Laurie Ferguson (Reid, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Urban Development and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I join the previous speaker in congratulating the committee staff on the professionalism they brought to this report of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration. On behalf of opposition members, I commend the chairman on his role in initiating this investigation by the committee and also on the way in which he took a very even-handed approach to witnesses and members of the opposition in the inquiry.

Whilst the opposition would wish it were otherwise, the reality is that, when you look at the OECD figures in regard to the percentage of GDP spent on education, at the number of maths and science graduates as a percentage of university graduates, and at how much the average family is expected to devote to education out of their own pockets as opposed to taxpayer funded education, unfortunately, we have reached a certain state. Whilst, as I say, we would wish that we did not need to have this huge dependency on a skilled intake, the reality is that we have seen growth in the number of 457 visas granted from 31,000 in 1997-98 to 65,000 in March this year. I do not have the figures after that date. So there has been huge growth in this area. It is a matter of serious concern to a number of sectors.

With respect to those who gave evidence to the inquiry, a significant number of unions were represented, such as the LHMU, the CEPU, the AMIEU and the AMWU, as well as a number of employer groups—the chamber of industry, the Mine and Metals Association, the meat processors association, the chamber of commerce, and also Restaurant and Catering Australia. The issues relate very much to the preservation of the conditions of workers in this country and the degree to which they might be undermined by the exploitation of people brought in under these visas. So that was the crux of this investigation.

I believe we have come down with a very balanced report. The Age newspaper might not think it is sensational and world shattering but, as I say, I think it represents a very worthwhile outcome. I note the evidence from the Migration Institute and their call for further controls over external contractors supplying labour to the market through visas and also to overseas migration agents. I note also, importantly, the evidence of Dr Wise and Dr Velayutham, who spoke about the impediments to whistleblowers, the inadequacy of protection for whistleblowers, their fear of job loss, their fear of the loss of the minimal incomes that they receive, and their fear of deportation. They said it was desirable that people are ‘able to freely make a complaint without fear of reprisal’.

They were some of the important issues that came up in regard to this matter. I am on the conservative wing regarding the requirement for English. There is a provision in the report that emphasis should be placed on English being necessary where it is related to occupational health and safety, where there is a history of employer abuse and where it is worth while having regard to the particular nature of the industry. That in no way reduces the responsibility of workers coming into the country to attain English. I am very much in accord with the government’s recent tightening up; perhaps it was a bit too late but it was necessary.

Amongst the measures contained in the report are the need for a further report on the adequacy of the salary system; an independent review of regional certifying bodies, who came in for significant flak from a number of parties; a requirement for more information on websites for workers coming into the country; and a more comprehensive and confidential complaints mechanism, as I mentioned previously. The question of training benchmarks and resources for monitoring seemed to be another driving issue from a lot of complainants—the lack of monitoring by the department. Evidence given clearly showed that it was very haphazard and irregular and, in some cases, did not seem to occur at all. There was the question of adequate resources for the department to monitor compliance.

I believe that, having regard to the broad expanse of issues in this field, the committee report is balanced and sensible and comes up with answers in areas that were the subject of evidence and complaints. The committee worked well in what is often a very controversial area, and I endorse the report.

See this speech in context