Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Hansard source

The bill that is now before us seeks to undo the knee-jerk policy undertaken by the previous government which was, frankly, pandering to special interests that make-or-break every member of this Labor Party from the leader down, and that is the union movement. Once again we have heard from members opposite in speaking to this bill the usual demonisation of skilled migration. I am not sure whether they undertake those same attacks against skilled migrants when they out in the community visiting many different ethnic communities and talking about skilled migration and the way they come in here and vote on skilled migration, but one thing I do know is that skilled migration has been one of the key pillars on which this country is built. It always amazes me that those opposite are always happy to encourage those who are coming the wrong way and do nothing about that but seem to take great issue when people come the right way, particularly when people come and get involved in the economy, contribute to the bottom line of this country and live the whole principle of Australia that those who get a fair go are those who have a go. Those opposite seem to have a real problem with that, and that has been demonstrated again in this bill, as it was when the original act that this bill seeks to repeal was introduced.

The act that this bill seeks now to repeal sprung wholly from the attempts of the previous government to force what I would argue is an anticompetitive regulation upon industry after it discovered that existing legislation did not permit the extension of union power to offshore installations beyond the universally accepted reach of Australia's migration zone. Members opposite talk about unions standing up for the workers—only if they did—but they tend to stand up for union officials, which seems to be their record in this place. In this debate we have seen those attacks and those positions maintained by those opposite.

A previous minister for immigration—and there were quite a few last year; we had three in the space of six months—sought to challenge the long-held convention and impose domestic migration law on workers far outside Australia's migration zone. The influence of the unions on that government was so strong that it bowed to their demands and tied up resource projects, installations and pipelines with union red tape, stifling business and investment. In the case of Allseas Construction SA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship the government were challenged to provide any just reason or justification for their attempt to impose domestic migration regulation upon offshore workers, and they could not do that. In May 2012 the Federal Court ruled that the two vessels in question were not Australian resources installations within the meaning of the Migration Act whilst they were wholly or principally engaged in operations relating to the installation of offshore pipelines. The court ruled that the vessels and the noncitizens working on board these vessels were not within the migration zone and, therefore, were not working within the migration zone as defined by section 5(1) of the act and could not be required to hold visas in order to undertake the work they had been contracted to perform.

Contrary to the claims of the then immigration minister of the previous government, the Allseas litigation did not expose any loophole in Australia's migration system that was being exploited by the industry. There was no loophole. No loophole in fact existed. In this vein the same motivations were glaringly apparent when the previous minister for immigration launched his attack on skilled migration in the 457 visa legislation. The previous Labor government sought, through the offshore resources amendment, to create a problem where there actually was none and to demonise the legitimate employment of highly skilled workers who were beyond the reach of unions and added to the productivity of those projects.

Australia is one of the top 10 energy producers in the world and each year our oil and gas industries make up about 2.5 per cent of GDP. This activity generates nearly $30 billion in revenue every year. Energy producers contribute around $9 billion in direct tax payments and supply 58 per cent of Australia's primary energy needs. At the time when the act that this bill seeks to repeal was introduced into this place the then government could not provide any indication, nor indeed sought to acknowledge in any significant way, the increased costs that the extension of Australia's migration zone must necessarily burden the energy and resources industry with.

Apart from the not insignificant costs attached to formally sponsoring workers, union interests clearly sought to force outrageous wage demands upon the industry. In May last year the maritime workers' union sought to impose wage requirements for cooks working on offshore north-west gas projects of $230,000 a year. How can Australia possibly hope to compete with the rest of the world and attract critical growth industries to projects in our territorial waters if this sort of union driven, anticompetitive and highly interventionist regulation is allowed to be forced on industry with union red tape at the behest of union interests, represented in those who sit opposite?

Not every worker needed for every energy industry project can be found in Australia. Where they can be, they should be employed. That is what the law is designed to achieve. Much of the work undertaken on offshore installations is highly specialised, requiring someone who has considerable expertise performing very specific tasks. Often the projects of the type being developed off Australia have never been established here before. It is entirely reasonable, therefore, to expect that some portion of the experts required must necessarily be sourced from outside of Australia. An inquiry by the Inspector of Transport Security in 2012 into the offshore oil and gas resources sector security clearly identified the legitimate need for an internationally sourced workforce and found that companies are increasingly recruiting personnel from overseas due to skill shortages in Australia. Forcing industry to wade through unnecessary red tape simply to bring these critical workers to their operations will inevitably slow down productivity and thus the attractiveness of investing in Australia.

When the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee conducted an inquiry into the Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Bill last year the key resources industry body—the Australian Mines and Metals Association—offered a very clear warning of the detrimental impact on the continued attraction of foreign investment that the former government's reforms to their recruitment and movement of specialist workers would bring about. Executive Director Mr Scott Barklamb stated:

Australia is not the only place in the world with offshore oil and gas resources. International investors are all too aware of and are in the business of evaluating competing resource destinations.

Despite the clear significance of the impact of the reforms upon the future growth of the energy and resources sector in Australia, at the time of the introduction of the act that this bill now seeks to repeal the previous government could not even quantify or estimate the number of foreign workers in the offshore maritime zone. So absurd was the entire basis for that act that the previous government could not even show how significant the apparent issue it sought to address was. One would have imagined that any government with even a remote sense of responsibility would have made some effort to determine the nature of the problem before they just willingly accepted the union's proposed solution.

The Federal Court may have found that Australia's migration zone did not extend to certain offshore installations or vessels, but these workplaces hardly operate in a secret vacuum. The offshore resources industry is subject to a plethora of domestic regulatory systems set out in a variety of often overlapping pieces of federal, state and territory legislation. Through these, Australian law provides a wide range of mechanisms that operate to safeguard those who work on board installations or vessels in our waters.

A large proportion of these installations operate under the oversight of the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, which has responsibility for the regulation of the occupational health and safety of workers on offshore facilities, wells and well operations in Australian waters and in waters where state powers have been conferred. By law, offshore petroleum activities cannot begin before the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority has assessed and approved a detailed risk management plan, including how an organisation will manage risks to workers' safety and health.

Despite the claims of the maritime workers union and other union interests, no need exists to extend any additional protection or safeguards to workers on offshore installations. The claim simply formed part of a concerted campaign to render it near impossible for the energy and resources industry to employ foreign workers. As I have stated, and many industry specialists have also asserted, this protectionist stance is simply not sustainable. It adds to sovereign risk in relation to investments, it undermines the flow of foreign investment to Australia and places significant hindrances on the efforts of any company to develop offshore installations in Australia's territorial waters and therefore generate revenue and further employment opportunities within Australia.

The Prime Minister has said Australia is open for business, and this bill is consistent with and seeks to demonstrate this objective. The coalition government will support the suite of structures that operate to protect workers, but we will not implement policy to serve the anticompetitive will of special interests, in particular the unions seeking to protect the interests of unions. The bill helps restore the confidence that both industry and the Australian people can have in our nation's future growth and opportunities in this sector. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context