The Albanese government is set to get into discrimination when it comes to foreign investment, where Canadians are in the inner circle and Chinese could be on the outer. This is the takeaway message from the AFR’s political editor Phil Coorey.

The Government might have a nicer way of saying it but China and other countries that aren’t given the benefit of the doubt when it comes investing here in Australia, could see it as discrimination.

To be accurate, this is how Coorey put it: “…Canadian pension funds will receive accelerated approvals under a revamp designed to lure foreign capital,” while “…extra safeguards will be established for higher-risk proposals, such as Chinese entities seeking to invest in critical infrastructure and minerals.”

Today, Treasurer Jim Chalmers will outline this filtering of foreign investors as a support piece to the government’s Future Made in Australia Act.

This is what his press release about a speech he’ll make to the Lowy Institute is expected to say: “Our reforms will make Australia a more attractive place to invest, boost economic prosperity and productivity, while strengthening our ability to protect the national interest in an increasingly complex economic and geostrategic environment.”

I can’t see many people outside of Beijing arguing with this policy, considering the problems the likes of Tik Tok and Huawei have had with officialdom over recent years.

Foreign investment has always been important to Australia’s economic growth. Think about these words from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade: “Australia has always used foreign investment to help drive economic growth, and with it, support jobs. For 2018-19 the Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that around one in five businesses in Australia with 200 or more employees has greater than 50 per cent foreign ownership”.

To me, this was a “yeah, I get it story”, where the government wants to screen overseas investors, which most voters would support. But then the following got me more excited: “Dr Chalmers will also use the revamp to help ease the housing crisis by allowing foreign investors to buy established build-to-rent properties, to drive demand and construction”.

This is a great idea because cities like Sydney and Melbourne need to be, what I called, ‘Manhattanised’ so apartment blocks give younger generations the ability to live and work in places of great employment and entertainment.

And in an ideal world, these developments not only give people rental opportunities but also apartments to buy.

The housing crisis needs political proactivity, so while this step is to be applauded, a hell of a lot more is needed.

I’ve argued that about 30% of a new home cost is down to government tax and red tape slugs, but I might be wrong, at least for Sydney! Check this out from Chris Johnson, CEO of the Urban Taskforce: “The report demonstrated that tax and red tape was 50 percent of the average new dwelling in Sydney compared to 37 percent in Melbourne, 33 percent in Perth, 32 percent in Brisbane and 29 percent in Adelaide. The total extra cost for Sydney was $840,874 compared to an extra cost in Adelaide of $436,165”.

When politicians address this ridiculous impost on building homes, then we’ll know they really care about young people getting on to the property ladder. And they might need to understand that as most people lose 11% to super, then super should be used for a deposit, otherwise getting a loan will be unbelievably hard, given the price of properties in Australia.

The Treasurer will promise these things:

• less red tape and quicker approval processes for foreign investors.
• a refund of application fees for overseas investors who fail to get a thumbs up.
• better taxing so there are no loopholes for these investors to underpay tax; and
• there’ll be more money for the department that will oversee the new approach to attracting foreign investment.

All in all, this is a step in the right direction on many levels.