Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"the House declines to give the bill a second reading until there are better protections in the Trans-Pacific Partnership for labour rights and the environment, and a prohibition on investor-state dispute settlement provisions".

We have the opportunity now—not after the next election if there's a change of government and not at some time in the future, but right now—to send the government back to the drawing board to negotiate an agreement that does not include investor-state dispute resolution provisions and that does not weaken labour rights in this country. We know, because we've heard everyone except the government say it during the course of this debate and in public, that this TPP agreement weakens local labour laws. And it does that by including provisions in it that allow other countries to have workers sent here, and those workers come here without labour-market testing. They come here without an adequate assessment of skills, and they end up getting exploited. They get exploited because they're brought here and while they're here they very often get told, 'We're going to pay you substandard wages and conditions and, if you arc up, we will send you back.' Not only does it exploit those overseas workers but it means local wages and conditions get depressed as well. We know this because we've been saying this for some time, and the unions have been saying it for some time, and independent experts have been saying it for some time.

But we've heard over the last few days, as recently as Insiders on the weekend, the Labor Party saying it. The Labor Party is saying, 'It is bad that these trade agreements have provisions that allow corporations to sue governments and allow big gaping holes to be opened up in our labour and migration laws.'

The good news is that we now have a chance to do something about it. But it seems to be the case that Labor, in classic style, is saying, 'No. Let's wave this legislation through as quickly as possible, sign up to the deal as quickly as we can, and then maybe, if we win government, we'll come back and renegotiate it.' Now I hope that there is a change of government at this election, because this rotten government has lost the right to govern. But, when you've got the opportunity while you're in opposition to force a better deal, you should take it. What the Labor Party wants us to do is the equivalent of saying, when you're buying a house: 'Yes, I'll pay you $800,000 for it now, but after the deal's signed I might go back and try to renegotiate it and get the price down to $700,000.' You don't say that to the vendor. What vendor is going to do that?

What the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, knows is that the time to strike is before the ink is dry, so New Zealand has negotiated itself an exemption from a number of the objectionable provisions of this agreement, and we should do the same. The idea that a new government is going to be able to walk back to those countries who've already signed on the dotted line, who've already given up as much as they want to give up in order to get this deal, is just fanciful, as is the idea that somehow, after the election, we're going to be able to negotiate all of these exemptions with other countries. As far as I'm aware, it has never happened, and there's a reason for that. If you're the other country, when the new Prime Minister comes knocking on your door and says, 'Excuse me, I made a promise to get myself over the election and I'd now like some more favourable treatment for my country,' what do you reckon you're going to say? Are you going to say yes? Of course you're not.

The time to strike is now. So I say to Labor: let's stand up to this rotten government rather than enable them. I expect an approach from the Liberals that says: 'Let's sign away the rights of government to act unfettered in their population's interests and let's allow corporations to have a say over what governments do.' I expect the Liberals to say, 'When there's a dispute between multinationals and governments, let's have the dispute worked out by a secret panel of lawyers that is able to make its decisions behind closed doors and doesn't operate according to any usual court proceeding and let's just allow that panel to say, "No, government X. I'm sorry, you can't pass laws in favour of your population, because it infringes on a corporation's profits."' I expect the Liberal government to say, 'We should be able to contract out of the labour market testing provisions in Australia's law by giving certain countries unfettered rights to fly in planeloads of exploited workers.' But what I ask of the Labor Party is that it stand up to them. You're the opposition. The clue's in the name. Oppose sometimes. Oppose when the government does something bad. Don't sit there and say, 'We're wringing our hands because the government did something bad but we couldn't do anything about it.'

We have just had a tied vote in this House because all of the crossbenchers, for varying reasons, have expressed concerns about how trade deals are being negotiated in this country. Far be it from me to speak on behalf of my colleagues on the crossbench, because we come from a variety of political points of view, but I think it is fair to say that, across the political spectrum, people are sick and tired of governments signing up to deals through this opaque black-box process and just asking us to take on face value that it's going to be good for agriculture or for manufacturing or for workers in this country. We don't want that anymore. We want a better process for negotiating these trade deals. We don't want to be in a position where parliament is told, 'I'm sorry, the government has gone out and agreed to contract out of the minimum provisions in Australian labour law and you just have to cop it.' We are standing up.

I say to the Labor Party: you've got the five crossbenchers speaking with one voice, saying that there has got to be a better way to negotiate trade deals in this country. It's not that we're opposed to trade deals—certainly from my perspective—but they shouldn't be at the expense of local workers and they shouldn't be at the expense of other protections. We have the opportunity right here, right now, to do something about it. I say to Labor: don't go crowing about the tied vote if straightaway afterwards you come in and vote with the government to enable their legislation to get through. We have the chance to do something about this right now.

I heard the minister at the table before say, 'It's okay; under our existing free trade deals it would be illegal to underpay workers.' The minister misses the point. At the moment the system is structured in such a way that, whatever the laws say in Australia, companies based in the countries with whom we have these trade deals can bring in workers without an independent assessment of their skills on the way in. If questions are asked when those workers are here, we usually or sometimes find that those workers are on the next plane out. The government puts no effort into monitoring the system, so exploitation is rife. As I said, that hurts those overseas workers and hurts the local workers as well.

Back in 2016 in Melbourne in Richmond in my electorate—I stand to be corrected, but my recollection was that it was in Richmond—some workers had come from China to work on installing a car stacker in a new apartment block. There are people in Australia who know how to install a car stacker, but these workers came in on a visa and were never checked on their way in. You don't have to check; it is all a paper based system at the moment. They were paid lower than the local wage to help build an apartment block in Melbourne. There was no local advertising for these positions first, because, when the company from the other country signs a piece of paper that says, 'We need these highly skilled workers and there is a shortage,' it gets ticked and flicked in the department. When the union got involved and found the rampant underpayment, these people were put back on a plane and weren't heard from again. When they came into the country, the visa was approved on the same day it was applied for. Don't tell me that these rigorous checks are going on, because they're not. We find that they come through and, when we find out they're being exploited, get sent back.

In 2018 on a job in Queensland a company claimed to be bringing in workers on the basis of unique, highly specialised skills. They were performing electrical work, testing and installing some solar panels. There are people in Australia who can do that. It's routine electrical installation work. There was no advertising of their positions first, there was no verification of skills, and they were paid less than the local wages. Again it was the union, not the government, that got involved and managed to get them back pay for some of that, but that's only the ones they were able to catch. The government lets many of these through the net.

As we speak right now over 100 workers on the Hobart Hospital project have been brought in on visas under the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, claiming unique, highly specialised skills, which is the test under the law. They're performing carpentry, window-fitting—

Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Plastering.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and plastering, the member for Denison tells me. Don't say that we can't find people who can do that work here. You know why there is an incentive to bring those workers in? Because they didn't get paid for five or six weeks. The union again—in this instance the CFMMEU—got involved and has forced some of the back pay, but many of these workers are now being disappeared and sent back to China.

This is a pattern—pattern after pattern. We raised it in this House when the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement was being signed. We asked Labor to vote with us on some amendments then, and they said no. Labor has known about this for a very long time. You even acknowledge that these issues still exist, but you won't vote with us to stop them. You are enabling this neoliberal government. There is a reason this government is on the nose. It is because people in this country are sick of the trickledown troika of Labor, Liberal and big business. They are sick of three decades of being told that we have to sell everything off and have a race to the bottom. They are sick of being told that society has to be dog-eat-dog, where paying people the lowest-possible wages is the only ultimate goal of everything.

They want protection of the things that matter and they want people to be looked after here and for people to be looked after overseas as well. You can oppose these trade deals and argue that they should be better, not because you don't want people from overseas coming to this country but because you want a bare minimum in place that says that if someone comes to Australia to do work here then they should get paid the local minimum wages and conditions. It is not objectionable to argue that. And we now know, because we've seen it time after time after time, that these so-called free trade deals aren't actually just about free trade; they are about giving corporations greater rights than they already have and greater rights as against everyday people.

We have seen time after time examples of abuse. So, we need to stop it. We know that at the moment when you bring people in and there's no skills testing; you just put the right code on the form and the department grants it. We know that there's no rigorous labour market testing at the moment and, to the extent that there is, so many countries are now going to get an exemption as a result of this. And we know that it's fanciful to think that the countries that have that are suddenly going to give it up just because there happens to be a new Prime Minister. Why on earth would they do that? I hope they do, but I wouldn't be pinning my whole trade and labour policy on that basis. But that's what this Labor Party is doing.

We know that in many instances these visas are issued on the same day that they're requested, suggesting that there could be no independent testing of skills; it is just not happening. To the extent that there is any assessment, it's a paper based administrative assessment, and we don't even see in the TPP or in this legislation a simple statement that says that if someone comes to Australia to do the work then they should be paid local wages and conditions. You would think—

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's called domestic labour law.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And I hear the minister chime in, 'Oh, it's called domestic labour law.' What you don't get is that you're carving out exemptions to this labour law under this. You are carving out exemptions by saying that people can come in without the proper testing and without even any assessment about what their skill level is. How can you know whether someone's being paid properly, if you don't know objectively what their skill level is? That's the situation you are about to tick off on.

We've got the chance to do something about it right now, and I am moving that this bill be parked until we do what New Zealand's done and what some other countries have done, and that is go and negotiate some more protections under this agreement. Do not sign off now on giving corporations greater rights at the expense of everyday people. Do not sign off on total exemptions to our labour and migration law. Send the government back and, until they come back with a better deal, we should not pass this legislation.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Melbourne has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted, with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I'll state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

TTER () (): The Labor Party, from my experience over nearly 50 years as a member for parliament—the labour movement, the unions will take it and cop it for a fair while, out of loyalty to the Labor Party, and then they've got to make some examples. They've got to let the Labor Party know that they give the money and support for the Labor Party on condition that the Labor Party looks after their working members. You can't con them all the time. That's the problem, Labor Party: you can't con them all the time. The ACTU has brought out some wonderful stuff, like how one in two jobs since 2013 go to temporary visa holders.

The minister says, 'Oh, the law.' Minister, go out and have a yarn with your local taxi driver or taxi owner and ask him how good your laws are. Do any of the people in this House know what's really going on in the world? Go into the workplaces that the honourable member for Melbourne has talked about. Go into the workplaces and see that, yes, the law is being met and, yes, they are paying them award wages; but they charge them $200 a week for accommodation. The accommodation consists of three beds on that side, three beds on that side and a metre and a half between the two beds. That's the room, and about 60 or 70 people share a toilet and a bathroom.

The migration agents and the visa agents get a big quid out of it. Of course, they have to give a kickback to the employer. He's not going to do business with them unless he is getting something out of it. You simply have a round robin that's going on. To say that the Liberals and the Labor Party don't know about this is not just Machiavellian but positively Orwellian. The free trade policies introduced by Mr Whitlam took 25 per cent of the tariffs away across the board. Mr Keating announced that we would be the most free economy on earth, with no restrictions on trade, and we would be the tough guys on the block.

I always use the analogy of the gladiator. We say to our gladiator, 'Give me your helmet, give me your shield, mate, and go into the arena.' The gladiator says, 'The other bloke has a shield and a helmet to protect him. Aren't I going to get the bad ending?' We say, 'No, it will make you tough. Fighting with a sword, without any protection, will make you tough.' The gladiator says, 'It won't make me tough. It will make me dead.' That's what the gladiator called the motor vehicle industry said: 'It won't make me tough. It will make me dead. I don't exist any more.' The gladiator that is the whitegoods industry says, 'It won't make me tough. It will make me dead.' The whitegoods industry has gone. The textile industry has gone. The glass industry has gone. The steel industry, the same as the motor vehicle industry, said, 'If you don't do something, we can't stay on in Australia.' It's three-quarters gone. There is only a quarter of it left; it's about to go as well. The aluminium industry, of course, is also doomed under your policies. What have you got left?

These people come in here and not one of them would know a moo-cow or a sheep from a damn scarecrow. They come in here and tell us, 'It will be good for rural Australia!' How good? Our beef production is down 20 per cent, our dairy production is down 30 per cent, our sugar production is down 17 per cent and our sheep herd is down 70 per cent. That's four out of your five big guys. I dare say the fifth one, the grains industry, is doomed. We can't possibly compete with the Americans, who are cross-subsidised by ethanol. The Brazilian sugar industry is cross-subsidised by ethanol. For seafood and pork, we are now the importers of seafood and pork. Half the time, we are now importers of fruit and vegetable. What sector of agriculture did it help? It didn't help agriculture. It didn't help manufacturing.

God bless the trade union movement, because they've been a bit slow in awakening. But as Napoleon said, 'Don't wake up China. If it wakes, it will shape the world.' I will tell you, the trade union movement is waking up and they are going to start kicking out the Labor members whose endorsements they are going to remove. If they don't, they are not worth feeding as a trade union movement. But I have great faith in the union movement. They have never supported us in the last 15 years, but we support them and we will continue to support them. That's because Australia needs that.

The member for Melbourne Ports is absolutely dead right: it is a mockery. How could the minister think that when he comes from the Atherton Tablelands? I don't mean to be personal. He is a nice guy. His parents are lovely people. They would be great contributors up there. But he comes into this place and says he is not aware of what happened in the tobacco industry, whose product was on the crest of his own local authority, and he doesn't know what happened to the dairy and maize industries, whose products were on the crest of a nearby local authority. He says he doesn't know what happened to any of these industries. Well, of course he does. He knows exactly what happened to them. But he has a policy, like the Labor Party, of free trade.

Anyone who reads history books knows about those great men in the AWU, for example. The ALP leader comes out of the AWU. Their entire executive was jailed for three years with hard labour for having a work stoppage. The Labor movement are the people really betraying their own people. Their betrayal is on a scale that every history book will write about. Don't think the workers of Australia, with their hard hats and hard hands, are so dumb that they can't pick it up. I'll be doing a little tour through a number of industrial areas shortly, and if they haven't woken up I'll be waking them up; that's for certain. They're not going to keep copping it. It was the Labor Party that introduced the mass visa entrance to this country, which has undermined our pay and conditions. Our biggest employer in this country is the mining industry, where wages have gone down from around $200,000 a year—which miners richly deserve, because it is dangerous and hard, and you have to live away from home now—down to $100,000, and they won't be stopping there.

The union movement—the ACTU and the CFMEU—have done brilliant papers on the casualisation of labour, the dangers of section 457, the undermining of our pay and conditions, and the race to the bottom. To back up the honourable member for Melbourne Ports, if a Chinese company is considering buying a corporation in Australia and they know they can bring their own workers in and, through round robins, pay them half of what Australian companies have to pay, that company becomes a marvellous target for China, because they know that they can take the whole Australian market out from under everyone. Let me turn to the electricity industry, one of the most important industries, if not the most important industry, in this country. I'm not going to go into that. When we put solar panels on the roofs, we send the jobs to China, of course, and close down the jobs in the power stations and the mines in Australia, but we won't go into that; that's an aside. The real issue in electricity is that I was under the impression that China had 25 per cent of the electricity industry, but it appears now that they have more like 40 per cent of the Australian industry, and they have a number of workers in key positions.

Let me be very specific: in the Tully sugar mill, which has been bought by the Chinese, the CEO, the manager of the mill, is now Chinese. All of the staff in the administration building, I'm told reliably, are now Chinese. Very soon, all the foremen and senior positions in that sugar mill will be Chinese. They're probably paying these people half, effectively, of what was being paid before, so already they've got a market advantage on the other sugar mills. So the other sugar mills—which, I might add, are mostly Chinese owned too—will start competing. So you're watching not the race to the bottom but the drive to the bottom.

But the Australian people are waking up. Where we can get our message out in places like North Queensland, we and the other minor parties are rolling up nearly 40 per cent of the vote, whereas the best the mainstream parties can do is 30 per cent. This is six or seven per cent of the population of Australia, so, if we do that in four or five other places, you big parties are gone. You will go where you deserve to go, into oblivion, which is exactly what happened to the free market parties in this country at the turn of the last century.

As I walk into this place, I put up my fist in solidarity with the first member for Kennedy, Charlie McDonald, one of the founders of the Labor movement in this country. If he knew what was taking place here, he would spit on the people on this side of the parliament. He would expect it from that side of the parliament, but he would spit on these people on this side of the parliament, because they are the ones that really commenced all of this. If you have a look at how much free trade they are responsible for compared to the Liberals, they win pretty comfortably. It is a very sad day for the people of Australia, who have showed 100 years of loyalty to the Labor movement, that they could be betrayed on the scale that they are being betrayed upon. I take great confidence in backing my colleagues in the cross benches on this issue— (Time expired)

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is interrupted. In accordance with standing order 43 the debate may be resumed at a later hour.