Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I want to confirm that Labor does support free trade agreements, as we are a trading nation—indeed, we are an exporting nation—and we need to develop our markets. In particular, in Western Australia we are an even greater trader. Basically, over 80 per cent of what we produce in Western Australia is exported. So we recognise the need for bilateral agreements. We recognise that, whilst multilateral arrangements are preferable, there has been an amazing constipation in the negotiations for many of these significant multilateral agreements, so it is understandable that the Australian government, as Labor did, seek to negotiate a bilateral raft of trade agreements. Of course, these agreements with our Asian neighbours are a very critical part of our future.

I want to make a couple of comments about Korea. I was actually there earlier this week. It is a nation that has achieved enormously over the last 60 years. It has gone from being one of the poorest nations of the world to now being very much a developed country. Even in recent times, we have seen a marked leap in the GDP. Last year, the per capita GDP of Korea was $26,000. When you consider that in 1981 the per capita GDP was less than $2,000, you can see the growth that has occurred in this country. It is a strong democracy. Through my contacts with Korean members of parliament and through the Australian Political Exchange Council, I know that it is a very robust democracy where there is a strong contest of ideas. I want to preface my remarks by saying I totally respect and support us entering into a free trade agreement with Korea, but this is an agreement that has many, many problems. My view is that we have seen the government rush into this agreement. They pledged that this was going to be one of their 100-day achievements, and it was far more important for the government to have been able to tick that box of having achieved this, rather than putting Australia's national interest in the forefront.

There has been much discussion about the problems with this agreement. The inclusion of the investor-state dispute resolution provisions will be touched on by a number of my colleagues. I do think they are very, very significant problems. The whole notion that we would allow a foreign company to have greater recourse than our own companies have to contest government legislation is most inappropriate. I see these investor-state provisions detracting in a very significant way from our sovereignty and our rights to ensure that we make legislation for the good of our community. The inclusion of these investor-state provisions—which give investors the right to contest legislation that they believe harms their interest—gives only foreign investors the right to do that. I think this is extremely worrying indeed. The exceptions that have attempted to have been carved out in this agreement will be inadequate to provide decent protections and as it has been demonstrated—my other colleagues will go into the detail—where those particular clauses have indeed proved to be inadequate to provide protections on what any of us would consider would be legitimate activities of government in legislating.

What I particularly want to focus on today is the free movement of people provisions and the extraordinary asymmetry that exists in this legislation between the rights of Koreans to enter Australia and to participate in the Australian workplace, and the rights of Australians to enter Korea and participate in their workplace. If you look at some of the statements that the government has made, there is really no reference to this asymmetry and to the extent of this asymmetry. What we have allowed here is a massive capacity for us to lose control of the 457 visa system. Let us have a look at what is provided for.

This agreement allows for a Korean person who has a trade, a technical or professional skill, is experienced and has the existing qualifications, can come to Australia and work in Australia without there being any labour market testing. It is not confined—the person could be someone who is employed by a Korean company who has a contract in Australia to provide certain services. They could be that, but need not be. It can be any enterprise lawfully operating in Australia. It could be any Australian company; this is not confined.

We are not talking here about people who would necessarily have to have a high level of proficiency. It could be a trade—and I am not in any way demeaning trades. We are talking about people who could be bricklayers or electricians, or people who had qualifications in meat working—people experienced, qualified boners, for instance, qualified to do the various trade activities that are found in abattoirs. The bar has been set very low here. No market testing is required and the range of skills is very broad. Anyone with a trade or a technical or professional skill can be considered. They can work for a Korean company that is based here or they can work for any company that is legitimately operating in Australia.

If we go and look on the other side at what Australians are going to be able to do in Korea we find that it is very different. For a start, there is a different definition for a contractual service supplier. For an Australian it is someone who has to demonstrate a high level of skill, and there is a very detailed set of skills set out in one of the annexures. What is very interesting, I think, is that unless you read the agreement in detail you do not realise that that definition only applies to Australian workers seeking to take up residency in Korea. So we have a very restricted arrangement. We have got to show that we have a high level of technical, professional or managerial skill. It only applies to people who are working for an Australian company that is operating in Korea, that previously did not have a presence in Korea. So it is a really limited range of companies that it can apply to, and you have to demonstrate that you have already been working for that company for a year prior to your entry into Korea.

On top of that, they retain a couple of interesting rights, firstly, the right to numerically restrict it and, secondly, the right to do labour market testing. They also have another very curious provision within the legislation that gives them the right to exclude anyone on the basis that they might be involved in in a labour market dispute. The capacity for Australian people to go up into Korea is extraordinarily limited and it is at all times subject to labour market testing.

But on the other side, what we have achieved is extraordinary asymmetry. I was looking at the agreement that we have with Chile, an agreement that was entered into by the Australian government where there is almost complete symmetry between these two and we talk about having to establish a very high level of technical skill or professional expertise. But unlike any of the other agreements, here in the Korean agreement we have absolutely lowered the bar. We have absolutely reduced the requirement, the skills component, the level of skill that has to be demonstrated before one comes into the country.

We have already seen what has happened with Korean companies in Western Australia. We know that when Samsung got the contract to develop the Roy Hill mine they brought in hundreds of Korean workers. Complaints have been registered—and we understand that there is an investigation as to the allegations made, but the investigation is being kept secret. We understand that the allegations have been made by very well-placed whistleblowers about the operation of this company, that people brought in as engineers were indeed doing the work of administrative staff. So even under the existing 457 visa arrangements there was an alleged breach of the regulations.

And I know from what workers have been telling me out there that the Korean workers are required to do a swing of four months on. They are working up to 84 hours a week and they are being paid as little as $16 an hour, circumstances and conditions that are well and truly less than what Australian workers would receive in similar circumstances. The Korean company were very insistent that they bring their own people in.

We have now opened up a huge capacity for people—and not just for Korean companies but for other companies—to just import, wholesale, people from Korea without any regard to unemployment in Australia. This is not going to just be limited to remote sites. We now will see the capacity for people—if you are running a factory somewhere—to bring in Korean workers, as long as they have got some technical qualification—and it could be a very limited technical qualification.

I am really keen and enthusiastic about the beef market and opening up the packaged meat market. For the North of Australia and for the Kimberley in particular, I see a great potential benefit for us to be able to finish off our own stock rather than sending our live exports to Indonesia, to be able to value-add and to be able to create jobs, particularly for Aboriginal people, who have skills in boning and slaughtering techniques. This would be an ideal opportunity. But one of my real concerns—I can see what will happen now—is that we will get Korean-owned abattoirs being established, or any abattoir being established, where Korean workers will be brought down to staff that abattoir, and the necessity to develop Australian labour and create those opportunities in the North of Australia are going to be lost.

I want to repeat that this is a very bad agreement. There has not been honesty and transparency with the Australian people about the true asymmetry of this agreement and just how broad those entitlements are going to be for Korean people to come here and, totally without labour market testing, to work here at a time when we have rising unemployment. This is a dishonest agreement and I think it augurs badly for the current raft of agreements that we know are being negotiated. I ask the government to take stock about what it is they are doing here and to not repeat this travesty in the next agreement. (Time expired)

See this speech in context