The 457 visa debacle

Remove this Banner Ad

ClokesShankedIt said:
What's wrong with the basic idea that the laws and economy of Australia exist for the betterment of the Australian people.

If unemployment is ticking up, then slash the # of 457s being handed out. Seems rather straightforward. If business need to be forced to invest in their existing staff and provide training, then so be it.

Bet you think the Chinese buying up our houses is a good thing too?
Click to expand...

Depends on what the 457 visas are for.

You can't just train people for certain jobs at a drop of a hat.

If low level jobs are being outsourced through 457 visas then they should be reported.

It seems everyone just *knows* this abuse is widespread but no one seems to do anything about it.
 
ClokesShankedIt said:
What's wrong with the basic idea that the laws and economy of Australia exist for the betterment of the Australian people.

If unemployment is ticking up, then slash the # of 457s being handed out. Seems rather straightforward. If business need to be forced to invest in their existing staff and provide training, then so be it.

Bet you think the Chinese buying up our houses is a good thing too?
Click to expand...

two sides to every coin

1) 457s don't reduce wages as they are paid the same or more than local wages, so they do demonstrate foreign labour is better value in certain circumstances. Is it because we fail to train our own, fail to install work ethic......etc. so are we conveniently blaming foreigners for our own problems?

2) is the increase of housing and affordability a function of overseas investment or poor construction techniques, cartels, corruption in the building industry and inefficient approval processes? If it was overseas investment alone, surely rents would go down as a result. so perhaps we are conveniently blaming foreigners for our own problems!
 

Log in to remove this ad.

ClokesShankedIt said:
What's wrong with the basic idea that the laws and economy of Australia exist for the betterment of the Australian people.

If unemployment is ticking up, then slash the # of 457s being handed out. Seems rather straightforward. If business need to be forced to invest in their existing staff and provide training, then so be it.

Bet you think the Chinese buying up our houses is a good thing too?
Click to expand...

Pure Hansonism. Xenophobic and racist, particularly towards Chines . Harks back to the old racist "Yellow Peril"of the '50s and 60s.

The white Australia policy - keeping out the Chinese and other colored foreigners - has deep, deep roots in the Labor movement going back to the days the Labor Party was founded. The xenophobia about jobs had much more foundation in those days than it does today.

The areas naive and ignorant posters like Maggie bang on about - eg 457 visas and the FTA with China - are typical of what Hanson's One Nation was all about.

Bet you think the Chinese buying up our houses is a good thing too?
Click to expand...

Are you a racist or just silly like our Mags regurgitating the Labor dog whistle?

Why do you single out the Chinese ?[/quote]
 
GuruJane said:
Pure Hansonism. Xenophobic and racist, particularly towards Chines . Harks back to the old racist "Yellow Peril"of the '50s and 60s.
The white Australia policy - keeping out the Chinese and other colored foreigners - has deep, deep roots in the Labor movement going back to the days the Labor Party was founded. The xenophobia about jobs had much more foundation in those days than it does today.
The areas naive and ignorant posters like Maggie bang on about - eg 457 visas and the FTA with China - are typical of what Hanson's One Nation was all about.
Are you a racist or just silly like our Mags regurgitating the Labor dog whistle?

Why do you single out the Chinese ?
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]
You seem to have an obsession with me, sorry I don't swing that way.

Why don't you take a leaf out of Abbott's book and accompany Dutton and spend a week on Nauru? You want to keep AS out of Australia, racist much?

FYI I used the word 'foreign' to cover all FTA's but you are right that in this instance all the discussion is about the Chinese FTA, what other word to you want me to call citizens of China?
 
Ratts of Tobruk said:
A good question when it comes to foreign investment.

Not a good question when it comes to discussing a Chinese FTA. Which is what the govt claims is racist.
Click to expand...

When it comes to foreign investment we have laws that require FIRB process and approval. This is rarely not provided but has certain sensitivities including SOEs. There is very little concern whether the investor is of one race or another. I would love to here your views on how chinese are singled out in this process.
 
Power Raid said:
When it comes to foreign investment we have laws that require FIRB process and approval. This is rarely not provided but has certain sensitivities including SOEs. There is very little concern whether the investor is of one race or another. I would love to here your views on how chinese are singled out in this process.
Click to expand...
For me there are these are the main issues, not the fact that it is with China, it could have been any country.

The document says there will be no requirement for labour market testing to enter into the umbrella arrangement but direct employers can then seek a labour
agreement with the immigration department to sponsor temporary skilled workers. What is meant by skilled?

The $150m threshold for investment facilitation arrangements was so low as to include most CBD construction projects. “For major construction projects, $150m seems pretty low. (Can't recall the previous amount but it was much higher).

Also maybe it is union spin, but I would hope that the workers would have to meet the same standards that Australian workers and companies have to adhere to.

I also read somewhere (can't find it when you need it) that in the case of legal disputes, it is well known that Chinese courts are not that favourable.

I seriously don't know why governments don't work more co-cooperatively with the opposition when these agreements are negotiated so you don't have these situations come up. A committee from both sides as these type of agreements are in the national interest not just one side of politics.
 
Gough said:
Do other FTAs contain this contentious employment clause?
Click to expand...

Gough, the issue is just the opposite. The unions aren't complaining that FTAs provide any privileged to counter parties. What they are complaining about is they want FTAs to have hooks and barbs over and above our IR laws.

We should have FTAs for the purpose of FTAs and IR laws for the purpose of IR. Trying to mix the two is mischievous.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Power Raid said:
Gough, the issue is just the opposite. The unions aren't complaining that FTAs provide any privileged to counter parties. What they are complaining about is they want FTAs to have hooks and barbs over and above our IR laws.

We should have FTAs for the purpose of FTAs and IR laws for the purpose of IR. Trying to mix the two is mischievous.
Click to expand...
That doesn't really answer my question. If the Chinese FTA is the only one that contains the employment clause, then to portray any objection to it as racist, or xenophobic could also be seen as a touch mischievous.
 
[QUOTE="Maggie5, post: 40603340, member: 98636"
You seem to have an obsession with me, sorry I don't swing that way[/QUOTE]


You have certainly got "our" Jane in a right mess, her postings these days resemble a drunken sailor trying to walk the plank backward.
 
Maggie5 said:
You seem to have an obsession with me, sorry I don't swing that way.

Why don't you take a leaf out of Abbott's book and accompany Dutton and spend a week on Nauru? You want to keep AS out of Australia, racist much?

FYI I used the word 'foreign' to cover all FTA's but you are right that in this instance all the discussion is about the Chinese FTA, what other word to you want me to call citizens of China?
Click to expand...

These Hansonite outpourings on China and the Chinese, on 457s and on visa overstayers come across as mindless rebelching up of Labor/green talking points rather than an intellect at work, MNaggie.
If there was any sign of intellectual knowledge about Labor movement historical racism on these issues plus memory and understanding of how Hanson and One Nation used the same issues to dog whistle xenopohobia for opportunistic political purposes I think you'd probably be horrified at yourself.
But foolishness rather than racism on balance.

In interestingly Noddy's post at #165 shows how deeply runs trade union movement xenophobia in those parts of the union movement still waiting reform and modernisation. No Bob Hawke or Bill Kelty on the horizon to fix it up, sadly.
 
GuruJane said:
These Hansonite outpourings on China and the Chinese, on 457s and on visa overstayers come across as mindless rebelching up of Labor/green talking points rather than an intellect at work, MNaggie.
If there was any sign of intellectual knowledge about Labor movement historical racism on these issues plus memory and understanding of how Hanson and One Nation used the same issues to dog whistle xenopohobia for opportunistic political purposes I think you'd probably be horrified at yourself.
But foolishness rather than racism on balance.

In interestingly Noddy's post at #165 shows how deeply runs trade union movement xenophobia in those parts of the union movement still waiting reform and modernisation. No Bob Hawke or Bill Kelty on the horizon to fix it up, sadly.
Click to expand...
Your are rambling again. Love to know how much you get paid for these posts, they really should get their money back.
 
Gough said:
That doesn't really answer my question. If the Chinese FTA is the only one that contains the employment clause, then to portray any objection to it as racist, or xenophobic could also be seen as a touch mischievous.
Click to expand...

It doesn't contain an employment clause, but the unions want it to

this is best addressed in the laws of the land rather than a trade agreement regarding the abolishment of tariffs, IP and trade
 
Last edited:
Maggie5 said:
For me there are these are the main issues, not the fact that it is with China, it could have been any country.

The document says there will be no requirement for labour market testing to enter into the umbrella arrangement but direct employers can then seek a labour
agreement with the immigration department to sponsor temporary skilled workers. What is meant by skilled?

The $150m threshold for investment facilitation arrangements was so low as to include most CBD construction projects. “For major construction projects, $150m seems pretty low. (Can't recall the previous amount but it was much higher).

Also maybe it is union spin, but I would hope that the workers would have to meet the same standards that Australian workers and companies have to adhere to.

I also read somewhere (can't find it when you need it) that in the case of legal disputes, it is well known that Chinese courts are not that favourable.

I seriously don't know why governments don't work more co-cooperatively with the opposition when these agreements are negotiated so you don't have these situations come up. A committee from both sides as these type of agreements are in the national interest not just one side of politics.
Click to expand...

1) No it doesn't say that at all.........That is a union lie. Common sense would tell you it shouldn't say that in the document. So why do you think the union would state such a blatant lie?

2) your right and they will have to comply with Australian employment laws

3) your right re the courts as there is little distinction between the govt and the courts, the police in china and other busted arse nations. This is the whole reason FTAs and independent court processes are being established (which have been operating for some +150 years).
 
Power Raid said:
http://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/chafta/fact-sheets/Pages/chafta-myths-versus-realities.aspx

ChAFTA will not allow unrestricted access to the Australian labour market by Chinese workers. It will not allow Australian employment laws or conditions to be undermined, nor allow companies to avoid paying Australian wages by using foreign workers.



you have to ask yourself why do people still listen to the unions lies and the mischievous and deceptive conduct.
Click to expand...
These fact sheets would be more believable if it quoted exactly what the agreement does state.
It seems to tie back everything to 457 visas and they were watered down by this government.
Also to their credit the previous gov wanted to remove ISDS from all agreements.
 
Power Raid said:
1) No it doesn't say that at all.........That is a union lie. Common sense would tell you it shouldn't say that in the document. So why do you think the union would state such a blatant lie?

2) your right and they will have to comply with Australian employment laws

3) your right re the courts as there is little distinction between the govt and the courts, the police in china and other busted arse nations. This is the whole reason FTAs and independent court processes are being established (which have been operating for some +150 years).
Click to expand...
Official documents regarding the FTA with China.
The side letters make interesting reading and I believe it is those side letters that are of concern.
http://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/chafta/official-documents/Pages/official-documents.aspx
http://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements...s/Documents/chafta-annex-iv-side-letters.docx


Australia will remove the requirement for mandatory skills assessment for the following ten occupations on the date of entry into force of the Agreement.

Automotive Electrician [321111]
Cabinetmaker [394111]
Carpenter [331212]
Carpenter and Joiner [331211]
Diesel Motor Mechanic [321212]
Electrician (General) [341111]
Electrician (Special Class) [341112]
Joiner [331213]
Motor Mechanic (General) [321211]
Motorcycle Mechanic [321213]
 
Maggie5 said:
Official documents regarding the FTA with China.
The side letters make interesting reading and I believe it is those side letters that are of concern.
http://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/chafta/official-documents/Pages/official-documents.aspx
http://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements...s/Documents/chafta-annex-iv-side-letters.docx


Australia will remove the requirement for mandatory skills assessment for the following ten occupations on the date of entry into force of the Agreement.

Automotive Electrician [321111]
Cabinetmaker [394111]
Carpenter [331212]
Carpenter and Joiner [331211]
Diesel Motor Mechanic [321212]
Electrician (General) [341111]
Electrician (Special Class) [341112]
Joiner [331213]
Motor Mechanic (General) [321211]
Motorcycle Mechanic [321213]
Click to expand...

yep

1) it is not in the FTA and rightly shouldn't be

2) employment laws of the land must be observed and adhered

3) the unions have been caught out with mischievous lies in the media again

4) I look forward to the union producing what they claim the FTA said

5) oh and who should assess skills on the date of entry? the government, the union or the employer? I think you can see how this should work and thus getting rid of the assessment is no loss.
 
Power Raid said:
yep

1) it is not in the FTA and rightly shouldn't be

2) employment laws of the land must be observed and adhered

3) the unions have been caught out with mischievous lies in the media again

4) I look forward to the union producing what they claim the FTA said

5) oh and who should assess skills on the date of entry? the government, the union or the employer? I think you can see how this should work and thus getting rid of the assessment is no loss.
Click to expand...
I wish you would just look at the side letters on their own and forget about the unions for a moment and just look at what this means for people employed in the areas identified. You know what I think about the radical unions, this is not about unions for me.

It is not nothing to see here, move on.
 
Maggie5 said:
I wish you would just look at the side letters on their own and forget about the unions for a moment and just look at what this means for people employed in the areas identified. You know what I think about the radical unions, this is not about unions for me.

It is not nothing to see here, move on.
Click to expand...


I think we want the same thing being better wages and conditions, those wages being able to "go further", 30 hour work weeks, 100% participation, no discrimination, safety and respect for all. but unfortunately we don't live in the 1950s world anymore.

we shouldn't be focused on 1950s protectionist policy anymore as it is wrong on so many levels. what we should be focused on is building a global framework that enabled Australia to be the great nation it became.

The task ahead is monumental and will take generations to build globally, as it did here in Oz. The task just gets harder, the pain longer and the trough deeper when you try to hold back a tide rather than working with the tide. So instead of just looking at the problem we need to look at the solution otherwise we will encounter nothing but issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
How the coalition can win the next Victorian election
2 3
Replies
69
Views
3K
peetoo
peetoo
anchor man
The Nightly
Replies
8
Views
551
anchor man
anchor man
nut
The Nuclear debate
2 3
Replies
58
Views
2K
Cap
Cap
Aristotle Pickett
Vic The joke that is the Victorian Liberal Party.
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
135
Views
6K
Saint
Saint
Geoff
The Joke that is the West Australian Liberal Party
2 3
Replies
59
Views
3K
blueboy25
blueboy25
Seeds
Australias tax system takes from the young to give to the old
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
Syd
Syd
nut
Stop the lies Bill
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
Northalives
Northalives

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top