Following fact checks released in recent months by The Conversation (here and here), which found that the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement (ChAFTA) could see “a project being wholly staffed by Temporary Skilled Chinese migrant workers” with “no labour market testing requirement”, the ABC has released its own Fact Check, which comes up with similar conclusions:
Unions said the deal threatens Australian jobs, but the Abbott Government responded by accusing the trade union movement of racism…
The mainstream skilled migration program gives temporary visas, called 457 visas, to skilled workers but not semi-skilled.
The department’s spokesman said that overseas workers on these big Chinese infrastructure projects will be given 457 visas.
According to the regulations for 457 visas, the jobs must first be advertised to local workers and the Government spokesman told Fact Check that requirement would still apply to the Chinese-funded infrastructure projects…
The wording of the memorandum does not state that labour market testing must occur before visas are granted, nor that they will be 457 visas…
Michael Walker, a visa services manager with TSS Immigration, a company specialising in employer sponsored migration, told Fact Check that labour market agreements gave the Immigration Department very wide-ranging discretion.
“It is not subject to as much black and white law as the standard business sponsor process for a 457 visa,” he said…
Joanna Howe, an expert in temporary labour migration law at the University of Adelaide, said the requirement to advertise jobs on big Chinese-funded infrastructure projects was up to Immigration Department policy.
“The department will say…they need to be assured there is a genuine need in terms of labour supply, but that requirement only exists at a policy level. And a legal status of policy does not have the same ramifications as the legal status of the agreement,” she told Fact Check.
Dr Howe said the agreement was “a very weak protection for local workers” and in a dispute, the agreement would have a higher status than departmental policy.
Professor Rosewarne told Fact Check there were no protections for local workers in the agreement.
“The Department of Immigration might decide it’s appropriate but there’s nothing in the agreement that requires them to mandate there will be labour market testing,” he said…
The Verdict:
The ACTU claims the China free trade agreement allows Chinese companies to bring in their own workforce for projects over $150 million and removes the requirement for jobs be offered to local workers first.
The written agreement does state that Chinese companies can set up a large infrastructure project without testing the market to see if there are Australian workers to do the jobs.
It also says that when issuing visas for these jobs, labour market testing is done “where required” and both the Foreign Affairs and Immigration Departments say companies will have to advertise jobs on these projects to local workers first.
But the agreement does not specify that labour market testing must occur before visas are granted and the Department told Fact Check that requirement could be waived in “unique and exceptional circumstances”.
Experts contacted by Fact Check say the China free trade agreement allows the Immigration Department to decide that jobs should be offered to local workers before it issues visas to overseas workers, but it does not require this to happen.
The ACTU’s claim checks out.
As I noted yesterday, this outcome does not necessarily mean that ChAFTA is not worth ratifying, but rather than any benefits from the deal need to be weighed against these costs in determining whether it is in the national interest.
Unfortunately, DFAT has failed to undertake independent analysis to work out whether past trade agreements have delivered positive outcomes. Moreover, no independent analysis of ChAFTA has been undertaken to determine its efficacy.
Therefore, as was the case with the Australia-US FTA, Australians will not know whether the deal was beneficial/costly until an ex post examination is conducted years down the track, by which time it will be too late.
