Australia China FTA - Free Trade Agreement.

Just wondering what posters out there (with more knowledge than me) are wondering about the FTA. There is a big push by our government to get it over the line. Will it benefit Australia ? If so how ?

 

Exports.

The unions are carrying out a scare campaign because they know they are lazy and the foreign workers are more productive. It's their protectionist instincts kicking in.

 

With the dollar falling of a cliff I have two words for our government:

HURRY

UP

 

Yes, this is mostly true. A lot of protectionism going on. Economies around the world eg Singapore have repeatedly shown protectionism does not work and is counter productive.

 

It doesn't benefit Australian workers and it's not suddenly going to fix up Australia's economy. This agreement with China will only benefit people working in agriculture. For local manufacturers (we've done a great job in this country slowly killing them) it's another blow.



It's a lot more complicated than free trade = good and protectionism = bad.

 

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=31260

 

From my understanding, the various trade agreements already in place are the same as the new one with China.

So, the focus by the Opposition on the China agreement seems to be misplaced and even bordering on Xenophobic?

According to various folks discussing this on the radio - folks who might be considering employing overseas workers etc - the hoops to jump through are prohibitive and almost not worth the effort.

 

@2FASTFU,

Thanks for your input. That list with the 10 occupations, what's that all about ? Does that mean we would bring over Chinese labor and they wouldn't need to meet certain standards ?

Sorry for the basic questions, just trying to understand what this all means and how if will affect all of us.

 

The quality of the work done Chinese trades people in general is shocking. I would hate to have them working in Australia the way they work at home.

 

My experience with tradespeople who Chinese is that they do a good job, they try to fix stuff instead of discard and buy new, they recycle, don't try to rip you off even if they find out that you don't know much and their prices are reasonable!

 

It was stated by one of the Ministers (can't remember which one - I think maybe Josh Freidenberg?) on the ABC the other morning that any Chinese workers will have to have at least the same required qualifications as any Aussie worker in the same job.

 

It means the requirements for importing workers for those occupations become less prohibitive. It will make it easier for companies to import Chinese workers to do those occupations.

The other component of the deal is that if Chinese companies spend $150 million or more the requirement to source Australian workers for the project is no longer required. Hypothetically a Chinese company such as Great Wall could come to Australia and purchase the General Motors Plant at Elizabeth SA, which is currently making Holden's but closing in 2017. They would be spending over $150 million to acquire the factory and import their inventory etc. As a result they wouldn't be required to source local workers so they could import their own workers. The workers that are imported are SUPPOSED to be paid equivalent wages to the Australian industry standard. Yet it is wide open to exploitation. And ask yourself this. If these workers were really paid the same wages and had the same conditions as Australian workers, than why would any company bother importing workers at all?

Agreements like this are the start of races to the bottom in wages and conditions.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-...ement-cost-australian-jobs-fact-check/6653214

• The claim: Unions say the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement "allows Chinese companies to bring in their own workforce for projects over $150 million and removes the requirement that jobs be offered to local workers first".
• The verdict: The agreement allows the Immigration Department to decide that jobs should be offered to local workers before it issues visas to overseas workers, but it does not require this to happen. The ACTU's claim checks out.

 

"Step three
The third step is that each employer involved in the project sets up a "labour agreement" with the Immigration Department.

The memorandum states that a labour agreement will set out the number and type of jobs needed for the project and "the sponsorship obligations associated with the labour agreement, including any requirements for labour market testing".

A footnote to the memorandum says that "where labour market testing is required, employers may satisfy this requirement by demonstrating that they have first tested the Australian labour market and not found sufficient suitable workers".

The Government spokesman said that once an infrastructure arrangement is in place, the labour agreements will be implemented in accordance with the Immigration Department's existing project agreement program."

In any case, I can't see the Immigration Dept simply blithely waving off the prospect of Aussie workers not being approached for these jobs first.

I have no doubt that there will be some jobs that will be filled with Chinese workers. But how many overall? Who knows?

But remember this; without the Chinese coming into the Country to endeavor to set up these larger projects in the first place; there are no jobs on offer for anyone, and the Agreement also opens up the chances for Aussie companies to sell products into China as well.

The ACTU (and Billy Bob Shorten) always forget to add those couple of little facts into the argument.

 

When you say they are SUPPOSED to be paid equivalent wages, do you mean that they are required to be paid equivalent wages by law? - serious question I am not familiar with the proposed agreement.
If so, why would it be any more wide open to exploitation than any other employer/employee relationship in Australia?

 

https://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Visa-1/457-

"Your sponsor must provide you with the same terms and conditions as Australian workers performing the same work in the same work location". Yet the enforcement of the standards is abysmal, which is why companies chose to go through all the hassles of meeting visa requirements because once the worker is in Australia they can pay them less than the equivalent of Australian workers. If they are paying the same rate it defies logic to import workers in the first place.

 

You don't lose what you don't have.

Option 1. When Holden closes, jobs are lost. It's gone. Net Aussie job gain: 0

Option 2. If a Chinese company buys Holden and brings workers, they bring people who will pay taxes, buy stuff from local shops, etc. Auto parts suppliers will have a new lease on life. Net Aussie job gain: positive (flow on effect).

As option 1 is gonna happen anyway, Option 2 is more desirable. No FTA, no Option 2.

Think about it. If there is no FTA, the Chinese won't invest anyway. So what jobs do you gain? Nothing.

If they invest because of FTA, what job do you lose? Nothing.

Again, you don't lose something that you don't have.

 

Surely if the enforcement is abysmal then it is also abysmal for those companies employing Australians. Surely if the pay/conditions requirements are the same and the enforcement is the same the level of open-ness to exploitation is the same, no?

Why does it defy logic to import workers on the same conditions? Perhaps the employer may wish to employ a workforce made up of those that it thinks will be most productive whether Australian/foreign or a mix.

 

It undermines Australia's wages and conditions though. What evidence is there that these agreements advance well-being? Answer: none. In fact, the evidence so far produced of prior agreements tends to conclude that the operation of these agreements undermines national welfare.

The Australian Productivity Commission released its latest – Trade and Assistance Review 2013-14 – on June 24, 2015.

The Productivity Commission concluded that:

"Preferential trade agreements add to the complexity and cost of international trade through substantially different sets of rules of origin, varying coverage of services and potentially costly intellectual property protections and investor-state dispute settlement provisions.

… The emerging and growing potential for trade preferences to impose net costs on the community presents a compelling case for the final text of an agreement to be rigorously analysed before signing. Analysis undertaken for the Japan-Australia agreement reveals a wide and concerning gap compared to the Commission’s view of rigorous assessment".

 

Yeah, like the Government has been able to prevent 7-Eleven wage abuse of locals LoL.