Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to stand and speak on the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank Bill 2015.

I will do my very best to contain my comments to this bill—unlike the good member for Perth, who managed to make 100 per cent of her contribution dedicated to the free trade agreement! I did not hear the words 'Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank' come across her lips once! Nevertheless, I will try to enlighten the House as to the benefits of a bill which I believe has bipartisan support.

The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank Bill 2015 enables Australia to become a substantial founding member in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which is expected to become operational from late 2015. The bank will boost economic growth, create jobs and promote trade in our region by financing much-needed infrastructure investment, using its authorised capital base of around $100 billion to help address the Asia-Pacific region's acute infrastructure needs, estimated to be around $8 trillion this decade. That is an enormous amount of money that is going to be needed to build wealth in the region.

Can I say in my opening comments how critical this bank set-up is for Australia? We saw that firsthand when China—one of our Asian partners—was doing well, with growth rates of around 13 per cent. Our iron ore, resources, infrastructure and services where we can value-add, like our education services, health services and our food, flourished. But as we saw China come off 13 per cent growth back to where they sit currently at about six per cent, that has had a negative impact on us.

Any economist would share their concern that the long-term sustainability of growth in China at those rates of around 13 per cent was always going to be difficult. We needed to see a correction and a more level long-term average applied to sustainable growth rates in the Chinese market. It just goes to show the point that I want to make: if our Asian partners are doing well and if their lower classes are shifting to their growing middle class then Australia is a beneficiary of that. If Australia is a partner in a project like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank then we will be one of the first to benefit. With the emergence of a growing middle class comes a greater need for protein. We have not only the benefits of the free trade agreement but an extra one million head of cattle will come out of Australia as a result of that free trade agreement, and those on the other side want to say that that is not good for Australia or for Australian jobs.

I beg to differ, and Australia will ultimately be the judge on this. There is a good reason for the member for Perth using the word 'xenophobia' on a number of occasions during her contribution. From the outside, that is what it looks like to anyone looking at how Labor want to address the free trade agreements.

This will create opportunities for the region and Australia by investing in areas such as transport, energy and water infrastructure, ports, logistics, environmental protection, information and communications technology and, as I said earlier, agriculture. We only need to look at some of the current port infrastructure. Some of our Asian partners, like Laos, are not set up for live cattle imports. We are quite happy to partner with them to build those ports to unload cattle. We are quite happy to deal with them to create efficiencies in their resources ports so that when our product gets there we can increase the productivity in those countries, to increase their turnaround times in boat movements. If that means investing in ports, then that is a great investment for Australia to be committed to.

During the GFC, the then government chose to stimulate the economy. We agreed to a stimulus package, but we would have invested the money in far different ways. We would have invested the capital that was needed to stimulate the economy in the very same ways that this global bank is looking to do in Asia—investing in infrastructure; investing in upgrading port facilities, such as at Abbot Point. The capital investments that we would have made would have given the capacity to generate its own income, service its own debt and then, once the debt was paid off, have assets in our country actually deriving revenue and giving a benefit back to the community. As it was, we managed to put pink batts into ceilings and burn 400 houses to the ground. The only thing we stimulated was the building trade, rebuilding homes.

Australia's prosperity and economic growth is tied closely to Asia. A stronger Asian region underpins a stronger Australian economy. Australia will benefit from improved infrastructure throughout the Asian region, which should provide greater opportunities for Australian businesses and increase demand for our services and our commodity exports.

New ports and railways in AIIB member countries, such as India, Indonesia and Korea, will mean that Australian exports can reach new markets or expand existing markets. Our Asian trading partners need strong economies and we need to have strong relationships with them. We are constantly reminded about how we can do immense damage to relationships with trading partners. For example, one phone call can shut down the live cattle trade overnight on the back of one Four Corners program televised here in Australia.

Protein, by way of beef, went from $2 to $7 a kilo in a very short time in Indonesia. There were associated health risks, potentially in the provincial areas, where lack of protein in the diet had substantial community—

Debate interrupted.