Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 15), omit "occupation; and", substitute "occupation;".

(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 16 to 17), omit subparagraph 140GB(2)(c)(iii).

(3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (line 11), omit "(2)(c)(iii), (d)(iii)", substitute "(2)(d)(iii)".

Whether a migrant works in construction or computing, we want to welcome the best and brightest to our shores. The new specialist skills visa pathway is supposed to enable this by granting a fast-tracked visa for those earning more than $135,000. But the government, for some reason, has decided to exclude trade workers, machinery operators, drivers and labourers from this new visa pathway. There has been no clear rationale articulated for this decision, aside from an outdated distinction between so-called blue-collar workers and white-collar workers.

The decision to exclude construction workers comes at a time when we urgently need to build more houses and expand the construction workforce. So, while I support this bill, I do not believe that the carve-out for skilled trade workers is justified. More broadly, I do not want to see politics and political pressure involved in decisions about our migration system. I don't think it is appropriate that the politicians or government of the day get to choose who is excluded or who isn't excluded from these pathways. That's because I think the point of the specialist skills pathway visa, the point of having this threshold of $135,000 in income, is to say that when industry know what they need these people should be let in, not that the government of the day should once again be pulling the strings based on pressures they may be under. I believe that this carve-out needs to be removed or that an alternative solution needs to be brought forward quickly to bring in highly skilled trade workers to Australia.

My amendments would remove the carve-out by preventing the minister from specifying whether particular occupations are eligible or ineligible for this new visa pathway. I acknowledge that this amendment is not a panacea that will end Australia's shortage of skilled tradies overnight, but it would make a positive difference to the building sector. It is aligned with the government's Migration Strategy and it will help ensure our skilled migration program is fit for the future.

I want to acknowledge the constructive engagement I've had with the Minister for Home Affairs on this issue over several months and acknowledge our shared desire to address skills shortages in construction. I urge the government and the opposition to support this amendment, because I believe the Australian people do not want to see politics and political considerations in relation to getting the best and brightest into the country. I ask the assistant minister two questions. Firstly, if the government is not willing to support this amendment, can you please give me an explanation as to why? Secondly, will you at least commit to providing an alternative pathway for bringing more skilled tradies to Australia—for example, by ensuring that all relevant occupations are included on the priority list for the new core skills pathway?

See this speech in context