Anne Webster (Mallee, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Regional Development) Share this | Hansard source

I, and the coalition, support efforts to engage more with our Pacific neighbours. You only have to visit the Mildura, Robinvale and Swan Hill regions, along the northern border of my electorate of Mallee, to see how migrants from the Pacific islands contribute to our industries and communities by working on farming properties and in other labourer roles. Mallee is home to approximately 74 per cent of Australia's almond production, 70 per cent of table grape production, 57 per cent of nectarine production and 19 per cent of orange production, with most grown in the north of the electorate.

For years, growers from these areas have been dealing with workforce shortages which continue to create anxiety and uncertainty for farmers at harvest time. If workers cannot be found, harvest is at risk of falling to the ground, resulting in losses into the billions of dollars. REMPLAN now estimates Mallee's gross regional product at $9.92 billion, with an annual economic output of more than $14 billion—a large part of that is built on the horticultural industry. The Pacific islander workforce contributes heavily to that industry in particular, not just in Mallee but around Australia.

Currently, under the coalition-introduced Pacific Australia Labour Mobility, or PALM, scheme, employers in the horticultural sector have access to a reliable workforce when there is not enough local Australian labour to meet the seasonal demand. It's also an opportunity for workers from partnering countries to earn good wages and learn new skills. The money they earn is often spent on their children's education and family medical bills, or it's even used to build a house or start a small business in their home country. This is sound policy that supports our growers and the workers and their families back home.

Now the Labor government is seeking to make their own mark on our immigration system, by introducing two pieces of legislation that will see a new Pacific engagement visa developed. To be fair, aspects of this concept have merit. Our Pacific neighbours are welcome in Australia. We can agree on that. However, Labor's new PEV will allow, per year, up to 3,000 nationals from Pacific island countries and Timor-Leste to be drawn from a ballot and migrate to Australia, effectively as permanent residents. This is significantly new territory, moving away from Australia's current immigration policy. There is no precedent for this process in Australia or under the Migration Act 1958—just because a process is new doesn't mean it's right.

Labor wants to turn our immigration system on its head, which may lead to perverse outcomes. Instead of creating policy based on attracting skilled migrants who contribute to the economy, this government wants to pull names out of a hat for a chance to become a permanent resident in Australia. What's more, their families will be brought in without satisfying any eligibility requirements, and they'll be well on the road to Australian citizenship. Once they have permanent residency, they will be eligible for Medicare and other social security benefits, unlike many other visa holders who have worked and contributed to this country before they had a pathway to permanency. The information on DFAT's website is that the expected cost to enter a ballot will be about $25 for each time a person puts an entry in. It is permanent residency awarded at random.

I, and my colleagues in the coalition, support well-structured and well-planned immigration policy. We have a proud history in this country of depending on migration to build our workforce and enrich our nation. But a ballot system brings risk that is unacceptable. It sees employers take chances on workers who have limited exposure to Australian culture and conditions. There is no regional policy in this legislation. There is no guarantee of adding to our workforce, particularly in the regions. Indeed, from day two, people could begin to rely on welfare rather than work, thereby increasing the burden on Australian taxpayers. Labor's policy turns immigration into a game, and Australia is the prize.

This legislation does raise significant questions regarding how it will be implemented, and the government needs to provide detail before we can call it good legislation. From information provided to the opposition by this government, to be successful in gaining a PEV the applicant must simply have an offer of employment in Australia. There's no room for exploitation here, then, is there! We know Australia has a workforce shortage across many sectors. I've already mentioned growers having trouble finding fruit pickers, something the PALM scheme helps to alleviate. But there are many, many sectors desperate for workers.

Earlier today I met with representatives from Clubs Australia. They stressed to me the importance of overseas workers to the club industry's workforce by filling labour and skills shortages. Overseas workers fill skilled occupations such as chefs and cooks, as well as other occupations like food and beverage attendants. In fact, they told of one club that hadn't had an Australian apply for a chef role in years. They simply can't get an Australian person to apply, but overseas workers do.

Hospitality and horticulture are just two examples. But, Deputy Speaker Sharkie, how easy do you think it would be for someone applying for this visa to obtain a job offer for a whole host of industries in this current workforce climate? If they tried hard enough, there would be employers willing or perhaps even desperate enough to take the chance, particularly under the systems this visa would put in place. From the perspective of the employer, this PEV could mean less work to get workers. The worker, as a result, would have a job offer that meant they came to Australia as a permanent resident. Both parties win when you cut out the red tape associated with current visa processes.

At face value, this almost reads like a great plan; it truly does—a nice carrot to get jobs filled and an easy way through the immigration process for willing participants. But once again the devil is in the detail, and this isn't the first time that phrase has been applied to Labor policy. Another springs to mind: the expansion of the distribution priority areas, which has resulted in regional areas bleeding health professionals to major centres. The words 'unintended consequences' describe a lot of Labor policies—the health workforce and now the immigration system.

It appears that, once in Australia, these applicants could quit their job, or be sacked, after a day and be eligible to access the full range of welfare entitlements for them and for their family. One can only imagine there would be unscrupulous individuals out there happy to exploit this loophole.

Australia's migration system is well structured and rigorous for a reason. But this legislation is not. The government have stated they envisage the eligibility criteria for the visa will include being between 18 and 45 years old, having a formal offer of employment in Australia, English language ability, and meeting health and character requirements, although it will not have a skill level or occupational requirement, or a regional requirement. This rings alarm bells as to its capacity to fill any workforce shortages we have. How would an employer know that the person they were getting would be suited to the role they are applying for? The short answer is they wouldn't truly know until this person showed up to work.

This new visa would move away from the skilled stream of Australia's migration program. This program targets young, highly skilled migrants who can make an economic contribution to our country, and temporary migrants who can make an economic contribution by addressing workforce shortages. These are key cornerstones for any migration program in Australia. We need to ensure we have the right people coming in to fill jobs and contribute to Australia's economy.

It is also a concern that this visa has no requirement for prior work experience in Australia, increasing the risk of visa recipients and their families having unsuccessful settlement experiences in Australia, and that is a risk that puts a lot more pressure on diasporas to support new immigrants.

Going into the last federal election, this government had a policy of a strong Pacific family. After all, the Pacific islands are our closest neighbours and it's important that we in this part of the world remain united. But how is this unstructured ballot that offers a new country to families from their home nation and brings them to Australia going to make the Pacific family stronger? It seems it would do the opposite; it would weaken the rest of the Pacific, all to address the issues we have here in Australia.

These views are shared by others, not just those on this side of the chamber. In January this year Samoa's Acting Prime Minister told their parliament that the Australian government made the announcement on new visas without consulting the then Samoan government. His worry was that this would hurt the Samoan labour workforce, as it is already strained. Does Australia really want to rob Peter to pay Paul? Is this what entails being part of a strong Pacific family? Under the current PALM scheme, the worker in Australia sends remittance back to their families in the Pacific islands. This in turn plays a part in stimulating their economic prosperity. Under this Labor policy, our Pacific neighbours are potentially worse off—another unintended consequence. If this visa is a test of Labor's foreign relation and economic policy to make a stronger Pacific family, then the signs are not looking good.

The coalition is strongly committed to providing employment opportunities in Australia for citizens of the Pacific island nations and Timor-Leste. We extend our hand to our neighbours and are glad to work with them, not to take from them but to offer opportunities for their people that would in turn help their countries. This was the aim of the PALM scheme, which I know growers around the northern part of Mallee have been thankful for. I'm sure there are many other communities relying on Pacific island labour around Australia in the ag industry, in abattoirs and in numerous other sectors. We will remain strongly in support of mechanisms that provide employment opportunities for citizens of the Pacific islands and Timor-Leste, along with pathways to permanent residency in a sustainable manner. But this legislation is not going to do that.

As I said at the start of this speech, the PEV has some merit and I would be willing to work with the government and the Pacific nations for the development of a sustainable PEV, knowing what it means to Mallee in terms of our workforce issues. A pathway for permanent residency is valid, particularly for those who have shown the capacity to work in Australia. That is something I support and will continue to support. What I can't support is the legislation in its current form. The PALM scheme itself could be a suitable vehicle to develop a PEV if, under the current system, PALM scheme participants are able to enter a ballot. PALM scheme participants have proven their suitability to work in Australia because they are already here working under a temporary visa. They would be ideal for a more concrete PEV. We know that, under the PALM scheme, there have been mutual benefits for all parties, including Australia, Pacific island nations and individual workers, employers and even families and communities of workers back in the Pacific islands. This Labor government should look at the PALM scheme and its participants more closely and, in effect, make the PALM scheme a step on the way to a PEV. This would ensure any PEV recipient is better placed to successfully take up Australian permanent residency rather than creating a whole new game. Wouldn't this be a solution in line with the country's current migration program that would avoid the need for a lottery and the risks it poses? I would think so.

Australia as a nation has long enjoyed strong bipartisan support for our nearest neighbours in the Pacific islands and Timor-Leste, and we want to see that continue. Let's find solutions we can agree on.

See this speech in context