Goodbye Bronwyn

[wide eyed and legless]

WEAL

Round 2.

Whats going on. Did the cruise ship liner get told to sack Australian staff or not. Please set the record straight for us


https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/29420762/no-lie-we-were-told-to-sack-staff/

According to you they did, a labor voter will believe everything they read, that is anti LNP and whatever the unions tell them to believe, it's all hearsay about the cruise ship, he has no proof of a conversation with ministers, if I was going to be a whistle blower I would make sure I had proof before running to newspapers.
If Mr Milby had wrote to the department as claimed one would think he would have had a reply back by either post or email,going to a senate hearing and repeating under oath what he claims he was told wouldn't carry much weight, not with me any way I have sworn under oath many times and have told as much truth as the plaintiff has.

 

[wide eyed and legless]

We should be more concerned, not about some hearsay from a Mr Milby, but about ChAFTA , there only seems to be Shifty and the unions against it, China has given Australia more benefits than it has given any other nation it has a free trade agreement with and Shifty (as he has been instructed by the unions)is ******* about with it.

 

[malt and barley blues]

They were nicer then.

I doubt they were, they have had there factions since the Islamist religion began and has been going on ever since, going to take years of solid education to change their attitude, repeat after me,"There is no God, there is no life after death"

 

[seamad]

Not everyone agrees on the benefits of FTAs in the first place

Australia is resilient enough to weather the weakening of the Chinese economy, the Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has said, but he poured cold water on the benefits of the free trade agreement between the two countries.
Krugman supports free trade, but was sceptical of the benefits of bilateral agreements such as the one between China and Australia.
They were often misleadingly pitched as something that must be done “for the national good”, he said. “It isn’t really – it’s not going to have any major impact on GDP per capita.”
He suggested the Australia-China deal could well be, like the Trans Pacific Partnership, mostly about entrenching the power of monopolies. “Free trade –which on the whole I’m a supporter of – is being used to cover fields that really are not about that at all.”
Krugman also opposed the TPP currently being negotiated, of which Australia’s trade minister, Andrew Robb, is an ardent advocate. It was “not really a trade agreement”, Krugman said, as trade in the Pacific area was “already pretty free in most things”.
Rather, he argued the TPP was mostly about “intellectual property rights and dispute settlements procedures”, for which there were “very clear negative argument that it hurts consumers”.
“If Australia is having problems with selling stuff to the rest of the world it has a pretty straightforward answer, namely it’s got a floating currency. The Aussie dollar goes down and pretty much takes care of itself, so Australia really doesn’t need to worry about that.

The Australian Productivity Commission has also been critical of FTAs

• Preferential trade agreements (FTA) add to the complexity and cost of international trade through substantially different sets of rules of origin, varying coverage of services and potentially costly intellectual property protections and investor-state dispute settlement provisions.
  The emerging and growing potential for trade preferences to impose net costs on the community presents a compelling case for the final text of an agreement to be rigorously analysed before signing. Analysis undertaken for the Japan-Australia agreement reveals a wide and concerning gap compared to the Commission's view of rigorous assessment.
• http://www.pc.gov.au/research/recurring/trade-assistance/2013-14/trade-assistance-review-2013-14.pdf

 

[madpierre06]

I doubt they were, they have had there factions since the Islamist religion began and has been going on ever since, going to take years of solid education to change their attitude, repeat after me,"There is no God, there is no life after death"

a) Yep, they've always had thjeir factions, but their religious side is only one part of what is an ideology which has as it's ultimate aim to piece by piece have the planet under sharia law. Education will not change their attitudes as it is not an actual attitude which they have....it is a cemented way of viewing the world.

b) Not sure about the "There is no God, there is no life after death".....that's your opinion, I have a different belief, but I'm not going to try and educate you to change your attitude.

 

[wide eyed and legless]

If Paul Krugman was so smart how come his worth is so little, New Zealand has increased its exports to China from $2 billion to $8 billion, they have almost the same agreement as Australia regarding labour has any Chinese gone to work on projects, I haven't heard the Kiwis squealing.
http://www.border.gov.au/WorkinginAustralia/Documents/ifa-operation-flowchart.pdf

 

[goomboogo]

If Paul Krugman was so smart how come his worth is so little, New Zealand has increased its exports to China from $2 billion to $8 billion, they have almost the same agreement as Australia regarding labour has any Chinese gone to work on projects, I haven't heard the Kiwis squealing.
http://www.border.gov.au/WorkinginAustralia/Documents/ifa-operation-flowchart.pdf

What specifically in that agreement enabled transactions between New Zealand and China that were hindered or prohibited prior to the agreement? Can you clarify your point about Krugman's worth? Are you referring to his financial position or the value of his analysis?

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

The problem with the Chafta is ( and you know this WEAL ) is that there is no legislation saying that the the Chinese have to employ local workers first. That is the issue that the that is become the sticking point

Weather or not the they have to employ local workers comes down to a decision of the Dept of immigration. There is nothing legislated to say they have to.

This is what the unions are against. The Government of the day could easly direct the Dept of Immigration ( or whatever they get called in the future )

WEAL, you are trying to make us believe that the unions and Labor are totally against the Chafta. This is not true. The are for it, just not the section about bringing in overseas workers above locals.

All the Unions want to do is safeguard local jobs. I cant see how that is unreasonable

 

[wide eyed and legless]

What specifically in that agreement enabled transactions between New Zealand and China that were hindered or prohibited prior to the agreement? Can you clarify your point about Krugman's worth? Are you referring to his financial position or the value of his analysis?

Well whatever it was that hindered or prohibited transactions prior to the agreement made a $6 billion dollar difference to New Zealands exports to China when it was lifted.
Krugman's worth is his monetary worth, your favorite financial reporter Mr Terry McCrann is worth more than Krugman.

Stu the problem with ChAFTA lies with Shiftys puppet masters the CFMEU, all the state premiers want it passed, Bob Hawke, Bob Carr, Chris Bowen, Martin Ferguson the list from those in the labor camp goes on.
The Australian Industry Group has come out and said the foreign worker visa entry remains very tough and challenging both within and outside the ChAFTA.
Shifty has the arm of the CFMEU jammed firmly up his arse and moving his lips to their tune.

If you really wanted to be concerned about ChAFTA it would be the removal of tariffs that favour protected Chinese industries and remember the labour market works both ways we can go and work over there, especially favourable if you have green eyes.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Stu the problem with ChAFTA lies with Shiftys puppet masters the CFMEU, all the state premiers want it passed, Bob Hawke, Bob Carr, Chris Bowen, Martin Ferguson the list from those in the labor camp goes on.
The Australian Industry Group has come out and said the foreign worker visa entry remains very tough and challenging both within and outside the ChAFTA.
Shifty has the arm of the CFMEU jammed firmly up his arse and moving his lips to their tune.

Weal, why cant you accept that the Unions in general have nothing against the Chafta, just the provision to bring in overseas workers in favour of local workers. I know you like union bashing, and its probably the first line on your resume', but what is wrong with having legislation in place that they have to employ local workers first ( or exhuasting the local supply ) before bringing in there own.

There is no legislation do do that, the decision to allow overseas workers is to be made by a government department that can take direction from the government of the day. The dept can simply allow a company to bring in overseas workers without regard to sourcing local one.

I know you trying to dodge this question, but an actual answer would be good for a change instead of carrying on like a politician and avoiding the question

 

[wide eyed and legless]

I have put this link in 3 times now.
http://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/chafta/fact-sheets/Pages/chafta-myths-versus-realities.aspx

Legislation is already in place with the 457 visas why would we need more, the unions are against the agreement because it is a deal negotiated by the LNP, other agreements are in place which are exactly the same.


Have New Zealand had a problem with Chinese workers flooding in and taking jobs NO, is New Zealand better of with their trade agreement with China YES.

I will not be the one left with egg on their face, it will be Shifty and the unions.

There are more pro's than con's, it will mean more job opportunities for Australians, we also now know we can't rely on mining to be the backbone of our exports we have got to concentrate on other means, one being agriculture.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

But there is nothing legislated. That IS the problem

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

from Wikipeadia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/457_visa

An audit by the Fair Work Ombudsman conducted between Sept 2013 and June 2014 found that 40% of 457 visa holders were no longer employed by a sponsor or were being paid well below the statutory minimum wage of $53,900.[5]
In October 2014, the Abbott government announced that it would making it easier for businesses to apply for 457 visa workers by relaxing rules for English language competency to broaden the pool of potential workers from overseas.[5]
With the commencement of the Japan free-trade agreement in 2015, employers no longer need to offer jobs to locals or prove that none were available to fill vacancies before employing Japanese nationals eligible for 457 visas.[6]
In December 2014, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection released recommendations to relax 457 visa requirements. The recommendations include extending the six month short term work visa to 12 months with no obligation to apply for a 457 visa. The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) has criticized this change on the grounds that it avoids the 457 visa's requirement for English language and skills tests and employers would not be required to demonstrate they had first tried to fill job vacancies with Australian workers.[7]


I am looking for info to say that an employer MUST have exhuasted ALL avenues of local employemnt before being granted a 457.... No luck as yet WEAL

 

[goomboogo]

Well whatever it was that hindered or prohibited transactions prior to the agreement made a $6 billion dollar difference to New Zealands exports to China when it was lifted.
Krugman's worth is his monetary worth, your favorite financial reporter Mr Terry McCrann is worth more than Krugman.

The $6 billion dollar difference you refer to was the result of factors largely separate from the trade agreement. The dairy industry made the largest gains in the period to which you refer. Dairy exports did benefit from gradual tariff reductions but these were secondary to demand effects. China's demand for dairy products increased dramatically at the same time as the country's dairy herd was being reduced. It also coincided with issues with tainted milk in China which subsequently increased the desire to import dairy products. The bottom line for New Zealand was driven by an effective marketing position combined with dramatically increased prices.

The forestry industry has also been a significant contributor to the increased trade between New Zealand and China. Once again, this was largely due to factors other than the trade agreement. It was largely due Russia placing a large tax on it's log exports in 2008.

The increases in trade between New Zealand and China are starting to decline. Dairy exports to China are down more than two-thirds since last year. The decline has it's source in the same place as the initial increase. Market economics was the primary contributor. The increase in trade would have occurred whether the trade agreement was in place or not.

 

[wide eyed and legless]

But there is nothing legislated. That IS the problem

https://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Work/Work/subclass-457-visa-legislative-instruments


Everyone's trade to China is in decline owing to a lower economic growth rate, even though compared to the rest of the world China's growth rate is still one to be envied.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

https://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Work/Work/Changes-to-the-Subclass-457-program

Mid-way through 2012, the department identified that the subclass 457 program was growing at a record rate and that a significant component of this growth has been in industries and geographical regions that do not appear to be experiencing skills shortages. While most employers are using the subclass 457 appropriately, there is a concern that certain employers in some industries are sourcing their skilled labour needs outside of Australia without first checking the availability of labour locally. While not unlawful, these actions are not in line with the principles of the subclass 457 program


Ahhh...Utopia

 

[wide eyed and legless]

So you never got past the second paragraph then stu.

 

[madpierre06]

Growth rate...sorry mate, I don't rate the term, nothing personal, but there was a time where this phrase didn't exist. If they (China) have grown, at whose personal expense has this happened. Back in the day, everyone who worked hard, had a modicum of motivation, and a decent work ethic, had a FAIR shot at making a buck and buying a HOME to raise a family in. Not now.

Now we have growth rates, economies, FTA's, ******* try and achieve the above without money already behind you and see how you go. No more HOMES, just investment comoddoties which you have very little chance of accessing, jobs which are now part of a bloody MARKET, and try and find one of these that is full time and see how you go. I can still remember losing a job one friday, going to the pub and by end of day had a job teed up to start on monday morning. Try that now. nJust walk around the suprmarkets now, there was a time where those fellas in OUR community who had disabilities/special needs would always be seen either pushing pallets through shopping aisles or trains of trolleys through the carpark, they could access jobs which gave them a sense of self worth in a world in which they had very little other opportunity........they had paying jobs. Have a look now, eh. These jobs are subbied out to other organisations who I am very sure pay a lot less to their current employees who are very seldom of australian heritage.

 

[Airgead]

Growth is measured in GDP which is a very skewed measure. All it measures is the amount of money moving. Not how much good its doing. Natural disasters like fires are good for GDP because people need to spend money to rebuild. People getting sick is good for GDP because they need to pay for healthcare (especially if they are old because then you don't need to count lost earnings).

The inventor of GDP as a metric said that it would be a really stupid idea to use GDP as the sole measure of an economy and yet here we are doing just that.

The modern concept of GDP was first developed by Simon Kuznets for a US Congress report in 1934.[6] In this report, Kuznets warned against its use as a measure of welfare...

GDP has been increasing steadily since about 1945. On the other hand, measures like GPI (general progress indicator) have been going backwards since the 70s. More money moving (higher gdp)... less benefit from that (lower GPI).

Sucks eh.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

So you never got past the second paragraph then stu.

Nah, Just cherry picking B)