Church buying up Australia farmlands

[JAHS]

Mormon church’s $490m spending spree exposes trade deal blind spot

Nationals leader David Littleproud has called for changes to the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement following a spending spree by the US Mormon church in which almost half a billion dollars’ worth of Australian farmland fell into foreign ownership in little more than six months.

In August last year, the US church-owned Farmland Reserves bought Worral Creek Aggregation, north of Mungindi in Queensland for $350 million. In March this year it paid $68 million for the North Star Aggregation near Moree in NSW, and in April it bought Kentucky Farms at Forbes for $38 million and Carnarvon Aggregation at Gunnedah for $32 million.

Sources told the AFR Weekend that Farmland Reserve has agents looking for more large Australian farms to buy.

None of these sales were subject to scrutiny from the Foreign Investment Review Board because the AUSFTA, signed in 2004 by former Nationals leader Mark Vaile, gives US investors (and those from New Zealand and Chile) an almost unfettered right to buy Australian farmland.

Buyers from the US can purchase farming ventures up to a value of $1.46 billion per venture, and there is a fear within the Australian farming community that the Mormons, with billions of dollars to spend, could change the face of Australian agriculture. For investors from other nations the cumulative total is capped at $15 million.

Littleproud told AFR Weekend that “we need to revisit these parameters” of the free trade agreement with the US.

“I don’t think it was the intent of the original agreement that we’d ever envisage that an organisation would take such a large slice of agricultural land in this country,” he said.

“This allows them [the Mormons], who have significant capital backing, to outcompete Australian farming families,” he said.

It could take a “significant slice” of the agricultural sector and “we should always be mindful of the risk of concentration”, he added.

The CEO of Grain Producers Australia, Colin Bettles, said it was not in the nation’s interest to have foreign entities controlling large tracts of Australian farmland.

“It’s totally unacceptable that a foreign entity, emboldened by significant tax advantages, should be allowed to accumulate significant volumes of farmland and cannibalise Australia’s food producing capacity,” he said.

“This recent acceleration of a foreign entity’s purchasing power in Australia clearly demonstrates there’s an uneven playing field when it comes to retaining ownership of Australian farmland and our farmers should not be disadvantaged by lax rules.”

___________________________________________________

Would the church really be cannibalizing Australia's food producing capacity?

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Would the church really be cannibalizing Australia's food producing capacity?

Wouldn’t they be using the land for the same thing?

And if it wasn’t the intent, why didn’t they put a cap on purchasing farmland by foreign entities?

I wonder if Salt Lake could turn the property over to the Australian LDS region authorities, have it officially owned by LDS Charities of Australia or do something else that would satisfy Australians.  Of course, given the structure of the Church, it’s still overseen by Salt Lake.

I have no issue with Australians wanting to keep ownership in Australian hands.  Still what the Church did was legal.  I find it hard to believe no one saw the possibility of a wealthy organization coming in to purchase farmlands.  Isn't that what is happening all over?  Are they okay with purchase of residential or commercial land?  Because if not and it’s legally allowed in the agreement, someone was asleep at the wheel.

Quote

This allows them [the Mormons], who have significant capital backing, to outcompete Australian farming families.

Do they mean in buying land or now in production of food?  I can see why both is troubling (Canada had problems trying to keep Canadian property in Canadian hands, the US doesn’t supposedly want the Chinese buying property up though Canadians own much more, but still only amounts to 1% if Google is accurate).

Edited August 8, 2025 by Calm

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Wouldn’t they be using the land for the same thing?

And if it wasn’t the intent, why didn’t they put a cap on purchasing farmland by foreign entities?

I wonder if Salt Lake could turn the property over to the Australian LDS region authorities, have it officially owned by LDS Charities of Australia or do something else that would satisfy Australians.  Of course, given the structure of the Church, it’s still overseen by Salt Lake.

I have no issue with Australians wanting to keep ownership in Australian hands.  Still what the Church did was legal.  I find it hard to believe no one saw the possibility of a wealthy organization coming in to purchase farmlands.  Isn't that what is happening all over?  Are they okay with purchase of residential or commercial land?  Because if not and it’s legally allowed in the agreement, someone was asleep at the wheel.

Do they mean in buying land or now in production of food?  I can see why both is troubling (Canada had problems trying to keep Canadian property in Canadian hands, the US doesn’t supposedly want the Chinese buying property up though Canadians own much more, but still only amounts to 1% if Google is accurate).

It makes sense that they wouldn’t want foreigners owning large chunks of their country. But some of their angst seems more emotional than practical.

It reminded me of a local issue here, where a land developer bought land from a private seller outside of one of the communities so that he could put a subdivision on it. He’s from the area, born and raised, and has been building houses here for over 25 years. But a bunch of farmers and ranchers became angry with him because the land use to be farmland and I guess it’s pretty good farmland (and there’s not a lot of that in the area, it’s not a place you would typically think of for farming. It’s very dry and the soil has a lot of alkali in it).

So they’re blaming him for the loss of farmland and an influx of out of staters buying homes here.  I completely get their frustration, but it’s not his fault and it’s not a reason to be angry at out of staters or construction companies. It’s just changing times.

Edited August 8, 2025 by bluebell

[Tacenda]

Gotta say I didn't like what I read. Hopefully there is more to the story! Wouldn't it be something if the church bought the big chunk to keep oligarchs from buying it? And then selling it for a better price for the Australians? In my dreams, hope dreams come true!

[Pyreaux]

Are we “Cannibalising” food production

No. Buying farmland will not inherently reduce production - it just changes who owns it. The LDS Church is not removing farms from use, destroying crops, or exporting land. They typically lease the land or manage it for long-term, sustainable production. In fact, Farmland Reserve is notorious for long-term, productive land stewardship - not short-term exploitation.

National food security risks (as implied)

No. There’s no evidence that food is going to be diverted away from domestic markets due to these purchases. Australia already exports most of its agricultural output, and unless the LDS Church starts hoarding or redirecting food exports exclusively to the US, food security isn’t currently threatened.

Will the Church “outcompete Australian farming families”?

No. It's true, the Church like all major investors can outbid local families because it has virtually unlimited capital. It doesn’t need FIRB approval unless the deal exceeds $1.46 billion, unlike most others. It likely enjoys better financing terms than local farmers. Farming families are price-takers, often borrowing money at higher interest rates and dealing with rising costs. Competing with a global church isn't feasible for them.

However, in practical reality, Farmland Reserve Inc. is buying large “aggregations” meaning massive farms, often over 10,000 hectares that: Most families couldn’t buy anyway. They were already being marketed to corporate or institutional buyers. These are not typically the small to medium farms that locals bid on. These conditions favor any large-scale investor. If it wasn’t the LDS Church making these purchases, it would be another major player, not a farming family.

Will this cause Farmland costs to rise?

No. LDS Church's purchases could contribute to higher prices of land, but they are not the main driver of that at all. They're a small piece of a much larger trend. Prices are rising due to strong global demand, limited supply, high commodity prices, and favorable conditions for large investors not just LDS purchases. Again, if it wasn't us, it'd be another investor, and the cost of land would rise anyway.

Is this about Religious Bigotry?

Very likely, partly. Let’s be realistic. Though the LDS Church owns the land, the purpose appears to be investment, not religious influence, yet that seems to be the issue. Many other global entities, including sovereign wealth funds and pension funds, also own farmland in Australia without this level of scrutiny. LDS Church is not well understood by many Australians. Often slammed in media, especially about: Its wealth, any tax advantages due to religious status and financial practices. This article has that typical vibe, there is no real problem other than a no-good, superrich, US-based cult is buying Australia's land away from our poor Aussie farm families.

The use of the phrase "the Mormons" in Littleproud’s statement singles us out, not for being a big US investor, but as the infamous religious organization which carries emotional and cultural weight. US investors are favored over Chinese investors, because China is treated as a national security risk. The only reason they want us to get treated like China is because "The Mormons" buying land is framed as a cultural/religious intrusion. It's the usual media sensationalism and a growing public skepticism toward the LDS religion just for making use of the legal and tax advantages they gave them. If there is any real issue, its the system itself not one buyer in particular.

Edited August 8, 2025 by Pyreaux

[JAHS]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

However, in practical reality, Farmland Reserve Inc. is buying large “aggregations” meaning massive farms, often over 10,000 hectares that: Most families couldn’t buy anyway. They were already being marketed to corporate or institutional buyers. These are not typically the small to medium farms that locals bid on. These conditions favor any large-scale investor. If it wasn’t the LDS Church making these purchases, it would be another major player, not a farming family.

Would this prevent families from buying smaller chunks of the large farms, should they ever be up for sale in smaller pieces? Not sure if that actually happens.

[Pyreaux]

19 hours ago, JAHS said:

Would this prevent families from buying smaller chunks of the large farms, should they ever be up for sale in smaller pieces? Not sure if that actually happens.

No, the farms aren't being sold as chunks, and the church isn't buying up chunks. Yes, it will prevent it from being sold as chunks later. When large farms are sold, they could be broken up by the seller and sold in smaller parcels for families, that is typically how small farms get created. If a corporation buys corporate land, its land that doesn't usually get parceled out. So, it shrinks the potential pool of land that then could be subdivided. Once Farmland Reserve owns it, they'll likely run it as one big farm, maybe leasing it out - but not selling off chunks. Families will be locked out of owning that land for the foreseeable future.

However, even if the LDS Church didn’t buy the land, it's highly likely another large institutional or corporate buyer would have and likewise kept it too, yet it would not be a news story or a political talking point. But because it was "The Mormons" who are outbid Australian superannuation funds (e.g., Aware Super). Foreign pension or wealth funds (e.g., Canadian or Dutch). Agribusiness giants (e.g., Macquarie, Rural Funds Group), who would have also kept it out of family hands, we're somehow the culprits.

The land is too large and expensive for most family farms. They were marketed specifically to global agribusinesses, pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, and institutional investors. Large farms usually stay in the large-farm, corporate buyer pool, not the family farmer pool.

Rather than a loss, it can be a gain to Australia, because Farmland Reserve (LDS Church) has a reputation for long-term, sustainable land use. They're not developers, not flippers, and not known for over-farming or environmental damage. The land will likely stay in agricultural production, not converted into housing or mines. Local farmers who can’t afford to buy land still get a chance to work it. This helps younger farmers, new entrants, or those locked out of ownership.

The LDS Church is known for long-term thinking, not flipping properties. Farmers may get longer leases, better terms, or less pressure than under private investors who want high short-term returns. Farmland Reserve often improves land (irrigation, soil health, etc.) because they’re playing a 100-year game, not a 5-year one.

The news isn't crying because small farms that didn't exist before and had no guarantee of having existed if it were bought by an Australian entity. It's just the news's hot take the land will remain in the hands of a dirty, rich, foreign, religious entity, even though the reality is more mundane.

The Core Fallacy

Implying that LDS Church purchases are the reason family farms are disappearing, even though these particular properties were never in the price or size range of family buyers.

The Novelty Fallacy

"The LDS Church just bought $488 million worth of farmland!” Factually true, but not new, therefore not news, other buyers have done the same. 

PSP Investments (Canada)

$500 million

Kooba Aggregation, 30,000 ha

AIMCo & New Forests (Canada)

$600 million

Lawson Grains, 90,500 ha

Agriculture & Natural Solutions Acquisition Corp (United States)

$780 million

for a Massive 225,000

The emotional picture being painted - small Aussie farmers vs. a wealthy US church - is vivid and easy to understand. But it glosses over the truth that these farms were already outside the reach of small buyers and would have gone to some corporate/institutional entity no matter what. They’re making it sound like the LDS Church took something from local farmers that the farmers were never realistically going have in the first place. The only ones negatively affected by the church are all those other corporations they outbid. If there were someone to blame for why family farmers might be struggling or unable to own their own land, it's Australia itself and its system, not whatever corporation or institute bought the land.

Edited August 9, 2025 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

Do you have references for this info?

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you have references for this info?

Yeah, here are some but many of them are hidden behind a subscription wall.

Aggregations are large and expensive - effectively out of reach for family farmers

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/who-owns-australia-why-institutional-investors-are-flocking-to-aussie-ag/news-story/82fbd7217d58f2e828e2102be2ff491a

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/victoria-business/who-owns-australias-farms-2025-biggest-investors-landholders-ones-to-watch/news-story/f4b6b5a12e1070e0d7576b27e2891cc3

Thusly they were always destined for institutional buyers like Macquarie Agriculture or PSP Investments

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/victoria-business/who-owns-australias-farms-2025-biggest-investors-landholders-ones-to-watch/news-story/f4b6b5a12e1070e0d7576b27e2891cc3

Similar buying behavior by other large buyers of Australian agriculture include: Canadian pension funds (PSP Investments, Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan), Macquarie Agriculture, Rural Funds Group, TIAA-Nuveen, Gina Rinehart’s Hancock Agriculture

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/tasmania/who-owns-tassies-farms-biggest-investors-landholders-named/news-story/4e076f586b6f1a517d8d17ec55ac5009

Farmland Reserve explicitly leases farmland to local operators, indicating they retain ownership while enabling agricultural use

https://www.deseret.com/business/2024/10/14/latter-day-saint-investment-auxiliary-farmland-reserve-agrees-to-buy-46-farms-in-eight-states/

https://www.agriculturedive.com/news/mormon-church-lds-buys-farmland/729368/

Benefits of Farmland Reserve’s long-term ownership model favors long-term, sustainable agricultural use, with structure and investment for improved productivity, not flipping or development

https://www.agriculturedive.com/news/mormon-church-lds-buys-farmland/729368/

https://www.deseret.com/business/2024/10/14/latter-day-saint-investment-auxiliary-farmland-reserve-agrees-to-buy-46-farms-in-eight-states/

[[Edit: Trying find Free Sources]]

Aggregations are large and expensive - effectively out of reach for family farmers and always destined for institutional buyers

“Buyers above $30 million are nearly always corporates… often investing funds on behalf of large international investors.... There is a reasonable number of well-capitalised family-run businesses capable of buying farms up to about $30 million.”

https://www.hancockagriculture.com.au/revealed-australias-top-farm-sales-of-the-past-year/

The same behaviors are seen by other Aussie buyers. A long-term, stable investment rationale that Farmland Reserve shares, contrasted with short-term speculative models, and will benefit Australian farming

“Institutional investors … capitalised on the opportunity … while family farmers struggled… notable players like PSP, Macquarie Agriculture, and TIAA-CREF significantly grew their holdings … The allure of Australian agriculture lies in its stability and inflation-resistance.”

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/who-owns-australia-why-institutional-investors-are-flocking-to-aussie-ag/news-story/82fbd7217d58f2e828e2102be2ff491a

Edited August 8, 2025 by Pyreaux

[The Nehor]

I see people being annoyed that a foreign institution is making the profits off a large portion of your land. It is easier to get angry at a church than a group of faceless shell companies or a few large corporations. Plus you expect the corporations to be evil. Churches can held to different standards.

Having a religious entity in or near your lands making big profits can also lead to jealousy. See the Knights Templar for what can happen there.

[halconero]

On 8/7/2025 at 11:47 PM, Calm said:

Do they mean in buying land or now in production of food?  I can see why both is troubling (Canada had problems trying to keep Canadian property in Canadian hands, the US doesn’t supposedly want the Chinese buying property up though Canadians own much more, but still only amounts to 1% if Google is accurate).

I wrote about the topic of farm consolidation in Canadian agriculture back in 2020 as it relates to how often seasonal workers from Mexico and Jamaica are accused of taking jobs from Canadians. If the trend in Australia is anything like the Canadian, then the issue isn't foreign buyers (or workers), but (a) rapid technological advances enabling a greater yield per worker, (b) the children of farmers simply not wanting to be farmers, and (c) increased urbanization distancing any available labour force from agricultural producers in rural areas.

I've posted trend in agricultural employment in Canada since 1987 below. If you want to see further back, there's a time series beginning in 1946 on page 8 of my paper here. A key finding from the 2020 study is that farmers have, in fact, offered wages to domestic workers above and beyond inflation, with little-to-no response by the domestic workforce. The supply of foreign labour does still increase with higher wages being offered, so producers seeking to maintain or grow their yields need to look abroad for extra farm hands or invest more heavily in technologies that enable the remaining agricultural labour force to grow more per person.

While the Church does redevelop some of the agricultural lands it develops into real estate, it uses a significant chunk of its agricultural real estate for agricultural purposes. If I were to guess, I would hypothesize that the Church is more likely to safeguard Australian agriculture instead of hasten its demise. If its the continued production of Australian agricultural goods in Australia that Australian stakeholders care about, rather than Australian ownership of agricultural land (at the cost of losing more of that land each year), then why should we care if the owner is based abroad?