David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Watson proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Government’s neglect of young Australians with the introduction of the Trade Skills Training visa.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to quote a member of this House who, on 2 February 1992, said in reference to an automobile company that employed 300 people:

They were looking for a tradesperson to do a particular job. They searched Australia and could not find one. They had to convince a tradesperson to migrate from England to fill that position. It is a sad indictment on this government that, after having been in power for 10 years, we have not got those trained tradespeople.

Admittedly, in 1992 when the now Deputy Prime Minister made those comments the government had not been in place for 10 years but rather for nine. But those were the words of the man who is now Deputy Prime Minister. He was complaining, ‘How bad is it that we have to import one tradesperson?’ At the time, no doubt members of the House of Representatives thought the objection was that Australia should be training Australians, but now we realise the problem that government had was that it was importing only one worker. The problem that this government has is that, instead of training Australians, you should import tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of tradespeople because it saves you from having to pay the cost of training Australians first and training Australians now.

The trade skills training visa has two impacts: the first is that it takes opportunities away from young Australians and the second, in the context of the new industrial relations laws, is that it drives down wages. We had the most extraordinary defence in parliament when the disallowance motion was moved by the new Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, who is in the chamber at the moment. It is extraordinary because first of all he thought, ‘Let’s just have a go and try to claim this is all about Labor and the unions’—the most bizarre argument when we are actually talking about providing training opportunities for young people who do not have a job. There are not that many people who do not have a job at all and are members of trade unions, but that was lost on the member for Goldstein.

He then went on—and this is the first time any member of the government has done this—to try to justify not advertising the positions locally. Every other member of the government has baulked at this; every other member of the government has tried to fudge it through by pretending that you have to advertise. But, if anyone missed it, on 27 February when we had this debate the member for Goldstein said this:

If they need to advertise to satisfy themselves no Australian is available, they will.

I will tell you Labor’s attitude and it is pretty clear: if you have a job vacancy you advertise it to the Australian people. You do not just go offshore because you know there is no negotiating power once you get rid of the no disadvantage test on AWAs. The government know there is no award system underpinning those wages, so they can go overseas and get somebody who will be so much cheaper for a business. No, we say your starting point is to advertise locally. If you cannot fill the position locally, you then do not say, ‘Okay, that’s it, let’s go straight overseas’; you should actually try to connect Australians to jobs. That is why I said, and I will say it again, that if you have a position available in Ballarat you advertise it first in Ballarat but you also ought to advertise it in Bendigo, Blacktown, Bankstown and Brisbane before you go off and advertise it in Beijing, Bombay and Beirut.

Then we had the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs saying in the other place, ‘What a terrible thing for the member for Watson to say.’ I took this charge very seriously: she said it was xenophobic. I take that charge seriously. Ministers in this government would know exactly what is xenophobic. If only the person who treats people in detention the way she has had any idea what the Minister for Health and Ageing was saying in this chamber at the exact same time that she was making that charge. She suggested that I instead should point to what must be major sources of immigration, though I was not aware of this. Blackpool, Brighton and Bristol were the places that the minister wanted me to refer to. I thought, why would she mention those places? Then today a news article appeared in the well-known online newspaper Blackpool Today, apparently a very well-known newspaper site in the United Kingdom. The article is dated yesterday but with the time difference it appeared this morning. It refers to a shop owner by the name of Andrew Robb.

I then understood why the minister was talking about the need to point to Blackpool. You think of the wages that the system will create and then realise Andrew Robb is the owner of the Bargain Shop—‘cheaper than cheap’. In Blackpool Today he was complaining about what was happening. He said:

Obviously it isn’t going to help.

The cheaper than cheap wages that are going to result from this are not going to be helpful to the young apprentices coming here from overseas and they are certainly going to drive down wages for the few young Australians left who are able to get an apprenticeship. The parliamentary secretary thinks not advertising locally is fine. He is the one member of the government to fess up and not have a problem at all if your management decision is that you do not need to advertise locally—you do not need to tell the young people of Ballarat that there is a job available in Ballarat, you do not need to tell the young people of the Tweed that there is a job available in the Tweed and you do not need to tell the young people of Adelaide that there is an apprenticeship available in Adelaide.

That is the attitude of the parliamentary secretary on this, which I think is the attitude of the government. All the others were a little bit too experienced to not just bluff it through, but he decided to be upfront with it. Then he started in his speech to do some fudging of his own—hard to believe, I know. He started to defend the trade skills training visa, which we know from the media coverage has come in and now applies to all of regional Australia at the request of one business. One business requests this visa; it has a devastating impact on training opportunities for young Australians in regional Australia, which happen to be the same areas where youth unemployment is at its absolute highest, and the parliamentary secretary tries to bluff and pretend when asked in an interjection how many companies asked for it. He said, ‘Oh, it was in response to requests from regional industries. I want to acknowledge the initiative.’ Then he names the one company involved. But he said ‘regional industries’. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition then asked, ‘We’ve heard of them. Who else?’ The response was, ‘There is a whole swag of applications for apprenticeships coming in. You can see the list. Go and look for yourself. This is going to be a very popular scheme. I don’t have, off the top of my head, the names of the 15 or 20 companies. No, I’m sorry but those opposite can have access to the list.’ So we rang the parliamentary secretary’s office and asked for the list only to get a call back from Dr Nation, the minister’s chief of staff, to say, ‘What on earth is it that you want?’ The list has not arrived.

I presume the parliamentary secretary was telling the truth and that we can have access to the list he is refusing access to. I presume the parliamentary secretary was telling the truth and did not just feel the pressure of the interjections yesterday. I presume that he did not just feel the pressure of knowing that he is doing something that is bad for young Australians who are trying to get training opportunities and that he was not just feeling a little bit of pressure about driving wages down in Australia. I presume that he was not just feeling a little bit of pressure about the way in which we are already seeing the cutting edge of the new industrial relations laws come out in the treatment of immigrants who have come here on work visas. We are seeing the first cases of genuine exploitation in the papers day after day and many are in those regional areas. We only have to look at the examples that have been appearing in the Adelaide Advertiser so far to see how we are getting the sharp edge of these industrial relations changes coming through. So the parliamentary secretary refers to a list that apparently does not exist because the minister previously had already acknowledged that this was done at the request of one company.

Instead of doing something at the request of one company, Labor says why not do something at the request of 300,000 young Australians turned away from TAFE? Why not do something at the request of young people wanting an apprenticeship? Because when you take an apprenticeship away from someone locally, you are not just saying, ‘Okay, they miss out on a job for a few months.’ You are actually saying, ‘They miss out on a career. They miss out on the trade that comes at the end of the apprenticeship.’ You are actually denying them the path that they are wanting to take for the rest of their life in the name of cheap wages and for what? Simply so that they can give a result to one company—not surprisingly a labour hire company—and one company alone. Three hundred thousand people have been turned away from TAFE since 1998. That is the exact sort of example that I imagine the now Deputy Prime Minister was complaining about in 1992. He looked for a tradesperson to do a particular job, searched Australia and could not find one.

Do not pretend for a minute that you can blame the economy on the reason that there is a skills shortage at the moment. The planning has not been done. There are occupations on the skills shortage list that have been there for 10 years. The planning has not been done. Youth unemployment rates are at the highest in the same regions where this visa will apply. The planning has not been done. There is 35 per cent youth unemployment in regions and they are the same regions from which the parliamentary secretary opposite wants to send those opportunities overseas.

It is completely different to what happens when you have overseas students because you can do that with additional places. You can add places on. But for every apprenticeship, you need an employer and there is going to be a finite number of employers available at any point in time. You do not need an employer for every university place but you do for every apprenticeship. In the same regions where young people are being denied these opportunities, where unemployment rates for young people are the highest in the country, this government says it is okay to have the trade skills training visa. What does it mean? It means an employer can decide that they can get cheaper labour overseas. But they have to get approval. To establish that approval, do they have to advertise the position? No. Do they have to make reasonable efforts to fill that particular position? No. They are not asked to certify that they have made any efforts to fill that particular position. So they are able to apply to the government, get a visa and deny those opportunities to young Australians. There is no nexus made between people available overseas and the employers so, unless you are a really large employer, you are going to be compelled to go through a labour hire company to find people. That is what this is about. This is part of the push of people onto labour hire companies.

At the end of it we know what will happen. If you have a young Australian in an apprenticeship position then, at the end of their apprenticeship, you have a tradesman or a tradeswoman remaining in Australia. Nine times out of 10, they will remain in Australia. We know full well we will not get those sorts of stats from people who have come from overseas to train. At the end, when you finally have a skilled tradesperson, will our skills crisis be any better? Not by one job. Because you have actually occupied an apprenticeship that you could have filled if you had bothered to connect people within Australia, instead of just making profits for labour hire companies by connecting people from overseas. You end up with a situation where those connections are not made and, instead of having the position filled and having a skilled tradesperson in Australia at the end of the period of the apprenticeship, nine times out of 10 you are going to find they have gone back to the country from which they came. That is not the way to manage a skills crisis.

These people are going to be exploited. We are going to see exploitation on the ground. They have to pay up-front fees. They even have to pay their own employer subsidy. You can imagine the sorts of wages and conditions in those circumstances that are going to be offered on a take it or leave it basis. They will have no negotiating power. What the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, at the table, has done to every young Australian is bad enough where, if you are offered an AWA, you take it or you lose the job. For these individuals, it is, ‘Take it or you lose the job and the right to enter Australia at all.’ They have no negotiating power. It is going to be a race to the bottom on wages. As far as the government is concerned, I guess it is going to be win-win: save money on training Australians and drive wages down. That is something Labor cannot support and never will. (Time expired)

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have just heard another burst of bluster and scaremongering, and nonsense in many respects, in this matter of public importance. The bottom line is that the introduction of a trade skills training visa is demonstrably good for young Australians. It is not a matter of neglect, as is brazenly asserted by opponents who would much rather play politics in this chamber than do the hard yards on new policy work.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What new policy? What have we heard today or any other day from this shadow minister for immigration? Absolutely nothing. Let me read a quote from the Australian of 15 April last year:

[I] do not oppose fee-paying overseas students taking up apprenticeships in regional Australia as long as it is not at the expense of local students getting their opportunities.

We absolutely agree with that statement, and the training visa gives effect to it. That statement could have been made by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations or the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education. All three agree, as all on this side agree, 100 per cent with that proposition. But it was not made by them; it was made by the President of the ACTU, the leader of the union movement, Sharan Burrow. In other words, the unions agree with the government on the proposal of this visa.

So why did we have the charade we witnessed here today? It was a charade we witnessed on Monday evening when this matter was debated then. Why do we have all the feigned anger of the shadow minister, the puffed up indignation, the litany of lies and falsehoods and the predictions of doom and gloom? Does that remind you of something, Mr Deputy Speaker? It is so over the top, so manufactured and so false. I am certain that what we are witnessing from those opposite is a purely political exercise. It is plainly an extension of the campaign of lies and scaremongering we witnessed during the workplace relations debate—month after month of lies and scaremongering. For what reason? I will tell you what the reason is. After a fourth election loss and the leadership meltdown that was Mark Latham, Labor are desperately trying to galvanise their base. If I were them, I would also be doing what I could to breathe some sense of purpose back into a disillusioned base. I understand their motive. I would be looking to do what I could to unite base support around a cause. That is what they have been seeking to do for the last few months—unite their base around a cause to try to give them some heart—but they should be trying to do it around a good and worthwhile cause, not a cause based on lies and scaremongering, not cheap petty politics. I would not base it on lies and scaremongering because, ultimately, it comes back to bite you. All this stuff they have gone on with in the House today, and have done for six months on these issues, when the prophecies prove wrong it will come back to bite them. And proved wrong they will be. If Labor were smart, they would seek to galvanise their base around policies they thought would make Australia a better place.

But it is not happening. It is even starting to worry their own side. We heard the member for Batman belling the cat this morning when he said in the Australian newspaper:

On my own side of the chamber, policy innovation that inspires the people, that puts pressure on the government to perform, and that demonstrates Labor’s capacity to lead the nation in government has also been too rare ... after a decade in opposition, we have plenty of storytellers but not much of a story to tell.

Only 19 Labor members elected in 1996 remain in parliament today and they, together with their more recently elected caucus colleagues, according to the member for Batman, ‘are too focused—by necessity—on internal party dynamics that have a lot to do with factional dominance and little to do with a Labor view of how to make Australia a better place’. Try and spend some time galvanising your base around policies that will make Australia a better place and I think you will start to see a lot more success politically and in every other sense.

All we hear in this debate is a series of falsehoods and misrepresentations. We have heard it again today from the shadow minister. The member for Watson, Mr Burke, has claimed in this place:

I do not think it is any accident that this visa was introduced at the same time that those industrial relations laws came in.

Again, you are trying to link it to industrial relations; trying to link it to a cause around which you have peddled lies and misrepresentations from the outset. This is false and can be shown to be demonstrably false.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Was it an accident?

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You said it is no accident—

Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I remind the member to direct his comments through the chair and to ignore the interjections from the member for Watson.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The intention to have such a visa was first announced in April 2005. The workplace relations legislation had not passed the Senate and did not have any prospect of doing so at that time. Consultations on implementation were held with state and territory authorities throughout 2005. State and territory authorities had to be consulted because they are a vital part of the process. This is ignored again and again in everything the member for Watson has to say.

The fact is that the visa has its origins in representations that were made by Golden West group training, and I am proud to acknowledge their involvement. They are a big employer of Australian apprentices and that has to be recognised. At a meeting in Senator Vanstone’s office in December 2003, and in annual consultations with stakeholders conducted by Minister Vanstone since then, many employers mentioned the difficulty of finding apprentices as a major constraint on their businesses. Discussions with stakeholders on the possibility of something like this training visa, including the TAFE and training sector, were held in 2004. This has a long history and it gives the lie to your suggestion that we are playing politics. We are playing policy. We are trying to do something about the future of Australians, not play politics. Mr Burke has his facts wrong and, in my view, should apologise in the House this week.

The government has implemented this visa after long consultations with many stakeholders, including employers and state governments. Labor always forget that you cannot have jobs without employers—I understand that; I have seen it for years—but it surprises me that they do not seem to have been in touch with state and territory governments, all of which are Labor at the moment. If they had had those discussions rather than coming in here playing politics, they would have properly understood the very hard protections in place for young Australians in this visa. The visas are administrated by state governments—people of the same political party as you, who are willing and able to discuss the arrangements in place—and they would have confirmed with you that protections are in place—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I remind the parliamentary secretary to address his remarks through the chair.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker. The state governments would have confirmed to the shadow minister again and again that there are protections in regard to wages, just as we have seen with skilled workers coming in under the migration scheme—which ministers in Labor governments have been defending all around this country against the false assertions of some of your union bosses. If you had bothered to take the time to speak to your state colleagues, we would not be having this debate and you would not have moved to disallow this regulation.

This government has not let down young Australians. On the contrary, the performance of the Howard government has restored a sense of hope and opportunity to the young people of Australia. Whether young Australians choose to work, study or undertake vocational training, the government has provided demonstrably good outcomes for all of them. Youth unemployment, since we came to office, has dropped nearly 40 per cent at a time when real wages have increased by 15.6 per cent—and the young have shared in that as well. By comparison, the Labor Party record pales into insignificance. In fact, the Labor Party record is embarrassing in comparison to what has happened over the last 10 years for the young people of Australia.

There has been a 122 per cent increase in the number of youth under 19 commencing new apprenticeships since 1996 and they now account for 41 per cent of all apprenticeship starts. The number of school students getting a head start in VET programs has increased by 253 per cent. The government is providing funds to the states and territories to support an initial 167,000 vocational education training places by 2008, including the establishment of 25 Australian technical colleges. The Work for the Dole program has given young people skills. The Backing Australia’s Future program will provide an additional 39,000 university places. I could go on and on. It is clear that this government has not let down young Australians. This government has given great hope and great opportunity to the young people of Australia.

On skills, we do have a challenge. It is estimated that in five years time we will have 200,000 more jobs than we have people to fill them. That is what you should think about. And why is this? There are two main reasons. One reason is that the economy has been going gangbusters for 10 years. We have unemployment at 30-year lows and we have youth unemployment dropping by 40 per cent. That is one of the main reasons we have a skills shortage. We plead guilty to doing that. We plead guilty to prolonged economic growth. But it has put pressure on the availability of skilled workers. When you have close to full employment, that is what happens. It is not something Labor would identify with. You have had no experience with that situation. You do not understand it. You ought to get out there and get a feel for it. This is what happens with economic growth. You get skills shortages when you have near full employment.

The second contributing factor to the skills shortage is the ageing of the population. Its impact is hugely significant and it is pressing. This was acknowledged by the Leader of the Opposition on 3 October last year when he said we are now experiencing massive skills shortages. It is true. We have had a strong economy and we have an ageing population which is coming in on us. Sadly, that is all the Leader of the Opposition has said about it. He offers no solutions. His shadow minister in the House offers no solutions. None of them offers any solutions. All we hear is carping, scaremongering, misrepresentations and lies about our policies in order to galvanise your base, which is disillusioned and which has lost heart.

The member for Batman had it right. He knows what will give your members heart. What will give your members heart is good policy—something that will turn around the skills shortage. And it is not in one area. It requires a multipolicy approach. All of your shadow ministers should be up at this table giving us policies that will address the skills shortage. That is what we are on about. We have introduced reforms on workplace relations, Welfare to Work, superannuation reforms to encourage older Australians back into the workplace, taxation reforms to encourage older Australians to stay longer in the workplace and huge investment in skills training, which I have just been through.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Owens interjecting

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You might laugh. You think there is one little silver bullet. Get out there and get an understanding of the regional apprenticeship visa scheme and immigration. It is a multipolicy approach to solve the challenges that we have in front of us as a country. It is not an exercise in cheap politics, so stop these lies and scaremongering. This training visa contributes importantly to young Australians in many ways. Keeping economic growth in the regions going helps them share in the economic growth that the rest of Australia enjoys. That is a really important contribution. Furthermore, bringing in overseas students to take up apprenticeships will give a critical mass to courses in regional TAFE areas for apprenticeships, which will keep courses going so that young Australians can have access.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Burke interjecting

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You do not understand what it is like to come from regional areas. The shadow minister does not understand what it takes for kids to come down to the city. We want to keep TAFE courses in regional areas. By bringing in students to keep a critical mass, we will protect those courses and we will provide opportunities for young Australians. (Time expired)

Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Before I call the member for Adelaide, I remind the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and all other speakers who have been taking part in this debate to address their remarks through the chair and to refer to members by their correct title or by their seats.

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government’s neglect of young Australians with the introduction of the trade skills training visa is absolutely a matter of the utmost public importance. The complete neglect of young Australians by this government through this visa is a matter that goes to the heart of the future wellbeing of this country and is a matter that will adversely affect the social and economic security of Australia’s future generations. The trade skills training visa will result in the driving down of youth wages and see young Australians robbed of both work and training opportunities.

This visa is very different from a visa under the skilled migration scheme. This visa headhunts unskilled and untrained migrants to fill apprenticeships and traineeships in regional areas that, in many cases, could be going to young Australians. As a result of this visa, young Australians will miss out because, unlike universities, you cannot just create extra places at TAFE. Every apprenticeship must have available not only a place at TAFE but also an employer who is both willing and able to take on an apprentice. When there are only a limited number of employers who can do this, people will inevitably miss out on a place and on an opportunity. This visa will see that young Australians are denied a place for an apprenticeship, because places will have been filled from overseas. If companies can satisfy their training intake from apprentices overseas, it is logical that opportunities for Australians will disappear.

The government should be ashamed of its blatant and clear betrayal of young Australians through this visa. It should be ashamed to sell out the future welfare and security of our youth simply as a bandaid solution to a problem that should have been addressed a decade ago. Young Australians must be put first. The government’s suggestion that the trade skills training visa is necessary because there just are not enough people wanting to fill apprenticeships and training places is disgraceful. In my electorate, I have spoken to a number of young constituents who are constantly looking for full-time work, job security and a form of training that will equip them for decent future employment prospects. It is absolutely disheartening to see these people locked in a position where they are unskilled and have to rely on casual and intermittent work which not only pays insufficiently but also leaves them with few rights at work and no job security.

The northern and western statistical region of South Australia’s youth unemployment rate for kids between the ages of 15 and 19 stands at 21.8 per cent. I would like to see the Prime Minister come to this area and tell this 21.8 per cent of young South Australians that he is giving away their potential employment opportunities to unskilled overseas labour. The whole of South Australia is classified as a regional area for migration purposes, which means that my own electorate of metropolitan Adelaide, as well as the entire state, will be affected by this visa. Across the nation, we have 193,000 young people who are not in full-time education and not fully engaged in the labour market. These young Australians, the Australians who are being denied opportunities to improve their lives, are our future. These young people, who are struggling to find secure employment and who are desperately searching for an apprenticeship, training and a career, are the very same people whose training this government should be prioritising.

The government have argued that the trade skills visa has adequate safeguards to protect young Australians. They have suggested that, by requiring any potential employer to demonstrate that there are no local people prepared to take the job, young Australians will remain a priority. However, these safeguards are completely inadequate. I want the government to demonstrate just how this safeguard will work when absolutely nowhere in the employer’s application form is there any obligation or requirement for the employer to advertise locally for the position before employing someone through the program. How can an employer possibly know that no local people are prepared to take on the job if they do not advertise? Even if they did advertise locally, how can an employer from my electorate in central Adelaide guarantee that there are no young Australians in Naracoorte, no young Australians in Murray Bridge, Mannum or Port Augusta—that there are no young Australians who are desperate to undertake such an apprenticeship and who will be sold out by the introduction of this visa? How then can the government possibly insist that young Australians will be put first? The fact is that they cannot. This assurance is just one in a long line of empty and misleading promises from this government, who are out of touch and continue to neglect their training responsibilities. This visa program offers blatant incentives for businesses not to take on young Australian apprentices.

Isn’t the timing of the introduction of such a visa interesting? It happened to be introduced just after the introduction of the so-called Work Choices legislation. This is no coincidence. This is part of the government’s long-term plan to wind back the clock for workers and drive wages down, because, according to the government, that is how Australia must compete in the international labour market. This training visa is a double blow for young Australians, who will already be amongst the hardest hit by the government’s mean, extreme and divisive Work Choices laws.

When negotiating with their employer over pay conditions, many young Australians will be left no option but to take whatever wages and conditions are offered. Now that an employer is able to make signing an AWA a condition of employment, if a local apprentice is offered an AWA which undercuts the award and if that local apprentice declines the offer, the business will then be able to recruit an imported apprentice to fill the so-called vacancy—with pay conditions below what an Australian would accept—on the grounds that the business could not reasonably fill that position.

Let us also be clear that any overseas worker who tries to turn down an unfair AWA would not only lose their position; they would lose their visa. This visa is designed to headhunt unskilled and untrained overseas workers. It is not skilled migration at all. I want to make it very clear that I believe skilled migration has a role to play as a valuable component of Australia’s economic and cultural development. I also believe, however, that it should never be used as the primary source of delivering an adequate skilled labour force. It is deeply concerning to watch this government use the skilled migration program as an excuse to cover up for a complete lack of investment in educating young Australians. Skilled migration must not take the place of training Australians and it must not lead to the exploitation of overseas workers and the driving down of wages. This, unfortunately but not surprisingly, has already started to happen in my home state.

In Adelaide, Holden’s new plant recently employed 34 European tradesmen to build a key component of their new plant. Over 1,000 workers had recently been retrenched from Holden, late last year, yet local workers were not afforded the opportunity to be trained for this work. On top of this, there have been recent reports in the Adelaide Advertiser of the overseas workers being significantly underpaid and claims that one worker may even have been threatened with deportation because he took a sick day.

I would suggest that this government may be much better placed to ditch the bad policy that is the trades skills training visa and, instead, perhaps start monitoring any misuse of the skilled migration program. It is time that this government started looking out for Australia’s youth. I want to make it clear as I stand here today that the crisis this country currently faces with the skills shortage has not simply arisen today or yesterday and it is not an epidemic that has hit our shores in the last six months. It is an issue that has been a problem over the 10 long years of this government and over that time it has continued to become more serious.

Every single area of traditional trade over the last 10 years has reported a shortage in at least eight of those 10 years. Many skilled occupations have been on the national skills shortage list for almost 10 years. What action have we seen by this government over its 10 years in government to address the skills shortage? We have seen no commitment to education or training; in fact, we have seen the opposite. Now the government’s solution to this problem involves kicking young Australians down, by depriving them of employment opportunities and a chance of improving their standard of living. This visa is a blatant and cruel betrayal of Australia’s youth and of Australia’s future economic and social prosperity. Since coming to power, this government has turned its back on around 300,000 Australians wanting to study at TAFE, young Australians wanting and willing to learn to improve their skills in the workplace and to better their future prospects. Three hundred thousand young Australians have been denied this opportunity.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Randall interjecting

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member is entitled to be heard. The member for Canning will have his turn in a moment.

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The contrast between policies on this side of the House and government policies is obvious. Rather than turning our back on young Australians, Labor can offer real initiatives, real strategies and effective policies to aid businesses and equip our future generations with the knowledge and skills they need to survive in a competitive world. The formula is simple: if you invest in education, if you invest in training opportunities and if you support employers, you will not end up with a skills shortage of this magnitude.

For the sake of young Australians, this is absolutely a matter of public importance. The government must discard this ridiculous policy and adopt Labor’s plan to train Australians first and to train Australians now. Training and education are investments in Australia’s economic and social future, but this government is reluctant to pay the bill. It cannot see the benefits beyond tomorrow and this visa is nothing more than a short-sighted quick fix solution. (Time expired)

Jennie George (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I heard the member for Canning making remarks which I found to be very offensive, derogatory and unfair. I would like the member for Canning to apologise for the remarks he made and to have them withdrawn.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not hear any comments that I thought were unparliamentary.

Jennie George (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He used the word ‘lies’ and inferences were made that impugned the integrity of the member for Adelaide.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Randall interjecting

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Canning will let the Deputy Speaker speak. My ruling is that to accuse someone of being a liar is unparliamentary. I think the use of the word ‘lies’ is in a greyer area. I personally did not hear it.

Jennie George (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I found the remarks very offensive. As a woman sitting here on chamber duty, the nature of the remarks were not only offensive but, in my view, sexist as well.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You will have to tell me what they were, because I did not hear them. In the light of not hearing them and your not telling me, I am not able to make a ruling.

Jennie George (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The word ‘lies’ was definitely heard. I heard the remark: ‘Who wrote the speech for you?’

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is perfectly normal debate.

Jennie George (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is that perfectly normal?

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is perfectly normal debate and interjection.

Jennie George (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not unparliamentary commentary?

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is acceptable parliamentary language.

(Quorum formed)

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer and Revenue) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, on the point of order, I refer you to page 500 of House of Representatives Practice, which says:

... all imputations of improper motives to a Member and all personal reflections on other Members are considered to be highly disorderly.

My understanding is that the test is that if the member on our side felt aggrieved by the comment by the member for Canning then he should do the honourable thing and withdraw. We invite him once again to do so. It is not a matter of whether the chair believes it was disorderly. House of Representatives Practice is quite clear. Our member was offended by it and he should withdraw.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind the honourable member that the chair is responsible for keeping order. I did not hear any disorderly wording. I ruled on it before. There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for Canning.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Obviously we have got a very fragile little petal on the other side of the chamber, who takes—

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. With great respect, on previous occasions when occupants of the chair have not heard the remark they have inquired of the member as to whether or not they made an offensive remark and encouraged them to withdraw. With great respect to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, whilst you did not hear the remark—you are not unique in that—you did not inquire of the member whether he had made an offensive remark and seek his assistance in having it withdrawn.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Chief Opposition Whip. I advise that I did actually inquire of the person making the point of order what it was that the member was complaining about. I received two reiterations of what she considered to be offensive. I ruled that they were not unparliamentary. There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for Canning.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer and Revenue) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Canning will take his seat. I call the honourable member for Hunter on what I hope is a substantial point of order and not frivolous.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer and Revenue) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not to prolong the debate any further than it is necessary to take the time of the House—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You got the first one wrong, I would remind you, Member for Hunter, so I hope you do better this time.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer and Revenue) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With respect, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you have a look at page 500 of House of Representatives Practice, that is not true. You did not hear the interjection. The only person who can assist the House at this stage is the member for Canning, who needs to put the case that his interjection was not offensive. He has not been invited to do so. But we will accept your ruling. I am moving on to a new point of order. After you ruled, the member for Canning quite clearly—and everyone on this side of the House heard it—described the member for Adelaide as a precious little petal. As a female occupant of the chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure you will find that offensive. We find it offensive, and he should withdraw. As page 500 of House of Representatives Practice points out, a withdrawal does constitute an apology, and that is the appropriate move by the member for Canning in this instance.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for his point of order. I do not believe there is a point of order. I think that if, in the rough and tumble of this parliamentary chamber, you cannot handle being called a precious petal then we have got a problem in this parliament. There is no point of order.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am a big admirer of petals—not bicycle pedals but floral petals.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member for Canning will proceed with his speech.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand here today as a proud member—on the eve of 10 years of the Howard government—of a government which has delivered real changes, real reforms and real gains for the Australian people, particularly young people in Australia. The member for Watson, the mirage from Watson, is a person who I believe is acting in a hypocritical manner. If he were interested in this issue at all, he, as the Labor Party’s spokesperson on migration, would join the Joint Standing Committee on Migration—if he could—and make a contribution. The committee struggled for a while to get a Labor Party member. Their spokesman was not even interested. They had to scout around until they got somebody. So his real interest in the migration committee is only peripheral and superficial, because he does not even want to be in the main committee body of this parliament—he only wants to be the spokesman for it.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You’re kidding, aren’t you?

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. He’s not even on the committee yet. (Quorum formed) I am very pleased to address the issue of the trade skills visa. As the member for Goldstein said, the member for Watson obviously is just playing politics with us. He knows in his heart of hearts that this is a very good policy solution for producing more skilled people in the regions of Australia. He is bringing it up as an issue because he knows that he cannot get any traction on any other issue. He is supposed to be the spokesman for the opposition, but at the end of the day he has not really been able to get his head up. He languishes over in that part of the House; as a result, he has to struggle to get himself taken as relevant.

At the end of the day, we have people like Sharan Burrow, the ACTU president, who says that this is a very good program for skilling regional Australia because it brings a resource to the regions of Australia which is sorely needed. We have the former ACTU president sitting here, the member for Throsby; she disagrees with the current ACTU president, Sharan Burrow.

We know that there is a lot of protection in this. The states have been consulted on this as well. The states are very keen on seeing this introduced into the regions of Australia. Strangely enough, the member for Watson thinks that Blacktown is a region of Australia. Sorry old son, it is not a region of Australia. Have you ever been into the regions of Australia? If you did you would know that there are so few apprentices available in the regions of Australia that this is why they are looking to overseas students to come here, skill themselves, and then receive a range of visa options which they can use to stay in Australia and add to Australian society as well-skilled people in the Australian work force. We are very pleased to have them, unlike the member— (Time expired)

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The discussion is concluded.