Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this private member's motion for the abolition of temporary work skilled 457 visas, moved by the member for Dawson. Now, it does go some way, but nowhere near what's required. I will give you an example. We currently have approximately 800,000 overseas workers on temporary visas of some sort, while at the same time we have 700,000 unemployed in this country. When you look at those figures, you can see why this needs to be fixed, and it needs to be fixed now.

We heard from previous speakers that there was absolutely no labour market testing when this was being worked out—none. You certainly need labour market testing to be able to analyse and work out what's required, and, where there are shortages, to fill those shortages—if there are shortages.

I have raised this issue many times in this place, including when I was here in 2012 and 2013. I have made many speeches on this topic, and I think rightly so. Voters in my electorate come and see me with their unemployed children who have degrees and special skills certificates yet cannot get a job. They give me examples of places where they have done a little bit of casual work and where overseas workers with temporary visas are filling those positions. There's nothing wrong with filling positions when there is a skills shortage or a shortage in a particular area, but I think we need to look at the way that these visas are handed out. There is absolutely nothing wrong with us, in this place, doing everything we possibly can to ensure we have rules and regulations and legislation that says: when there is a vacant position, Australian workers should be given the opportunity to apply and gain employment in those areas. There is nothing wrong with ensuring that the onus is on the employer to prove that they couldn't find local workers to work in a particular job or skilled area.

Back in 1996, one of the first things the Howard government did was dismantle the visa system and the entire way we looked at immigration. Previously there were forms of 457 visas, but employers had to show they had advertised locally and nationally, and only then were they allowed to apply to bring someone in from overseas. They also had to explain why the people who had applied for those jobs were not up to scratch for those positions. I think it is far too easy to dish out these visas. And, even more importantly, I've seen cases—for example, in South Australia—where people were brought over as top-quality chefs only to be doing dishes. They were not paid for months on end and were sleeping on the kitchen floor of the restaurant. There are documented cases where this has been taking place. This is what this does: it opens up a whole range of dangers for people who are brought over by an employer and then have that whip held over their heads—the possible restriction or removal of their visa. This is very, very dangerous.

Regarding shortages in particular areas, in the fifties we did it very well. There were shortages in lots of areas. We brought migrants over and made them full-time Australians, basically, with permanent visas. They went on to fill those positions and help grow the economy.

The government, basically, has just done some window-dressing on this. There is nothing but window-dressing. This resembles the Christmas window-dressing some of the department stores do; that is how much of a non-change this was. We heard last week in The Age that there are employers who have been circumventing the visas and getting through absolutely massive loopholes. The government hasn't abolished the 457s; it's merely changed the name—it's merely given different names and made cosmetic changes. When 18 occupations that have been removed from the government's list of occupations have not ever been used, how is this not window-dressing? Following the government's rushed skilled migration announcement in April, they were besieged by businesses and industry—especially the education sector—saying that they weren't consulted. If you really want to fill the shortages, you have to look at the long term. In this space, we're not training people to fill those shortages. (Time expired)

See this speech in context