Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

Can I firstly acknowledge the contribution by the member for Hinkler. Despite a number of points where he sought to reflect on our former government—and I'm happy to go to those points—I have to say I agree with everything he said in relation to ensuring that we look after Australian workers and ensure that, where there are legitimate opportunities for Australian workers, they have to be given the first opportunity for that work.

I have to say that the member for Hinkler should still be a member of the executive government. The way in which the member for Hinkler has been treated by the Deputy Prime Minister in particular is quite shameful, to be honest. When we listened to the contribution he made today in this debate, it was testament to the fact that he was a member of the executive government.

But I think it's very important to note for the record that Labor has always supported a more rigorous approach to labour market testing to ensure that the 457 visa was applied properly. The fact is that in June 2013, when I was the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, we introduced a bill to this place to regulate and to enforce compliance around labour market testing, and those then in opposition, who are now in government, voted against that bill. The shadow minister at the time, the member for Cook, the now Treasurer, stood up and attacked the legislation, saying we should not choke the program, namely the 457 visa.

The now Treasurer, as then shadow minister for immigration, opposed our legislation to introduce labour market testing. The bill itself was not as strong as we would have liked, because we were dealing with the crossbenchers in a situation where we were a minority government. But the Liberal Party opposed that legislation, and they vowed to repeal the legislation if they were elected. Where is that legislation now? It's still on our statute books, and it's relied upon by the current government—the same government which, when in opposition, said it was a bad bill. That's the first thing I'd say.

The second thing I'd say is that the bill before us is moving in the right direction after the government has chosen to do an absolute 180-degree turn on 457s, but it's not rigorous enough. That's why Shayne Neumann, the shadow minister for immigration, made it clear in his contribution to this debate that we want to see incorporated into this bill the provisions of the private member's bill introduced into this place by the Leader of the Opposition. If the government are absolutely genuine about looking after Australian workers, giving them opportunities first, and providing opportunities for apprentices and young workers, and workers in every part of the labour market, they will support the amendments moved by Labor. Without those amendments, we will see loopholes continue and we will see Australian workers missing out on those opportunities. So there is no point in the government proposing a change to the arrangements if they're not going to be effective. That's what was made clear in the shadow minister's contribution earlier.

Quite frankly, I have to say there's a credibility problem. How can Labor believe the Minister for Home Affairs when he voted against the legislation we introduced in 2013? How can we believe the Prime Minister believes in this legislation and wants to see real change to provide opportunities to workers in regional Australia and other parts of this great nation if he voted against the legislation we introduced in June 2013 that was actually seeking to introduce labour market testing for this program? How, indeed, can we believe the Treasurer and the Prime Minister and, indeed, the home affairs minister? They lined up against legislation that was going to regulate and improve the program to ensure that there'd been an effort to look for local workers before you could get a 457 applicant to take that job.

Labor support the 457 program, but we do so to ensure that that program fills legitimate shortages in the labour market. That's why we have insisted that the amendments that are being proposed by the shadow minister are, indeed, accepted by the government. If the government's rhetoric means anything, they will support improvements to the bill, which of course are provisions that are contained within the private member's bill put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten.

So, clearly, the government have come a long way in almost five years. Five years ago, when in opposition, they said any regulation on 457 was choking the program. That's what Scott Morrison, the Treasurer, said back then when he was shadow minister. He said that any regulation that we were proposing would choke the program. And yet, in government, they kept the legislation. There were no efforts to repeal it. Now they're saying they want to improve it, but who could trust them, given their rhetoric and the attack and the accusations of racism by the then shadow minister for immigration, the now Treasurer, that I had to deal with when he was opposing the bill that we introduced into this place in June 2013? So, quite frankly, it's a long way from the rhetoric of the then shadow minister for immigration, the now Treasurer. The government's come a long way rhetorically, but we are concerned that the construction of this bill will still allow for opportunities where locals are going to miss out.

If we're going to ensure the integrity of the program and its effectiveness in genuinely supplying workers on a temporary basis who are needed to fill skill shortages, we need to get the framework right. That's what the shadow minister for immigration is proposing in this debate, and that's why he has moved amendments on behalf of Labor to say that we support the direction of the bill, but it's not strong enough, and there needs to be more rigour around labour market testing. It would then be acceptable to Labor.

I think it is important to note, given the importance of this debate, that the government, when in opposition, opposed any and every effort we made to improve the system. Indeed, in that debate back in June 2013 the then shadow minister for immigration, the member for Cook, indicated that I'd proposed that there were at least 10,000 positions being rorted. I was attacked for that. Subsequently, because we empowered the Fair Work Ombudsman to investigate breaches of 457, we found that my estimation at the time and the calculations we made extrapolating from the existing data was an underestimation of the rorting of 457s. If I'd had more information at hand at the time, I would have known it was closer to 30,000 breaches of 457 applications. So I was wrong; I underestimated the breaches. But I was being attacked for allegedly overestimating those breaches to the program.

So we feel vindicated that our legislation—which the then opposition, and now government, threatened to repeal—has withstood the test of time. It was never enough, but we were dealing with the crossbench because we had a completely belligerent and resistant opposition. I couldn't deal with the shadow minister, who's now the Treasurer, because he refused to agree with the contention that we had to toughen up the application of the 457 program. Now the government, having voted against the legislation when it was last in opposition—and, of course, having attacked us for 'racism', which was an obscene allegation made against Labor members—expects us to believe it has a totally different view on this.

I have to say that, without the amendments we're proposing, this will be a very weak bill. This is a stunt by the Minister for Home Affairs. This really does smack of poll driven legislation. The late converts to making sure we have a proper 457 program have been told that the 457 program is not entirely popular in regional areas because there's been abuse of the program, and there's been an attempt to fix it by virtue of this legislation. I'm very happy to see that the Liberal Party has now chosen to support the contention that we need to have some rigour, but we do need to ensure that we improve the labour market testing, which would have been my intention at the time I introduced the original legislation if we'd had the support of the other major party. Instead, I had to negotiate with the crossbench, and the Liberal Party was totally opposed to the idea that there was anything wrong with the 457 program.

Let's be very clear here. Temporary visas are important. They're an important supplement to our labour market, and they'll always be an important supplement. There are occasions when we need to ensure that people do have limited work rights when they are in this country. They may be students who are studying here—and our students have reciprocal rights overseas. They may be holiday-makers who are spending much of their money in our economy. They're in demand, particularly in regional areas. Farmers have a great need for labour in certain periods of the year, and they do rely upon these temporary visas. But what we can't have is an abuse of the visa program, a gaming of temporary visas. Not only will that ultimately lead to more problems and accusations of abuse but it will be to the detriment of those young workers in this country who need jobs. So we need to get the balance right.

In relation to the skilled visa—namely, the 457 visa—it is a vital visa. As the member for Hinkler said, we do need, on occasion, an individual with a particular set of skills to come in under that visa if there is a shortage in the labour market. We do need to ensure that we provide companies the opportunities to fill vacancies with particular skills that are in short supply in this country under that program, but it shouldn't be the case that it's the first option. It should be the last resort. It should be after we've explored opportunities to give people with the skills here a chance of getting that job. And then, of course, we should be seeking to use such programs to supplement our labour market to ensure that our businesses can thrive through additional skills which are in short supply in this country. Over the longer term, as the member for Hinkler said, we should be looking at trends and at where the skills shortages will be and making sure that we're investing in skills and training in areas of emerging demand in the labour market. We need to ensure that we do a better job at anticipating where the demands in the labour market are and that our vocational training providers, in particular TAFE, and our tertiary institutions do a better job at providing the skills, the knowledge and the capabilities that our citizens need to acquire to have the skills and qualifications in those areas of demand.

Too often, people are acquiring skills in areas which are disappearing from the labour market, or where 50 people are competing for one job. We must do better at understanding the nature of the labour market, the way it's changing. Our institutions and government must do better at matching up the skills and the skill demands so that we don't have to rely indefinitely, in perpetuity, upon temporary visas to supply skills. There will always be a need to slot people in and use those programs in a very considered manner, but it should not be the first port of call. It should not be that we are too lazy to work out where the demands are in our labour market, that we are too lazy to anticipate the emerging skill areas and that we don't train our own people but just continue to look overseas for those temporary options.

We're a country that was built on immigration. We require people to continue to come here to make this country a better place. It is a great country, which, of course, welcomes people from every continent. Our story is a great story to tell. We need to get that right but, in doing so, we should not use temporary visas in a way that will either prevent Australian workers from getting the opportunity to get jobs or displace those workers who are desperate to find sufficient work to look after their families and their communities.

See this speech in context