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”