Do You Think People from Other Countries Should Be Able to Purchase Property or Land in Australia?

robertm on 28/06/2018 - 12:12

I know there are many difficulties in both wording this question and for any government attempting to implement restrictions on ownership.

I'm just curious about people's overall perception on this topic and what their basic feeling about it is.

Some obvious difficulties:

  • How would you determine who should and shouldn't be allowed? Permanent resident or citizen? Consider number of years of residency? People who are born here?

  • How would you stop people transferring money to other's to purchase by "proxy"?

  • Only allow leasing of land rather than permanent sale?

  • Limit sale of land to people from countries which have reciprocal agreements. If a country doesn't allow Australian citizens to purchase land there then that countries' citizens can't purchase here.

  • Increase taxation for particular buyers rather than just a complete ban? This money could then go into a fund to offset any related problems?

Poll Options expired

  • 145
    Yes
  • 469
    No
Financial Immigration Investment Property

Comments

        • HighAndDry on 02/07/2018 - 09:56

          @SirMurduck: With all respect - improve your skills and get paid more, or spend less on luxuries/find a place with cheaper rent.

    • horsome on 29/06/2018 - 10:19

      In all fairness, you were risking your life on a daily basis working in a factory, not to mention chronic illness from being exposed to various materials. But yes a lot of people did benefit from this situation.

    • yanhaot on 29/06/2018 - 15:44

      Pepperidge Farm remembers.

  • Sofie519 on 28/06/2018 - 14:09
    +9

    Definitely hard to implement, but in my ideal world, home/land ownership in any country should be restricted to Citizens. It is the future of a nation and its people. Long term lease-hold titles etc can allow for foreign investments and development. Of course there is a risk reward for everything, but if today's reward could potentially mean the entire nation becoming homeless in the future .. not worth it.

    Safe guarding a nation's sovereignty and future is priority.

    p.s. I have placed no consideration on implementation, simply theoretically speaking.

    • HighAndDry on 28/06/2018 - 14:55

      Thing is - the great majority of 'land' in Australia is rural. We already have restrictions in place on foreign acquisitions of rural (primary industry) land. People here are complaining about residential property which, as far as actual area is concerned, is some minute decimal point percentage of all Australian land.

      • CocaKoala on 04/07/2018 - 16:43

        People here are complaining about residential property which, as far as actual area is concerned, is some minute decimal point percentage of all Australian land.

        But inconveniently, this is where most people live, and therefore it's not a good idea to sell a whole lot of it to overseas investors.

        • HighAndDry on 04/07/2018 - 16:57

          Sure, but it doesn't belong to you (the people whining) or to the government. You really want the government telling you what you can do with your stuff? I don't - and my principles mean I don't whether it's good for me or not. I respect other people's property. Including their property rights.

          And in case you are wondering, no this sucks for me too. But principles man, principles. Gotta have some, and gotta stick to them.

    • jacross on 29/06/2018 - 08:29
      +4

      Owning land doesnt give you a stake in governance. Sovereign risk is a problem for foreign investors, not for the sovereign.

      • shorewalker on 30/06/2018 - 20:08
        +1

        Yes, this. Loss of sovereignty simply isn't a risk from allowing foreign purchases of property. Foreign property buyers actually face a risk of being subject to laws created by citizens to e.g. force them to rent out property on certain terms. They have less say in the fate of their property than citizens do.

  • Ugly on 28/06/2018 - 14:22
    +26

    If you sell more than 50% of your country to foreigners, do you even have a country anymore?

    • dcep on 28/06/2018 - 14:43
      +7

      globalisation

      new world order

      1 world 1 government

      illuminati

      • Nugs on 28/06/2018 - 14:53
        +1

        asgardians

      • pgcs on 29/06/2018 - 07:54
        +1

        Hmmm. But WHICH gov?
        China, Russia & US all want that role - none of them I'd like to be living under

      • MementoMori on 02/07/2018 - 10:25

        Agenda 21… we'll all be in shoeboxes and microhomes

        • pgcs on 03/07/2018 - 07:58

          There were a hundred and fifty of us living in t' shoebox in t' middle o' road

    • HighAndDry on 28/06/2018 - 14:46

      Well sure. So long as only citizens can vote - and our land ownership system is controlled by the government - you can vote in a government that passes a law saying:

      "F*** it, as of 1 July 20XX, all land owned by someone not a citizen is automatically transferred to the government for $1.00 (or market price since $1.00 might be unconstitutional)."

      • Other on 29/06/2018 - 14:38
        +1

        No. The 2 main partys have a stranglehold (due to fundraising, infrastructure, etc).

        • Scrooge McDuck on 30/06/2018 - 02:27
          +1

          Australian government: Elected by citizens, financed by the wealthy. Democracy or plutocracy?

      • Kangal on 30/06/2018 - 18:28

        You taking notes from Mugabe and Ramaphosa?

    • [Deactivated] on 28/06/2018 - 15:12

      But the sale of land doesn't release the land from sovereign ownership. It's more of a sale of rights to the use of land.

    • SlickMick on 29/06/2018 - 09:23

      Yes, you have a country funded by somebody else. Would probably be quite a lucrative policy.

  • bobbified on 28/06/2018 - 14:42
    +2

    It's a double-edged sword. To put it very very simply:

    If you stop foreigners from buying, then there's less buyers and less competition, which means a drop in house prices. It means that the locals can probably afford it more, but the current owners will lose out on a lot.

    If you keep the doors open for anyone to buy, then there's more buyers, meaning more competition and that'll push the house prices up. But that might mean that less people here can afford to buy. The rent will go up accordingly for people who can't afford to buy.

    • shorewalker on 30/06/2018 - 20:10

      There's actually a good argument that foreign buying pushes land prices up but property prices down. It certainly adds to the pool of money competing for land, but it also creates a new stream of money investing in new building. That should mean more building on a given amount of land.

    • brongz on 01/07/2018 - 23:42
      +2

      You buy a house to live in it. No need to sell it or hope the price increases. You need house so you you have roof on top of your head when sleeping in winter night.

      If this is what the house for, you don’t need the second or third investment property!

      • zealmax on 02/07/2018 - 14:50

        Nah, being a slum lord has its' merits.

      • HighAndDry on 02/07/2018 - 14:52

        No need to buy property to have a roof over your head. Perfectly able to live comfortably renting.

  • CyberMurning on 28/06/2018 - 14:47
    -5

    of course should be able to, because australian cant afford houses.

    australian only care how their salary can last long enough for weekend drinks and gambles. and ozb purchases :D

    • [Deactivated] on 30/06/2018 - 11:07

      Hahah, so true and bogans keep on whinging about their newstart allowance for adidas shoes and g-star jeans.

  • dogboy on 28/06/2018 - 14:52
    +5

    Why not only allow people to buy land / open businesses where we have the same right to do so in their country.

    • HighAndDry on 28/06/2018 - 14:57

      …… this would not end well. For example, Chinese investors buy here because even they can't afford to invest in residential property in their major cities.

      • bobbified on 28/06/2018 - 15:49
        +6

        . For example, Chinese investors buy here because even they can't afford to invest in residential property in their major cities.

        I think it's got something to do with getting their funny money out of the country so their own government can't confiscate it :p

        • HighAndDry on 28/06/2018 - 15:57
          +5

          I kind work tangentially to this sector…. and believe me, no one here is affected by that particular segment of the Chinese investor market. Those people are buying $5Mil+ properties with water views and private jetties in places like Rose Bay. Though if you are in that market, good for you (and stop bloody whining lol).

        • Kangal on 30/06/2018 - 18:59

          @HighAndDry:

          Yes and no.
          I've know a couple of Chinese people that immigrated to Australia with hundreds of thousands of dollars, knowing all too well that they were going to lose the majority to their communist government. In short, they are rigging the game. They take advantage of certain "liberties" in China to make a lot of money at the expense of others… then they funnel their profits overseas and script the books before the government acts. And its still happening to this day.

          Australia benefits from this, no doubt, but in the long-run the people in the lower socioeconomic ladder will suffer. These are the lessons we can take by looking at our Canadian cousins.

        • brongz on 01/07/2018 - 23:47

          @Kangal: yup, I remembered that documentary in SBS that feature a street of 1million$ house in Canada . And guess who own those houses? Just look in Australia now

      • dogboy on 28/06/2018 - 16:31
        +1

        My point wasn't so much about whether they had the capacity to do so but rather the legal right.

        • Other on 29/06/2018 - 14:40
          +1

          I have always thought it odd that Australia would extend the same benefits it gives to its citizens to foreigners, but does not expect reciprocity.

          Kind of like how people pretend we have global free trade.

      • brongz on 01/07/2018 - 23:43

        And now we can’t buy house on our own land

  • chumlee on 28/06/2018 - 15:26
    +2

    I think we should be able to make people pay for coming onto my property like in monopoly

    • HighAndDry on 28/06/2018 - 15:34
      +12

      ….. rent?

    • freakatronic on 29/06/2018 - 12:49
      +1

      Set up a ticket booth at the gate

  • myusername on 28/06/2018 - 15:55
    -1

    time for popcorn

    • Scab on 28/06/2018 - 16:04
      +1

      Once you pop you can't stop.

      • HighAndDry on 28/06/2018 - 16:15
        +1

        But that's Pringles…. which are chips!

        • [Deactivated] on 28/06/2018 - 17:49

          They're not chips. They're crisps.

        • lddv04 on 29/06/2018 - 10:02

          @tshow: Crisps? This is OzBargain, not BritBargain. In Australia we say chips.

        • [Deactivated] on 29/06/2018 - 10:19

          @lddv04:
          Chips are deep fried square cross section potato pieces of various thicknesses, often cooked to a crispy outer and soft middle.

          Crisps are thinly sliced potato pieces cooked to a crunchy consistency throughout.

          I will stand for what is right and I stand for crisps.

        • lddv04 on 29/06/2018 - 13:58
          +1

          @tshow:From that wonderful resource Wikipedia "In the United Kingdom and Ireland, "crisps" are potato chips which are eaten at room temperature, whilst "chips" are similar to french fries (as in "fish and chips") and are served hot. In Australia, some parts of South Africa, New Zealand, India, the general West Indies especially in Barbados, both forms of potato product are simply known as "chips",…."

        • [Deactivated] on 29/06/2018 - 14:08

          @lddv04:
          I will dispute their sources. Opinion fluff piece!

          I'll sooner die (an internet death) than call a crisp a chip.

        • Ctn on 29/06/2018 - 15:31
          +1

          @tshow:

          I always called them "hot chips" for the chips you get in fish & chips and "chips" for potato chips like Pringles.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 30/06/2018 - 02:34
          +4

          @tshow:

          They're not chips. They're crisps.

          🚨🚨🚨FOREIGNER DETECTED!!!🚨🚨🚨

        • [Deactivated] on 01/07/2018 - 00:09

          @Scrooge McDuck:
          I think I'm traumatized.

          I'm staying off your "chips".

          I'll stick with my crumpets from now on.

        • pgcs on 03/07/2018 - 08:02

          @tshow: Mmmmm crumpet….

          Oh, maybe you didn't mean that crumpet

  • whooah1979 on 28/06/2018 - 16:24
    +8

    let them invest in what they want as long as our states may collect land taxes. their demand for our properties keeps the construction industry going, retail sale of tools and supplies. they love it here so much that they keep sending their children to study in our unis, tafe and private schools. they come here for holidays to look at our kangaroos, koalas, buy our opals and australian beef. the list goes on and on.

    • [Deactivated] on 28/06/2018 - 17:50
      +4

      Someone has to pay for Centrelink after all. :)

    • Scrooge McDuck on 30/06/2018 - 02:37
      -2

      And their chicks love white guys.

  • trustnoone on 28/06/2018 - 18:11
    +1

    I don't mind, but I'm thinking maybe if they pay a higher land tax? that way it will put some off in investing but not so much it attacks the market too badly. Anyone who still invests pays a lot of tax money so at least it gos back into the country, while aussies still pay the normal amount.

  • [Deactivated] on 29/06/2018 - 00:01
    +1

    Thai law is perfect 51/49%

    • pgcs on 29/06/2018 - 07:56
      +9

      Philippine is 60/40.
      Japan 100/0

      It's OK for other countries to have these systems, but if it's done here…

      • c0balt on 29/06/2018 - 10:35
        +5

        Leftists scream racism, and all the major media outlets that pander to them will cry racism too :(

        Which is weird, because young leftists are the most likely to be on centrelink pushed out by foreigners taking the menial jobs (and highly skilled ones too!), pushing up the price of tertiary education, and will never be able to save up enough to afford a place.

        In those countries foreigners can't own the land in those developments. They own only the subdivided unit and have no share of the land. Here when people purchase a unit that's part of a large development, they own a share of the land it's build on too.

        • Other on 29/06/2018 - 10:52
          +1

          c0balt - so true!

        • [Deactivated] on 01/07/2018 - 00:14
          +2

          Your hearing must be better than mine.

          All I hear from leftist is moist flatulance, albeit at deafening levels. Can never make any sense of it.

  • Plug on 29/06/2018 - 07:39
    +4

    No one who is not a citizen should be allowed to buy land or property and everyone tbat does shoukd be able to show, if required, a financial trail proving their money is legit and they're not financed either by non-citizens or crime.

  • discod on 29/06/2018 - 08:09
    +12

    I am not sure if the housing prices are directly impacted by foreign investors, but that definitely seems to be what everyone around me is saying.

    In my view, if that is true, I believe that foreign investors allowed to purchase property should have to pay a substantial tax, which can then be used to improve the quality of life and benefits to Australians/locals.
    i.e. If Australia is providing a benefit with some investment opportunity at the expense of housing affordability, I want something in return.

    As a young professional in a capital city (on a materially above average salary), it's absurd that to purchase a property I need to move 30km from the city, into the boonies, just to buy a tiny plot on a cheaply built new estate.

    I also have an issue with foreign developers building all the cheap dog boxes around our suburbs.
    I live in suburban Melbourne, and every house is being bought by some dodgy developer and being bulldozed to build low-rise poor build quality apartments. These pieces of garbage sell for circa $500k now. Every single apartment building I have seen go up in the last 5 years (and there have been tons) is built poorly/cheaply. Most of them are starting to fall apart and deteriorate after 12 months and some of them are so bad they have material defects upon completion (i know this is under warranty, but seriously, how low have the standards dropped).

    I couldn't imagine what it would be like to take out a 20-30 year home loan on a small dog box, working my guts out to pay it off, only to reach my 60's (because there's no chance in saving up a deposit and purchasing in my 20's) only to be left with a building that has been falling apart for 2 decades and the associated insane maintenance costs.

    • DemocracyManifest on 29/06/2018 - 12:33
      +6

      Have you seen gosford cbd? Its a sign of things to come, less then 20 year old apartment buildings have all got concrete rot and the place looks like a shithole. (profanity) buying a apartment haha they will be practically worth diddly squat, our cities will be the ghettos of the future as everyone is cutting corners

      • Scrooge McDuck on 30/06/2018 - 02:45
        +1

        They might be stronger without corners. Just build them all domed in Art Deco style.

  • Mythreesons on 29/06/2018 - 08:37
    +12

    I think you should have to be an Australian citizen to purchase property in Australia.

    My husband worked (managed) for a Chinese owned business. They come here open a business, the wife stays in Australia and husband is in China, they own a house on Hope Island and units on the Gold Coast (they don't rent them out), once the business was up and running they start firing all the Australian workers and bring in workers from China (claiming a shortage of skilled workers. These are not skilled workers). They than purchased houses near the factories and put all their workers in these houses. These workers all live together and they send Most their money back to their families.

    Another example is where I live now, houses are in high demand, we have a lot of foreigners (Sudanese, Chinese and Indians) buying up the houses but they only live in them for a few months and than you hardly see them, the house across from me was sold to a young Indian couple 12 months ago, I have seen them at the house 3 times, I don't think they even moved furniture into the house. There are no positives to this situation, we have empty houses in an area where there is a shortage of accommodation and rents are getting out of control.

    I just don't understand how you can afford to buy houses and just let them sit there empty.

    • SupeNintendoChalmers on 29/06/2018 - 11:03
      +5

      Sudanese

      lol, never heard of Sudanese investors mate

    • HighAndDry on 29/06/2018 - 12:21

      There are no positives to this situation

      Except the seller of the house who got paid. And whose property it was.

      You're basically saying you should have a say in what people do with their property - how does that make any sense?

      • Mythreesons on 30/06/2018 - 14:27
        +2

        I am talking about for our suburb, we have a shortage of rentals and the cost of purchasing a house has gone through the roof. If they don't want to live in it, rent it to someone who does.

    • HighAndDry on 29/06/2018 - 12:34
      -1

      My husband worked (managed) for a Chinese owned business

      Uh-huh…

      they start firing all the Australian workers

      You sure you're not just salty because your husband got fired?

      • meowbert on 29/06/2018 - 19:19
        +6

        Or salty because it's a shitty, illegal thing to do

      • Mythreesons on 30/06/2018 - 14:22
        +4

        Maybe a bit salty about the fact they had never payed into his super and a lot of men lost their jobs. My husband was hired straight away by a rival company. He also got a very good payout after taking them to court. Sorry was replying to post about yours.

  • greater mimic on 29/06/2018 - 09:23
    +2

    It should at least be regulated better. Housing supply is artificially lower than it should be because so many lots and even houses are purchased and not lived in or not put up for rent.

  • Rob-4x4 on 29/06/2018 - 09:52
    +1

    Residential property.. Definitely not. Residents/citizens only unless allowed by specific treaty with Australia (Same rules as many other countries). As an aside I hate seeing Chinese investors being ripped off with dodgy poorly built overprices high rise apartments in Australia should encourage them to invest in business property and businesses ..

    Agricultural property.. long term lease only (50 year ?) .

    Other business property .. go for it and build and invest as much as you like …

    • Rob-4x4 on 29/06/2018 - 09:57
      +1

      As an aside there is a large Agricultural property near where I lived that a friend sold to Chinese investors.. Since the purchased it the new Chinese owners have done a great job renovating the property, work that has been needed to be done for years but my friend could not afford to do as been done. So thus far the new Chinese owners have been doing a good job as owners.. but I still think it should be a long term lease …

  • lddv04 on 29/06/2018 - 09:59
    +2

    Minimum requirement should be permanent resident as it's not compulsory to become a citizen, you can stay PR forever.

  • Ozpit on 29/06/2018 - 10:22
    -1

    By extension, those who are pro foreign nationals owning land and/or property in Australia should also be pro for ALL land and property in Australia being owned by foreign nationals. Such a scenario would offer pluses and minuses for Aussie citizens. Anyone care to list them?

    • c0balt on 29/06/2018 - 10:53
      +2

      Strange. I'm pro foreign nationals being allowed to own land (and paying additional taxes & ongoing levies to offset), but you're telling me that by extension that means I think all land should be owned by foreigners? That's not just reaching, that's you telling a malicious lie.

      • Ozpit on 29/06/2018 - 15:54
        -2

        Re-read my comment and understand what I actually wrote.

        • c0balt on 30/06/2018 - 10:49

          I did multiple times before I replied. You told a malicious lie to try and subvert people to think the way you do.

          It didn't work, obviously.

    • HighAndDry on 29/06/2018 - 12:19
      +2

      By extension of what? I think people should be able to buy and sell their own private property without interference from government. Let me make this clear for you - this is property that's owned by other people. If you don't want to sell to a foreigner? Don't. You're free to do that.

    • shorewalker on 30/06/2018 - 20:29

      Does this same logic apply to, say, factories? If not, why not?

  • c0balt on 29/06/2018 - 10:23

    Definitely.

    However they should pay extra additional tariffs/taxes on purchase, and additional yearly tax rates until they are a citizen. Pass the tax savings onto people, that way people in the market to purchase a property will have additional funds to do so, without really affecting those who like to complain but will never have good enough money management to afford a mortgage in the first place.

  • horsome on 29/06/2018 - 10:23
    +1

    Lol, foreign ownership is keeping the economy ticking over. It’s one of our main exports. And we can tax it to no end as other countries aren’t as accommodating to foreigners as us.

    If you are worried about market competition, it’s called crown land. Land here is so expensive as there is only so much of it you can buy, crown owns the rest.

    • idonotknowwhy on 29/06/2018 - 13:59

      So is it cool if I sell infant formula on wechat? ;)

  • Peck on 29/06/2018 - 10:27
    +1

    3rd world countries have it even worse than us. Locals are getting locked out of the market by the sheer weight of foreigners' money.
    Take a look at Cambodia where development is unfettered and not many citizens own property at all - and probably never will now.
    Thailand had a pretty good law which I believe is in the process of being watered down. In essence foreigners cannot own more than 49% of a piece of land or house, and not more than 49% of an apartment building. (When built each apartment is designated foreigner or Thai person, and keep forever that designation).
    I believe that this should be a minimum position.
    Real Estate development is a big area of corruption in all countries, but that is another subject.

    • c0balt on 29/06/2018 - 10:30

      Many 3rd world countries, Cambodia included, have laws against foreigners owning land - with the only way of doing so going through convoluted methods which employ many locals to do so and in the end foreigners just get rental rights, not ownership.

      "Broadly, under Article 44 of the Constitution, foreigners cannot own land in Cambodia. However, foreigners can establish control over land several ways: Buying land through a local company; by leasing land; by attaining Cambodian citizenship; or by buying land through a Cambodian nominee (note: this one is actually outlawed by the constitution)."

      https://www.realestate.com.kh/news/can-foreigners-own-land-i…

      So unlike Australia, Cambodia actually has laws against foreign land ownership.

      • Peck on 29/06/2018 - 10:49

        That is good to hear, because all that I see there are big apartment developments by Japanese, Korean, and Chinese Developers.
        Proabably using Cambodia companies as covers. You only need to read the billboards.
        P.S. Sorry for the 'Tripe' and glad to hear that one of the most corrupt countries has 'a' law (Whether it is enforced and to what extent is another thing).
        Oh you've edited out the 'Tripe' insult!

        • c0balt on 29/06/2018 - 11:01

          It is tripe that you wrote that before doing a simple search. I should have left it in.

          It is like this in most if not all 3rd world countries, they are incredibly protective of their land not being purchased out by private foreign citizens.

          You seem to not actually understand how hard it is to create a company in one of those countries in order to purchase land for company ownership. First, you need to get a company license (expensive) but to get that license you need a plan approved by lawyers and local officials (expensive), then you need to actually rent out a premises and hire local workers for your company (expensive). Even after all that, if you manage to get a company license, only your company can own land, with the company being in your name. It's expensive to continue maintaining the costs of a company in these countries too, you need to have locals on the payroll even if you are not turning over a profit or you can lose the license.

          Please do additional research before making comments based on what you see written on a billboard while traveling.

      • Baghern on 29/06/2018 - 11:58

        Comparing against 3rd world countries is usesless, its like saying it should be okay to be racist because other less developed countries are to.

        There is a law that says students who have left Australia have to sell their property. This is not enforced. That's thousands of property alone.

        The above would be an excellent way of bringing in money/stamp duty and a robust turnover of property if it was enforced. Prices would be lower and there would be more choice

        • c0balt on 29/06/2018 - 12:03
          +4

          Hilarious how you consider it racist for a government to put in restrictions on foreigners purchasing land. What a ridiculous conflation of a government policy that makes it easier for locals to purchase land, as racism against all people outside that country.

          It's not racist by any stretch of the imagination. Infact, I would say you are being racist by calling the people of those countries racist for making laws that help their local people. That makes a lot more sense, seeing as a government has a responsibility to their citizens and not to another countries citizens.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join