Lefty,

"A business person who is an Installer or Servicer of machinery or equipment, where such installation or servicing by the supplying enterprise is a condition of purchase under contract of the said machinery or equipment, and who must not perform services which are not related to the service activity which is the subject of the contract."

Firstly read the definition,
-Machinery and equipment - not kit houses
-and who must not perform services which are not related to the service activity which is the subject of the contract.
-Entry is for periods of stay up to a maximum of three months.

Secondly, this exists to some extent already, as my company bring out equipment suppliers' experts to install and maintain sophisticated equipment, but at a price tag of about $10k p.w. these are not your average tradesmen.

In all, your average Aussie worker is under no threat.

From: /independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/if-the-tpp-was-really-about-trade-it-would-include-china,8249

"When one thinks about the costs of trade barriers and the benefits of trade liberalisation in these terms, it is easy to see major flaws in the TPP as an economic policy.

Firstly, because tariff barriers are all already very low between the member countries, any economic gains that might be realised by mutual concessions are likely to be exceedingly small. Reasonable estimates come up with numbers like one tenth of a percent of GDP. This, as the Nobel Laureate and economist Paul Krugman notes, is hardly world-shaking."

Why then is it that China is not included into this little club of latte quaffing tossers ? What else is in the 'fine print' ?
What else is not being disclosed, prior to and once the TPP is signed off and legally in effect?

Let's take a little look down memory lane...
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/mind-the-gap-benefits-from-free-trade-havent-quite-gone-the-distance-20100302-pg6p.html

"But short-term political benefits flow in the other direction. A bilateral meeting with a friendly leader presents many domestic political advantages. It gives the appearance of advancing the national interests and attracts intense and usually uncritical media coverage.

After bilateral meetings, leaders can sing each other's praises and hail the breakthrough their mutual brilliance has achieved. In practice, the promised benefits often fade just a little more slowly than the TV lights."

Sounding a bit like Dastardly Sams misdemeanour somewhat and sorry, but the words: "...short term political advantage..." ring louder every time I read the letters 'T' 'P' and 'P' in the same sentence.

shadow minister
Your right I can’t find a smoking gun in the information provided on the DFA web site, and you will excuse me if I don’t wade through all 2700 pages looking for one. It is clear to me that you live in a different world to most Australians, as you own or work for company that pays out about $200 per hour to some of your overseas staff.

It is also clear you have not talked to ordinary worker/consumers that make up most of the population of Australia, about how they are doing these days economically speaking. You may think we are economic illiterates for not trusting this so called trade agreement, but as a member of the ordinary worker class I have seen my economic advancement opportunity dwindle by the decade.

In case you had not noticed housing is now un affordable, job security is virtually nonexistent, and my kids have been loaded up with student dept , that will they will probably have deducted from their pension assuming that is still around when they retire.

So in future I would appreciate it if you would try to avoid calling people like me economically illiterate, as I can tell you I may not know how to find the devil in the detail of these pro businesses trade deals, but I understand the economic plight of the average occa far better than you do, and I have never actually lived there.
Chris

The TPP was negotiated between the Government and private Corporations behind closed doors and no public debate was allowed or even considered.
The only reason we found out even some of the details in advance was due to leaks.

It's a sell-out of our rights as citizens in favour of Corporate interests and provides no assurances for such matters as the environment.

It's fine to say that the Government can be sued under certain circumstances but ultimately it's always the taxpayer who pays.

Like those heavily politically promoted Free Trade Agreements, which promised much but end up costing us more as individuals, the TPP is potentially even worse.

If it was such a terrific deal for the taxpayer/consumer, the details would have been shouted from the rooftops by politicians long ago.

It seems now even some American politicians are reluctant to sign-off on it because of the increased Corporate power that will result.

Lefty,

Free trade through lowering tariffs and other trade barriers is primarily responsible for the massive increase in living standards over the past 4 decades, which is why it has been pursued by governments of all stripe in all countries.

However, it does threaten inflexible and heavily unionised industries, which is why the CFMEU are trying to rubbish it as well as every other trade deal. So if you don't want to appear economically illiterate check your facts.

Even if you read through all 2700 pages you won't find any clause which backs up your simplistic propaganda.

shadow minister
So my propaganda is simplistic is it, where as yours can be backed up by facts.

Well how about you read the latest data put out by the Australian government regarding the standard of living for your average occa.It all depends how you measure your standard of living, which I am guessing for you, things are just peachy.

So measured in simple terms of overseas goods price, and the amount of cash you start the week with you would be correct.However when we get to the number of hours you have to work, the percentage of your wage that goes for housing, and the amount of crime has increased in Australia, then you a demonstrably wrong.

I think the appropriate phrase here is, "hoisted on your own pattered".

Then there is the issue of them pesky unions who have this annoying habit of asking to get a fair suck of the sav when comes to sharing out the profits of a company they work for.It used to be that the ratio between management and workers was more reasonable 40 years ago, however gap is much larger now, to a point of being obscene.

As you are obviously part of management,I suspect you cant wait to completely de unionize, and get every one on a zero hour contracts.

Final point is I don't see any one else on the thread who has anything good to say about TPP I guess your sales pitch is not going so well with the rest of us economic illiterates.
Chris