'NOT AN INVASION — IT'S A LEASE' | The truth about Chinese ownership of Australian land, mines and infrastructure

However, The reality, when fact-checked against official Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB), Australian Taxation Office and Department of Agriculture data, is far less dramatic — and far more interesting.

The actual numbers

Foreign ownership of Australian agricultural land sat at 13.6 per cent of total area as of June 30, 2017 — the most comprehensive snapshot publicly available — with the United Kingdom historically the largest foreign holder.

China's share peaked at around 14.4 million hectares in 2017, briefly making it the second-largest foreign holder of agricultural land in Australia after the United Kingdom.

That figure has since fallen significantly, with multiple high-profile Chinese-owned stations returning to Australian hands in recent years.

Crucially, more than 99 per cent of Australian agricultural businesses are wholly Australian-owned, and Australian-owned businesses control 87 per cent of the country's agricultural water entitlements.

The leasehold reality

Here is the single most under-reported fact in the entire debate. Approximately 80 per cent of foreign-owned land in Australia is held under leasehold, not freehold.

Leasehold means the foreign entity has bought the right to use the land for a defined period under defined conditions. It does not mean they own the land outright. The Crown — that is, the Australian state — remains the underlying owner.

When the lease expires, the land, the improvements built on it, and any infrastructure constructed remain on Australian soil and revert to Australian sovereign control.

In the Pilbara, almost every cattle station — including those owned by Chinese investors — operates under pastoral lease arrangements granted by the Western Australian government.

These are typically 50-year leases, renewable at the State's discretion, with strict conditions on land management, environmental obligations and minimum stocking rates.

The same principle applies broadly across the mining sector. Mining companies — Australian and foreign — do not own the minerals beneath the soil. They acquire the right to extract them under tenements granted and regulated by the State.

Western Australia: the standout examples

WA has been at the centre of the Chinese investment story.

In 2016, Shanghai Zhongfu — operating in Australia as Kimberley Agricultural Investment — acquired the 476,000-hectare Carlton Hill Station in WA's far north for $76 million, with FIRB approval.

The deal opened the door for Chinese investment in food processing plants in Kununurra, including a proposed $300 million sugar and biofuel mill, a grain grading facility, an abattoir and a cotton gin.

The land remained on a pastoral lease.

Chinese ball bearing billionaire Xingfa Ma also purchased two 700,000-hectare-plus pastoral leases in WA during the same period, including the 634,000-hectare Balfour Downs in the Pilbara.

But here is the part rarely mentioned in social media outrage. Mr Ma later listed Balfour Downs for sale, and in 2022, billionaires Andrew and Nicola Forrest acquired it for more than $32 million through their agribusiness Harvest Road, returning it to Australian ownership.

Chinese ownership of Australian agricultural land has been on a downward trajectory since 2017.

In iron ore, Chinese state-linked giant CITIC Pacific operates the Sino Iron magnetite mine at Cape Preston in WA — a massive undertaking. But CITIC operates under WA State mining tenements and pays royalties to the WA government like any other miner.

Sino Iron does not own the iron ore.

Perhaps the most controversial deal involved the 99-year lease of the Port of Darwin to Chinese-owned Landbridge in 2015 — though that is in the Northern Territory, not WA. The Albanese Government has since flagged moves to bring the lease back into Australian hands.

The infamous Kidman scare

The Kidman & Co. cattle empire — covering 1.3 per cent of Australia's total land area — became a national fixation in 2016 when the Federal Government blocked a $370 million Chinese-led bid.

The properties ultimately went to Australian Outback Beef, a joint venture 67 per cent owned by Gina Rinehart's Hancock Beef, with a Chinese partner holding the minority 33 per cent stake. Australian-controlled, in other words.

Why this isn't colonisation

The accusation that Chinese investment amounts to "colonisation" misunderstands what colonisation actually requires.

Colonisation involves the takeover of a country's parliament, its courts, its police, its military, its civil service and its public institutions — and the imposition of foreign sovereignty in their place.

China holds none of these levers in Australia. It does not appoint Australian judges.

It does not legislate Australian laws.

It does not deploy troops on Australian soil.

It does not control Australian elections. And it cannot do anything with the land it leases that the Australian government does not permit.

What China does do is invest. And in many cases, that investment funds Australian development that the public purse would otherwise have to bear.

When a Chinese consortium develops a port, it pays for the construction. When it builds a sugar mill or grain facility, it pays for the build. When the leasehold expires, those improvements remain in Australia — and revert to Australian control.

The economic logic

Australia is a capital-importing country. Its economy has, throughout its modern history, depended on foreign investment to fund mining expansion, agricultural development and infrastructure.

China, the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan and Singapore all play substantial roles in this equation.

Treating Chinese investment as inherently more threatening than American, British or Japanese investment is a political instinct, not an economic one.

The current FIRB framework — strengthened repeatedly under both Coalition and Labor governments — already imposes lower thresholds and stricter scrutiny on Chinese state-linked entities than on private investors from free trade agreement partners.

Bottom line

China owns less Australian land than the United Kingdom. Furthermore, its share is overwhelmingly leasehold.

It cannot vote, legislate or rule. And every dollar Chinese investors put into Australian dirt is a dollar Australian taxpayers don't have to spend developing it themselves.

The land is going nowhere. The lease will end. And what's been built on it — the roads, the dams, the processing facilities, the ports — stays.

That is not colonisation. That is, quite simply, just business. And Australia is the ultimate beneficiary.