see today with China, where successes in trade led to successes in investment," he said.
Mr Swan said China had ranked only 10th among applications for investment projects above $500 million over the last two years, far behind Britain and the US. Mr Swan quoted Treasury analysis showing that, without foreign investment over the past few years, business investment would be 25 per cent lower, the GDP would be 3 per cent smaller, and there would be 200,000 fewer jobs. Mr Swan said a review of foreign investment had to be conducted on a case-by-case basis and there were three consistent themes in government consideration:
lThat close scrutiny be given to investments in resource companies by their customers, particularly where there is potential control over pricing and production;
lThat foreign investment in a resource company should not interfere with Australia's ability to be a reliable supplier to all potential trading partners; and
lThat foreign buyers of companies listed on the stock exchange should retain the listing in the interests of transparency.
Mr Swan agreed with a Senate report that Australia's foreign investment guidelines could be explained better and has asked the Foreign Investment Review Board to work more closely with Australia's embassies.
Senator Joyce said he was amazed at the acceptance of Chinese investment, after China's arrest of Rio Tinto's iron ore negotiating team led by Stern Hu
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.
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.
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.
We have already seen that the laws of our country can't protect our citizens when travelling in China (Stern Hu).
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.
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
Try telling that to millions of their own repressed people - Uigher & Tibetans come to mind.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?