Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Medicare) Share this | Hansard source

In speaking on the Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017, I speak in support of the amendment moved on behalf of Labor by the member for Blair. This legislation is a dismal response by the Turnbull government to what has become a very serious problem for Australia, which will become an even greater problem in the future if it continues to be mismanaged. I refer to the situation that Australia currently has where around three-quarters of a million people are unemployed and more than one million people are underemployed, but overseas workers are still coming into Australia to fill jobs that could be filled by locals. It's an absurd situation to be in.

Of course the simplistic response is that the local unemployed are not suitably skilled for the jobs listed, but I have real doubts about that. It's true that as a result of flawed and short-sighted government policies over many years Australia has been left with a shortage of skills in many vocations. There were years of shonky 'skills-training' organisations rorting the system and producing very few properly skilled people for the jobs where genuine skill shortages existed. The sell-off at state and federal levels of government-operated utilities and workshops in building, construction, electricity, transport and other areas, which were once where most of Australia's apprentices were trained, also saw a marked drop in apprenticeship training across Australia. The private entities that took over those entities and those responsibilities did not continue to employ the apprentices as did the governments when they were responsible for them.

The skills shortage then created an opportunity for unethical migration agents and employers to exploit the 457 visa process and bring in cheap labour from overseas or labour from high unemployment countries. Over the last five years, the Turnbull government has also slashed skills funding to TAFE by $2.8 billion, including a $637 million cut in last year's budget alone. Not surprisingly, there are now around 140,000 fewer trainees and apprenticeships than there were five years ago when this government came into office.

Communities understandably expect that, when jobs become available, priority should be given to Australians looking for work. They also understand that, from time to time, overseas workers with specific skills may be needed. That's why a labour market testing process was made a prerequisite to the import of overseas workers. But that very process of labour market testing has been rorted. What has been happening is that workers have been brought in under a claimed skills shortage application, but when they get here they're actually employed in another area of industry, in another area of the business that brought them in, where indeed there was no shortage. I have known of cases where workers in a particular area also managed to get colleagues from the country from which they came here to Australia under the same rorting of the system—a combination of rorting by the employers and by the migration agents. Not only were the labour market testing provisions being rorted or circumvented; but the coalition government entered into free trade agreements that specifically excluded labour market testing with China, South Korea and Japan. Now we have the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement being negotiated where countries like Brunei, Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru and Vietnam may also have exclusions within that agreement with respect to labour market provisions.

The government's commitment to labour market testing is indeed shallow. It's very easy to understand that, however, because it fits in with the coalition government's ideology and its agenda—an agenda which wants to keep wages down and to weaken unions. Bringing in workers from overseas enables the government to put pressure on wages in Australia and ensure that they do remain down, because, as we all know, workers from overseas are prepared to work for lower wages because most of their money goes back to the countries they came from. And in their countries, even lower wages represent a good income for them and their families, so they will be prepared to make that sacrifice and come to Australia. I totally understand that, and I do not criticise them for doing that, but that is the reality of the situation. In turn, it means that, if they are prepared to work for lower wages, employers will offer the jobs to them ahead of offering the jobs to the Australians who apply for the jobs and are suitably qualified to do them but who will not get them because they will have to be paid the full rate of Australian wages.

We also know—and I have had discussions with people with respect to this matter—that when people come over here from overseas, even if they are being paid lower wages and even if they are being exploited, they are less likely to go to the authorities and make complaints or raise concerns about what is happening to them, because they know that, if they do, they will lose their job. They would rather have their job than do that, and again that's something that seriously concerns me. The other matter is, of course, that whilst that is all happening and the jobs are going to people from overseas, we know full well that those people are very likely not to become union members. The union members lose their jobs, and again that's an indirect attack on the unions, which this government is renowned for.

The labour-market-testing provisions in this legislation also give me real concerns. I'm not surprised that the labour-market-testing provisions in this legislation give the immigration minister new powers, which ministers in the past have not had, to prescribe by legislative instrument how the testing will be done. But the minister wants the legislative instrument, which is effectively a law of parliament, to be exempt from disallowance—unlike all other legislative instruments or regulations that come before this parliament, which can be disallowed. The minister wants to deny parliament its right to approve or disapprove what are effectively the laws of this land. This is a minister who is getting carried away with his self-importance and his authority.

I contrast that with federal Labor's approach. If Labor is elected, a new independent labour-market-testing body, which will be known as the Australian Skills Authority, will be established. That body will work with all of the stakeholders—employers, union organisations, training organisations and the like—to establish not only the list of skills shortages that occur or skills that are needed in Australia but also how the labour-market-testing provisions might apply. It will assist the government in an independent way in managing what is often a complex matter. That's what should be done rather than saying, 'We have a minister who knows everything, and he's the expert, and we will trust his judgement about what we should and should not do.' Even if it were the case that the minister felt that he did know everything, and the parliament had confidence in the minister, once legislation is enacted it's enacted for all future ministers as well. I believe that giving any minister this kind of authority is the wrong course to go on.

Put simply, this legislation imposes a fee of around $10 a week on foreign workers, paid for by their employer, with the money collected then going into a Skilling Australians Fund. This is the Turnbull government's miserly commitment to skills training in Australia. A fund will be established, at the rate of about $10 a week for each employee that comes in from overseas, that will be used to train the rest of Australia and meet the skilling needs of the rest of Australia. The problem with that is twofold. Firstly, the fund will never be sufficient to meet all the skilling and training requirements of Australian young people and others that want to be skilled. Secondly, it creates a situation where the government is dependent on bringing in foreign workers in order to fund the program that is then going to be used to skill up the rest of the nation. It's a contradiction, and it creates a dependence for the government to continue to do what we all know is wrong. I also point out that I have no doubt that the $10 a week will ultimately come out of the pockets of the workers who come here; I am sure most employers will find a way of doing that.

The new skills shortage list that the government has produced and touted as the government's clampdown on 457 visa rorting is more spin than substance. I will make some specific comments about that in respect of the medical profession and the recruitment of overseas doctors over recent years. It all began with the medical profession limiting the number of university places for medical students. That created a genuine shortage—there is no question about that—which triggered an influx of overseas doctors and overseas medical students training in Australia then getting work here. They filled a gap and provided necessary medical services, particularly in regional, rural and remote Australia. Indeed, the AMA believes that around 40 per cent of the doctors working in regional, rural and remote Australia are overseas medical doctors—that is, they either come from overseas or they came to study here from overseas and then got work here. On my figures—and I stand to be corrected—that means we have about 7,000 doctors working in regional, rural and remote Australia who are working under our visa program, which enabled them to do so because there was supposedly a shortage in the bush—and there was. Universities then opened up extra medical places, and new universities also came on board with new medical training skills. I understand that there are some 22 universities across Australia today that now provide medical training.

Now the medical profession is saying that Australia is heading towards an oversupply of doctors, and we no longer need overseas doctors coming into Australia. Yet there is still a shortage of doctors in the bush, and so the government has resisted calls by the medical profession to limit the entry of overseas doctors. What is the government's solution to what is clearly a dilemma for it? The government doesn't have one and just muddles along, hoping that the problem might one day go away and solve itself. Well, it won't, and it's a serious problem because it affects the health quality of people in regional, rural and remote Australia.

In closing, I say this is important legislation. It's important legislation because it goes to the heart of managing the workforce needs of Australia now and into future. It's important legislation because it deals with and tries to address the very important issue of skilling up our workforce for the future needs of this country. It's about supporting families that already live in this country and are struggling to find work—or find more work if they are underemployed. It's a case of building the Australian economy through having a competent workforce that can actually innovate and deal with issues that emerge and that will continue to emerge in the future. But the simplistic answer of this government is a miserly change to the 457 visa program which will be grossly inadequate to adjust and meet the future needs of this country. That's why the amendment moved by the member for Blair should be supported.

See this speech in context