Jump in value of farmland beats all other Australian property: report
Your web browser is no longer supported. To improve your experience update it here Sydney and Melbourne blue-chip suburbs have been beaten when it comes to increases in land values during the past two decades, new research has found. The Australian Property Institute's (API) inaugural valuation report shows that over the past 20 years, farmland rose in value more than any other type of property. The value of agricultural land has jumped by 256 per cent since 2005, compared with 154 per cent for housing during the period. Australian farmland has recorded the biggest increase in property value during the past 20 years, a new study found. (AP) The value of industrial property, such as warehouses and factories, increased by 164 per cent, while the value of commercial property, including shops and offices, recorded a 143 per cent rise. The big gain for farmland was powered by high commodity prices, favourable weather conditions and, until recently, low interest rates. The report found the biggest hike was in Victoria's Wimmera region, where land values have bounded by 802 per cent, driven by rising demand for renewable energy. Grain and sheep farms have historically been the backbone of the area's economy. API chief executive Amelia Hodge said farmland bettering capital city property values was a shock for some people. But she also warned the push for renewable energy put pressure on land in rural areas. "Our economy is being transformed by the structural shift from fossil fuels to renewables, which will benefit the planet, but in some areas threatens the ongoing viability of scarce agricultural land, to be replaced by vast new solar energy farms." agriculture
Farming
Australia
finance CONTACT US
Auto news: Google Gemini AI assistant coming to new cars in 2025.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
33 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
Biosecurity not competition a meaty issue in beef talks
Even if the federal government lowers barriers blocking imports of US beef, it would be no match for higher quality and cheaper to produce Australian cattle. Australia is considering granting more American beef producers access to the local market as a potential bargaining chip to strike a deal on tariffs, as the two nations' leaders prepare to potentially meet face-to-face for the first time. For biosecurity reasons, Australia imposes a soft ban on US beef. Cattle that can be proven to have been raised and slaughtered in the US are allowed into the Australian market, but large amounts of beef sent to American abattoirs come from Mexico or Canada, which are barred from importation. Challenges in tracing the origin of cattle means in practice beef imports are not allowed, until the US can show the same traceability systems Australia has in place. Australian beef producers urged the government not to loosen biosecurity protections. "Australia's biosecurity status is integral to the success and sustainability of our agricultural industries," National Farmers Federation president David Jochinke said. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese assured farmers the government would make no compromises on biosecurity. But as long as biosecurity was protected, Mr Albanese said he would be open to discussions about easing restrictions. David Humphreys, vice chair of industry body Western Beef Association, was open to the idea as well. As long as Australia's biosecurity standards were protected, it would be a beneficial outcome for all Australian farmers if it could be used as leverage to lower US tariffs, he said. Assuming US beef imports posed no disease risk, the impacts for Australian farmers from extra competition would be limited. "Australia has very competitive and relatively cheap beef production in comparison," Mr Humphreys told AAP. "Any beef that's coming in from the US is probably going to be targeting quite select segments of beef consumption, probably the cheaper cuts, produced beef products. "So it's not really competing with the premium Australian beef products that our beef farms produce." The low exchange rate of the Australian dollar as well as the high cost of transporting US beef also reduced the likelihood of it outcompeting homegrown products, he said. Local consumers are accustomed to leaner, higher-quality Australian beef and unlikely to be won over by fatty, hormone-injected American competitors. "I think there's not a lot of risk to Australian producers of beef, with this possibility of some limited US beef being imported into Australia," Mr Humphreys said. Australia's Department of Agriculture is reviewing its ban on Mexican and Canadian beef slaughtered in the US. Agriculture Minister Julie Collins said any decision to allow greater access for US beef would be based on science and evidence. Even if the federal government lowers barriers blocking imports of US beef, it would be no match for higher quality and cheaper to produce Australian cattle. Australia is considering granting more American beef producers access to the local market as a potential bargaining chip to strike a deal on tariffs, as the two nations' leaders prepare to potentially meet face-to-face for the first time. For biosecurity reasons, Australia imposes a soft ban on US beef. Cattle that can be proven to have been raised and slaughtered in the US are allowed into the Australian market, but large amounts of beef sent to American abattoirs come from Mexico or Canada, which are barred from importation. Challenges in tracing the origin of cattle means in practice beef imports are not allowed, until the US can show the same traceability systems Australia has in place. Australian beef producers urged the government not to loosen biosecurity protections. "Australia's biosecurity status is integral to the success and sustainability of our agricultural industries," National Farmers Federation president David Jochinke said. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese assured farmers the government would make no compromises on biosecurity. But as long as biosecurity was protected, Mr Albanese said he would be open to discussions about easing restrictions. David Humphreys, vice chair of industry body Western Beef Association, was open to the idea as well. As long as Australia's biosecurity standards were protected, it would be a beneficial outcome for all Australian farmers if it could be used as leverage to lower US tariffs, he said. Assuming US beef imports posed no disease risk, the impacts for Australian farmers from extra competition would be limited. "Australia has very competitive and relatively cheap beef production in comparison," Mr Humphreys told AAP. "Any beef that's coming in from the US is probably going to be targeting quite select segments of beef consumption, probably the cheaper cuts, produced beef products. "So it's not really competing with the premium Australian beef products that our beef farms produce." The low exchange rate of the Australian dollar as well as the high cost of transporting US beef also reduced the likelihood of it outcompeting homegrown products, he said. Local consumers are accustomed to leaner, higher-quality Australian beef and unlikely to be won over by fatty, hormone-injected American competitors. "I think there's not a lot of risk to Australian producers of beef, with this possibility of some limited US beef being imported into Australia," Mr Humphreys said. Australia's Department of Agriculture is reviewing its ban on Mexican and Canadian beef slaughtered in the US. Agriculture Minister Julie Collins said any decision to allow greater access for US beef would be based on science and evidence. Even if the federal government lowers barriers blocking imports of US beef, it would be no match for higher quality and cheaper to produce Australian cattle. Australia is considering granting more American beef producers access to the local market as a potential bargaining chip to strike a deal on tariffs, as the two nations' leaders prepare to potentially meet face-to-face for the first time. For biosecurity reasons, Australia imposes a soft ban on US beef. Cattle that can be proven to have been raised and slaughtered in the US are allowed into the Australian market, but large amounts of beef sent to American abattoirs come from Mexico or Canada, which are barred from importation. Challenges in tracing the origin of cattle means in practice beef imports are not allowed, until the US can show the same traceability systems Australia has in place. Australian beef producers urged the government not to loosen biosecurity protections. "Australia's biosecurity status is integral to the success and sustainability of our agricultural industries," National Farmers Federation president David Jochinke said. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese assured farmers the government would make no compromises on biosecurity. But as long as biosecurity was protected, Mr Albanese said he would be open to discussions about easing restrictions. David Humphreys, vice chair of industry body Western Beef Association, was open to the idea as well. As long as Australia's biosecurity standards were protected, it would be a beneficial outcome for all Australian farmers if it could be used as leverage to lower US tariffs, he said. Assuming US beef imports posed no disease risk, the impacts for Australian farmers from extra competition would be limited. "Australia has very competitive and relatively cheap beef production in comparison," Mr Humphreys told AAP. "Any beef that's coming in from the US is probably going to be targeting quite select segments of beef consumption, probably the cheaper cuts, produced beef products. "So it's not really competing with the premium Australian beef products that our beef farms produce." The low exchange rate of the Australian dollar as well as the high cost of transporting US beef also reduced the likelihood of it outcompeting homegrown products, he said. Local consumers are accustomed to leaner, higher-quality Australian beef and unlikely to be won over by fatty, hormone-injected American competitors. "I think there's not a lot of risk to Australian producers of beef, with this possibility of some limited US beef being imported into Australia," Mr Humphreys said. Australia's Department of Agriculture is reviewing its ban on Mexican and Canadian beef slaughtered in the US. Agriculture Minister Julie Collins said any decision to allow greater access for US beef would be based on science and evidence. Even if the federal government lowers barriers blocking imports of US beef, it would be no match for higher quality and cheaper to produce Australian cattle. Australia is considering granting more American beef producers access to the local market as a potential bargaining chip to strike a deal on tariffs, as the two nations' leaders prepare to potentially meet face-to-face for the first time. For biosecurity reasons, Australia imposes a soft ban on US beef. Cattle that can be proven to have been raised and slaughtered in the US are allowed into the Australian market, but large amounts of beef sent to American abattoirs come from Mexico or Canada, which are barred from importation. Challenges in tracing the origin of cattle means in practice beef imports are not allowed, until the US can show the same traceability systems Australia has in place. Australian beef producers urged the government not to loosen biosecurity protections. "Australia's biosecurity status is integral to the success and sustainability of our agricultural industries," National Farmers Federation president David Jochinke said. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese assured farmers the government would make no compromises on biosecurity. But as long as biosecurity was protected, Mr Albanese said he would be open to discussions about easing restrictions. David Humphreys, vice chair of industry body Western Beef Association, was open to the idea as well. As long as Australia's biosecurity standards were protected, it would be a beneficial outcome for all Australian farmers if it could be used as leverage to lower US tariffs, he said. Assuming US beef imports posed no disease risk, the impacts for Australian farmers from extra competition would be limited. "Australia has very competitive and relatively cheap beef production in comparison," Mr Humphreys told AAP. "Any beef that's coming in from the US is probably going to be targeting quite select segments of beef consumption, probably the cheaper cuts, produced beef products. "So it's not really competing with the premium Australian beef products that our beef farms produce." The low exchange rate of the Australian dollar as well as the high cost of transporting US beef also reduced the likelihood of it outcompeting homegrown products, he said. Local consumers are accustomed to leaner, higher-quality Australian beef and unlikely to be won over by fatty, hormone-injected American competitors. "I think there's not a lot of risk to Australian producers of beef, with this possibility of some limited US beef being imported into Australia," Mr Humphreys said. Australia's Department of Agriculture is reviewing its ban on Mexican and Canadian beef slaughtered in the US. Agriculture Minister Julie Collins said any decision to allow greater access for US beef would be based on science and evidence.
Sky News AU
4 hours ago
- Sky News AU
‘Whitlam-esque': Zoe McKenzie blasts Labor's divisive tax hike on super accounts, slams Tasmanian opposition for triggering early election
Victorian Liberal MP Zoe McKenzie has lambasted Labor for continuing to advance its plan to hike taxes on superannuation accounts and impose levies on unrealised gains whilst hammering the Tasmanian opposition for sending punters to a winter election. Labor's plan to raise taxes on superannuation accounts over $3 million to 30 per cent and to target unrealised capital gains has sent shockwaves throughout the political and business arena, with financial doyens accusing the government of discarding decades of precedent. The Coalition was previously in talks with the Albanese government to revise certain elements of the legislation, chiefly the concept of taxing unrealised gains, however shadow Treasurer Ted O'Brien officially confirmed on Thursday the LNP would oppose the bill. Yet, former Reserve Bank board members Donald McGauchie and Roger Corbett, in addition to a litany of major Liberal Party donors, have pressed the Coalition to remain at the negotiating table and to secure what it deems crucial exemptions for illiquid assets including farms and small businesses. Ms McKenzie, an outspoken moderate who holds one of the Liberal's last outer-suburban seats, railed against the policy, but did not address if the Coalition would resume talks with Labor to modify the legislation. 'I think this is a terrible piece of policy and a terrible precedent for the future, Labor is effectively saying that they will tax money in your pocket, and you do not yet have this money,' she told Sky News on Saturday. The Member for Flinders echoed criticism from industry magnates in relation to the controversial concept of taxing unrealised gains, stating, 'you may have it in the future, you may not have it in the future, but you will be taxed on it'. 'You may incur a loss in the figure, and you won't get that tax back and that's the principle that we must fight here, because once it's started, it could go anywhere,' indicating that the tax could be extended to a range of other assets including real estate and stocks. 'This is a devilish tax and should be fought by the Coalition parties most stridently, this government is very good at speaking liberal-light in terms of their economic narrative, but it is utterly Whitlam-esque in terms of its impact on the Australian economy'. While the Coalition has vowed to fight the legislation, the bill is expected to pass both houses of parliament unopposed, with the Greens joining with Labor in the Senate despite lobbying for the policy to be levied on those with super accounts over $2 million. 'The point is they're going after money no one yet has, these are paper profits, these are family businesses, these are farms held in super funds that people may well have to liquidate just to pass a putative profit that may not exist when finally realised in years to come," Ms McKenzie said. 'They will need the Greens support in the Senate and as you know, the Greens are pushing to lower that threshold from three million to two million. So, it gives the Australian people a very clear indication of what might happen when Labor and the Greens run the show for the next three years'. The shadow assistant minister then turned her attention to the ongoing political chaos in Tasmania. Liberal Premier Jeremy Rockliff lost a no-confidence motion in parliament on Thursday, with the speaker casting the deciding vote, resulting in the state heading to it's second election in as little as 14 months. Ms McKenzie savaged Tasmanian Labor leader Dean Winter for sending the state to a snap winter poll and argued the opposition parties had collectively torpedoed a popularly elected government. 'I think the Tasmanian people would be very disappointed with what's happened this week, basically holding an elected government hostage, so it looks like they will be going back to a mid-winter election. We've all done them and they're horrendous," she said. 'I'm sure the people of Tasmania will not be grateful for being dragged back to the polls so soon after a federal election and indeed just 14 months after a state election." Tasmanians will have to wait until next Tuesday to find out when they will return to the polls, with the parliament scrambling to draft emergency legislation to fund government services of which are due to be tabled on the same day. Independent MPs including Craig Garland have called on the beleaguered Premier to resign, with Mr Rockliff guaranteeing he would not sell off state-owned assets to pay down debt if he won the election, of which served as a key factor in sparking the political row.
9 News
6 hours ago
- 9 News
Musk could lose billions of dollars depending on how spat with Trump unfolds
Your web browser is no longer supported. To improve your experience update it here The world's richest man could lose billions in his fight with world's most powerful politician. The feud between Elon Musk and Donald Trump could mean Tesla's plans for self-driving cars hit a roadblock, SpaceX flies fewer missions for NASA, Starlink gets fewer overseas satellite contracts and the social media platform X loses advertisers. Maybe, that is. It all depends on Trump's appetite for revenge and how the dispute unfolds. Elon Musk and Donald Trump have had a nasty falling out. (AP) Joked Telemetry Insight auto analyst Sam Abuelsamid, "Since Trump has no history of retaliating against perceived adversaries, he'll probably just let this pass." Turning serious, he sees trouble ahead for Musk. "For someone that rants so much about government pork, all of Elon's businesses are extremely dependent on government largesse, which makes him vulnerable." Trump and the US federal government also stand to lose from a long-running dispute, but not as much as Musk. The dispute comes just a week before a planned test of Tesla's driverless taxis in Austin, Texas, a major event for the company because sales of its EVs are lagging in many markets, and Musk needs a win. Trump can mess things up for Tesla by encouraging federal safety regulators to step in at any sign of trouble for the robotaxis. Even before the war of words broke out on Thursday, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration requested data on how Musk's driverless, autonomous taxis will perform in low-visibility conditions. That request follows an investigation last year into 2.4 million Teslas equipped with full self-driving software after several accidents, including one that killed a pedestrian. A spokesman for NHTSA said the probe was ongoing and that the agency "will take any necessary actions to protect road safety." The Department of Justice has also probed the safety of Tesla cars, but the status of that investigation is unclear. The DOJ did not respond immediately to requests for comment. The promise of a self-driving future led by Tesla inspired shareholders to boost the stock by 50 per cent in the weeks after Musk confirmed the Austin rollout. But on Thursday, the stock plunged more than 14 per cent amid the Trump-Musk standoff. On Friday, it recovered a bit, bouncing back nearly 4 per cent. "Tesla's recent rise was almost entirely driven by robotaxi enthusiasm," said Morningstar analyst Seth Goldstein. "Elon's feud with Trump could be a negative." Donald Trump has been trading barbs with Elon Musk. (AP) One often-overlooked but important part of Tesla's business that could take a hit is its sales of carbon credits. As Musk and Trump were slugging it out Thursday, Republican politicians inserted new language into Trump's budget bill that would eliminate fines for gas-powered cars that fall short of fuel economy standards. Tesla has a thriving side business selling "regulatory credits" to other automakers to make up for their shortfalls. Musk has downplayed the importance of the credits business, but the changes would hurt Tesla as it reels from boycotts of its cars tied to Musk's time working for Trump. Credit sales jumped by a third to A$892.5 million in the first three months of the year even as total revenue slumped. Musk's foray into right-wing politics cost Tesla sales among the environmentally minded consumers who embraced electric cars and led to boycotts of Tesla showrooms. If Musk has indeed ended his close association with Trump, those buyers could come back, but that's far from certain. Meanwhile, one analyst speculated earlier this year that Trump voters in so-called red counties could buy Teslas "in a meaningful way." But he's now less hopeful. "There are more questions than answers following Thursday developments," TD Cowen's Itay Michaeli wrote in his latest report, "and it's still too early to determine any lasting impacts." Michaeli's stock target for Tesla earlier this year was A$582. He has since lowered it to A$495. Tesla was trading Friday at A$450. Tesla did not respond to requests for comment. Tesla Cybertrucks are displayed at the AutoMobility LA Auto Show. (AP) Trump said Thursday that he could cut government contracts to Musk's rocket company, SpaceX, a massive threat to a company that has received billions of federal dollars. The privately held company that is reportedly worth A$525 billion provides launches, sends astronauts into space for NASA and has a contract to send a team from the space agency to the moon next year. But if Musk has a lot to lose, so does the US. SpaceX is the only US company capable of transporting crews to and from the space station, using its four-person Dragon capsules. The other alternative is politically dicey: depending wholly on Russia's Soyuz capsules. Musk knew all this when he shot back at Trump that SpaceX would begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft. But it is unclear how serious his threat was. Several hours later — in a reply to another X user — he said he wouldn't do it. A subsidiary of SpaceX, the satellite internet company Starlink, appears to also have benefited from Musk's once-close relationship with the president. Musk announced that Saudi Arabia had approved Starlink for some services during a trip with Trump in the Middle East last month. The company has also won a string of other recent deals in Bangladesh, Pakistan, India and elsewhere as Trump has threatened tariffs. Elon Musk accused Donald Trump of being in the Epstein files. (AP) It's not clear how much politics played a role, and how much is pure business. On Friday, The Associated Press confirmed that India had approved a key license to Starlink. At least 40 per cent of India's more than 1.4 billion people have no access to the internet. Big advertisers that fled X after Musk welcomed all manner of conspiracy theories to the social media platform have started to trickle back in recent months, possibly out of fear of a conservative backlash. Musk has called their decision to leave an "illegal boycott" and sued them, and the Trump administration recently weighed in with a Federal Trade Commission probe into possible coordination among them. Now advertisers may have to worry about a different danger. If Trump sours on X, "there's a risk that it could again become politically radioactive for major brands," said Sarah Kreps, a political scientist at Cornell University. She added, though, that an "exodus isn't obvious, and it would depend heavily on how the conflict escalates, how long it lasts and how it ends." Donald Trump elon musk USA US POLITICS TESLA World CONTACT US
