Bill Shorten demands job safeguards for supporting China free trade deal
|
Version 0 of 1. Related: China free trade agreement should be renegotiated or blocked, say unions Bill Shorten has spelled out Labor’s minimalist demands for supporting the China-Australia free trade agreement (Chafta) after Tony Abbott sought to put pressure on the opposition for considering the “unconscionable” option of scuttling the deal. Abbott proposed a symbolic motion in the parliament on Tuesday to note the “enormous” potential of the agreement to deliver Australian jobs, growth and investment, and to “fully support” it in its negotiated form. “It can’t be renegotiated. It is a done deal. It’s a deal that we either take or leave and I put it to the house that it would be absolutely unconscionable for us not to take the deal as negotiated by this government with the Chinese,” the prime minister told the lower house. Abbott’s motion was an attempt to pressure the Labor party over its yet-to-be-finalised stance on Chafta, amid a push by unions for the opposition to fight provisions relating to foreign workers and easing of skills assessments. But Shorten, the Labor leader, proposed an amendment to the motion calling on the government to work with the parliament to legislate safeguards “which maximise job opportunities for Australian workers; protect overseas workers from exploitation and maintain Australian wages and conditions; and promote safety on Australian work sites by ensuring the skills and qualifications of temporary trades workers are of the highest standard”. Related: Confused about the China free trade deal? Here's what you need to know Because the government holds a clear majority in the House of Representatives, Shorten’s amendment was defeated and Abbott’s unchanged motion was passed. In an energetic and defiant speech, Shorten insisted that the opposition’s concerns could be addressed in the yet-to-be-tabled enabling legislation without Canberra having to reopen negotiations with Beijing. “Let me be clear. Mr Abbott, we’re not asking you to go back to Beijing; we will come to your office, if that helps,” Shorten said. “Labor’s position is crystal clear and I repeat it again. Mandatory labour market testing for projects over $150m, an assurance that Australian skills and safety will be maintained and that Australian wages will not be undercut.” Labour market testing is a requirement that companies try to find local workers before seeking to hire people from overseas. Shorten’s comments indicate the opposition is focused on the memorandum of understanding that the government reached for Chinese-backed infrastructure development projects worth at least $150m. The document – which does not form part of the formal treaty but was negotiated at the same time – says no labour-market testing is required to enter into one of these overarching “investment facilitation arrangements”. But the memo leaves the door open for the immigration department to force the direct employers of overseas workers to do so. The government has argued employers will be required, as a matter of policy, to apply labour-market testing but Labor has suggested the assurances are inadequate and should be put beyond doubt in legislation. Abbott argued the implementation of Chafta would not require any legislation to change the Fair Work Act or immigration laws. The only bills required, he said, were to change tariff laws “so there’s no changes to the protections for workers”. But the government’s national interest analysis document says that “in order to implement the obligations in Chafta in Australia” the issuing of a determination under the Migration Act “is required in relation to labour market testing”. The trade minister, Andrew Robb, said the claims advanced by unions were “a con” and the government would consider negotiation with Labor “when you come up with something of substance”. “No one except those opposite and the CFMEU supports any of the propositions that you say are weaknesses of this agreement – not one person,” Robb said. Robb said scuttling the deal would inflict “monumental” damage on Australia’s relationship with China. The treasurer, Joe Hockey, said China was undergoing an economic transition and had “massive policy priorities” so it would not return to the negotiating table. Abbott lauded the deal as “by far the best agreement that China has done with any significant developed economy” and reminded the parliament that it had been “10 years in making” with negotiations involving both sides of politics. He underlined the benefits, saying more than 95% of Australia’s exports to China would enter without any tariffs. Related: What would Howard do? How Tony Abbott could salvage China trade deal But Labor speakers launched a full-throttle attack on Abbott’s approach, insisting the prime minister was spoiling for a fight. Labor also argued Abbott was “no John Howard” – a reference to Howard’s approach to amending legislation to secure the US free trade agreement in 2004. Shorten said Abbott’s motion was “the ultimate hollow resolution of the ultimate hollow man”, noting that it pre-empted a report by the joint standing committee on treaties due next month. The related legislation was yet to presented to parliament. “You are the opposition leader in exile. You were never so happy as when you were sitting here, I think,” Shorten told Abbott, referring to the opposition leader’s chair. “You should sit down and talk about our serious legitimate concerns. If you’ve got time to play games like this stunt you’ve got more than enough time to negotiate with the opposition … You are a good man at being stubborn, but you confuse it with strength … Grow up, Mr Abbott, and do your day job.” The deputy Labor leader and foreign affairs spokeswoman, Tanya Plibersek, said Abbott was focused on “weak, empty rhetoric” and “would rather pick a fight than get a result”. Plibersek said there were “weaknesses in this agreement” and she held concerns over the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism that allowed companies to take action against the government. “We have said for many years that this agreement would be critical to Australia’s future but we want an agreement that delivers for China and Australia,” she said. Chafta is at the centre of an intense political dispute as a number of unions, including the CFMEU and the Electrical Trades Union, campaign against the agreement and side deals on the basis of provisions relating to foreign workers and trade skills assessment. The government has characterised those campaigns as misleading and xenophobic and accused Labor of “economic sabotage”. In a sign the union campaigning is resonating in the community, the Business Council of Australia announced on Monday it was launching advertisements “in support of the most important bilateral trade deal Australia has ever done”. The National Farmers’ Federation, the Minerals Council of Australia and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) have previously launched a joint campaign supporting the deal. The chief executive of ACCI, Kate Carnell, said the text of the deal “warrants proper scrutiny” but “a drawn-out debate makes it tougher for Australian businesses to carry out their China export plans with confidence”. “The Labor party must not cower in the face of a union campaign of misinformation,” she said on Tuesday. “The federal Labor party should listen to the senior Labor figures who have backed Chafta, including state leaders, former ministers and even a former prime minister.” |