Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

On 17 June 2015, and to much fanfare, the coalition government signed the free trade agreement with China. Whilst I acknowledge the agreement will deliver significant benefits to Australian exporters and consumers, I am sure the government could have secured a better deal, particularly when it came to protecting Australian jobs. In fact, the deal signed off by the Liberals flies in the face of what we would normally consider to be the benefits of a free trade agreement. For most of us trade is the cornerstone to economic growth and also to job creation and, for our benefit, Australian jobs. On face value the government's deal, not only could put employment opportunities for Australian workers in jeopardy, but there is a real risk of undermining workplace standards while offering an open-door policy to temporary overseas workers.

For instance, the government agreed to an investment facilitation agreement, which is a provision that allows Chinese investors, in projects valued at over $150 million, additional rights to bring in temporary migrant workers under Australian migration programs without giving preference to Australians. Specifically, the agreement says that entry and temporary stay for foreign workers can be granted for up to four years and possibly longer for contractual services supplied from China. While the government claims very much to the contrary, the fact is that the agreement clearly states that Australia will not impose or maintain any limitations on the total number of visas to be granted or require labour-market testing, economic-need testing or other procedures of similar effect as a condition for temporary entry.

In a similar vein, the Liberal government also agreed to an investor-state dispute settlement provision, which is a provision that Labor has always said it would never include in a free trade agreement or treaty, given particularly the implications that arise in implementing domestic legislation or ongoing legal implications for both state and federal governments and government owned enterprises. Having said that, Labor has always recognised the significant economic position arising from a free trade agreement with China. Providing improved access to Chinese markets for exporters, particularly in agriculture, mining, resources, manufacturing and services is, unquestionably, a good thing.

While China is already our largest trading partner, I acknowledge that the free trade agreement will enhance our economic relationship with China. While there is bipartisan support for a free trade agreement with China, the reality is that bipartisan support for ChAFTA has only occurred following Labor's successful negotiation in implementing a number of amendments to underpinning provisions to tackle what we believe to be significant shortcomings and, importantly, providing appropriate safeguards for Australian jobs, wages, workplace skills and safety standards.

This could have and should have occurred earlier but for the government's intractable position. The safeguards negotiated and now agreed to will significantly improve the free trade agreement with China. The safeguards will, firstly, require labour market testing for all work agreements; secondly, require a market salary rate for standard 457 visas to use and require 457 visas to reference enterprise agreement rates where they exist, in respect to wages benchmarks; and, thirdly, require the implementation of more stringent visa conditions for 457 workers in trade occupations.

These are good things and these are things that will certainly create a greater degree of confidence in entering into a free trade arrangement with China. There is no doubt these safeguards will support employment opportunities for Australian workers by requiring prospective employers to demonstrate a skills shortage and genuine need to access temporary skilled migration, as jobs cannot be filled by local workers. With the changes proposed to regulations under the Migration Act, it will require the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to have regard to whether the work agreements entered into will support or create jobs for Australian jobs down the track. In doing so, the minister will also have the power to impose additional conditions in these agreements to ensure they have a positive impact on Australian jobs.

Another area of significant concern about the free trade agreement with China is the specific removal of mandatory skills assessments for Chinese workers in various trades, including carpenters, mechanics and electricians. Mandatory skills assessments are used to determine whether a worker has the necessary skills and experience to work in particular occupations in Australia. Through Labor's efforts, an agreement has now been reached providing for a new visa condition for workers on 457 visas, which will require the evidence of occupational licenses within 90 days to ensure that applicants possess the requisite skills and experience. Alongside that, Labor has also negotiated the appropriate indexation of the temporary skilled migration income thresholds. These changes will all benefit the appropriate consideration of temporary workers coming into the country.

There is no doubt that, in its current form, the provisions of the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement would not have been signed off by the Labor Party. However, Labor is determined to expand and deepen our economic relationship with China, we are determined to create more opportunities for Australia for now and into the future and we are determined to ensure that the benefits of trade flow to our communities in the form of higher growth, more jobs and better living standards.

In that respect, I believe that the Labor provisions negotiated with the government are not only complementary to the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement but also significantly enhances its operations. But importantly, these changes will address real concerns held by the community, particularly in respect to Australian jobs. Having said that, I support the passage of this legislation.

See this speech in context