SELLING OFF THE FARM

The degree of foreign ownership of our rural land has doubled over the last 25 years from 5.9% up to 11.3% according to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural & Resource Economics & Sciences. Forty five million hectares of our agricultural land has some level of foreign ownership and this number continues to increase.
Should we be worried?

On the eve of Australia Day 2013, our largest farming property, Cubbie Station, passed into majority ownership by a Chinese textile maker, Shandong RuYi along with massive water rights from the Culgoa River and the Murray Darling Basin.

More than half of our milk processing is in foreign hands. Half our wheat export industry is controlled by foreign companies. Three foreign milling groups account for nearly 60% of our raw sugar production - including a subsidiary of the Chinese state owned COFCO Corporation - and 40% of our beef & lamb is processed by foreign firms. Nearly 10% of our irrigation water licenses are owned by foreigners.

This is just a sample of what is going on, we could keep listing examples but suffice to say the trends are very worrying. It is incongruous that we substantially increased scrutiny of overseas investment in residential real estate in 2010, with all foreign purchases of residential real estate being subject to FIRB scrutiny, yet when it comes to rural land the level of scrutiny is not so stringent with only purchases in excess of $244 million looked at (which relates to a single purchase while multiple purchases that collectively exceed that amount are ignored).

Why is it essential to scrutinise the purchase of a Gold Coast apartment but not the purchase of a large area of rural farmland?

What is worse, our farmers are being squeezed on two fronts, foreign land buyouts and the price war between the major food retailers which in turn are being pressured by the foreign competitors Aldi and Costco, leading to cost cutting resulting in the farmers being pressured to take less for their produce.

Consider this : If someone asked you whether Mildura Fruit Co was an Australian company you might say yes. It packs and sells fruit grown in the Mildura region It has three directors who are Australian and one born in New Zealand(as of 16 July 2012). It is owned by Sunbeam Foods Group Ltd based in Mildura which has the same directors and secretary as the Mildura Fruit Co so it looks very Australian. However, Food Holdings P/L trading as Manasson Foods Group Ltd, owns 100% of Sunbeam Foods which owns 100% of Mildura Fruit Co. Last November Manasson Foods Group was acquired by Bright Foods Holdings P/L. The shareholders of Bright Foods Holdings are Bright Food ( Australia) Co. Ltd. and Geoffrey Erby.

Now Bright Food (Australia) Co. Ltd. sounds Australian enough but it is in fact a Chinese company based in Hong Kong. Its ultimate owner is Bright Food ( Group) Co. Ltd. which is 50% owned by the Shanghai Municipal Government and the remaining 50% by other Shanghai Government owned companies.

What a tangled web they weave.

In a rather week response to all these shenanigans The Australian Federal Government released a "National Food Plan Green Paper" which outlines options for our food policy. It is seeking feedback with submissions to be lodged by 30th September - go to the link http://www.daff.gov.au/nationalfoodplan/national-food plan or just "Google" National Food Plan.

(The above is largely a condensation from a speech made to Independent Retirees on July 2012 by Kelvin Thomson MP, Member for Wills).

BOROONDARA NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER STUDY STUDY

The first draft of the Boroondara Neighbourhood Character Study (NCS)published by Council was very flawed with inaccurate generic precinct descriptors. BRAG took this issue up with the Council's CEO and, at a subsequent meeting, we were able to convince the council officers to review the descriptors to provide better protection for our residential areas.

The Mayor has now sent out a brochure to households providing information on how to find the reviewed Precinct Statements for your individual neighbourhood by going to the link:www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/our-future which asks for your feedback.
These descriptors for each of over 70 local areas* are designed to ensure that new built form is respectful of the neighbourhood character, so it is critical that residents check the wording for their own area and let council know of any concerns

Our view of the changes is that they have been simplified but retain a generic element that could allow developers to manipulate them to their advantage.
Note: A previous study covered *158 local areas and described the fine grained character in detail. This new study is much more general in nature which will not provide the same degree of protection. We urge you to check the new descriptors for your local area very carefully.

New Planning Strategy for Melbourne

We are being given an opportunity to have a say on Planning for the future of Melbourne. A Ministerial Advisory Committee is currently considering it's recommendations for a new planning strategy to replace the failed Melbourne 2030 and its update, Melbourne @ 5 Million. A preliminary report gives a lead on how it might be which has some good points depending upon how the changes are likely to be implemented. In the meantime we can have some say by going to a new website www.planmelbourne.vic.gov.au 

Already the Planning Minister, Matthew Guy, has announced a new planning feature called "code assess"- for fast tracking low level planning applications that meet pre-determined regulations that are developed after community consultations. There will be much less red tape and this system will cover fencing, garages, additions and the like but just how inclusive will the consultation process be we wonder? In these cases there will be no notification or appeal rights for neighbours, This could be OK if the community consultation is done properly and residents are satisfied with the level of regulation control.

BRAG has always pushed the point that residents must have a say on how their area is developed. In the past this has not been the case with the restrictions imposed by Melbourne 2030 and the way VCAT handled appeals. However , this new approach may offer us a better deal. BUT, the devil will be in the detail so we will be doing our best to influence the final plan to suit residents, not the developers as in the past.

We urge you to say what you think on the website. If you don't they will think you don't care!

A few suggestions to think about :
No densification or high-rise in our residential suburbs.
New developments should be sympathetic to the existing streetscapes -i.e. maximum two storey or if a third is required it must be within the streetscape roof line ( attic).And the most important point is the elephant in the room, population growth. Its the rate of immigration that is driving the planning problems so there must be a sustainable population policy (which of course is a Federal issue).
For more, scroll down to the Item below "Victorian Planning System Review"
1st September 2011 for a list of our recommendations in our submission to the Committee.
www.planmelbourne.vic.gov.au

Victorian Planning System Review

The Victorian government has appointed an Advisory Committee to consider all parts of the planning system and has asked for submissions about what works and what does not work, and how it should be shaped in the future.

Planning is in chaos with the previous Brumby government's very contentious changes that were constantly being made to try and bolster its failed Melbourne 2030 planning blueprint and the later Melbourne @5million policy which was also a failure. We had so many changes being contemplated that most of us, including our councils, did not know which way to turn.

We see this latest attempt to review planning policy as an opportunity for the Baillieu government to gain goodwill by putting up a more friendly and acceptable set of planning objectives which, in our opinion, must return local planning policy to councils and ensure that developers are not allowed to run riot in our suburbs.

BRAG has made a submission to the committee that sets out our concerns and lists a set of pointers to achieve equity and fairness. However we believe that as part of any planning policy, a sensible and sustainable population policy must be defined that is sensitive to the restraints of Australia's land fragility as well as our natural and renewable resources.

No longer can we allow population growth to drive development as an easy way to manage the economy. Such a policy is no more than a Ponzie scheme which requires more and more immigrants to keep the demand for housing going, requiring more and more immigrants to purchase the housing stock which in turn creates a need for more and more housing ............ but this cannot go on forever. The time to change our economic strategies is now and the committee is in a position to make some recommendations in this area.

A summary of BRAG's recommendations in its submission :

• A sustainable population policy( we commend Kelvin Thomson's 14 point plan )
• Controls on the changes to the Urban Growth Boundaries
• Regionalization policy (to include intention to plan now for a new major city in Victoria (we suggest Portland)
• Scrapping Melbourne 2030 and Melbourne @5 million
• De-politize and overhaul Department of Planning
• Scrap undemocratic Panels and planning committees
• Meaningful and real consultation process of planning issues
• Positive protection for heritage
• Return planning power to councils
• Empower councils to set their own height controls
• Limit areas for high rise development
• Provide positive plan for protecting public land and open space
• Ensure that developers are required to provide for adequate open space.
• Protect suburban residential areas from opportunistic infill development
• Regulate to protect neighbourhood character including set backs, height, bulk and site coverage and ensure that any new development is sympathetic to its surroundings
• Retention of third party rights (to be notified, object & appeal)
• Stop VCAT from acting as another planning authority and restrict it to being an appeal body (only). Better still create a genuine body independent of government or developers. The members of this body should not be planners, have neither interests nor involvement in any form of planning or the development industry and have only the authority to consider appeals against the planning process or councils' interpretation of their own regulations.

As a final comment, we hope this is not another "ticking the box exercise - pretending to consult the public but ignoring the submissions and doing what was proposed in the first place." This is exactly what the Brumby government consultation process amounted to. We expect more of Ted and his government.

Camberwell Market Car Park Under Threat - Again

Boroondara Council's Strategic Planning Department has produced a draft Open Space Strategy document which is looking at the open space and parks in the Municipality but hidden in the draft are these words:

Car Park at Camberwell Market

"Additional local open space is required in the west of this gap area,preferably at the Camberwell Market site by conversion of part of all of (?) the car park to open space"

The Camberwell Market car park has been under pressure many times from developers to move it underground and develop above. Back in the seventies National Mutual proposed building a shopping mall to rival Chadstone (as it was then) but the residents mounted a massive backlash, threw the councillors out and voted in councillors more sympathetic to the residents' concerns. The new council reneged on the deal to support the developer (Podgornick) and settled the matter in court by having to purchase all the land previously owned by National Mutual.

The only way to convert the car [park to open space would be to put it underground which opens up a real possibility of commercial development above and a small section made into a public plaza

We say that open space is scarce in the area because development has been allowed to take place without providing a public plaza or any additional open space. Take the Tower at the Junction for instance, boundary to boundary and no plaza or public space provided. The same at the very congested "Well" development. Our attempt to convert the Camberwell Station precinct to provide a landscaped public plaza was defeated at VCAT. Instead we could get a ten story commercial development with a new entrance to the station referred to by the developer as a plaza. Its nothing other than a station entry.

Our view is that the right mechanism for supplying new open space is by demanding maximum and appropriate open space around new developments or demanding an appropriate levy to enable council to purchase additional open space but this rarely happens.

So now we have another attempt to turn our car park into who knows what. We are suspicious that the wording in the draft Open Space Strategy document is just another attempt to develop on the market car park.

We have asked council to explain what is really meant by this new proposal but so far there has been no response to our request. We will keep our members informed.

Australia's Housing Market is Oversupplied

For some years now we have been aware that developers have been marketing overseas, mainly in China and south east Asia, while claiming there is a housing shortage in our home market.

Michael Matusik, Director of Matusik Property Insights, who has been involved in over 500 new residential developments, admits that our housing market is oversupplied. You can read his article via this link - http://www.propertyobserver.com.au/residential/australia-s-housing-market-is-oversupplied.-yes-oversupplied/2011083051360

Because our manufacturing industry has largely gone offshore, the development industry has been used by lazy governments to boost our economy. Migration has been accelerated to feed the housing sector but the numbers of migrants have dropped from around the 300,000 p.a a few years ago to around the 150,000 p.a. so we are now building too much stock, hence the push recently to increase migrant numbers again. At the same time the development industry ignores the social housing shortage because there is not the same degree of economic return. They would rather sell to overseas customers because they are prepared to pay more. Of course, this pushes up prices and so the cost spiral continues.(The reality is that some developers are aggressively marketing overseas selling up to 50% of new housing estate to customers in those markets). 

Its time governments both federal and state start to develop new and innovative activities to drive our economic growth rather than relying on the development industry. As we've said before, to bring in migrants to feed the housing industry is just a ponzi scheme and somewhere along the line it will come to a disastrous end.

Lets Get the Facts Right

Recently we have been bombarded with articles in the media by Bernard Salt covering a range of issues about planning and population growth. Bernard Salt is often(almost always) described as a demographer or Australia's leading demographer. In a recent item in the Weekly Review, he said Melbourne needs New York style higher density because our population could double to 8 million and he has long argued that the retirement of our baby boomers about to exit the workforce will place pressure on our future tax base and our ability to cope with the aging society. The so called "Aging Population " is a scare tactic which is constantly being used by the growth lobby to argue the case for increased migration to bolster our workforce.

Well, lets get the facts straight, Salt is not a demographer, he is a partner at KPMG, a large accounting firm, and advises the big end of town on business issues. More accurately he could be described as a social commentator. He has now abandoned his baby boomer theories because he got his calculations wrong and he has retracted his position (sort of). In reality Bernard Salt could be described as a lobbyist for the business sector including the development, building and construction industry.

Residents in Boroondara may remember that Bernard Salt was used by our council to argue for its very flawed Activity Centres proposals. He was intoduced as a demographer at the "summit" and made some very silly comments about widows in their large cream brick veneers moving out to make room for families as a way of coping with the increasing population.

So far, because real demographers do not comment upon what a populist like Bernard Salt writes, he has flown under the radar and recieved little crirticism. To the contrary, he has received much adulation from business groups and the Australian newspaper.

We thought is was about time to balance the ledger.