Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Hansard source

The coalition will not be supporting the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 and the Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023. I concur with the amendment that the shadow minister for immigration, the member for Wannon, has put forward and totally support his views on this important matter. He is quite correct when he points out that this is basically pulling a name out of a hat, a visa lottery for Pacific workers. That sort of system has not been in operation in Australia before. Once a lottery is established, it may well be expanded. This is not the sort of situation that we've had previously. We've had a bipartisan, non-discriminatory immigration program in place for decades. That is why I support the amendment but do not, cannot and will not support the bill as put forward.

In question time today, unfortunately, the gloves come off a bit, with the Minister for International Development and the Pacific, the member for Shortland, making comments about the coalition's record in the Pacific. So much is made of what the coalition did and didn't do during our three terms in government. It is a shame that those opposite never, ever acknowledge or recognise that there was a worldwide pandemic, that it is ongoing, that it cost a lot of money to ensure that people remained in jobs and, moreover, that people were able to stay alive. In February 2020—even before James Kwan in Perth became the first fatality in Australia from COVID-19 on 1 March 2020—we as a government were already acting to make sure that we kept people alive and that we kept people in work.

Migration has always been an important economic policy. It is not just a policy to ensure that people can come to this country, settle here, work here and enjoy the lifestyle we have here. We also make sure that we do it in a humanitarian and compassionate way. We also are cognisant of the fact that the people we were taking are doing it because they want or need to be here and also of not taking away the vital workers and citizens of other countries and leaving them poorer because people decide to resettle in Australia.

I'm glad that the member for Wannon has joined me in the Federation Chamber because he, quite correctly, made these comments to James Massola of the Sydney Morning Herald just yesterday:

Australian citizenship is too important to be decided by pulling a name out of a hat. Migrants to this nation should be incentivised to come for work, not to access the full range of social security benefits and Medicare.

He also said:

Australia's immigration policy should target young, highly skilled migrants who can make an economic contribution to our country and temporary migrants who make an economic contribution by addressing workforce shortages.

He and I share pretty similar electorates inasmuch as agriculture is large, manufacturing is prominent and vacancies are one of the biggest things communities are facing at the moment. There are any number of workforce shortages throughout regional Australia. You only have to go down the main street of any country town or regional centre to see the notices and posters in the windows of shopfronts imploring people to come inside and apply for the vacancies to fill those workforce shortages. Even when I was driving home the other day there was an 'electricians wanted' sign on the highway as I entered Wagga Wagga. I've rarely seen those sorts of things previously. As the Regional Australia Institute identifies, there are 80,000 jobs needed to be filled in regional Australia at the moment.

Interestingly, in the second paragraph of Mr Massola's article he said that the plan was unveiled in February. I heard—if I am correct in hearing—a member opposite mention that this was somehow part of the agenda going forward prior to the last election. No, it was not. This is the first time this lottery-style system has come up. Yes, getting more migrants into Australia was something that those opposite pushed as part of their election platform, but so did we.

The member for Wannon and I know just how important it is to fill those vacancies. As others, including the member for Mallee, have quite correctly pointed out, many of those who come to this country are quite happy to do the jobs that we cannot do and that no government of any political persuasion has been able to get Australian homegrown workers to do, and more is the pity. But, irrespective of what it says on my Wikipedia page, these are not just jobs picking fruit. That's a complete misnomer. It was in answer to a question about energy, climate change and a lot more.

One of the big things that are important for the Pacific island workers—they come here and pick our fruit, yes, but they also work in our universities, our aged-care sector and many other areas of endeavour, skilled and unskilled—is that the remittance, the money that's sent home, forms a large part of their own island nation's gross domestic product. It enables their families, their loved ones, to advance themselves, to better themselves, in their own societies and their own communities, to the point where, as the member for Mallee pointed out, it even helps them to buy a block of land and sometimes, the following year, buy the house to put on it. It's something that they otherwise would not be able to do.

It's not paternalistic to say that they come here and pick our fruit; it's just the fact of the matter. But they do so many other things as well, and we thank them for it. We could not do without the energy, the work, the endeavour, the commitment and the spirit with which Pacific islanders come to our shores and help out. It is a two-way street. We get benefit from it because many of the jobs they do would not otherwise be done, and they get benefit from it because of the money they earn that they usually send back home.

But what we don't want to do, as the member for Hughes quite correctly pointed out, is cause a brain drain. What she meant by that, and it's the coalition's position, is that as good friends and neighbours we need to remember—as I said before, it's a two-way street. Those countries want their best and, in some cases, their brightest and their hardest working people to gain experience, to earn money and to upgrade their skills. But also, in many cases, they want them to stay in their own countries and benefit their own communities, not remove themselves from their own countries and settle here in Australia. We can't be seen as the paternalistic nation that takes the best and brightest and hardest working from our Pacific island friends and doesn't give them back, so to speak. I mean that in the nicest and most respectful way possible.

I've been to Vanuatu twice in recent times. I've been to Papua New Guinea. I've been to the Federated States of Micronesia. When I spoke to civic leaders in those communities, they expressed the concern that, while they thought it was a good thing that their people came over here to gain experience, to gain money and to improve their skills, they didn't want to lose them as citizens of their own nations.

That is why this lottery type of system for applications for permanent residency here in Australia does disturb me. It does worry me. That is the reason why the member for Wannon has put forward his very sensible, practical, measured and responsible amendment to this bill before the House.

The government's two bills seek to establish a ballot system for the introduction of the proposed Pacific engagement visa. The government has stated that the visa would provide permanent residency for up to 3,000 nationals of Pacific island nations and Timor-Leste each year—each year. That is a big drain on those Pacific nation islands and Timor-Leste.

We as a coalition are strongly committed to providing employment opportunities. That's why we initiated the Pacific Australia Labor Mobility scheme. It's been tremendously successful. Yes, it did expand on and enhance those schemes put forward under the Gillard government and under the Turnbull government as well, and I acknowledge that. We also wish to see more pathways to permanent residency and we support the intent of this visa arrangement, but, having carefully considered the government's bills, the way they are currently drafted does not sit well with us, the opposition. Our decision in no way diminishes our strong and continued support for nations in our region, despite what the minister, the member for Shortland, said in question time today. We remain strongly in support of mechanisms which do provide employment opportunities for citizens of the Pacific and Timor-Leste, as well as pathways to permanent residency—of course we do. But a particular concern of ours is the idea of a ballot for places. It would be the first time such a mechanism was used, and I know it has been put forward that it would cost around $25. We don't want it to be seen to be like Willy Wonka's golden ticket. I mean, Roald Dahl has been very much in the news, with cancel culture rife at the moment, but we don't want to see it become something like that. We're concerned that the absence of any requirements for prior work experience in Australia will, potentially, increase the risks of these recipients and their families having unsuccessful settlement experiences in our country.

We do, however, remain supportive of the principle of the visa, and we're willing to work with the government and the key stakeholders. I do hope that the government genuinely—and I note the immigration minister in the chamber—consider our sensible amendments.

We're mindful, in developing proposals which build on the government's proposal, that we don't want to be creating new problems by, as the member for Mallee said, creating any unintended consequences. We consider that the PALM scheme could be a suitable vehicle in which to develop a visa arrangement similar to what the government's intent is, without a lottery system as such. Whilst not without its challenges—and any labour scheme is always going to have its challenges—PALM is genuinely well regarded. It is genuinely well regarded by Pacific nation leaders and by Pacific nation workers. Certainly, by the horticultural and agricultural farming endeavours and industries here, it's very well considered, because it fills roles and jobs that would otherwise not be done by locals, and, no matter how hard farmers try, they just can't fill those jobs. Unfortunately, without those Pacific islanders, fruit would be left to rot on the ground; fruit in vineyards would wither, literally, on the vine. Now, PALM is already a strong support system in place to assist new workers to settle into life and work in Australia, and that's the mechanism by which I believe this visa arrangement could be reconsidered.

See this speech in context