Chinese investors are often blamed for Australia’s escalating house prices but a number of factors might mean the demand will drop off in coming years. A recently released report found investment in residential real estate by the Chinese is slowing. As the gap in rental yields between the two countries closes and house prices increase, Australian residential real estate is beginning to look less attractive. The lifting of restrictions on Chinese urban residential property ownership and personal investment monetary restrictions may also play a part. [Article first published on The Conversation, May 1, 2017]
Update: See note  on where candobetter.net's values differ from those apparent on Party for Freedom site. John Ajaka, the NSW Minister for Multiculturalism's indignation at Nick Folkes's (Party for Freedom) protests against foreign property ownership in Australia would ring truer if Ajaka distanced multiculturalism from the billion dollar property development growth lobby that has captured the multicultural tag. See Background on the Australian Multicultural Foundation. Instead he sounds like a hypocrite attacking an Australian who tries to stand up to this Goliath. Unfortunately multiculturalism has become code for mass migration and a political shield for a powerful global network of engineers, banks and financiers, property developers, government departments and academic propagandists, represented by numerous peak bodies of which the Property Council of Australia is probably foremost. The Fairfax and Murdoch Press are members of this growth lobby with strong vested interests in their own huge property dot coms, realestate.com.au and domain.com.au. The major political parties are similarly invested, with the Labor Party's stake best known, but it is no Robinson Crusoe.
The Coalition Government today announced that it is taking action to strengthen the integrity of our foreign investment framework.
The Government recognises that foreign capital is vital to help grow our economy and provide jobs. In the case of residential real estate, the current foreign investment regime aims to channel foreign investment into new homes for Australians to purchase or rent.
Planning Backlash reports that there have been some discussions with the Assistant Treasurer about the continued flouting of the FIRB regulations that contain exploitive overseas investment in the local property market. These breaches are resulting in driving prices for housing up to the exclusion of locals, adding to a rapid demolition of housing stock for new 'MacMasions', adding unoccupied houses to our neighbourhoods and resulting in buying tours from overseas which exclude local buyers. Here is how you can help:
The Parliamentary Economics Committee has posted its report on foreign investment in real estate.
Basically the report says they have no means of knowing the extent or impact, because the government has not gathered the data to allow it to be measured. It is scathing about the Foreign Investment Review Board, which is clearly both unable and unwilling to enforce the regulatory system.
The Chinese Government is buying Australian farms to directly feed its population. Farm buy-ups were not referred to the FIRB unless they were worth more than $320 million! So, unless the farm property is under this amount, it just becomes "international" land! Unease about global food shortages in the next 20 years - and long term agricultural market opportunities - have made Australia and areas of South America prized targets for foreign government-aided enterprises and private investor groups.“Racism” is justified sometimes
Now is the time for some real and justified "racism"!
The Chinese Government is buying Australian farms to directly feed its population.
The purchases are not monitored by the Foreign Investment Review Board, according to Senator Bill Heffernan. Farm buy-ups were not referred to the FIRB unless they were worth more than $320 million! So, unless the farm property is under this amount, it just becomes "international" land!
The highest bidder should be scrutinised! Any agents for the Chinese government or nationals should be rejected.
Illustration: collage of icons from housing and immigration industry sites and Steve Vizard who marketed the Bracks Melbourne Population Summit in 2002
Article by Jonathan Page
The laws regarding foreign ownership were relaxed recently, ostensibly to allow temporary visa holders to buy properties at auction which was previously too difficult.
I was quite outraged after piece after piece appeared in the media with real estate agents bragging about Chinese buyers putting down their money over the phone without even seeing the properties, or purchasing several. These agents talk about how the wealthy investors are speculating on our real estate, and even letting the properties sit empty while waiting for their capital increase.
It is confusing to know exactly what is happening as only temporary visa holders are allowed to buy established properties, and then only a principal place of residence. But we hear of some of these people buying several.
Real estate speculation occurs on previously unknown levels via the global Internet, with rapid convergence and mushrooming of of speculative industries and professions across government and private sector. At Federal level, the National Foreign Investment Review Board (NFIRB) promotes foreign investment in local real estate and encourages housing purchases by temporary immigrants for high turnover. Local realtors tout Australian property internationally, using private migration agents and local solicitors. At State level (where land use planning laws are made), organizations like the Property Council of Australia (PCA) are closely involved with determining government policy. The Australian citizen has less and less say in any of this.
Illustration a collation of old icons from sites encouraging foreign investment and immigration.
There was a fascinating pay-off in James Sinnamon's predictably unsuccessful bid for Lord Mayor in the recent Brisbane elections. In his "Courier Mail provides 'boring', yet unbalanced, coverage of Brisbane City Council elections"#main-fn1">1 (March 17-20, 2008) correspondence between Sinnamon and Emma Chalmers, the Courier Mail journalist responsible for much of that paper's election coverage, provides a valuable sociological tool for what it reveals about the media and politics.
Teachers, students, and citizens, take note.
Mr Sinnamon's dialogue demonstrates that the Courier Mail does not treat all candidates in an election equally.
In their defense that newspaper might say that equity and fairness are up to the formal process of the election and that newspapers just publish the news.
But some might say that it is the mainstream press that determines the outcome of elections, or at least, who is really in the running, which is not the same thing as who is actually running.