Australian trade unions have raised the concern that the China-Australia FTA (CHAFTA) would result in foreign workers being employed in Australia at a lower rate and conditions than Australian workers. Are they right?

The CFMEU has started rallying against the CHAFTA on the claim that there is no statement in the CHAFTA that says foreign workers working side by side with an Australian worker shall receive the same conditions and pay.

“That’s nowhere in the agreement… go through the pages of the agreement and look at the Memorandum of Understanding and it doesn’t say it in black and white; nowhere in the agreement,”  Michael O'Connor, CFMEU National Secretary, told with Fran Kelly on RN Breakfast last week.

The CHAFTA is at risk as more than 2,000 workers rallied recently in Brisbane's CBD to protest against the agreement. Bill Shorten has endorsed the union-led assault against the free-trade pact, revealing Labor will take up the fight in ­parliament to rewrite labour ­standards, conditions and skills testing in the historic multi-­billion-­dollar agreement.

One of the documents detailing the nature of the cooperation, namely the IFA at Clause 2(e) indicates that foreign workers will have to be given the same conditions: “…the project company agrees to comply with all Australian laws and regulations, including applicable Australian workplace law, work safety law and relevant Australian licensing, regulation and certification standards.”

The entire process of approval however is complex with several layers of approvals, and authentication involving the project proponents, the China International Contractors Association, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) and the DIBP. But, no union consultation is involved.

Now in the 8th year, Australia China BusinessWeek 2015 Sydney returns on August 5-6th, at the Four Seasons Hotel Sydney. The largest event across the Australia China BusinessWeek 2015 roadshow, over 1400 delegates attended ACBW Sydney in 2014 from both Australia & China.

Australia-China BusinessWeek 2015 Sydney is tailored towards China-active or early stage SMEs and mid-sized companies wanting to develop and refine their China strategy. Australia-China BusinessWeek offers an effective business platform for professionals and investors from Australia and China to connect, network and participate in business matching.

ACBW 2015 Sydney includes 9 high profile events: ACBW 2015 Sydney Breakfast & Keynote Luncheon, ACBW English Forum, Pathways To China Forum, Mandarin Forum, Investment Forum, SIV Forum, Showcase & Mix at Six Networking Function.

Bupa have launched a great campaign for new members running throughout July and August promoting health cover solutions for overseas visitors applying for a temporary working or holiday visa in Australia. The campaign also targets Australian expats highlighting Bupa’s unique position as Australia’s only healthcare provider offering solutions for inpats, expats and travellers. 

All of Bupa’s Working Overseas Visitors Cover product options include:

• Instant health insurance visa letter
• 100% Australian Government Visa compliant
• 100% ambulance cover by our recognised providers
• Access to public and private hospitals
• Repatriation cover
• Access to private doctors and specialists

If you would like more information on this campaign please contact your Bupa representative.

Higher education provider Navitas saw $100 million wiped from its shares listed on the stock exchange despite posting a strong increase in earnings. Investors sold-off of on warnings that  growth rates in the coming years may be slowing down due to several factors including the crackdown on student visa rorters.

Navitas has written off its Indian recruitment business Study Overseas and the Navitas Resources Institute in the second half of the year, according to a report in The Australian.

Other media reports indicate that a key factor for the write-down is tougher assessments of applicants from Nepal and India. Both universities and the department of immigration consider these countries high risk markets for visa rorts, said the group's chief executive Rod Jones.

"We initially had significant enrolments from countries like Nepal and India," Mr Jones told the AAP. "However, we made a deliberate decision four months ago to reduce those enrolments because we saw lot of the students were not genuine in that they were interested in migration rather than education."

He however said India, alongside China and Vietnam, continues to be one of its biggest markets.

Earlier, the Australian reported that there was increasing evidence that students were entering the country by enrolling in a government-approved university or college under the streamlined visa processing programme, and then jumping ship to a cheap private college to finish their qualification at a fraction of the cost while ­remaining eligible for post-study work rights.

Under what circumstances can the Administrative Appeals Tribunal refuse to consider information that comes out during cross-examination of a witness at a hearing involving the cancellation of a visa on character grounds?

This was the question that the High Court had to decide in the recent case of Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) HCA 2015 (6 May 2015).  In this case, the Court was called upon to determine how section 500(6H) of the Migration Act should be applied.  By its plain language, this section provides that the AAT “must not have regard to any information presented orally in support of the person’s case unless the information was set out in a written statement given to the Minister at least 2 business days before the Tribunal holds a hearing”.

The wording of this section of the Act may appear to be clear enough, but what if there is a “wrinkle”, or unexpected legal complexity?  For example, if the information in question is brought forward during the cross-examination of a witness that is being conducted by a representative of the Minister, or by the Tribunal itself, is the Tribunal still prevented from considering the information when deciding whether to uphold the cancellation of the visa?