Richard Pratt would turn over in his grave on this.
He himself an astute business man, and recycling extraodinaire, was fully aware of the value of water wanting to do something for Australia before he died and refused, remember?
Now two foreign countries are being handed the largest pieces of land with huge water rescources a comodity that one day we may well regret parting with.
Give it away, there'll be nothing left of our own by the turn of the century, if we're not bombed off the face of the earth by then, the result of and in retaliation for, getting mixed up in another countries politics.

Sounds like a line straight out of Wayne Swan's cook book for keeping up the cash flow to Canberra's coffers. ie: Sell more assets, and never ask who's doing the buying. Just keep the cash rolling in, as if it were investment income - When it reality it concerns asset sales.

In the case of Cubbie Station .. ""Shandong Ruyi Woolen textile Group" ,previously Shandong Jining wool Spinning plant, was transformed into a state-owned company in 1996 as a result of the ownership reconfiguration".
The fact is, Shandong is one of 520 vital state owned entities, and its arms extend to a huge range of interests

In other words he's quite happy to see our vital water resources, of which Cubbie have more volume than Sydney Harbour per annum, fall under the control of a Sovereign State entity. In effect, nationalising this vital asset

Also saying .. " Almost 90% of agricultural land is entirely Australian owned and half of the remainder is at least 50% Australian owned. Similarly, just over 90% of water entitlements are entirely Australian owned""

Well one might reasonably ask - Where are the proofs for these sweeping statements. The government have none, insofar as they have never kept a register of foreign acquisitions, and the only time the Foreign Investment Review Board enter the fray is when a single purchase reaches a trip point of $244m. All others fall under their radar, consequently a vast range of properties have been sold off to foreign entities as if a fire sale were in progress. Our government have no lists - period. Indeed, they never bothered, as Senator Heffernan soon found when he began his senate inquiry into this shambolic mess .

Added to this, the Sovereign State of Qatar, via their wholly owned Hassad Australia, now own more rural land here than the acreage of their own country - yet if our supposed country managers in Canberra were asked for a list of their holdings, their reply would be a blank. They have no data - period

Mixing strategic motives of foreign governments, with free enterprise, free market corporations, who normally conduct themselves as businesses, is folly in the least. Government entities do not need to show a profit, rather their interests are strategic - and in this case, Cubbie Station, it will serve to provide China with its needs in the decades ahead.

Yes we all know Wayne Swan has added a few clauses - ie: sell down to a 51% holding in the years ahead. Not a difficult thing to do, just sell to a cousin company based in Hong Kong, for instance. Meanwhile we should expect a push for extended 457 work visas to keep the new owners happy - Ergo: rid themselves of expensive Australian inputs.

Given that about 80% of our downstream food processing industries are now in foreign hands, one might reasonable expect its time to take reliable stock of these things for the welfare of future generations

I'm not in favour of the new ownership of Cubbie Station - not because of where the new owners reside - but because the water allocation is massive and is sustainable only in good la Nina years - such marginal farming land should be in my opinion, be returned to its semi-arid natural state for the benefit of environmental flows.

It appears that Adj/Prof Watson in the 21st century is about as relevant as Bruce Davidson's 'Northern Myth' was in the 60s. Obviously control of water resources is more important than the cotton that is produced because of that water. Then this proposal appears to be a case of international vertical integration to maximise profit for the proposed Chinese owners.

Perhaps the idea of Chinese ownership of this important agricultural asset (water) would be more acceptable if the Australian government had insisted on the Chinese establishing a cotton spinning mill at Cubbie to provide Australian workers with the opportunity to benefit from their own natural resources.

But then the starvation wage rates in China could not be exploited for the benefit of the Chinese owners ... who are???

The obvious buyer for Cubbie station was......NSW!!
Imagine how the Qlders would have reacted to that! Come on Barrie, maybe it's not too late to regain part of the lost empire.

Thank you for a thoughtful contribution to a debate mostly occupied by histrionics. What we need are less slogans and more thought.

China and Australia both have an interest in improving food security. Australia’s agribusinesses are at the cutting edge of productivity and capability of greater profitability if they can get better market access. China see Australia as an important trading partner and Australia has a great number of geographic advantages. As KPMG’s report pointed out to be successful Chinese investors in Australian agribusiness will need to promote the value-add they are contributing to the Australian economy and social structures.
We need to think carefully about the potential negative effects of introducing barriers to foreign investment in the agricultural sector (eg reducing home country tariff barriers to imports – maybe the biggest issue for Australian agriculture) perhaps the better policy response is to rely on the register of foreign ownership of agricultural land to address community concerns.

Maybe even more importantly if food and water are issues of real community concern then we should tackle the more complex and difficult policy issue is how we as a nation reconcile the competing aims of urban and mining land use and agriculture?
Our existing scheme of mining regulation in all states provides quite limited protection for landowners and the need for sustainable development principles to be taken into account. Similarly there is not existing certainty about how to properly balance the social and environmental importance of the land with the need to promote mineral resource development. In most states landowners can apply to have agricultural land excised from a mining licence (though not from exploratory licence applications). Frankly, broader excision provisions are needed to give agricultural landowners greater certainty if that is what the community really wants.

Australia’s food security is likely to be well served by a liberal foreign investment strategy. Australia should not be too quick to move away from an existing strategy that recognises that international markets are the best mechanism for preserving our economic and social prosperity.

The good Professor is certainly correct with the title of his article, at least for now, that the sale of Cubbie Station is no threat to food security, We don't eat cotton. To put another slant on it though, it could well be in the future if we needed to grow a food crop on it.
I note you said, "This belief betrays lack of confidence in Australian institutions and ignores the fact substantial foreign investments come within the purview of the Foreign Investments Review Board." I feel you are quite wide of the mark with this statement, Does the FIRB not have a notifier threshhold of $244 million, any foreign entity could buy up 95% of the number of farms and associated processing and distribution Infrasctructure on Australian soil without the FIRB or anyone else batting an eyelid or having the slightest idea exactly what was going on unless or until they disclosed their holdings. You see the vast number of farms sell for between <$1M to maybe 5 or 6 million dollars. Now on their own one of these farms doesn't amount to a threat, till you start to add them all together, doubly so if you can arrange them into contiguos holdings.

You go on to say "The assumption is that foreign owners will make substantial profits despite failures in the past." that may well have been correct in the past, but the game has moved on, the new game is less about profit, profit may indeed be part of the short game, but the longer and terminal end game is all about controlling the resource to feed their people. China have said as much openly.

You say "One thing is certain. Sensible Australian farmers do not object when foreigners are interested in acquiring their assets and boosting their value." Your going to have to explain to me how farmers wouldn't object if the boosted value of the asset is held in perpetuity by an SOE who is shipping their production back to their homeland and even bypassing the tax system on the way.
Again you say "Foreign ownership only applies to a minute proportion of Australian agriculture, and it is subject to supervision by the Foreign Investment Review Board. Foreign ownership of agricultural land is far less significant than foreign ownership in other parts of the economy."
Really? how do you, who does, I bet the PRC know exactly how much they have control over. I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S knew as well, Im sure they're watching this with more than a little interest. We Australians including the government don't really know, ABARES has had a bit of a guess through a survey, but some of these purchases have been pretty well hidden from what I have read. The main point is that the purchases are escalating at a furious rate, and it's ok to say minute at the moment, every journey begins with a step doesn't it. The second part of your statement that I quoted here, I just don't understand at all. Yes at the moment we have an abundance of food and fibre production, Your statement seems to imply that this will always be the case. Pretty short sighted I think.

I agree with Foreign investment, the thing about foreign investment is
it is meant to bring a benefit, to Australians, In the past we have benefitted enormeously from foreign investment in agrarian activities. What we are seeing today though is only a benefit to the SOE's in the long term, to my thinking.

I'm open to being convinced, but I want to see hard numbers, projections and forecasts, and logical thought out arguments, not wishy washy rhetoric. Just claiming Xenophobia or racist is not an argument, unless it's all youv'e got!

Personally Prof Watson, I would like to see you have another go at this article, I'm sure you could write something much more relevant, and up to date. Convince me!