For all the talk of being for free markets, Labor and the unions are running huge protectionist scare campaigns against the FTA with China and the TPP with a mixture of half truths and outright lies.

Paul Kelly says it best:

"There are two factors at work here. First, the union campaign is based on the premise the public will not accept the risk to Australian jobs implicit in the deal. And second, there is concern about China’s development model — bringing in large numbers of foreign workers for projects. While Australia talks endlessly about the opportunities from a closer economic, trade and investment relationship with China, our ability as a nation to manage this expanding relationship with a supporting public and transparent policy remains in doubt. The FTA will become a pivotal test of our political system. This conflict is not about trade but about job protection. It is a long-standing battle played out during the Gillard government when it tightened the rules against temporary foreign workers. The issue penetrates to Labor’s union-driven suspicion of temporary foreign workers, a global trend guaranteed to intensify.

While “Aussie jobs” is a populist slogan, Labor is playing with political fire. Its position is a touchstone that will further alienate business and cast Labor as sacrificing substantial economic gains for union demands. Robb estimates that delaying the tariff reductions in a range of areas, including, coal, meat, dairy and wine, will cost $300 million next year.

Labor is bidding up this issue. Its future options are dangerous — voting against the FTA or abandoning its insistence on tighter job guarantees. Abbott and Robb regard the notion of seeking changes at this stage as the height of irresponsibility. This is surely correct given this deal has been 10 years in the making.

Liberal MP Angus Taylor went on the offensive yesterday, branding Labor’s stand “economic vandalism at its worst”. Taylor said: “This is a deal to eliminate taxes on Australian exports to China. It is time for the FTA to enter into force. New Zealand did their deal with China years ago."

The terms of the agreement should have been laid bare long ago and not done in secrecy. You can not trust what Abbott does or says.
China being able to bring in labour at will is not in Australia's best interest.
Abbott is number one when it comes to scare campaigns.
Like subs for Japan, his secret deals are obvious. The subs were in japans hands before the last election. Anything to get a trade deal at any cost.
What Paul Kelly wrote is correct. There is suspicion, and rightly so. That is not what labor would have signed.

What has a free trade agreement got to do with free movement of labour the likes of Cabinet makers, welders, mechanics, plus a host of others. with provisos of bypassing 457 visa requirements thrown in. These requirements are a pivotal part of the FTA agreement.
Abbott is a goose, and should be jailed for Treason.

Dear Minister Robb,

I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of this date, which reads as follows:

In connection with the signing of the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement (the “Agreement”) and discussions in relation to Chapter 8 (Trade in Services) and Chapter 10 (Movement of Natural Persons), I have the honour to confirm the following understanding shared by the Governments of Australia and China:

The Parties undertake to cooperate to streamline relevant skills assessment processes for temporary skilled labour visas, including through reducing the number of occupations currently subject to mandatory skills assessment for Chinese applicants for an Australian Temporary Work (Skilled) visa (subclass 457). Australia will remove the requirement for mandatory skills assessment for the following ten occupations on the date of entry into force of the Agreement.

Automotive Electrician [321111]
Cabinetmaker [394111]
Carpenter [331212]
Carpenter and Joiner [331211]
Diesel Motor Mechanic [321212]
Electrician (General) [341111]
Electrician (Special Class) [341112]
Joiner [331213]
Motor Mechanic (General) [321211]
Motorcycle Mechanic [321213]

Doog,

Here is the full text of the agreement

http://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/chafta/official-documents/Documents/chafta-agreement-text.docx

Did you perhaps get your quote from the anti trade CFMEU?

The very same document there SM. Heavily tilted toward Abbott's arrogance and grossly in China's interest's. Free trade is one thing Free movement of labour is another, and all in the same document.
There is justified cause why labor is requesting labour movement be renegotiated.

When you see what has been agreed to is probable been the cause of negotiation for years. Abbott being Abbott has signed something that should have been the subject of wider approval before any signing taken place. It affects the workers of AU. 457 Visa's are bad enough without lessoning the rules for Chinese workers. No wonder why Abbott has bristled up. He has something to hide.

Free Trade Agreements should not have free movement of workers as a pivotal part of a Free Trade Agreement.

Doog,

How very xenophobic of you. Firstly that is a separate letter to the agreement, and secondly, the acceptance of skill levels of Chinese tradesmen (as they do for other countries) does not mean that the Chinese don't have to advertise positions locally before hiring and have to pay the same EBA rates as local tradesmen.

The movement of workers is still a long way from being free.

SM a couple of questions;
Does the right of foreign corporations to sue the Australian government
apply because a law disadvantages the foreign corporation if the
subject matter is an employment matter that would prevent foreign
workers either being employed or removed ?

Is it intended that foreign workers would be employed on a project for
twenty or thirty years ?
If so is that not a bypass on our immigration laws ?

It is a separate letter but it is pivotal to the free trade agreement, like a host of other letters signed off as pivotal to the free trade agreement.

Side Letter on Skills Assessment and Licensing [DOCX 39 KB] |

With the removal of trade barriers, structural unemployment may occur in the short term. This can impact upon large numbers of workers, their families and local economies. Often it can be difficult for these workers to find employment in growth industries and government assistance is necessary

Free trade can lead to pollution and other environmental problems as companies fail to include these costs in the price of goods in trying to compete with companies operating under weaker environmental legislation in some countries.

International markets are not a level playing field as countries with surplus products may dump them on world markets at below cost. Some efficient industries may find it difficult to compete for long periods under such conditions. Further, countries whose economies are largely agricultural face unfavourable terms of trade (ratio of export prices to import prices) whereby their export income is much smaller than the import payments they make for high value added imports, leading to large CADs and subsequently large foreign debt levels.

I guess these free trade agreements will achieve their purpose, However I see their purpose as something entirely different to what is being promoted.

Free trade must lead to a level playing field. One with a country with much lower living standards, must inevitably bring ours down in the long term. The fact that we no longer do anything better than the rest of the world, can only hasted that decline in living standards caused by free trade agreements.

Granted we must reduce the very high wages we pay ourselves, particularly in the public sector, & the ridiculously high welfare bill, with half the population on welfare today. We must also get over our love affair with McMansions. The fibro box most of us were raised in is perfectly adequate shelter. The palaces my kids aspire to, or are mortgaged to the hilt to afford are unnecessary.

However using free trade to achieve this, although politically smart, is going to mean many, particularly in the private sector, are seriously hurt as they start to bite.

Reading some oldies, & some leftie websites shows that most believe they should receive more, so there's not much chance of appealing to the intelligence of the population. Perhaps these agreements, with their likely brutal results are the only way. Hang onto your hats folks, we live in interesting times, & they are about to get much more so.

Bazz,

The harmonisation of regulations to which you refer is part of the TPP not the FTA with China, and is in place not primarily for Australia, but more for the developing countries in the pacific and is aimed at preventing whimsical and backdated legislation that affects the long term investments of investors. This is often referred to as sovereign risk.

For example in India it is common for local governments to wait until a foreign company has established itself then introduce a tax on say payroll and back date it a couple of years, essentially extorting money by creating new laws under which the company would not have set up if it had known.

For a company to be able to sue, it has to show that the new laws were unexpected and not consistent with international law, which would preclude suits on most Australian laws and regulations. The odd one such as the banning of Sales of live cattle to Indonesia would create a liability for the government.

Secondly, these refer to 457 visas that are valid for 4 years that can be renewed once. These people don't get Medicare nor free schooling or housing. So unless they get PR, they are there for the short term only.

Doog,

The lowering of tariffs has generally accompanied increased employment, improved environmental controls and greater prosperity. Opposing FTAs is short term protectionism and economically moronic.

Who has decided on this proposed crash of wages, working conditions, living standards, welfare, environmental care, national sovereignty? Who is advantaged? The 1%. Who is allowed to take part in the negotiations? The 1%. The free trade agreements and beyond have never been the subject of election campaigns or public referenda. This catastrophic loss planned in secret for the 99% is not decided on by any electorate anywhere in the world. Its planning and execution at the political and administrative level can only be described as treason.

Thanks SM.
One vital factor no one has mentioned on here is that global trade will
be reducing over the coming years. All the trade rule changes and money
fiddling won't make the slightest difference.

The real problem that will arise is how to manage these complicated
trade treaties in an era of reducing and zero growth and reducing international trade.

They appear to me to be a solution for 20th century trade.

Bazz, what makes you think global trade will be reducing over the coming years?

Bazz,

For once I agree with Aidan, trade world wide has been steadily increasing for more that a century with brief dips only for major calamities like wars.

NZ has an FTA with China, and has already seen a huge boost in dairy and other sales, far exceeding what Aus provides.

The FTA will increase trade, employment and the general welfare of Australians. The only reason the Unions are against it is to provide protection to the last outposts of inefficient unionised companies.

SM, nothing gets done without expending energy.
Energy is getting more expensive and growth is declining.
All countries are having difficulty with growth, the US is exceptionally
having a holiday because of the tight shale oil they have had for the
last few years but that is coming to an end.

As all countries find their economies winding down to lower levels of
activity, trade, especially international trade will decline.
If Hasbeen is right and ships switch to nuclear power, then the cost
may stabilise and freight will be one less factor pulling down growth.

Nevertheless we are tied to our energy decline and until we find the
next energy regime we will continue the growth decline.
That is why Tony's removal of windfarm subsidies and diverting funds
to energy research is a very badly needed change of direction.

Talk, talk, talk: what happens behind closed doors discussions seems endless. 1990s Australian trade deficits news fear stories were endless. come post 2000, somehow trade deficits are no longer a finance media scare story.

How about this theory: in a global village concept example: Australia sends iron ore to China and China sends consumer goods to Australia allowing Australian currency worth earning. Chinese consumer good get cheaper allowing workers to believe that inflation is low, allowing workers a belief is saving money for retirement.
Iron ore producer work force wages are paid for with invented bank credits.

Another example: Philippines has 100 million people yet exports little more than Philippine citizen. Philippines have motor vehicles; fuels; all manner of things. I believe a trade is one sided in favour of the Philippines.

Download the Kindle edition of "Declarations of Dependence". by Joseph M. Firestone (2015-07-20) from Amazon at about a tenner for a plain language forensic analysis of the TPP and related agreements beihg stitched up in secret behind our backs. Dr Firestone is American but the American perspective closely mirrors our own. If even American sovereignty is threatened what does that say for Australia's?

EJ,

I can find many better uses for $10 than buying an e book from a tin pot conspiracy theorist.

So deals impacting Australian and even American sovereignty are not being hammered out in secret? Nobody is conspiring anything? Full transparency? Open consultation of all stakeholders?

Or not?

Get real.

Correct, Japan will end up with our sub deal, it happened 2 years ago.

EJ,

I rest my case.

The whole argument about sovereignty is complete bollocks as any government can withdraw from these agreements at anytime resolves the issue. All international agreements and laws place restrictions on governments, but they agree because the restrictions are sensible and yield benefits.

For example laws against speeding, drink driving and seat belts all place restrictions on peoples choices, but give all drivers greater safety, lower insurance etc.

If counties import goods into a country for sale. Once goods are sold, money is placed into local banks. Accumulated money can be used to bribe politicians. For defensive reasons, doing business with foreign counties is not that wise.
Foreign countries can invade other countries without firing a shot, taking over political system with bribes, leading to exposing bribe threats, retirement rewards. one bribed politician can control parliaments by blocking political processes.

Countries becoming dependant in consumer goods imports allow the value of money to be controlled by foreign restricting imports allowing inflation to run away.

If ever a political system wanted to destroy local value of money, blaming other countries limited imports could be used.

Allowing local manufactures to close under ideas of importing cheaper goods from foreign countries is either a bad idea or some world government controls trade.

Because of the above reasons mentioned, world trade must be governed by a world government, like as in the Roman Empire 2000 years ago.

steve101, that makes no sense at all. Whether overseas made goods are sold has no bearing on whether politicians can be bribed.

The deals are made in secret because they would not get the support of the Australian people.

I read a story the other day about Aussie Cane growers looking to get a better deal (increased volume) in US markets with the TPP.

What wasnt mentioned was what we might be giving up in return.

From what I understand one provision in the TPP is a provision for the US to export more of its GMO products to other overseas markets and the GMO labelling issue. BY LAW products will not be allowed to be labelled as containing GMO.

Given that some countries have or are in the process of banning all GMO's these deals done in secret also put our health at risk.

And we won't have a choice.
Battlers will always go for the value option.
What will this cost us in healthcare (let alone quality of life of citizens) years down the track?

I was always told to read the fine print.
Deals done in secret can't be in our best interests.
If they were, they wouldn't need to be secret.

AC,

It is exactly those half truths that make the left such a laughing stock.

SM, I usually agree with you but Wayne Swan & Joe Hockey have not
really been forthcoming on the IMF/G20 Bailin deal have they ?
The first the ordinary public, as opposed to likes of us on here,
those mad politicoeconomic/AGW/Peakoil fanatics, is when they go to
the bank one day and find their bank accounts empty except for enough
to buy next weeks groceries.

It really is a big hush hush job, never a mention during the elections
by either side.
Something as important as the power to confiscate everyones bank
deposits would I though justify a mention.

Bazz,

I find the concept of expecting a blow by blow report on the negotiating positions of the parties ludicrous, especially considering that the initial positions of all parties are very seldom the final positions, and negotiations are difficult enough without a peanut gallery.

However, the rationale behind this request for "transparency" becomes obvious once one realises that those asking for this detailed information are not vaguely interested in the finer points of the final deal, but are the loonies that want to sabotage the whole point by nitpicking the various starting requests and running a scare campaign based on wildly improbable scenarios.

SM, I can understand the confidentiality in the current trade negotiations
but the IMF/G20 bail in agreement has been finalised and Australia
signed the documents at the Brisbane G20 meeting.

As distinct to the trade deals almost no one has heard of the IMF
Financial Stability Board/G20 negotiations while they were been
discussed or after we signed up to it.

Of course I understand why it has been very quiet because if the public
found out about the risk to their bank deposits there would be an
uproar like we have never previously heard.

Illicit extension of the other's argument. A sign of bad faith. See Thouless's classic handbook of honesty and dishonesty in debate: "Straight and Crooked Thinking". No, nobody is asking for a blow by blow description of each negotiating point.

Secrecy means the draft documents, the nature of the deal being negotiated, its main thrust, is hidden from the population to be affected. The ill-fated Multilateral Agreement on Inveswtment (MAI) came unstuck the moment someone in Canada got hold of the secret draft and disclosed it to the world. The draft was kept secret because those cooking it up feared that it would meet massive public opposition. It did. The French Government was scared by the public reaction and pulled out. The deal was dead in the water.

Representative government means government OF the people BY the pollies and mandarins FOR those who buy them. Secret international deals always mean that this is what is playing out.

Bazz, we have not signed any agreements which alter the risk to bank depositors.

Bazz,

People depositing money in a bank are essentially lending to the bank are expecting interest which bank pays from its investments. Any lending carries a risk that the borrower will go bankrupt and default.

Banks are the only businesses which lenders get any protection. Banks are also carefully regulated so as to protect the investors which worked well for Aus. The bailout provisions are only for very, very rare circumstances. Have I mentioned scare campaign before?

SM, maybe, Well I have read the most of the documents including the
rules for siezure.
Anyway I am sure the depositors in Cyprus & Portugal will be glad to
hear they had nothing to worry about.

Bazz,

And comes the scare campaign!!

I was talking about Australian banks, and you throw in an example of EU banks that had invested heavily in Greek gov bonds. A scenario that is compatible only if say Aus defaulted.

I also never said that nobody had anything to worry about. I also commented about regulations in Aus to prevent bank default, not in Cyprus or Portugal where the banks were over-exposed to Junk Greek government bonds.

The alternative for depositors in Cyprus or Portugal if the banks were liquidated (note the governments in Cyprus and Portugal couldn't prop them up) would be having their assets frozen and getting a few cents on the dollar years later after the liquidators had finished.

Yes I agree SM with most of what you said and that Australian banks are
in good shape. Nevertheless, if all that is so why sign up and why
keep it is quiet ?

Cheers

Bit more;
Wayne Swan was never one to keep anything quiet that he thought would
make good brownie points, so instead of him shouting;
"I am the world's geatest treasurer and look what I have now brought you;

Cue trumpet salute.

The Bail In Treaty !"

Nope Dead silence.

Seriously though, it does mean thet everyone would treated the same
as other depositors, unless like last time the Russians got wind of it
and pulled their money out first, so it being formalised may be better.

Bazz, I repeat: Australia has not signed any treaty which jeopardises the security of bank deposits in the event of a bank collapse.

Investors in Cyprus had nothing to worry about from any sort of bail in treaty. What they had to worry about was that their government was too broke to guarantee deposits, and the ECB was unwilling to provide the finance to do so.