The question of foreign ownership of or investment in our agricultural land is an emotive one. Those in favour cite such investment as putting upward pressure on the Australian dollar when they buy or invest, providing capital to fund improvements, foreign agricultural companies bringing know-how and technology to our agricultural sector, increasing land prices and investment returns, providing better access to offshore markets, increasing Australia’s exports revenue, which also puts upward pressure on the AUD. Those against cite food security and the price of farmland being bid up to levels beyond the funding ability of family farmers.
Classic Liberals is in favour of unrestricted foreign ownership of our agricultural land. It regards the arguments in favour foreign ownership to far outweigh the arguments against. Classic Liberals does not agree that foreign ownership of our farmland poses a national food security risk. One justification is that local farmers have the right to sell to foreign markets and will probably do so if those markets offer higher prices. So, if foreign markets offer better prices, the produce will probably be exported to those markets regardless of who owns the land on which the produce was grown. The other justification is that our government may pass legislation (if it does not already have it) allowing it to nationalise agricultural land or require that it be sold to locals and should have the right to legislation that a certain proportion is sold into local markets. If this reduces the value of the land or the produce, compensation will need to be paid.
The question of whether we should allow foreign buyers to bid up the price of agricultural land depends on whether one is a buyer, a seller or a spectator. If you’re a seller, you’ll want the highest price you can get for it, and so will gladly accept money from a foreign buyer. On the other hand, if you are a local buyer, you’ll want to restrict buyer interest to pay a lower price. If you are a spectator, you’ll want what is best for the economy., and so will be supportive of allowing foreign ownership.
This topic raises a few other questions:
One is – Does it matter who the foreign buyer/investor is – whether it is a wealthy foreign family, an agricultural corporation, a managed fund or a sovereign wealth fund or other government entity, and does it matter whether the country of its location is a friend or adversary? Classic Liberals does not consider that to be problematic. If the country of origin is no longer friendly or sees us as a foe, it cannot take Australian agricultural land back home with them. They can abandon it, in which case we can occupy it. The option to nationalise could also be considered.
Another is – Could the foreign owner change the land use in a way that is detrimental to us Australians? The answer is, no more than could a local owner. Land use is dictated by zoning rules and provided the use is within those rules it is permitted. The Local Council concerned could change the land use rules should the need arise. This would apply equally to locals and foreigners.
A third is – Whether foreign ownership be conditional on reciprocal rights? For example: Do we, for example, insist on the right to buy or invest in agricultural land in China before allowing Chinese parties to invest in or own Australian agricultural land? No, we shouldn’t. If the Chinese decide to shoot a hole in their boat, we shouldn’t then shoot a hole in ours. We need to focus on what is in our best interest and ignore whether it is beneficial or prejudicial to the other country.
Written by: Mark M.J. Morris (May 2026)