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

Labor have been an enthusiastic supporter of this proposal for an infrastructure bank, as we see the need for us to have in place good multilateral arrangements that will facilitate development in our region. We are very mindful of the need for investment across our region in order to allow many people to reach economic fulfilment and we totally appreciate that this will be a great positive for the region. We are also very mindful of wanting to support China when it is working to take a leadership role. It is now the second largest economy in the world, and of course it will want to have a leading role in the political and diplomatic architecture of the region. I think the leadership that they have shown on this matter is fantastic.

Labor certainly needed no persuading that we should get behind this project. But I do note that a lot of the speakers from the other side have been focusing on ChAFTA, the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, claiming that we are trying to whip up a xenophobic reaction from the community, and I can tell you it is the exact opposite. Our whole instinct is to want to support the China free trade agreement. Under the leadership of Senator Penny Wong, we have been enthusiastic embracers of moving the trade barriers down and integrating our economies more closely with those of our Asian neighbours. So we have totally no desire to undermine a free trade agreement.

However, we cannot stand by and allow to happen what it is proposed will happen under this agreement. We do not believe that the government have been honest with the Australian people about how this arrangement will operate. They have tried to hide behind the banner of xenophobia—accusing others of it—to avoid discussing some of the detail that is creating concern out there in the community. Why are the unions concerned? Why are the union movement concerned? It is true they are concerned. It is true that they are running a program about it. But it is because they are deeply concerned about the implication of this for Australian jobs. And no amount of bleating and jumping up and down should replace the cool, calm and honest analysis of this agreement.

I know that the government often recites—and a former Labor luminary notes—clause (2)(e) of the memorandum of understanding on an investment facilitation arrangement. This is the provision that is often quoted:

The project company agrees to comply with all Australian laws and regulations, including applicable Australian workplace law, work safety law and relevant Australian licensing, regulation and certification standards;

If that is all you read, you would say, 'That's fine.' But that is not all there is. That is what we are asking there to be some honesty about.

Let us look in a little more detail at how this operates. We have got the agreement proper and we have got a provision at the side that relates to investment facilitation arrangements. We have read the clause, which makes it all sound like it is going to be good. But then we have got clause 4, and it outlines the areas that could be negotiated. These include the occupations covered by the IFA agreement, English language proficiency requirements, qualification and experience requirements, and calculation of terms and conditions of the temporary skilled migration income threshold.

So it is expressly opening up the opportunity for the project companies to request concessions in relation to any of those issues. And one of those issues is, quite clearly, the income and the terms and conditions of employment. We then go to clause 8 of this memorandum of understanding. It quite clearly indicates that labour market testing is optional for IFAs. It says:

Once the IFA is executed, direct employers … on the eligible project can seek the endorsement of the project company to enter into a labour agreement under the IFA with DIBP to sponsor and nominate temporary skilled workers to be engaged on the project. A labour agreement will be entered into in a timely manner and will set out the number, occupations and terms and conditions under which temporary skilled workers can be nominated, consistent with the terms of the IFA, and the sponsorship obligations associated with the labour agreement, including any requirements for labour market testing.

So, quite clearly, labour market testing is at play. There may not be any requirement for labour market testing. If the government is sincere and if the government is truly of the view that we have misread this agreement—that the natural and plain words of the agreement do not mean what they do—we ask: let us put this into some legislation. Let us, in the legislation, put this beyond doubt and allay the very real concerns that emanate from a close reading not just of the agreement but of the side letters, the memorandums of understanding. There are people on the other side of the House that are capable of reading these documents and making an interpretation of them. That is our point. We want to support this free trade agreement. We do actually want to see our economies grow together. But we cannot stand by idly and allow there to be this provision that will see there being, quite conceivably, in relation to these large projects, an abandonment of the principles of labour market testing and all sorts of concessional arrangements entered into around the skills of the persons coming in and around the terms and conditions.

The whole Australian story, what we have been able to achieve in this country, has been built upon there being the availability of good, well-paying jobs within this country, and labour—'labour' with a small 'l'—having been able to negotiate an industrial relations architecture that ensures that working people are paid a decent wage. We are not going to stand back and let the essence of that Australian experience be compromised by this abandonment of these principles. And it is in the fine print and it is complex and there are a number of documents that have to be read together. But I actually congratulate the union movement. I congratulate them for the attention to detail that they have paid. They have been able to analyse this document closely and see the future pitfalls. And the response from the Prime Minister, along the lines of, 'It'll never happen,' is simply not good enough. There is a need for us to be able to protect the jobs of Australian people. My electorate is 46 per cent born overseas, and they share this concern. This is not a concern just of Anglo-Celtic Australians or Italian Australians or Greek Australians; this is a concern shared right across the board, because people actually get it. They get that the ability for us to have an industrial relations architecture that protects wages and the economy and that gives labour a fair bargaining power is the very thing that has created the circumstances wherein they can build a better life. These are people coming from India, from Vietnam and from China.

They are not concerned about this. This is not anything to do with xenophobia. This is about getting across the detail of this legislation. I think that the Prime Minister is paying the people of Australia a profound disrespect with the two options—you are either with us or against us—and refusing to get down and examine these legitimate concerns that are being raised by the union movement, by AFTINET and by this side of the House. We want to work with the other side on this, but these are issues that do need to be addressed. Thank you.

See this speech in context