Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (4):

(1) Title, page 1 (line 1), after "Customs Act 1901", insert "and the Migration Act 1958".

(2) Clause 1, page 1 (line 5), after "Customs", insert "and Migration".

(3) Schedule 1, page 17 (after line 17), after Part 2, insert:

Part 2A—Labour market testing

Migration Act 1958

2A After section 38B

  Insert:

38C Temporary Work (Short Stay Activity) visas

(1) This section applies in relation to an applicant for a visa referred to in the regulations as a Subclass 400 (Temporary Work (Short Stay Activity)) visa if:

  (a) the applicant is applying for the visa on the basis that he or she will be engaged to undertake work that is highly specialised; and

  (b) the applicant will be engaged to undertake work as an installer or servicer of equipment or machinery that was supplied on the condition that it be installed or serviced by persons engaged by the person for whom the applicant is undertaking the work; and

(c) it would not be inconsistent with any international trade obligation of Australia determined under subsection 140GBA(2) to require the person for whom the applicant is undertaking the work to perform testing of the Australian labour market, and give evidence and information to the Minister, in relation to the work as set out in paragraph (2)(a).

(2) It is a criterion for the visa that:

  (a) the person proposing to engage the applicant to perform the work has:

     (i) performed testing of the Australian labour market, in accordance with the regulations, to demonstrate whether a suitably qualified and experienced Australian citizen or Australian permanent resident is readily available to undertake the work; and

     (ii) given the Minister the evidence in relation to that labour market testing, and the information about redundancies or retrenchments in a business or associated entity of the person, that is prescribed by the regulations, and

(b) having regard to that evidence, and information (if any), the Minister is satisfied that:

     (i) a suitably qualified and experienced Australian citizen or Australian permanent resident is not readily available to undertake the work; and

     (ii) a suitably qualified and experienced eligible temporary visa holder is not readily available to undertake the work.

(3) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, exempt applicants in a specified class from the operation of subsection (2) in relation to specified work if:

  (a) the Minister is satisfied that:

     (i) an event has occurred in Australia, whether naturally or otherwise, that has such a significant impact on individuals that a government response is required; and

     (ii) the exemption is necessary or desirable in order to assist disaster relief or recovery; or

(b) the Minister is satisfied that:

     (i) either or both a qualification prescribed by the regulations, or experience of a kind and for a period prescribed by the regulations, is required to undertake the specified work; and

     (ii) the work is of a kind prescribed by the regulations.

(4) The Minister must ensure that, as soon as reasonably practicable after the commencement of this subsection, and at all later times, there are in force regulations for the purposes of subparagraphs (2)(a)(i) and (ii).

(5) Words and expressions used in this section have the same meanings as in section 140GBA.

(4) Schedule 1, page 17, after proposed item 2A, insert:

2B Paragraph 140GBA(1)(a)

  Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

  (a) the approved sponsor is:

     (i) approved under the regulations as a standard business sponsor; or

     (ii) in a class of sponsors prescribed by the regulations; or

     (iii) a party to a work agreement that is entered into on or after the commencement of this subparagraph (other than a Minister); and

There are a few holes in this bill and problems in this agreement, and I want to draw attention to one of them and seek to try to close it. That is a hole that exists regarding people being brought in to work in Australia, the conditions under which they do that and whether there are any limitations on it. Broadly speaking, there are two sets of ways in which people can be brought into Australia under this agreement and under our migration laws. One set that has been the subject of recent debate and discussion between Labor and Liberal and has been the focus of articles is around work agreements and large projects. But there is another stream that allows people to be brought into this country under these provisions and to work here, and that is through the usual standard business sponsor arrangement, where a business will sponsor someone to bring them in or potentially bring them in under subclass 400 visas—short-stay activities.

What we know under this agreement, because it is very clear in its terms, is that the starting point of this agreement in article 10.4(3) is that unless it is specified otherwise in the annexe—and I will come to the annexe in a moment—there will be no more labour market testing. This means the starting point is that you do not have to advertise locally for a job before you can bring someone in under this agreement. There have been some amendments reached between the government and the opposition about large-scale work agreements, project agreements and the like. What I want to do is try to close a loophole that exists with respect to a second set of people, and that is those that are referred to in the annexe and those that are called 'installers and servicers' or 'contractual service suppliers'.

The situation is this: despite all of the agreements reached between Labor and the coalition, under this agreement, unless we amend it today, it will be possible for businesses in Australia to bring in an unlimited number of people to work in Australia without having to advertise locally first, provided that they call them either 'contractual service suppliers' or 'installers and servicers'. There are a number of other criteria that they would have to meet but they will not have to advertise locally first. If that loophole is not be closed, then all these other protections that have been negotiated are next to worthless, because there is now a separate way for businesses in this country to bring people in, provided that they call them 'contractual service suppliers' or 'installers and servicers', given that the opening words in 10.4(3) say that there is not going to be labour market testing for them anymore.

The second thing that this set of amendments does is to put into legislation one of the protections that has been supposedly negotiated. At the moment, when it comes to those larger-scale work agreements, the only protection that has been negotiated between the government and the opposition is to issue a new regulation. Everyone knows that what a minister regulates one day they can take away the next, and I for one am not prepared to put labour protection solely in the hands of a coalition workplace relations minister or a coalition immigration minister. Those protections ought to be in law. So the second component of these amendments is to put that protection about a party work agreement back into the front part of the legislation rather than in regulation.

This is a sensible set of amendments that will close the loophole. As I say, the way these trade deals are negotiated means that we are presented with 'take it or leave it', so you do not have the opportunity to amend the agreement itself, but we do have the opportunity to amend our migration laws. That is something that the minister has said he is going to do with respect to regulations, and so the proposal to this House is that the government and the opposition agree to close one further loophole. We say that you have not gone far enough, but in the way that you have indicated you want to do with project agreements and work agreements, let's do it as well with these other categories, these contractual service suppliers. If we do not close the loophole, it will mean that someone can come in and work as a nurse or an electrician without the job having to be advertised locally first, and they could do it for up to four years. That, I think, is something that most people would not agree with.

See this speech in context