UPDATE OCTOBER PART TWO 2006

FOREIGN WORKERS FALL FOUL OF SAFETY LAWS

A $60 million building project supported by the NSW Labor Government and the Howard – Vaile Liberal-National Coalition and employing overseas workers on questionable temporary work visas has been halted after receiving 39 infringement notices.

The workers are some of the 40,000 expected to arrive in Australia this year on the so called business visas designed for employers who cannot procure local workers with special skills.  It has been reported that those at the Wetherill Park Building Site, where ABC Tissues in constructing a tissue paper mill and plant, failed to meet the most basic criteria for eligibility for the so called 457 visas.  It is believed up to at least August 4, 2006 these workers were being paid in China which is in breach of their visa conditions, by a Chinese Government owned company acting as a labour hire firm.

ABC Tissues is owned by Henry Ngai, who had a magnetic high level show of support when construction commenced last year, with the Federal Attorney General Philip Ruddock, participating in the sod-turning ceremony.

The Australian Manufacturing Workers Union (AMWU) says that between the foreign workers arrival in February and May 2006, they were not covered by worker’s compensation which is a further breach of regulations.  Workers on 457 visas should be skilled and duly fully qualified for the work they have agreed to undertake, and be prepared to fulfil our country’s safety laws.  But at the ABC Tissues site there were forklift drivers and electricians without appropriate licences.

The site was closed by ABC Tissues in the third week of August 2006 after a major clash with the worker’s Union and an investigation by Work Cover.  It was reported not one of the Chinese workers could speak English, follow emergency procedures or read safety signs.

The majority had to be trained to operate the most menial tasks.  An Australian tradesman on site said he was flabbergasted to witness one of the guest workers make a non – compliant Chinese power tool fit a socket by stripping the cord and inserting naked wires directly into the plug.

At a meeting on August 4, ABC Tissues general manager, Ming Ly, explained to a group of union officials and senior ABC managers  that the workers were being paid in China rather than in Australia .  Mr. Ly was unable to nominate a bank account or how much his foreign workers were being paid or confirm that superannuation was being paid.

ABC Tissues is one of the leading suppliers of tissues and toilet paper in Australia , with factories in Sydney , Brisbane and New Zealand with total revenues of more than $19 million last year.  Approximately 50 Chinese workers were hired by a Chinese Government owned business, the Hunan Industrial Equipment Installation Company, which is supplying labour to an Italian company, A. Celli, who has the contract to build and install the mill for ABC tissues.

The Project has been at the centre of tensions since May between ABC Tissues, the two overseas contractors, and the worker’s union regarding the Chinese workers.

Prime Minister John Howard in June told Federal Parliament that Mr. Ruddock had played no part in the Department of Immigration’s decision not to act on claims that immigration rules had been breached at the site.  It is unclear, if anyone had made such an allegation.

The Prime Minister said the Department of Immigration was investigating the site, but workers and union officials said they have seen no evidence of any investigation.

Mr. Ruddock and the State Manager of the Department of Immigration’s Migration Assistance Scheme, David MacLeod, was present at the sod turning ceremony in September 2005.  A spokesman for Mr. Ruddock said he had attended due to his close relations with the Chinese community.  Mr. Ngai is noted for his generous charity donations and “good relations with all tiers of Government.”

In the past year, Mr. Ngai has been thanked for many donations to various causes by the NSW Unity MP, Peter Wong and the Queensland Labor (ALP) Premier, Peter Beattie.  In 2005, Mr. Ngai also accompanied the Mayor of Fairfield, Nick Lalich, and other Councillors and staff to Shantou in China ’s south to help forge a sister-City relationship, contributing $10,000 to their costs. 

This mill project has been backed by the NSW Government’s major projects unit, which assists business development that benefit the state by providing employment that appears to point to foreign workers being paid slave wages.  Is it possible that the Howard Government’s changes to the Industrial Relations Laws such as Work Choices is to accommodate Foreign Slave Labour.

Australian workers at the site were dumbfounded when the Chinese workers arrived unannounced in February.  They were housed nearby and driven to work each morning by bus, each wearing matching overalls and shiny new red helmets. 

One local worker reported that shortly after they arrived the new workers opened shipping containers stored on-site and unloaded masses of equipment shipped from China , including thousands of boxes of new tools, scaffolding, ladders and safety equipment that did not meet Australian safety specifications.  Another told how he saw a Chinese worker swaying high in the air as he welded a pipe he was tied to, as it dangled from a crane.

“We’d see people on the roof, 20 metres in the air and you couldn’t even yell at them to get friggin down,” he said.  One local worker said he feared someone had died when he came across a group standing around a man prostrate on the ground.  In fact the man was using a pipe to blow dust form a newly frilled hole.  “It was straight out of the 1930’s.”  Despite the evidence of breaches of workplace and immigration regulations, workers on site said they had been told by management that a further 21 visas for overseas workers had been approved.

The Australian workers said it was impossible to maintain a safe site with 2 workforces labouring side-by-side being unable to communicate.  They were also angered that the day the Chinese workers arrived, negotiations with local subcontractors to work on the mill’s installation ended.

The State Secretary of the union, Paul Bastian, said it was absurd that in the eyes of the Department of Immigration the Chinese workers were in Australia plugging a skills gap, while Work Cover was not satisfied they were safe to work unsupervised.  He said the site revealed how poorly policed the 457 program is.

A spokesman for Work Cover said the agency was investigating the insurance and the worker’s compensation situation on the site, but was unable to say how they could prosecute a foreign company in the event it broke the law.

The Department of Immigration refuses to discuss specific cases.  Why?

IS THE FOREIGN WORKER VISA SYSTEM A FORM OF INDENTURED LABOUR

Is there a hidden agenda when the Howard-Vaile Coalition Government says skilled foreign worker visas fill gaps in the Australian workforce.  On Wednesday, August 30, 2006, 77 people working in the rear office of the funds manager BT on the outskirts of Adelaide were informed they would all join the unemployment line by the end of January.  Their jobs were being moved off-shore to India .

The staff, who do everyday banking tasks such as transferring funds and opening accounts, were offered a bonus if they remained to train their replacements.  “Your commitment and efforts are essential to us while we are training our new partner and transferring the work,” a BT memo said.

The audacious part is, these Australian workers are not only losing their jobs, they are being asked to train their replacements, who will enter Australia on a short term business migration scheme planned to support Australian business and thus increase employment.  The increase in skilled-worker visas has been so enormous over the past two years that some observers believe the Government has moved immigration and employment policy by stealth.

There is escalating controversy regarding two visas, the 456, which allows workers into Australia for up to 6 months, and the 457, under which foreigners may work up to four years.

Close to 40,000 foreign workers are expected to be granted 457 visas this year, (2006) up 43 per cent on 28,000 visas last year and a 66 per cent increase on 2003-04.  Because each visa lasts up to four years the “range” of 457 visa workers in Australia is higher still, approximately 48,000.  Including dependents, many of whom may also work it is estimated there are as many as 75,000 people in Australia on the scheme, which shows no sign of easing in growth.

A planned program to help businesses bring executives into Australia is now being utilised to feed the labour demands of companies expanding in the mining boom.  The Howard Government has relaxed the regulations so much that truck drivers, factory workers and kitchen hands are now using the visas.

Employers no longer have to advertise locally before they diversify to overseas labour.  And although they must pay award rates or set minimum wages of between $41,000 and $51,000 per year depending on location and skill level, employers are not required to pay Australian market rates.

Dr. Phil Toner, senior research fellow with the University of Western Sydney ’s Centre for Innovation and Industry Studies, sees this as evidence the Government is using the migration scheme to push down Australian wages.  “Clearly the implication is that though the minimum may be $41,000, any jobs that might have a market rate over that are going to see a downward pressure,” said Toner, the author of a research paper highly critical of the 457 program to be released  on Monday, September 4, 2006.

The program is also a disincentive for employers to spend money, on training exacerbating the existing skills shortage, he said.  Research by the consultant Dr. Bob Kinnaird, published by Monash University ’s Centre for population and Urban Research, shows that about 30% of the visas listed pay rates at the minimum suggesting Australian wages were being undercut. 

The Centre’s director, Dr Bob Birrell, has no doubt this is the Government’s intention.  “There is no question that the goal is to restrain wages, “Birrell Said.  “The Government understands the cost of new mines, conveyer belts, railway lines and ports.”  Dr. Birrell said the Government had piggybacked a new migration policy onto an old visa category to sidestep public debates.

As a result, he said, proper data was not collated and the system was open to abuse.  For example, it is known that about 8,000 employers have been approved to sponsor workers on 457 visas, but not who those employers are.  And the number of foreign workers is known but not who or where they are.  We don’t know because the Government won’t tell us; they say it is a privacy issue Birrell said.  Foreign labour hire-firms have responded to the call as well as Australian companies. 

One a South Korean Government enterprise known as NIAA Korea, recently sent a pamphlet to one of Australia’s largest manufacturers, promising it could provide Australian employers with “candidates (who possess) unique and extremely adaptable work ethics and ideas which may drive your company to new and exciting heights."

Quite, but what occurs if a foreign employer breaks Australian workplace law?  The State Industrial body, Work cover, is investigating claims that Chinese workers on a construction site owned by ABC Tissues worked for 5 months without workplace insurance, a huge infraction by Australian standards.  But a Work Cover spokesman could not say whom it would prosecute even if it proved the claims.

Worse, the visa system provides for a form of indentured labour, its most trenchant critics say.  Because workers rely on their employer not only for their income but also for their visa, some more so those who don’t speak English are vulnerable to exploitation.

Jung Sub Seo entered Australia on a 457 visa to work as a tiler.  He was a passenger driving with a work supervisor from Perth to Sydney when the car crashed and rolled.  Seo suffered a back injury and was unable to work.  His employer refused to pay him or co-operate with insurance processes, and told Seo he would be deported if he complained.  Without a wage or access to social services, Seo had to rely on support from family in South Korea .  Prior to the accident, Seo claimed he was not paid overtime, sick pay or holiday pay for a year.  The CFMEU is now acting on his behalf.

Such exploitation is nothing new, Seo said through an interpreter.  Since many workers eyed the 457 as a prelude to permanent residency, they were willing to put up with shocking abuse rather than leave their employer, he said.

There has been increased attacks on the 457 program in recent months by the Labor Party and the Union against the Howard Government.  The Government, the architect of a controversially tough immigration policy, has intimated the Labor Opposition is pandering to racism.

“We have now got a Leader of the Opposition who tells Australian parents, ‘watch out, the foreigners are coming to take your children’s jobs.’  If you are not ashamed of it, "I am,“ the Immigration Minister Senator Amanda Vanstone, told Parliament last month.  We have shifted from a dog whistle to a foghorn.

Labor’s Immigration spokesman, Tony Burke said Labor’s concern was as much for foreign workers as it was for local unions.  The program should be overhauled to compel employers to seek Australian labour before looking offshore, and to pay market rates, he said.

Vanstone has acknowledged that 457 program has “problems around the edges” but points to research by leading academics released last month which found 93% of those surveyed were professional or skilled workers, with an average salary of $65,000 per year.

Bob Kinnaird questions the research and says it was based on an unrepresentative sample.  “It does not ask the key questions: What were the respondents paid and what were the market rates?  It does not answer the question: Are these people being used as cheap labour?”

Either way, an insight into the thinking of at least one employer was provided by Dick Smith, an executive at the Perth construction company, Hanssen.

“We found that by using this migrant labour they’d just do it the way we wanted,” he told ABC radio in May (2006).  “I’m not saying that they are at a lower level of intelligence:  It just seems that Filipinos can do one task and not do anything different until they’re told to do something different.”

 WORKERS FORCED TO PAY BOSS $10,000

 The following report by Michael Bachelard with Nick O’Malley appeared in the Wednesday, September 6 edition of the Sydney Morning Herald.

A printing company has used the Government’s temporary migration scheme to use four Chinese men like indentured labourers, working them up to 60 hours a week and deducting $10,000 each from their pay.  One of the men Jack Zhang, has told the Herald he was summarily sacked two weeks ago as soon as his $10,000 was paid off, in what one senior union official has described as the worst abuse of the temporary skilled visa system that he has seen.

The money was removed from Mr. Zhang’s pay at the rate of $200 a week over 50 weeks.  His contract was for four years.  The money was paid to the men’s employer, Dor Tu, the owner of the Melbourne printing company Aprint.  After Mr. Zhang was sacked he was immediately replaced by another worker from China , who Mr, Zhang says is also paying Mr. Tu.  Mr. Tu confirmed he had taken money from the workers’ pay, and said it was to pay “lawyer fees” and travel.  He also confirmed another worker was on his way from China to start work next week.

Under the rules of the 457 temporary migration visa, Mr. Zhang must find another job with a registered sponsor or leave the country in 28 days.  His time expires at the end of this month.  Mr. Zhang said that before he came to Australia he was charged another 60,000 Yuan ($9,800) by an agent in China , which included his airfare.  Mr. Zhang said the agent was a friend of Mr. Tu.  He showed the Herald evidence that another $120 a week was deducted from his pay to rent a house owned by Mr. Tu.

Mr. Zhang’s payslips show he was earning $751.92 a week in ordinary time earnings.  However, he said and Mr. Tu confirmed that his standard working week was 60 hours.  That puts his hourly earnings at below the federal minimum rate of $12.75 an hour.  When he worked overtime he was paid a flat rate of $12 an hour.  The award demands double time for weekend work.

The Australian Manufacturing Workers Union’s printing division secretary, Jim Reid, said Mr. Zhang was underpaid at least $388 a week compared with the award rate.  The union will put in a claim for the short-fall.

Mr. Zhang’s story appears to reveal numerous gross breaches of the temporary visa system.  Mr. Zhang’s visa requires his employer to pay him $42, 000 a year of the award rate, whichever is higher and the payment of fees in China and to Mr. Tu is illegal.  Mr. Zhang could not afford a lawyer to fight the case, but the AMWU is trying to find him a job.

In a separate case, the Opposition Leader, Kim Beazley, told Parliament, Chinese workers continued working on the ABC Tissues site at Wetherill Park after it closed, while local subcontractors were stood down without pay.

 The Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, who attended a ceremony at the start of building on the site, said the company who had hired the workers, Hunan Industrial Equipment Installation, could be banned from sponsoring workers into Australia if it had been found to have broken the law.

The Prime Minister, John Howard, defended the importing of labour and said Federal Labor was out of step with State Governments (Labor) that imported skilled workers under the program, especially in the health field.

 LEVY ON TOP OF LEY = DOUBLE- TAXING

RATEPAYERS, have become milking cows of Local Councils.  We explained in an earlier article that a “levy and excise” means a collection of tax.

One good example is the unconstitutional collection of bi-annual excises on fuel, Alcohol and tobacco which was introduced by Labor treasurer Paul Keating and embraced by John Howard and Treasurer Peter Costello.

This means of collecting taxes becomes unconstitutional, when the Government collects GST on top of the excise which is double-taxing.  An added example involves the family of one of our members who has become one of the victims of the Labor controlled Canterbury City Council who has lifted their Council Rates by $367.20.  Comparisons of their rates for 1/7/05 – 30/6/06 and 1/7/06-30/6/07 are as follows:-

Ordinary-Residential up form $965.10 to $1,291.05; Infrastructure Levy – Res from $51.60 to $68.85; domestic Waste Services $240 to $264.

The rate notice advised that “your rate bill is calculated using land value supplied by the NSW Valuer General.  Accordingly, your rate increase this year may exceed the 3.60 percent rate cap for 2006/07.  Valuations queries should be directed to the Valuer General’s Office.”

Is this a backdoor operation to use ratepayers as cash milking cows by the NSW Morris Iemma Labor Government by utilising their agency, the Valuer General’s Office, to assess land values upwards?  Who gave Canterbury City council permission to charge ratepayers an unconstitutional Infrastructure Levy for Road and Pavement repairs when this is already incorporated into their Council Rates?

 $5,100 COUNCIL PHONE BILL FOR SILENT NUMBER

This exclusive by Larissa Cummings was published in the Daily Telegraph on Monday, September 4, 2006 .

Councillors who talk all day on mobile phones, running up thousands of dollars in bills, are keeping their numbers a secret from ratepayers, it can be revealed.

A Daily Telegraph investigation found that in one case a Sutherland Councillor who had a bill of $5,100 over 16 months kept her number “restricted” from ratepayers while using it for Liberal Party Fundraising.

Councillor Marie Simone had her mobile phone number promoted as the contact number for ticket sales to a Liberal Party fundraising dinner last month at Jones Bay Wharf .  Mrs. Simone listed her number on fliers promoting $250 tickets for “an evening of gastronomic grandeur with Peter Debnam MP NSW Liberal Leader” held at Doltone House on August 15.  Ms Simone is not alone in asking ratepayers to pay for a private mobile phone.

Others with big mobile bills for private numbers include Bankstown Councillor Grant Lee (7,686.24) Willoughby Mayor Pat Reilly (6,630.71) and Fairfield Mayor Nick Lalich ($3,358.91).

They want ratepayers to leave a message on their home answering machines.  The revelation comes after The Daily Telegraph last week reported how elected members of nine councils had run up a $160,000 bill over 16 months on their ratepayer-funded mobiles.  Until last week Ms Simone had denied resident access to her “restricted” mobile number by not listing it on the council’s website.

After the Daily Telegraph asked her to explain the reason for the restricted access Ms Simone immediately removed the restriction and listed the mobile phone number on the website.  Ms Simone, responsible for the third of Sutherland’s $16,057.12 mobile phone charges between January 2005 and May 2006, said her phone bill proved she was a hardworking councillor.  She said all mobile expenses above $300 a month were covered by her annual councillor’s salary of $17,795.  She insisted the Liberal Party dinner did not reflect a political alignment.  She said her mobile number was listed on the invitation because she was representing the Italian Chamber of Commerce.

“It was held for the Italian community,” she said.  Despite admitting she used her council mobile phone to organise the ritzy dinner Ms Simone said most calls were made chasing up council matters for residents.

 “LEST WE FORGET” BECAUSE OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THEIR BUREAUCRATS APPARENTLY HAVE FORGOTTEN

 Special report: diggers wanting pensions branded liars Veterans fight to be believed By Alison Rehn Daily Telegraph Political Reporter Monday September 4, 2006

War veterans are being driven to breaking point and at least one has committed suicide because investigators hired by the Federal Government to verify their pension claims are effectively labelling them liars.

Dozens of veterans said they were upset and angry at ex-servicemen who work for NSW based company Writeway Research Service, which investigates veterans’ pension claims.

The Government pays Writeway to verify wartime events which veterans claim caused them stress.  In most cases, Writeway find the historical evidence to back up the veterans’ claims, leading the Repatriation Commission to grant veterans part of full pensions.

But in some cases Writeway does not find any evidence and publishes findings to that effect, leaving an already alienated group of veterans questioning their tours of duty, resulting in depression.

Alan Parfitt claimed he developed post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of serving in Vietnam .  Mr. Parfitt was psychologically scarred after he hacked a dead body from a fishing net which had wrapped around a boat propeller.

Writeway researchers could not find any evidence to support this and so the Repatriation Commission did not grant Mr. Parfitt a pension.  Mr. Parfitt appealed and the Veterans’ Review Board found the event did happen, and was highly critical of the Writeway report.

“The Writeway report was wrong,” the board said.  “The board expresses concern with the inaccuracy in a report provided for a fee.”  Four and a half years after he first applied for the totally and permanently incapacitated pension, the Repatriation commission granted it.

Raewyn Bastion’s husband Bill committed suicide after he began the battle for a pension.  Writeway researchers looking into an incident Mr. Bastion claimed, caused him to develop post traumatic stress disorder suggested “boredom, tedium and isolation” were the biggest issues facing troops at Ubon in Thailand, were he was stationed in 1962.

Mr. Bastion was denied a pension.  He appealed, but mid-way through the process committed suicide.  Yesterday Mrs Bastion said her husband “couldn’t face anymore.”  “He came home at one point and said, ‘what do I have to do to convince these people I’m not lying, kill myself?” she said.  “He was rushed to hospital.  I had only had him home a few weeks before he did just that:  Killed himself.”  Mr. Bastion was granted a pension several months after his death.

Veterans’ Affairs Minister Bruce Billson said it was “wildly unfair and inaccurate to fit up Writeways as somehow doing something sinister.”

Writeway director John Tilbrook said attacks on the company were the “personal vendettas” of a number of veterans.

We would like it to be known that less than one per cent of elected members to Federal, State and Local Government and their Bureaucrats have served in Australia ’s defence force.

“Lest We Forget”

 FREE TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES IS A HOWARD-VAILE COALITION GOVERNMENT ‘FANTASY’

The chief executive of Australia's largest manufacturer of steel products, BlueScope slams free trade Steel, has called for a reversal of Australia 's pursuit of free market ideology to save Australian manufacturing industry.

Kirby Adams, American by birth but Australian by choice, was speaking  at the American Chamber of Commerce on July 14, where he reported  on the current state of BlueScope's global operations and commented on the Federal Government's trade and industry polices.  Formerly BHP Steel, BlueScope is not only Australia's largest steel manufacturer, but also has steel manufacturing plants in many other countries, including China, Thailand and the United States, where it is growing rapidly.

Since being publicly listed as a separate company four years ago, BlueScope has undertaken a major global expansion, and now operates 84 manufacturing plants in 17 countries.

Mr Adams approach therefore cannot be said to be influenced by a narrowly protectionist view. Yet he was highly critical of the Australian Government's adoption of the free trade ideology.

DECLINE

After describing the relatively small size of the steel industry in Australia, compared with manufacturers in Asia, he said. one of my genuine concerns has been the continuing decline of manufacturing in Australia, and the lack of concern in Canberra.

"Two decades ago, Manufacturing comprised 18 per cent of gross domestic product."   Today, manufacturing comprises just 13 percent of GDP "that is smaller - as a proportion of our economy - than the manufacturing  sectors of New Zealand (19 per cent), the United Kingdom (17 per cent), and the United States (14 per cent).  

"And it is much smaller than China, where manufacturing accounts for 39 Per cent of GDP (three times Australia's)."  While enthusiastically endorsing the success stories in manufacturing in Australia, including those in housing and car manufacturing, he said Austrlians must recognise that, overall, there has been a substantial :hollowing out" of Australia's manufacturing capacity which has "worrying implications" for the country's future prosperity. 

"In our view, it is virtually unprecedented for an advanced OECD economy to have its manufacturing sector comprising less than 10 per cent of GDP.  So we must ensure the sector does not get any smaller," he said.

"Despite its small size by world standards, manufacturing in Australia is still the largest employer, the largest investor in research and development, accounts for the largest share of merchandise exports by industry sector, and represents some of the best paying and highest skilled jobs."

"And yet the voice of manufacturers is not being heard.  We believe it is vital that the 'unconscious drift' of manufacturing from Australia is halted, and that we do not accept its decline as a fait accompli."

He said that a revitalised and carefully considered national reform agenda is needed, which would contribute the growth of domestic manufacturing industry.

These include efforts to bring corporate tax rates into line with those which apply to countries with competitive industries.  "For example," he said, "BlueScope Steel in China enjoys an effective tax rate of around 15 per cent, versus 30 per cent here."

Additionally, he called for more generous tax concessions for research and development, to keep technology in Australia for product development, manufacturing and export.

He also urged a major cut in government red tape, "currently growing at around 10 per cent per annum, or more than twice the rate of GDP growth."

He also called for infrastructure reform, saying "it is a national disgrace that, in the 21st century, we still cannot move our steel products over one unified rail system across Australia."

On trade policy, he described some government leader as being "naive" in their approach to international trade.

He said, "let's be realistic - we are a nation of only 20 million people.  Yet we are caught up in ideology ... in the fantasy that we can lead the world to a free trade 'nirvana' by unilaterally dropping our tariffs."

He warned that, while some people claimed there were overriding benefits for those countries that unilaterally liberalise trade, "there are massive costs for Australia's manufacturers and for the millions of men and women employed by them"

"Australia unilaterally liberalised its agricultural tariffs, but now finds it faces a stalled Doha trade round - stalled by the refusal of the Europeans and Americans to do likewise - and we were inundated with EU-subsidised Belgian peas.

"Unilateral liberalisation is a precarious strategy.  It means Australia has little to give away when negotiating bilateral trade deals."

In relation to the proposed free trade agreement with China, he said that negotiations must remedy some critical imbalances in the current trading relationship between the two countries.

"A threshold issue for the Australian steel industry is the current imbalance in tariffs between China and Australia."  The Australian steel industry has very low levels of tariff protection, and negligible government support.  In fact, most flat steel products are able to enter Australia from China tariff-free.

"By contrast, Australian steel companies face tariffs of up to eight per cent, if they choose to export flat steel products to China.  This may not sound like a large barrier, but in a highly competitive global market, it is enough to make Australian steel products uncompetitive in China, the world's biggest market."

That is one of the reasons why BlueScope Steel manufactures in-country in China.  We certainly support the legitimate aspirations of China to modernise its economy and raise living standards for its people.  But it is hard to argue that China is a developing country in relation to its steel industry - which is 50 times larger than Australia's, the world's largest by four times, and with most of that enormous capacity built with in the last 10 years."

He said that any trade agreement with China must address these imbalances, either by lowering its tariffs, or increasing Australia's.

He admitted, "in Canberra, I might be labeled a protectionist for expressing these views."

"Okay," he said,  "I do want to protect Australian shareholders, Australian jobs and future jobs, and Australian exports.  Isn't that why we employ our governments?  To protect us?" 

 He emphasized, that BlueScope Steel supported free trade and open markets, underpinned by a rules-based trading system.   

'We were a strong supporter, for example, of the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement. In that case, an FTA was an important tool and ensuring a more fair trading relationship for Australia 's steel industry.  

The story in China is, however, somewhat different. The Australian steel industry, and its manufacturing customers, do not want to see an amplification of the unfair trading behaviour of some Chinese manufacturers, which an FTA could bring."

Among these practices - referred to by the chairman of BlueScope, Graham Kraehe, at a recent trade conference in China - were instances of steel products being imported into Australia from China and sold at less than the cost of the raw materials that went into making them.

Another was where a company supplied by BlueScope said it could not compete with Chinese imports, even if BlueScope supplied the steel free.

'Pricing their products at below cost is a clear indicator of the non-commercial behaviour of some Chinese steel companies," Mr Kraehe said. 'The conclusion that many Australian manufacturers draw is that some Chinese steel-makers are receiving subsidies of other support, either overt or covert."  

Mr Kraehe added, "If companies are cross-subsidising their own products, that is one thing. But if subsidies or other supports are being provided by provincial governments or by state-owned banks, or other state-owned infrastructure providers, then that must be addressed."

Mr Adams said that Australian manufacturing could only prosper by building international markets, because Australia 's domestic market is too small for most manufacturers "particularly if we persist with this zero-tariff ideology".

However, he said that, for the sake of Australia's future prosperity, "we must acknowledge the importance of our manufacturing sector, in creating skilled, well-paid jobs, in driving innovation across our economy, in generating wealth for shareholders, and in generating the exports that will sustain Australia beyond the current resources boom". 

SUPPORT

Governments need to be more realistic in their support for and respect for manufacturers, he said.

Governments need to be prepared to drop ideology, and find pragmatic ways to support manufacturers, when it is in the interests I the country to do so.  And they need to take tougher ling with companies and trading nations who refuse to play by the rules," we warned, making a clear reference to unfair trading policies conducted by countries such as China.

PRIMARY PRODUCTION-Australian Government cutting farmers adrift

by CoIin Teese.

Farmers face serious, inescapable and fundamental disadvantages which no other sellers are asked to contend with in quite the same way, argues veteran international trade negotiator

In a speech he delivered earlier this year before 500 delegates to an Australian beef industry conference, he defended government subsidies to farmers, and warned of the disadvantages farmers are likely to face from bilateral trade agreements, such as the recent so-called free­trade agreement with the United States.  

The first thing I have always noticed about selling agricultural products is one which is not always recognised. Farmers are required to endure serious, inescapable and fundamental disadvantages which no other sellers are asked to contend with in quite the same way.

Compared with what might be the case with other forms of economic activity, farming doesn't fit any orthodox market economic model. Generally, farmers comprise a large body of small independent producers trying to sell - in competition with each other - an undifferentiated product. The only bargaining lever they possess is price. And they normally face a much smaller corps of well-disciplined and organised buyers.

Powerless to resist

Understandably, those buyers drive a hard bargain which the sellers are powerless to resist. The consequence is that selling prices are driven down to bedrock - except in certain unusual circumstances. And while these price/cost pressures are present in the home market, they are much worse in the export context - which is why the domestic market is so important.

Don't let anyone tell you - bureaucrat or politician - that the secret of success is to get more efficient and to export more.

Selling isn't the only problem for farmers. When it comes to purchasing the inputs, they are also price-takers. Again, farmers are individuals facing a few powerful and organised sellers who are in a good position to hold the line on price. There are, for example, only two or three manufacturers of tractors in the world. In this case, the seller is in control. Don't imagine a farmer has any chance of beating them in a bargaining duel on price. The result of all this is that farmers are, for the most part, permanently and unavoidably caught in a cost/price squeeze.

Governments in the developed world have long recognised the consequences these market imperfections impose upon their farmers. Various, sometimes ingenious, measures have been adopted to assist them.

It is only in recent years that governments - and also farmers - have come out and admitted openly that all of these measures, which can give farmers some kind of basic income, require either direct taxpayer or consumer funding. Putting it bluntly, the idea of subsidies has been legitimised.

Another essential element of this subsidy policy - as yet unacknowledged - are the measures of border protection to ensure that the major part of the domestic market is retained for local production. And, of course, they make sense. Quite obviously, it's a waste of money to maintain subsidies on local production if the domestic market can be flooded with cheap imports.

Australian governments were, for many years, part of this unspoken consensus. We wanted to export, but we also wanted a viable farm sector - and all this in circumstances in which market forces could not possibly work effectively.

This was the background against which we went into negotiations with our trading partners - either bilaterally, or in what was then the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (forerunner to the World Trade Organization).

From these negotiations emerged various forms of agreements on access to the markets of our trading partners. These outcomes weren't perfect: we never got as much as we wanted; they never gave as much as they could.

If this sounds to you like a complicated and untidy arrangement, you're right. It was. What we got in exports was fine. But above all, we were able to secure our domestic market for local producers and so keep our farm sector reasonably prosperous.

The famous Country Party leader and Trade Minister, "Black Jack" McEwen - architect of many of the early agreements for a kind of balanced access - once famously remarked: "Nobody ever signed an export agreement to go broke." For him, a successful trade negotiation had to be mutually beneficial.  

By the time of the Uruguay Round in the early 1990s - which led to the establishment of the World Trade Organization - all of this had changed. Well, at least for Australia .

For some reason, our Government came to believe that the rest of the major producers of temperate agricultural products were of a mood to give up protecting and subsidising their farmers for our benefit. So strongly did they enthuse over this idea that they committed themselves to dismantling the protection of our farm sector with no more than a vague idea about the intentions of others.

On the basis of vague promises of agricultural trade liberalisation to be implemented over a long period, Uruguay was hailed as a triumph. The U.S.   Europe and Japan would be opened up to us.

Of course, it never happened. And we now know the present WTO negotiations are still being held up over what might be done on agriculture. Meanwhile, the world is turning away from the WTO and negotiating bilateral agreements.

Necessarily, Australia has become part of that push. We have negotiated some bilateral agreements (one of them with the U.S. ), and others are in the pipeline. What is obvious - though the Government doesn't seem yet to have got the message - is what could not be achieved for agriculture in the WTO is no more achievable in bilateral agreements.

Despite the setbacks, however, our Government has not given up on its policy of cutting Australian farmers adrift. We still insist that the measure of farm sector efficiency is whether or not our farm sector can - without assistance - meet the full weight of subsidised overseas competitors, both at home and in export markets.

Surprisingly, the traditional voice of farmer support, the National Party, appears wholeheartedly to endorse this policy. Indeed, the Nationals have joined enthusiastically in the fruitless and futile task of attempting to persuade our European, United States and Japanese trading partners to follow our example, give up on subsidies and open their markets to unrestricted import flows.

There is not the slightest chance that they will succeed in this endeavour. If they need any convincing, there is the evidence of our so-called "free trade" agreement with the United States .

ILLUSORY 

The gains from this agreement are tiny at best - and in some cases illusory. But I wonder how many people know that, in return for these meagre outcomes, we have given the United States duty-free access to our market for all of their agricultural exports?

All Australian farm sectors will be adversely affected by this concession.

Let us look, for instance, at the unhappy consequences which could apply to Australian beef producers - consequences which, I stress, could have been, or should have been, anticipated. The bilateral agreement with the U.S. provides for U.S. beef to enter Australia duty-free. You may argue that will not happen unless it is competitive. Perhaps.

But the agreement does not automatically allow that we deny access to a subsidised product. If that possibility arises, the parties will consult. Nothing in the agreement indicates how such issues, in dispute, are to be resolved. And subsidy questions are always in dispute.

On my observations, in recent years our Government has not won many trade arguments with the U.S.

That is one thing. Another is that other beef producers in the WTO may demand duty-free access to our market. On my reading of the WTO rules, we would have to give our WTO partners the same concession as we have given to the U.S. And many of them are low-cost producers who could beat us on price.

Some, maybe all, it will be said, can be kept out on quarantine grounds. Let us hope so. But on quarantine, it seems that the goal posts are being shifted. I can still remember an unguarded comment by Trade Minister Mark Vaile at the time of negotiations with the U.S. "Everything is on the table," Mr Vaile pronounced, "including quarantine." The signed agreement demonstrates he was as good as his word.

Once I would have said that any relaxation of the quarantine rules on beef was inconceivable. Now I'm less certain. Note the decisions on salmon and pork, and the fight over apples and bananas, to name a few. Pork is particularly interesting. The imported product is not required to meet the same production standards as are local producers - which actually gives it a competitive advantage.

These days, the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) admit taking trade into account in its decisions on quarantine matters. WTO rules, the agency claims, require it to do so.

I can tell you all that our traditional quarantine practices are WTO-legitimate. The WTO itself has said so. I don't know what the AQIS agenda is. Maybe some Commonwealth official can offer an explanation. But it is not compliance with WTO rules.

That's one side of the quarantine equation. There's another. In the past, we had zero tolerance for imports from countries with foot-and-mouth disease. I wonder whether we still do.

Remember the instance of beef imports recently in which the product was authorised on the basis of its being from a so-called "safe haven" within an infected country, Brazil . Well, it gained entry and, given the way the entire issue was handled, we still can't be sure it has not done harm.

We can expect to see more pressure for such imports, both from within and outside Australia, including the possibility - supposedly for the benefit of consumers - of legitimising cheap imports from so-called safe havens in at-risk countries, despite the fact that we know many of those countries probably cannot police any such condition to our satisfaction. But that won't stop it happening. If and when it happens, our producers could be exposed to a flood of infected beef from low-cost competitors.

Exports are important to farmers, and so are the assurances we are able to provide as to the disease-free qualities of our product. But we cannot do that unless we can be certain that our borders are closed to products from dubious sources.

What concerns me is that the pressures will come on us - not least because of our bilateral trade agreement with the U.S. - to relax our health standards. As I understand it, a U.S. firm was behind the idea of the Brazil imports.

Much is at stake here. There appear to be forces, with the sympathetic ear of governments, both state and Commonwealth, who believe that cheap imports serve our economy better than adequate quarantine protection.

Colin Teese is a former deputy secretary of the Department of Trade.

 REVEALED: MPS GET A $1 MILLION TIGER IN THEIR TANKS

By Phillip Hudson – Sydney Morning Herald, Wednesday September 6, 2006

Federal MPs and their families have received almost $1 million worth of petrol, courtesy of taxpayers.  The fuel bill for their cars, which are also paid for by taxpayers shows politicians pumped 756,000 litres of free petrol into their vehicles in the year to April.

The figures were provided by the office of the Special Minister of State, Gary Nairn after a request by the Herald. The individual fuel bills for MPs were not available, a spokesman said his call for a fuel tax cut of 10 cents a litre which would cost $3 billion, had been rejected because politicians do not pay for their own fuel and “don’t feel the pain of families and small businesses struggling with skyrocketing petrol prices.”

MPs have the use of three petrol cards, allowing them to fill up at BP, shell and Caltex.  The car can be used by the MP, their spouse and staff, and in some cases as the family car when the MP is out of town.  MPs also have access to chauffeur driven Commonwealth cars.  Federal MPs from NSW used 179,000 litres of petrol at a cost of about $232,000.

Mr. Nairn’s office said the cost of the cars, petrol and servicing was part of the salary package for MPs set by the Independent Remuneration Tribunal.  Just like senior public servants and executives in business, the Government said, it was part of doing the job.  Prices at the bowser have risen sharply in the past year, but the Prime Minister, John Howard, has rejected calls for a fuel tax cut, saying motorists are paying more because of the world oil price.

Senator Fielding said he welcomed the revelation about the public cost for MP’s fuel.  “If politicians are being responsible about their petrol use, they should not be worried about making their bills public.”  He revealed his fuel bill for the period from November last year until June 30 this year was $1,993.

Peter Andren the Bathurst based Independent MP  has railed against the high costs of MPs’ perks, said he used a taxpayer provided Magna Verada and free petrol to visit constituents and to drive to Canberra instead of flying.  He has clocked up 55,000 kilometres this year and it is estimated his fuel bill is $7,000.

“I think I can totally justify the cost of the vehicle,” Mr. Andren said.”  “It’s an absolutely essential part of my doing my job.”  He added that he did not claim the $190 a night Canberra allowance.  He said other perks printing costs that were set by the Government, were less justifiable and renewed his call for the auditor-General to be put in charge of all entitlements.

An Australian National University Political Analyst, Norm Kelly, said all entitlements should be brought under the control of a single independent authority to stop governments increasing amounts of slush money to incumbent MPs” to boost re-election campaigns.

Labor, the Greens and the Democrats last night began a senate debate to try to stop the Government increasing the annual printing allowance for MPs from $125,000 to $150,000, which critics say is aimed at funding self-promotion for next year’s election campaign.  A 7 per cent pay rise for MPs, which will take the wage of a backbencher to $118,950, was approved last night.

 AUSTRALIANS BETRAYED: BY THE MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES AND THEIR LEADERS

Messrs. Howard and Beazley treat their fellow Australians as “brain dead.”  This has come about on Thursday September 7, 2006 when they reversed a pledge they made less than 3 years ago to reduce politicians’ superannuation. ; Prime Minister John Howard has broken another pre-election promise to bring generous superannuation funding for politicians closer to the standards of ordinary workers.  This was an evident ploy by the Liberal-National Coalition to win votes at the 2004 election by deflecting Labor attacks re: the perks, by saying there “is a community perception that this super scheme is generous.”  But Prime Minister Howard on Thursday September 7, 2006 said the retirement scheme was “not over generous.”

The backflip arose from non-stop protests by Government and Labor members who were angry over the reduction in benefits for new MPs.

John Howard said his Government would readjust the schemes of MPs elected in October 2004, and those elected in the future by making them more lucrative.  They have overruled the changes made in February 2004 in response to former Labor Leader Mark Latham’s tactics to install MP’s superannuation as an election issue.

The Government had been extremely concerned that Mark Latham was building a huge following with his proposal and got in first with its own.  Thursday’s ( 7/9/06 ) changes will increase the guaranteed contribution to the MPs’ funds from 9 per cent - the standard for the greatest majority of private sector workers to the 15 per cent enjoyed by senior public servants.  Mr. Howard also added that a redundant scheme for new MPs which will provide 3 months pay, or about $35,000 when they were defeated at an election or lost party endorsement.  This would be in addition to May superannuation payment.

In February 2005, John Howard accepted that voters wanted a much reduced superannuation for their elected representatives.  “I don’t think the present (MPs’ remuneration package) is over generous but I recognise that there is a community perception that the superannuation part is too generous,” he said at the time.  However on Thursday ( 6/9/06 ) he dismissed critics of his backflip as guilty of “populism.”

The Prime Minister said if becoming an MP was made financially unattractive; the “gene pool” of candidates would drop.  “Unpopular though it may be with some I do not believe members of Parliament, Particularly at a senior level, are overpaid. “Mr. Howard said.”

The burdens carried by senior ministers and senior office holders in the Opposition are greater than many in the private sector who are far more highly paid.  ”He also added” if we continue to engage in this mindless populism, we will finish up further reducing the quality of the gene pool of candidates available for high office. More so at a time when salaries and remuneration in sections of the economy are so attractive.

John Howard ensured it was widely know Labor Leader Kim Beazley also signed off on the changes.

“The system needed to be changed in 2004 but I think there’s common agreement amongst those of us in political life that those alterations went too far,” Mr. Beazley confessed.  The changes will affect approximately 40 newly elected MPs, while the remainder are still covered by the old scheme.  

LETTERS

LIBERAL DISCRIMINATION  

Does Prime Minister John Howard know what the word “Liberal” means?

According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary it means “Fit for a gentleman, generous, open-handed, not sparing of; ample, abundant, not rigorous or literal; open-minded, candid, unprejudiced: favourable to democratic reforms and abolition of privilege.”

After the announcement of a 7 per cent pay increase for MPs and 2.5 per cent increase in the aged pension, it makes me wonder if he cares for anyone except the privilege of being in Parliament,

If you take the literal meaning of “discrimination,” all those on the pension are being discriminated against.  The party name should be changed to something else.

Michael Sharratt - From Plumpton

The Government is concerned inadequate superannuation will lead to corruption, yet it believes that anonymous donations of up to $10,000 to political parties won’t?  I don’t buy it.

Samantha Chung – From Randwick

Now I understand why my daughter, who has an intellectual disability, has had her disability support pension stopped.  I guess the country can’t afford a pay rise for MPs and an increase in their superannuation entitlements as well as a pension for my daughter, who works for 20 hours a week stacking shelves in a supermarket for the grand annual wage of $16,770.  Her prospect for independent living now appear lower than ever.

Jill Grivan -  From Balmain

Displaying a breathtaking lack of shame, Coalition sources are apparently worried that unless MPs superannuation is increased to 15 per cent it is going to become harder to attract talented people to politics and those that it does manage to attract are likely to be more partial to a bribe.  Don’t make me laugh.

Perhaps defence lawyers could start using some of the same reasoning:  “Well, your honour, my client is very sorry for conducting the robbery but his super contribution is only 9 per cent, you know.”

As for attracting talented people, in a political system where a person like Alexander Downer can rise to the top instead of collecting trolleys in a supermarket car park, I would say that horse bolted long ago.

Clive Barratt – From Birchgrove

 POLITICAL HYPOCRISY -  ITS ALL IN THE TIMING

COMMENT BY MALCOLM FARR

In The Daily Telegraph, Friday September 8, 2006 John Howard sneers at what he calls the “cheap populism” which erupts when politicians’ pay is improved.

So it must have been classy, top-shelf populism when he hacked MPs’ super entitlements in 2004.

The Prime Minister had no qualms about being on the punter’s wave length back then.  But things have changed:  He no longer is soiling his political trousers over Mark Latham.  What was resented to voters 2 ˝ years ago as a sincere matching of politicians’ super with community standards can now be junked.

No AWAs, enterprise agreements, award restrictions or industrial tribunals are involved.

It shouldn’t be forgotten that Kim Beazley was part of the move in 2004, and on Thursday September 7, 2006 he didn’t hesitate to be part of the backflip.

We continue to throw up evidence that the Liberal-National Coalition and the Labor (ALP) Party are in bed together.  To vote for either party is a vote for “Tweedle Dumb” and “Tweedle Dumber.”  

DOUG CAMERON, IF IT’S TRUE – DON’T DO IT

Regular visitors to our website would be well aware of the praise we’ve heaped on the Australian Manufacturing Union National Secretary Doug Cameron for standing up and speaking out against the United States – Australia Free Trade Agreement.  In fact Doug’s voice, union wise was the only one to be heard nationwide.

It has been reported to us that the Labor Party are keen for Doug to stand as a NSW Senate Candidate in the Federal Election in 2007, on the speculation that his predecessor in the AMWU Senator George Campbell will retire.

If this information is correct Doug, don’t do it you are too genuine.  You’ve fought too hard for Australian workers to waste it on becoming a servant to a political party caucus.

Remember Doug, many 2SM LISTENERS to the Grant Goldman Breakfast Show contacted all the Labor Senators prior to the Free Trade Agreement with the U.S. bill, being debated in the Upper House warning them of the lopsided concessions in favour of the Americans and yet they still crossed the floor and voted with the Howard Government.

The Australian families and workers were totally betrayed by the Australian Labor Party.  It must be also noted that all the Australian State Labor Premiers applied pressure to their Federal counter parts to support the Free Trade Agreement.  “SHAME-SHAME-SHAME”