Tony Abbott says China's state-owned enterprises are welcome in Australia

[yibbida]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/11/abbott-says-chinas-state-owned-enterprises-welcome

“We now appreciate that most Chinese state-owned enterprises have a highly commercial culture. They’re not the nationalised industries that we used to have in Australia.”

 

[The_Reaper]

Why shouldn't they be allowed to invest?

 

[Tasmaniac]

Hope that doesn't include Huawei.

 

[RUNVS]

Why shouldn't they be allowed to invest?

So the Chinese government owns important Australian assets?

 

[The_Reaper]

So the Chinese government owns important Australian assets?

So the Chinese government is able to invest money into developing Australian industries.

 

[Power Raid]

So the Chinese government owns important Australian assets?

Sure, subject to FIRB just like any other foreign investor's approval process.

Is the concern racism, war or one of profit?

 

[RUNVS]

Sure, subject to FIRB just like any other foreign investor's approval process.

Is the concern racism, war or one of profit?

The concern is of a country that definitely could not be seen as an ally controlling key Australian infrastructure. It is also a country that would never allow an Australian company to own the sort of infrastructure they are trying to buy off us.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

So the Chinese government is able to invest money into developing Australian industries.

Will they be investing in Australian industry?

How can Australian businesses hope to compete with Chinese state backed competitors?

Also I agree on Huawei, allowing them access or to tender for critical infrastructure would be the same as allowing Cisco to do the same in China, if Cisco was run by the NSA.

 

[Juddism]

I think the recent Four Corners episode about Chinese debt and shadow banks should be cause enough for concern...let alone the amount of corrupt money making it's way down here.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2014/03/31/3972864.htm

 

[clogged]

Why shouldn't they be allowed to invest?

Aside from practical concerns, isn't it hypocritical?

I don't expect you to understand this as you're not very smart, but if private enterprise does it better, why does this not apply to foreign investment?

 

[noddy]

Sure, subject to FIRB just like any other foreign investor's approval process.

Is the concern racism, war or one of profit?

There will come a day when we shal have to make a decision on whether or not we follow the Americans into some sort of conflict with China most notably in regards to Taiwan or the disputed islands of the Pacific & the South China sea, not really that chuffed that we could could have foreign troops/state owned businesses from a communist state running around the country but i guess Abbott does have an idea of the pros & cons of selling his arse every time he travels overseas.

Time will tell as shall the fine print once it has been analyzed by independent experts

 

[Power Raid]

The concern is of a country that definitely could not be seen as an ally controlling key Australian infrastructure. It is also a country that would never allow an Australian company to own the sort of infrastructure they are trying to buy off us.

Why do we need to be able to buy their assets for them to be able to buy ours?

FIRB just has to assess the investment on its own merits. or should they consider other issues like the horoscope too?

 

[Power Raid]

There will come a day when we shal have to make a decision on whether or not we follow the Americans into some sort of conflict with China most notably in regards to Taiwan or the disputed islands of the Pacific & the South China sea, not really that chuffed that we could could have foreign troops/state owned businesses from a communist state running around the country but i guess Abbott does have an idea of the pros & cons of selling his arse every time he travels overseas.

Time will tell as shall the fine print once it has been analyzed by independent experts

Things change in times of war and assets are "utilised, nationalised" for the term and the cause as necessary.


If anything economic integration helps peace. After all, what is the interest in bombing their own assets?

 

[Run n Spread]

There will come a day when we shal have to make a decision on whether or not we follow the Americans into some sort of conflict with China most notably in regards to Taiwan or the disputed islands of the Pacific & the South China sea, not really that chuffed that we could could have foreign troops/state owned businesses from a communist state running around the country but i guess Abbott does have an idea of the pros & cons of selling his arse every time he travels overseas.

Time will tell as shall the fine print once it has been analyzed by independent experts

Yep we will sleep walk into it and be absolutely slaughtered no matter who's side we take. Particularly so if we sell off the farm for short term gain and have no strategic control of our assets.

Or we could nuke up, make it attractive for our scientists and best minds to return home, assist restructuring our social infrastructure and economy for the future and maybe build a few more weapons for the hell of it. Then tell the yanks thanks but the lease is up on Darwin and if you still want access to Pine Gap you play on our terms and tell the Chinese to f*& right off if they have any further designs on us and basically both sides can sort out their own sh*(.

Australia can still be a major economy and slight world power (considering our size) and mix it on Intertational markets provided we restructure internally.

As for the Chinese owning/buying assets. It won't change. As long as someone has something of value and others are willing to pay top dollar the transaction occurs one way or another. Story throughout history.

 

[samFFC]

Would be pretty funny to see Joe Hockey openly support this, given his previous bluster about Foreign Investment, and now:
(i) ADM/Graincorp decision
(ii) This.

The issue here is not necessarily whether China state-owned enterprises should be welcome in Australia, but rather if we make it easier for them to invest here, by changing FI rules. That seems like a big step, and would need to come with significant export gains in the FTA, to make it worth our while.

 

[telsor]

As a general statement, I figure that the rule should 'would the country that owns/controls the organisation wishing to buy let an equivalent Australian organisation buy the same thing in their country'.

 

[Gough]

As a general statement, I figure that the rule should 'would the country that owns/controls the organisation wishing to buy let an equivalent Australian organisation buy the same thing in their country'.

I feel this way too, my understanding is that it's not always easy to do business in China for Australian firms, will a FTA make it easier for them?

 

[greennick]

As a general statement, I figure that the rule should 'would the country that owns/controls the organisation wishing to buy let an equivalent Australian organisation buy the same thing in their country'.

That should be the rule. Likewise, if they put tariffs on us importing in agricultural goods, they shouldn't be allowed to own assets that make those here. That goes for anyone, not just the Chinese (ie, Japanese with rice).

 

[telsor]

That should be the rule. Likewise, if they put tariffs on us importing in agricultural goods, they shouldn't be allowed to own assets that make those here. That goes for anyone, not just the Chinese (ie, Japanese with rice).

I wouldn't go with it as an absolute, but as the basis, yes...but there are always exceptions.

If we can do that there, then the default answer to investment decisions is yes (i.e. we need a good reason to say no).
If we can't do that there, then the default answer is no (i.e. we'd need a compelling reason to say yes).

 

[greennick]

I wouldn't go with it as an absolute, but as the basis, yes...but there are always exceptions.

If we can do that there, then the default answer to investment decisions is yes (i.e. we need a good reason to say no).
If we can't do that there, then the default answer is no (i.e. we'd need a compelling reason to say yes).

Agree with that, but the absolute is the starting point with the full panel needed to overturn it.

 

[clogged]

Chinese state owned companies buying Australian assets and employing Chinese people:

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...nd-workers-into-australia-20140415-zquve.html

Not sure in what way this is good for Australia, except for those at the very top who negotiate the deals and get their slice.

 

[noddy]

As much as Abbott has been bowing & pleading around the Asian region i do not think for one minute that Abbott would stoop this low, might as well fly the bloody Chinese flag above Parliament house & be done with it.

 

[greennick]

Chinese state owned companies buying Australian assets and employing Chinese people:

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...nd-workers-into-australia-20140415-zquve.html

Not sure in what way this is good for Australia, except for those at the very top who negotiate the deals and get their slice.

Scaremongering. It won't happen. We will not accept imported labor under any circumstances IMO. It is too politically daft and Abbott would rather just not get the deal done.

Before the Japanese and Korean FTA's there were journalists stating we would get international dispute resolution provisions. So many people got up in arms about it. We didn't end up with those provisions though. Yet still people online have been claiming we did. I even saw an article say we did, when we didn't.

I don't think Abbott would be so stupid to agree to what the Chinese want.

 

[clogged]

Scaremongering. It won't happen. We will not accept imported labor under any circumstances IMO. It is too politically daft and Abbott would rather just not get the deal done.

Scaremongering by the AFR?

 

[greennick]

Scaremongering by the AFR?

Scaremongering by the people reporting it as fact.