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.