Google+ Followers

Friday, 26 December 2014

Jobs and growth...but for who? - The AIM Network

Jobs and growth...but for who? - The AIM Network



Jobs and growth…but for who?














The Abbott government says they are all about jobs and growth, but for who?


In 2012, unions were outraged by a decision to allow Gina Rinehart to
import more than 1,700 foreign workers on 457 visas for her latest
project in Western Australia.



Paul Howes said “This is a big win for Gina Rinehart, it’s a big win
for Clive Palmer, it’s a big win for Twiggy Forrest and it’s a massive
kick in the guts, a massive kick in the guts to those 130,000 workers in
the manufacturing industry who have lost their jobs since 2008.”



A number of companies in construction, mining and IT hired many more
foreign workers than they had applied for. The straw that broke the
camel’s back was one company allegedly bringing in 800 workers under the
457 visa in an 18 month period when they were only granted approval for
100 visas over three years.



In 2013, the Labor government tightened the regulations to prevent
employers from hiring more workers then they originally advertised to
the market.



Tony Abbott’s government have made adjustments to the 457 Visa
regulation, allowing employers to again hire an unlimited amount of
foreign workers with a temporary working visa.



In April this year, the Federal Government was asked to investigate claims that 457 work visas are being abused at Gina Rinehart’s $10 billion Roy Hill iron ore project in the Pilbara.


The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union said there were
up to 200 Korean white collar 457 visa workers employed by contractor
Samsung C&T on the project doing low-level clerical work for Roy
Hill’s main construction contractor.



“The allegation is that they’ve been brought in to do certain types
of work and then they are being allocated other types of work in breach
of their visa conditions.”



Aside from being asked to do work outside their visa conditions, the
CFMEU alleged many of the staff were working more than 84 hours a week
and being paid as little as $16 an hour.



In March, Gina Rinehart’s mining group, Hancock Prospecting signed
off on a $US7.2 billion debt package for her highly anticipated Roy Hill
iron ore project in Western Australia’s Pilbara region.



In return for the US government loan, Hancock Prospecting will
purchase American mining and rail equipment from Caterpillar, General
Electric and Atlas Copco. The Export-Import Bank says their involvement
will “support” 3400 US jobs



Since we own the resources, and we have to give approval to any
mining venture, why do we not make it a condition of approval that you
must use Australian equipment, Australian steel, and Australian workers?



Threats that projects will not go ahead under these circumstances
indicate they were not profitable in the first place and, if we are
importing equipment and the profit is all going offshore and the
employment to lowly paid foreigners, then all we are left with is the
environmental damage, railways linking mines to ports paid for with our
royalties, and the demise of manufacturing and tourism.



Under the new Free Trade Agreement, Chinese companies will be able to
bring skilled workers to Australia to plug labour shortages on big
infrastructure projects.



The deal says Chinese-owned companies will be able to ­”negotiate
similarly to Australian ­business, increased labour flexibilities for
specific projects”.



The arrangements will apply to projects valued above $150 million
under the deal negotiated between the two countries. Projects will
involve the employment of foreign workers on 457 work visas.



ACTU president Ged Kearney said the effect on Australian jobs would
be “disastrous” if the agreement allowed “Chinese contractors on
Australian projects to nominate Chinese workers for visas without having
to advertise for jobs locally”.



Maritime Union of Australia Western Australian branch secretary
Christy Cain hit out at the visa concession and described the measure as
“an absolute disgrace”.



“These (mineral) resources are ours and those of the Australians
paying taxes for all their lives that are now ­seeing workshops closing
and car manufacturing dying,” Mr Cain said.



“I don’t blame the Chinese, they are saying you want us to invest in Australia then we will bring our own labour over. But it’s ludicrous. What is happening to our Australian values?”


According to a report by the Australian Farm Institute, the value of
Australian agricultural exports to China grew by an average 12 per cent a
year in the 14 years to 2012. Not bad, except that Chinese imports of
agricultural products increased by an annual 16 per cent during the same
period. In terms of share of the Chinese market, that means Australia fell from 11 per cent to 6 per cent.



The AFI report says that Australia’s share of US agricultural imports
has fallen since the FTA between the two countries came into force in
2005, despite reductions in tariffs. The two countries that achieved the
fastest growth in agricultural exports to China over the 14 years to
2012 were the US and Brazil and neither has a free trade agreement with
China.



Two Chinese investment groups have established a $3 billion fund to
invest in Australian agriculture, as Australia edges closer to securing a
free trade deal with China.



The fund, known as the Beijing Australia Agricultural Resource
Cooperative Development Fund, is a joint partnership  between
state-owned Beijing Agricultural Investment Fund and the Shenzen-based
Yuhu group.



It will focus on supplying produce back to China, especially infant milk formula, beef, lamb and seafood.


John Lee, a China expert at Sydney University, points out that
Chinese policy is to be a net exporter of meat products, rice and wheat
by 2025.



That explains why the FTA with Australia contains no concessions for
rice and wheat and perhaps also why there is an important, though
largely overlooked, qualification to the reduction in tariffs on beef
imports. As our Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade puts it, “China
has retained the right to apply a discretionary safeguard on beef … if
imports exceed a set annual ‘safeguard’ trigger volume.”



The safeguard trigger starts at 170,000 tonnes a year, which is only
10 per cent above Australian exports of 153,000 tonnes of beef to China
last year, although there is a so far unspecified provision for the
trigger to grow. For exports above this level, the tariff will be
reapplied. The department adds, not so reassuringly, that there is a
process to “consider” removal of the safeguard.



So it appears the FTA with China has resulted in Chinese investors
buying our mines and farms, employing Chinese workers, and then sending
the produce back to China at reduced rates.  This produce could well
fill the 10% trigger for beef leaving Australian farmers’ produce still
attracting tariffs.



And when it comes to our huge spending on defence materiel it’s a similar story.


DMO spends up to $10 billion-a-year of taxpayer funds managing more
than 200 defence projects ranging from warships to bullets.  About 40
per cent of the outlays are absorbed by administration costs.



Australia is considering buying 10 state-of-the-art Soryu class
submarines from Japan, at a reported price of more than $20 billion.



Former senior Japanese military personnel, Mr Yamauchi and Mr Ogawa,
both told the ABC that an Australian budget of $20 billion would mean
that all the construction would have to happen in Japan.



And they said any attempts to do any of the work in Adelaide would double the price.


Mr Ogawa said if construction happened in Japan it would be bad for Australian jobs, but good for the Japanese economy.


“If the issue of military secrets can be resolved then Japanese business will be happy it will bring jobs and growth,” he said.


And then there is the $24 billion that Australia had allocated to buy and deploy a fleet of 72 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets.


Critics, including Federal Liberal MP and former analyst with the
Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Dr Dennis Jenson, claim
that politicians have been manipulated by an elaborate and at times
misleading sales pitch by the world’s largest military corporation,
Lockheed Martin.



In April Tony Abbott said “Australian business has already won some
$1.5 billion worth of work associated with this aircraft. Up to $7.5
billion worth of additional work is there potentially.”



The reality is Australian industries are only contracted for around
$370 million work, with Lockheed Martin assurances but no guarantees of
more to come.  Current contracts are only for 12 months.



Dr Jenson said “The warning I’d give is: don’t bank on the work that
you’re being told you’re going to get. You will get it while Lockheed
Martin is still pushing very hard for signatures on the dotted line, but
once all those signatures are there, don’t bet on winning any future contracts.”



Dr Jenson raised questions about problems posed by the F-35’s heavy
weight and the threat that it will be no match for possible adversaries
with a high-ranking Lockheed Martin delegation before a joint
parliamentary inquiry in Canberra. Lockheed Martin’s response: “We
cannot answer that question, just as we cannot answer the threat
question, because we get into classified areas very, very quickly.”



RAAF head flight test engineer, Peter Goon, warned “The aircraft is
not coming within a bull’s roar of its – some of its operational
specifications. The designs are riddled with single points of failure.
And many of the critical elements of design have been painted into what
we engineers call “coffin corner”.”



“Coffin corner” is the concern that the F-35 couldn’t compete against
these cheaper, lighter and more agile Russian and Chinese stealth
fighter jets, which are expected to be sold widely around the world.



The US Air Force Combat Command, meantime, has expressed its own
reservations. It has warned the US must continue to maintain its older,
more agile and far more effective fleet of F-22 jet fighters to back up
the F-35s or they’ll be rendered irrelevant. So should Australia instead
try to buy the proven F-22? Well, according to the Defence Minister,
Australia did ask, but the Americans insisted there was no choice, but
to take the troubled F-35 or nothing.



DAVID JOHNSTON: “They’ve said, “No, you can’t have the F-22; that is
for the United States Air Force. But you can certainly participate in
our program with the Joint Strike Fighter.” We do not have anywhere else
to go.”



Is it just me….or are we being screwed here?



No comments:

Post a Comment