This is my first attempt at an R1, so please be gentle.

What prompts my R1 attempt is outrage on the internets concerning China Capital Investment Group acquiring a perpetual lease for South Molle Island for $25 million. (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/chinese-buy-queenslands-south-molle-island-in-whitsundays-20160810-gqp6yt.html)

I can not understand as to why Australia let foreigners buy properties here in Australia. Last April when I went back and tried to transfer title of my deceased mother's land as inheritance I was told have to prove my Filipino citizenship. Did not realize I lost my Filipino citizenship when I obtained Australian citizenship.

Intuitively, it would seem as revoking citizenship for people who move abroad and prohibiting non-citizens from owning property is a great way of stifling the economy. However, browsing through some papers on Foreign Direct Investment, I find conflicting views on whether Foreign Direct Investment has a positive causal effect on growth, living standards etc, especially in eg Latin American and Asian countries. I can see how Foreign Direct Investment would be problematic in the case of corrupt countries where the investor is buying property that is expropriated from locals, buying the ability to break environmental regulations etc with impunity etc. But that isn't the case with property inherited from one's parents, nor with Australia, a developed country with rule of law.

The same commenter proceeds:

I do not like seeing Australian farms, ports, island being run by Chinese nationals.

OK. This confirms my suspicion that people are fine with Foreign Direct Investment from Kiwis, Americans etc, but that China is being singled out for essentially racist reasons.

Another commenter:

Ill tell you whats going on, rich Australians wont invest in their own country, because they then cant get away with using slave labour, they invest in countries were nobody gives it a second thought, if they wont invest here someone else will.

If "rich Australians" aren't investing in their own country (a ridiculous assertion, but beyond the scope of this R1), preferring countries with "slave labour" like China, how does restricting Foreign Direct Investment INTO Australia FROM countries with "slave labour" like China improve anything? If anything, aren't the Chinese investors saving the day?

I'll end the R1 with the below:

Tourism Research Australia on Chinese tourism:

Chinese visitors spent more than the combined figure of $7.5bn by Britons, Americans and Canadians

The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on the benefits of foreign investment:

Australia is resource-rich, has a highly skilled workforce, and enjoys an international reputation for innovation. To make the most of these advantages, Australia needs international capital to supplement domestic savings.

Foreign investment helps Australia reach its economic potential by providing capital to finance new industries and enhance existing industries, boosting infrastructure, productivity, and employment opportunities in the process.

The higher growth supported by foreign investment pays dividends for all Australians by increasing tax revenues to Federal and State Governments, and increasing the funds available to spend on hospitals, schools, roads and other essential services.

Foreign investment has other benefits beyond injecting new capital. By bringing in new businesses with connections in different markets it opens up additional export opportunities, boosting our overall export performance. It also encourages competition and increased innovation by bringing new technologies and services to the Australian market.

Why does Australia need foreign investment?

• Foreign investment fills the gap between what Australia saves and invests every year.
• Total investment is funded by domestic savings and foreign investment makes up the difference.
• At end 2015, total investment flows stood at $424 billion, comprising $348 billion in domestic savings and $76 billion in foreign investment.