Dai Le (Fowler, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

In early July this year, an Australian family owned business of over 55 years, BE Campbell, reached out to me to share their struggle to recruit skilled meatworkers despite their efforts to attract and train local workers. This industry is labour intensive, and the reality is that skilled meatworkers are notoriously difficult to recruit. Unfortunately this critical challenge to its business has compelled BE Campbell to source some of its skilled workers from overseas to remain viable.

The current Temporary Skilled Migration Income Threshold is set at a level relevant to industries such as nursing, IT and engineering. Skilled meatworkers earn significantly less than these professions. Essentially, BE Campbell is faced with three major hurdles in recruiting skilled meatworkers: (1) attracting local skilled meatworkers to meet their business needs, (2) local workers are not entering the meat processing industry, as they can earn the same or more in other less laborious industries and (3) the TSMIT is set well above the rate of pay for locally recruited skilled workers in the meat industry, creating a major barrier to recruiting overseas skilled workers. As a consequence of these major hurdles, BE Campbell is now considering the possibility of downsizing the business in order to survive. They are one of the largest meat processors in Australia, and scaling back their operations due to a lack of workers can only be bad for our economy and bad for consumers.

Skilled migration has long been a cornerstone of Australia's economic growth, contributing to our diverse and dynamic workforce. Over the years, our migration policies have evolved to meet the changing needs of our economy. However, the significant shift in our skilled workforce landscape is a matter of concern, and, as the federal representative of an electorate that includes businesses struggling with a shortage of skilled workers, I'm deeply concerned about the implications of these changes. To be clear, I welcome the long overdue reform of our migration system, and I welcome the government's effort to create a more equitable balance for both employers and migrant workers. However, it is crucial that we carefully consider the impact of these reforms on all stakeholders involved.

BE Campbell is only one example within the meat processing industry facing challenges in hiring skilled migrant workers. However, this pressure is felt across many other industries. I opened this speech by sharing this case because it shows where the migration system is not working and redress is urgently needed. Under this bill the TSMIT will be replaced with the core skills income threshold of $73,150 and the specialist skills income threshold of $135,000. The government's rationale of a legislated minimum income threshold is to ensure that migrants coming to Australia to work are not vulnerable to exploitation and that there is fair remuneration through indexed salary thresholds. This sounds like a great intention. The majority of skilled migrant workers fall under the core skills stream, earning a minimum of $73,150 per year. This threshold is significantly higher than the award rates for skilled meatworkers under the meat industry award.

I'm fully in agreement that the new scheme may offer greater protection for migrant workers, but my question is: is the government also taking into consideration the struggles SME employers are currently experiencing in attracting skilled workers? In a manufacturing roundtable with many local SMEs that I held in Fowler recently in Western Sydney, the majority expressed the challenges their businesses are facing in finding local workers while facing the escalating costs of rent, wages, materials, compliance, freight and goods. Businesses like BE Campbell have made it clear to me that they are concerned that increased thresholds would cause inequity between overseas and local migrant workers and that they need to bring in this specific meat-processing skilled workforce to meet customer demand and create job opportunities, otherwise they will be forced to scale back their operations.

Each industry has unique market remuneration standards. It's not a one-size-fits-all legislated threshold. If the government had engaged extensively with our SMEs—the likes of BE Campbell and Primo Foods—they would surely have understood that this one-size-fits-all approach wouldn't work. I asked the government to conduct further consultation on whether a simplistic legislative income threshold is the optimal solution or whether there is a fairer way to set remuneration that balances the needs of skilled migrant workers and employers.

With regard to legislating a publicly available sponsor register under proposed section 140GE as a mechanism to prevent migrant worker exploitation, I am concerned about the unintended consequences. My husband often says that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I understand that this instrument would provide for the Department of Home Affairs to create a register of approved sponsors, including the sponsor's business name, the ABN and the number of people that they have sponsored, among other information. This measure came from the 2023 review of the migration system to address worker exploitation and allow migrant workers to check the legitimacy of their employer. This provision is a double-edged sword. A public register would allow for greater transparency and confidence in sponsorships. However, this would place a greater administrative burden on businesses to access skilled migrant workers to supplement their workforces.

If anyone in government has operated a small business, they would surely be aware of the regulatory burden on SMEs, such as environmental regulations, diversity compliance, changes to industrial relations and welding regulations, for example, which all contribute towards the operating cost of a business that has to bear the burden of increased energy, wages, materials, rent, transport, insurance and logistic costs, just to name a few. I'm also concerned that a public register may deter businesses from seeking to sponsor overseas workers, as they may be required to disclose commercially sensitive information that would be accessible to their competitors. This may also open a can of worms to other potential privacy concerns and misuse of data. Sole traders, especially those from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, may not engage in an overly bureaucratic process that is difficult to navigate.

The proposed section 140GBA proposes extension of the labour market testing, the LMT, from four to six months. I appreciate that LMT is an important process to ensure that an overseas worker is only engaged if there are no Australians qualified and available to do the job. However, there are industries that cannot afford the time to undergo labour market testing and require overseas workers urgently to support their business. I asked the government to consider the concessions that we can give to businesses regarding the LMT, including potential exemptions to LMT for certain industries, like BE Campbell, that are experiencing chronic workforce shortages. In our round table, many of the local small manufacturing companies have 50 job vacancies and other vacancies that they cannot fill, so this is going to be a challenge for many of those SMEs. Therefore any reform in the migration system should include provisions to specifically address the needs and challenges faced by SMEs. This could include a streamlined process for sponsorship, reduced administrative burdens and financial concessions.

Overall, I welcome the reform of the migration system to strengthen the sponsorship and nomination process and to more greatly protect vulnerable migrant workers. However, I ask the government to ensure that the needs of businesses, particularly SMEs, are given equal consideration, as they are the backbone of our economy. Businesses like BE Campbell need our support or our economy and local consumers will be impacted. A balanced approach that protects migrant workers while also addressing the needs and challenges of businesses is essential for the success of these reforms. I call on the government to engage in further consultation with all stakeholders, including businesses, industry bodies and migrant worker advocacy groups to ensure the legislation is fair, effective and sustainable.

See this speech in context