So Australia is in the middle of what is effectively an artificial gas-led energy crisis......

In the middle of what is effectively an artificial gas-led energy crisis, the Prime Minister and Energy Minister may be carefully avoiding stating a natural suspicion. However, as an ordinary citizen I am not.

It is no secret that some of the east coast energy producers and wholesale suppliers - who transmit electricity down the wires and gas down pipelines - view the Liberal and National political parties more favourably than they do the Labor Party.

It is also no secret that a bitter LNP is casting about for ways to do the new Labor Government harm.

When listing reasons for the “perfect storm” that is now engulfing half the country, it would be prudent to recall the four main reasons being commonly cited by the media and, add the distinct possibility that the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow cabinet actively encouraged the boards of east coast power generators to initially refuse to cooperate with the Australian Energy Market Operator. This refusal reportedly represented the loss of est. 20 per cent of the east coast’s needed power supply.

All in the hope of further destabilising energy supply. Thus heating up the political situation ahead of the first sitting of the 47^th Australian Parliament. The LNP’s end game apparently being to create uncertainty in the minds of international investors and drive money out of the country, to the detriment of the national economy and the federal government’s ability to raise required funding.

This would not be the first time the Coalition parties have used this ploy - the events of 1972 to 1975 bear that out.

ABC News, 16 June 2022:

The Federal Energy Minister insists the unprecedented market intervention to avoid blackouts across the east coast will continue for as long as necessary, throwing his full support behind the nation's energy regulators.

Yesterday the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) took the extraordinary step of effectively seizing control of the energy market, suspending the spot price for wholesale electricity across the country.

It was the first time such a decision had been made, with the AEMO arguing it was impossible to ensure reliable power supplies without the intervention.

The AEMO had already been forced to put a cap on wholesale power prices, and had been ordering generators to continue producing power to ensure forecast shortages in supply in states such as New South Wales and Queensland were avoided.

Households and businesses have been urged to try to conserve power, switching off unnecessary appliances and lights in a bid to ease some of the pressure on the system.

Mr Bowen was asked whether it might be necessary to keep the market suspension in place for the duration of Australia's cold winter.

"I don't envisage that long, but it will be reviewed on a day-to-day basis," he said.

"I've been very clear with the chief executive of the operator. He has my full support for any action he deems necessary. The government will back the operator and the regulators 100 per cent.

"This intervention will not be lifted one day earlier than it needs to be, in his judgement."

What is the spot market for electricity?

After days of power uncertainty, the Australian Energy Market Operator yesterday declared it was suspending the spot market for electricity. So what does that mean for ordinary Australians?

Mr Bowen warned that NSW would be under "significant pressure" between 6pm and 8pm tonight, but that the market was working to avoid load shedding.

His NSW counterpart, Matt Kean, was confident there was enough reserve capacity despite a number of the state's generators being offline.

Mr Kean said that AGL's Bayside power station, which failed yesterday afternoon, would be online in time for the evening peak.

"We're cautiously optimistic that everything will be fine for the foreseeable future, but we're monitoring things closely because of the changed weather conditions and the unreliability of our existing kit," Mr Kean said.

Some generators have been accused of effectively gaming the system by refusing to produce electricity for the market, arguing the price cap means they are operating at a loss, and only switching back on when ordered to do so by authorities.

Those demand notices trigger the possibility of taxpayer-funded compensation for the energy companies.

Mr Bowen said there would be close scrutiny on energy producers.

"I'm not here to second-guess," he said. The energy regulator has our full support in monitoring all behaviour.

"I'm not here to make accusations. I'm here to say the regulator and operator has our full support in any action that they deem necessary — as they have done and as they'll continue to do."

Market rules could be rewritten after crisis

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the east coast electricity crisis could prompt a reworking of the National Energy Market (NEM) rules, including the incentives for generators to pump electricity into the system.

"There are weaknesses, clearly, that have been exposed, and all of the lessons of what is happening will be examined," he said.

"If there need to be any policy adjustments, then they'll be made."

The federal government has said the nation's energy woes are the result of a "perfect storm" — soaring international demand for Australian gas and coal prompted by countries weaning themselves off Russian energy supplies, the cold snap hitting a large swathe of the country, and unscheduled outages in Australia's ageing fleet of coal-fired power plants…..

Read the full article here.

ABC News, 16 June 2022:

….Tim Buckley, director at the IEEFA, said it was time these big companies were "called out".

"It's not about the energy not being there, it's about too much of it being suctioned out of our domestic east-coast market off to export," he said.

"I would be arguing we do need a carbon-export super-tax right now as a big stick to smash these multinational companies.

"They pay next to no royalties for our resources."…..

 

BACKGROUND

Electricity production and emissions intensity of electricity generators

In 2022 most of Australia’s energy still relies on traditional sources, non-renewable fossil fuels. According to the Dept. of Industry, science, Energy and Resources coal and gas account for about 79% of all electricity generation.

According to a new study by The Australia Institute, Australians have just 4.3 per cent ownership in the companies extracting and processing natural gas across the country.

Rex Express Chairman Lim Kim Hai likes to dish it out but does not respond well to even mild criticism

Grafton Airport in the Clarence Valley is predominately used by state authorities and local government. 

Rex Express is also the only commercial air passenger service into the Clarence Valley even if it is virtually only a skeleton service and, it is heavily subsidised by federal and state governments during the COVID-19 pandemic to the tune of at least $77.9 million.

ABC News, 16 October 2018

The executive chairman and largest single shareholder in Rex Express Holdings Ltd is Lim Kim Hai (left) and apparently at his instigation Rex is cutting Grafton Airport from its NSW routes from 3 July 2020 - allegedly on the grounds his feeling have been hurt.

This is the latest example of how this somewhat aggressive businessman responds to even the mildest of criticism of the company he heads.



The Daily Examiner, 13 June 2020, p.10:

Clarence Valley Council has called an extraordinary meeting to deal with the fallout from Rex’s shock decision to quit the region. 

In a report to be tabled at the meeting on Tuesday, council general manager Ashley Lindsay detailed correspondence he’d had with national airports manager for Regional Express, David Brooksby. 

“He advised that executive chairman Lim Kim Hai took great offence to Cr Novak calling on Rex to ‘pull their finger out’,” Mr Lindsay said. 

“Unless a public apology is provided by Cr Novak, he would not reconsider his decision for Rex to cease services to Grafton effective 3 July.” 

The move comes as Regional Express Airlines offered a little more on its decision to cancel the Grafton route with a message to councillors, the community and local media. 

“Council has chosen to discuss the Rex matter in open session and some councillors have voiced pejorative remarks about Rex with the full expectation that these remarks will be reported in the media,” the statement said. 

“As elected representatives, they need to know that their official statements will have consequences and they need to take full responsibility for these consequences. The community and the media should turn to these representatives for comments and their plans for the future.” 

The issue arose at the May council meeting when councillor Debrah Novak used strong language toward Rex while speaking against a motion to issue it a $8908 credit note for 2021. 

In response to those words, Rex announced it would cease services to Grafton from July 3. 

Ms Novak had since posted a statement via her Facebook page and spoken to media outlets, clarifying that her comments were underpinned with “no malice or contempt”. 

Ms Novak, whose post referred to other financial dealings and business decisions Rex has made in the recent past, suggested there was a cultural misunderstanding in part due to its foreign ownership. 

She said the term ‘pull your finger out’ was an “Australian colloquialism” that she had heard “most people use in my lifetime and in council”. 

“How locals or international people interpret what I say is not my responsibility and I will not be apologising.” 

Mr Lindsay in his report before the council said her comments in the previous meeting had fallen foul of council rules and the officer recommendation was for her – and the mayor on behalf of the council – to apologise to Rex and to Lim Kim Hai. 

“I have reviewed the recording of the meeting and I believe Cr Novak has breached Council’s Code of Meeting Practice during her debate on this item (6a.20.011),” he said. 

“Cr Novak’s commentary on REX and their board was contemptuous and in accordance with Clause 15.12 (c) of the Code of Meeting Practice Council can call on Cr Novak to “retract and apologise without reservation” to REX and in particular the apology should be to REX’s executive chairman Lim Kim Hai.” ......

A decision on the matter will be made in the meeting, at 1pm on June 16.

One has to supect the reason given for the airline's decision to withdraw services, when much harsher criticism was levelled at its business practices in The Australian newspaper on 27 May 2020:

"But the response did not satisfy Senator Sheldon, who wrote to ASIC chairman James Shipton requesting an investigation. He said the level of detail provided by Rex to the media could reasonably be expected to affect the share price. 

“Rex’s plans to expand into markets in direct competition with Qantas and Virgin, after having received a disproportionate share of government financial support, are inappropriate and exploitative,” wrote Senator Sheldon over the $54m paid to Rex out of a $100m regional aviation assistance fund. 

“Their failure to inform the ASX of these plans per the ASX listing rules flies in the face of Australian corporate standards. If Rex or any officer of Rex has contravened the Act, I further request that ASIC take appropriate enforcement action against them.”

The chairman does not appear to have overreacted to the NSW senator's comments as he has to the shire councillor's remark.

Lim Kim Hai is not adverse to hitting out at what he perhaps sees as easy targets and the following is a previous example of the Rex Express chairman's response to criticism:

Area News, excerpts from page one articles in 27 and 30 June 2012 newspaper
issues: 

# "A VISITING cardiologist has threatened to abandon his Griffith clinic because of "arrogant and offensive" treatment by Regional Express (Rex). 

Dr Charles Thorburn, who has been travelling from Sydney for more than 20 years to conduct an outpatient clinic at Griffith hospital, was so incensed with the declining service of the Griffith-Sydney flights he wrote a complaint letter to Rex chairman Lim Kim Hai. 

But in an extraordinary response from the Singapore-based chairman, Dr Thorburn was questioned and ridiculed, in a letter critics have seized on as evidence of Rex's contempt for its customers. 

"If, as you say, you find the conditions unsatisfactory, why did you accept them in the first place?" the letter, written on instruction by Mr Kim Hai, read. 

"I would be curious to know if you would reimburse any of your patients who do not get well after seeing you?" 

The chairman's goading continued after Dr Thorburn asked for data on how often the Sydney-Griffith flights were delayed or cancelled. "We are not providing you with the statistics you are requesting for (sic)," he said. 

"Perhaps in the medical profession you are used to dispensing information on how long you make your patients wait or how often you misdiagnosed." 

He went on to say Rex was "still much better than all the airlines in Australia and most of the airlines in the world". 

The exchange comes at a time when a new airline is poised to break the company's monopoly stranglehold on the city, set to operate the Griffith-Melbourne leg dumped by Rex this month. 

An incredulous Dr Thorburn said he was now seriously considering pulling the pin on his long-standing Griffith outpatient clinic. "If the service does not improve, I really need to assess whether I will continue to fly down to Griffith," he said. 

"I found the letter I received arrogant and offensive and quite extraordinary." 

He has since written to Rex board members individually to demand an apology and express his disgust at the treatment. Dr Thorburn's original letter was prompted by a chaotic return flight from Griffith on May 25....... 

# "Local leaders have demanded Rex issue an immediate apology to a visiting cardiologist rebuked by the airline’s chairman during a public relations crash-landing last week. 

Leading Sydney cardiologist Dr Charles Thorburn has threatened to boycott Rex and end his 20-year relationship with Griffith after a valid complaint letter to the airline’s Singapore-based boss was met with an “arrogant and offensive” response.....

BACKGROUND

Wednesday, 10 June 2020

Rex Express walks away from its Clarence Valley airline route trying to blame others for its decision

Once more the Adani Group demonstrates that it acts in bad faith and cannot be trusted

ABC News, 16 July 2019:

The Queensland Government is prosecuting mining giant Adani for allegedly providing false and misleading information to the Environment Department over land clearing at the site of its proposed Carmichael mine.

The ABC understands the charge under the Environmental Protection Act carries a fine that runs into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

"The prosecution relates to information contained in Adani's 2017/2018 annual return for its Carmichael mine," the department said in a statement to the ABC.

"The annual return requires information about planned and actual disturbance of land at the mine.

"The department alleges that Adani's annual return contained false and misleading information about the disturbance already undertaken at the mine during the annual return period."

Last September, Adani notified the Department of "an administrative paperwork error" in its annual return for the Carmichael mine.

The company admitted that areas "that were disturbed during the final three-and-a-half weeks of the annual return period should have been included".

The prosecution against Adani is listed for mention at the Brisbane Magistrates Court on August 16......

Wangan and Jagalingou Traditional Owners: "We're on the frontline defending our lands against Adani" and we ask your help

From: Adrian Burragubba - via CommunityRun <info@getup.org.au>
Date: Thu, May 24, 2018 at 5:46 PM
Subject: We're on the frontline defending our lands against Adani
To: [redacted]

This is a message from the leaders of the Wangan and Jagalingou Traditional Owners. They are the Traditional Owners of the land where mining giant Adani want to build the Carmichael coal mine. Your details haven't been shared with anyone.

Dear [redacted],

We are leaders of the Wangan and Jagalingou Traditional Owners. We're the people on the frontline defending our ancestral lands in the fight against Adani's destructive coal mine.

Our people have said no four times to a miserly land deal offered by Adani in exchange for the destruction of our homelands. We have been opposing Adani and holding them off since 2012.

Our resistance has nothing to do with dollars. No amount of money or promises from a deceitful corporation can stop us standing strong in defence of Wangan and Jagalingou lands and waters and sacred sites.

But Adani are ruthless. They have used the dirtiest tactics to undermine our right to say no, and manufacture a phony "Indigenous Land Use Agreement".

Right now we're fighting against Adani's shoddy tactics and their sham "agreement" in court. The judge could hand down a decision any day now. But it won't end there.

Can you sign our petition to stand with us against Adani?

We are willing to fight Adani all the way to the High Court to protect our environment and sacred sites. We are working for a positive future for our people on our country. We won't stand by and watch its destruction for coal.

Adani are relentlessly pressuring the Queensland government to clear our Native Title rights out of the way — and as the clock ticks and Adani gets more desperate, it will only intensify.

So we need to show Adani and our Governments that they can't fake or force our consent.

We have never given our consent to Adani to destroy our country, and we never will. Our land is our living law; we are connected to it through our ancestors and our culture. Without it we will cease to exist as a people.

Our people have been leading a courageous fight against a cashed-up mining giant with politicians in its pockets, and top end of town lawyers to argue away its collusion, bad faith and dishonesty.

We're calling time on this. It's time for Adani to walk away.

Sign our petition to tell Adani No means No.

Adani can't keep bullying us, or pretending they have our consent. Consent is written in our hearts and minds, and the truth is we have said no. Time and again.

And we shouldn't have to keep saying it. Adani haven't been able to put money on the table for this project or even say when they'll start digging. They've given nothing to our people, or to the people of Queensland and Australia, except a bunch of false promises. The smart money and honest commentators know Adani's Carmichael mine is going nowhere.

But still our rights are at extreme risk. The Queensland Government could yield to this corrupt polluting corporation and "legally" rip up our Native Title, just so they can say they have their final "approval".

We continue to hold the line and have many tens of thousands of supporters in Australia and around the world, but we need more. We need to build a more powerful movement, standing in solidarity with us, to take on Adani's wealth, political influence and dirty tricks.

Sign our petition to support our fight against Adani.

We are in the fight of our lives. Adani have shown a relentless determination to use unjust legal maneouvres to trample our rights. But this fight is bigger than Adani. It's about the rights that all Aboriginal people have to say no to dirty extractive industries that profit from our traditional homelands. It's about our right under international law to be free from discrimination, and to choose our own economic future.

We have a vision for our people that's sustainable. We want economic independence, and to make a future on our country that is respectful of the land and uplifting for our people. We want to invest in solar energy and other new clean enterprises. We don't want scraps from a corrupt corporation looking to profit from the permanent destruction of our culture, or meagre handouts and low paid dirty jobs that require us to give up our human rights.

When we say No to Adani, we mean No. We hope you'll stand with us.

Support our fight: http://wanganjagalingou.com.au/our-fight/

Adrian Burragubba, cultural leader and senior spokesperson
with Murrawah Johnson, Youth spokesperson
and Linda Bobongie, W&J Council Chairperson

for the Wangan and Jagalingou Traditional Owners Council

---

CommunityRun is a new online organisation that lets anyone start, run and win their own campaigns. It receives no political party or government funding and is not affiliated with any political party. To unsubscribe from CommunityRun updates, please visit here or visit http://www.getup.org.au/unsubscribe?cr=true. To unsubscribe from individual CommunityRun campaigns, please visit www.communityrun.org.
Our team acknowledges that we meet and work on the land of the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation. We wish to pay respect to their Elders - past, present and future - and acknowledge the important role all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people continue to play within Australia and the GetUp community.
Authorised by Paul Oosting, Level 14, 338 Pitt Street, Sydney NSW 2000.

Given its record it was inevitable that Adani would wreck a wetland

The foreign-owned multinational, the Adani Group, adds to its record of corporate environmental vandalism……………….

The Sydney Morning Herald, 10 April 2017:

The Queensland government is investigating water spills from the Abbot Point coal terminal into neighbouring wetlands as an expert predicts long-term environmental damage.

The Department of Environment and Heritage Protection was assessing whether there were any unauthorised water releases from the Adani-operated coal terminal into the wetland after Cyclone Debbie tore through north Queensland late last month.

Satellite images of the Abbot Point coal terminal and neighbouring wetlands. Before Cyclone Debbie on the left and post-cyclone on the right. Photo: Supplied

The EHP and Adani said early indications showed all spills were within guidelines.

But James Cook University professorial research fellow in water quality studies Professor Jon Brodie said coal had clearly spilled into the wetlands and environmental harm was "highly likely".

His comments came in the wake of the release of striking satellite imagery from before and after the storm, appearing to show coal-laden water spilling throughout the sensitive Caley Valley wetlands.

The Mackay Conservation Group said the 5000-hectare wetlands were home to 40,000 shorebirds in the wet season and more than 200 individual species.

The department allowed terminal operator Abbot Point Bulk Coal, owned by Adani, to more than triple its "suspended solids" release limits in the wake of Cyclone Debbie, under what's called a Temporary Emissions Licence.

A department spokeswoman said that licence did not authorise environmental harm but Professor Brodie said it was hard to see how the wetlands could emerge unscathed.

"Obviously wetlands depend on light," he said, calling for a full examination.

"Those plants at the bottom, there won't be too much light there for a while.

"That will settle out of course and it will settle out to the bottom onto the plants that are on the bottom.

"There'll be significant damage from this but that should be quantified."

The most obscene sentence in Australian modern history

The Adani Group’s Carmichael Coal Mine complex will draw an estimated 26 million litres of water per day by 2029, up to 4.55 gigalitres of ground water a year and over the mine’s life it will use approximately 335 billion litres of water – with unlimited access to The Great Artesian Basin.

Fitch Ratings Inc: The Trump Administration Poses Risks to Global Sovereigns

According to the Australian Dept. Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) the United States ranks as Number 1 in the Top 20 countries with direct investment in Australia [ABS catalogue 5352.0, May 2016 & UNCTADstat database, October 2016].

In 2015 Australia direct investment in the U.S. was led by manufacturing, and the finance/insurance sectors and U.S. direct investment in Australia is led by the nonbank holding, mining, finance/ insurance companies, and manufacturing sectors. [Office of the United States Trade Representative: Executive Office of the President, 2017]

So international credit rating agency, Fitch Ratings Inc’s media release of 10 February 2017 may raise some concerns:

Fitch Ratings-London-10 February 2017: The Trump Administration represents a risk to international economic conditions and global sovereign credit fundamentals, Fitch Ratings says. US policy predictability has diminished, with established international communication channels and relationship norms being set aside and raising the prospect of sudden, unanticipated changes in US policies with potential global implications.

The primary risks to sovereign credits include the possibility of disruptive changes to trade relations, diminished international capital flows, limits on migration that affect remittances and confrontational exchanges between policymakers that contribute to heightened or prolonged currency and other financial market volatility. The materialisation of these risks would provide an unfavourable backdrop for economic growth, putting pressure on public finances that may have rating implications for some sovereigns. Increases in the cost or reductions in the availability of external financing, particularly if accompanied by currency depreciation, could also affect ratings.

In assessing the global sovereign credit implications of policies enacted by the new US Administration, Fitch will focus on changes in growth trajectories, public finance positions and balance of payments performances, with particular emphasis on medium-term export prospects and possible pressures on external liquidity and sustainable funding. US positions on some countries may change quickly, at least initially, but any potential rating adjustments will depend on consequent changes to sovereign credit fundamentals, which will almost certainly be slower to materialise.

Elements of President Trump's economic agenda would be positive for growth, including the long-overdue boost to US infrastructure investment, the focus on reducing the regulatory burden and the possibility of tax cuts and reforms, assuming cuts don't lead to proportionate increases in the government deficit and debt. One interpretation of current events is that, after an early flurry of disruptive change to establish a fundamental reorientation of policy direction and intent, the Administration will settle in, embracing a consistent business- and trade-friendly framework that leverages these aspects of its economic programme, with favourable international spill-overs.

In Fitch's view, the present balance of risks points toward a less benign global outcome. The Administration has abandoned the Trans-Pacific Partnership, confirmed a pending renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, rebuked US companies that invest abroad, while threatening financial penalties for companies that do so, and accused a number of countries of manipulating exchange rates to the US's disadvantage. The full impact of these initiatives will not be known for some time, and will depend on iterative exchanges among multiple parties and unforeseen additional developments. In short, a lot can change, but the aggressive tone of some Administration rhetoric does not portend an easy period of negotiation ahead, nor does it suggest there is much scope for compromise.

Sovereigns most at risk from adverse changes to their credit fundamentals are those with close economic and financial ties with the US that come under scrutiny due to either existing financial imbalances or perceptions of unfair frameworks or practices that govern their bilateral relations. Canada, China, Germany, Japan and Mexico have been identified explicitly by the Administration as having trade arrangements or exchange rate policies that warrant attention, but the list is unlikely to end there. Our revision of the Outlook on Mexico's 'BBB+' sovereign rating to Negative in December partly reflected increased economic uncertainty and asset price volatility following the US election.

The integrative aspects of global supply chains, particularly in manufactured goods, means actions taken by the US that limit trade flows with one country will have cascading effects on others. Regional value chains are especially well developed in East Asia, focused on China, and Central Europe, focused on Germany.

Tighter immigration controls and possible deportations could have meaningful effects on remittance flows, as the US has the world's largest immigrant population. World Bank data confirm that the US and Mexico share the world's top migration corridor and have the largest bilateral remittance flows. Relative to GDP, remittances are even larger for Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua, all of which receive most inflows from the US.

Countries hosting US direct investment, at least part of which has financed export industries focused back on the US, are at risk of being singled out for punitive trade measures. The list of these countries is potentially long, since US-based entities account for nearly one-quarter of the stock of global foreign direct investment. Countries with the highest stock of US investment in manufacturing are Canada, the UK, Netherlands, Mexico, Germany, China and Brazil.

What Nationals MP for Page Kevin Hogan did not tell the Grafton Chamber of Commerce's February breakfast meeting when he was asked about foreign ownership of land and overseas workers

This was the incumbent Nationals MP for Page Kevin Hogan as reported in The Daily Examiner on 22 February 2016:

A member of the chamber executive, Mark Butler, asked Mr Hogan what the government was doing to combat countries like China buying up large tracts of Australian land and the prospect of those owners employing Australian workers……

Mr Hogan said the government, led by the Nationals, was fighting foreign ownership.

This included setting a minimum property sale of $15 million before the sale was brought to the Foreign Investment Review Board.

Mr Hogan said the limit in 2013 had been $250 million.

"Even then I think that's ($15 million) too high, but at least it's cumulative so, if they buy an $8 million and a $7 million property, they appear on the board's radar," he said.

What he didn’t tell this collection of potential voters in the forthcoming federal election is that investors from free trade agreement countries such as Chilean, Chinese (once the trade agreement comes into effect), Japanese, New Zealand, South Korean and United States investors are not automatically held to that $15 million threshold.

Yes, the $15 million threshold for purchase of agricultural land is cumulative for investors from China, Japan, Korea, but the agribusiness threshold for China, Japan, and Korea is $55 million, based on the value of the consideration for the acquisition and the total value of other interests held by the foreign person [with associates] in the entity. While the agribusiness threshold for Chile, New Zealand and United States is $1,094 million.

Other foreign investors can purchase agribusinesses up to a $55 million threshold, based on the value of the consideration for the acquisition and the total value of other interests held by the foreign person [with associates] in the entity.

For investors from non-free trade agreement countries Singapore and Thailand, where agricultural land is to be used wholly and exclusively for a primary production business the threshold is $50 million (otherwise the land is not agricultural land).

In addition, Foreign persons (including foreign government investors) are able to apply for an exemption certificate to cover a program of acquisitions of interests in agricultural land.

Exemption certificates for agricultural land would generally be considered where:

* the total proposed value of acquisitions over a three year period does not exceed $100 million (or if acquiring for use for an activity other than agriculture, $30 million). This includes acquisitions made individually or under an exemption certificate;

* the regions or localities where the agricultural land in which interests are to be acquired are defined clearly.

[Australian Government, Foreign Investment Review Board, Monetary thresholds, 2016]

Potentially this means a private investor from China or a Chinese corporation can buy farm lands valued at up to a cumulative $100 million over three years before appearing on the Turnbull Government's own political radar. 

All of the aforementioned provisions leaving plenty of wriggle room for investment in agricultural land and businesses and definitely not what Kevin Hogan was spinning the good folk of Grafton last month.

UPDATE

Kevin Hogan continues to demonstrate that he either doesn’t understand his government’s own rules concerning foreign ownership or he is deliberately misleading his electorate.

ABC News, 9 March 2016:

A National Party MP is hoping local jobs will not be lost as a result of a Chinese buy-out of north coast NSW macadamia farms.

Four properties covering 380 hectares at Dunoon near Lismore, and formerly run by US-based Hancock Farms, have been bought by a Chinese group known as "Discovery".

The member for Page Kevin Hogan said he was aware of rumours of a sale.

Mr Hogan said a Free Trade Agreement with China did not mean the door was now open to foreign workers.

"It's a well-known fact within the free trade agreements that we do with any country, not just China, because let's not just make this a China thing, that any company and there's been companies that have owned Australian assets for 200 years and with every free trade agreement the work has to be offered to Australians first," Mr Hogan said.

Kevin Hogan said any foreign investment greater than $15 million had to be approved by the Foreign Investment Review Board, and he was waiting on information on whether the macadamia sale was vetted.

"We made an election commitment to lower it from the ridiculous amount of $ 250 million when it used to be triggered to look at a purchase if it was in the national interest, we have lowered that from 250 to 15 [million dollars] so if this entity has triggered over $15 million it would have absolutely gone before the Foreign Investment Review Board," Mr Hogan said.