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

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, I present the committee’s report, incorporating an additional statement, entitled Temporary visas … permanent benefits: ensuring the effectiveness, fairness and integrity of the temporary business visa program, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

by leave—Recommendations in the committee’s report reinforce that it is in Australia’s interests to strengthen the effectiveness, fairness and integrity of the temporary skilled migration program to ensure a continued benefit to local businesses, overseas and Australian workers and the broader Australian community. Unlike the guest worker programs of some other countries, Australia’s temporary skilled migration program also offers what could be called ‘permanent benefits’ in providing a pathway for skilled workers to later apply for permanent residence. Temporary skilled migration provides businesses with access to the global skilled labour market to fill proven skills shortages in key industry sectors. It ensures the continued growth of the Australian economy while safeguarding employment and training opportunities for Australian workers.

As the committee emphasises in its report, the highest priority must be placed on providing Australians with job opportunities and training. However, given our strong economy and high employment rate, temporary skilled migration can address some of our short-term skill needs. The report notes that the majority of the employers under the 457 visa program are doing the right thing and complying with the sponsorship obligations. Any abuses of the system should and will be met with strong penalties and withdrawal of their access to the program. The Australian public needs to know that the overseas workers are being treated fairly and are not being used to undercut the wages and conditions of Australian workers.

I want to highlight four areas of particular interest to the committee. Firstly, the report makes recommendations to strengthen the integrity of the program. In this regard, the committee welcomes the introduction of legislation to strengthen the compliance regime under the 457 visa program. It recommends that DIAC ensure adequate resources are allocated to the enforcement of these new arrangements. The committee also notes the critical importance of the security checks and recommends that DIAC, together with the Australian Federal Police, review the character requirements of the program to ensure its integrity and the safety and security of the Australian community. In addition, the report recommends that DIAC ensure that the employers understand their sponsorship obligations and the proposed changes to the 457 visa program and that DIAC investigate whether viable alternatives exist for calculating salary levels under the program.

Secondly, the report seeks to ensure the working conditions of overseas workers. In this regard, the committee supports the following: the introduction of tougher penalties in the Migration Act for employers who breach their sponsorship obligations, moves to improve the information flow between DIAC and other agencies responsible for workers’ protection, and the introduction of a higher English language requirement for OH&S and other reasons. The committee was also concerned to ensure that 457 workers had a comprehensive complaints mechanism available so that they could confidentially report concerns about their employment conditions without provoking retaliation. The report makes a recommendation on this matter and notes that such a mechanism should be widely promoted. One of the reasons overseas workers may be reluctant to report potential breaches of visa requirements is a concern that their employment will be terminated and they will be returned home. Accordingly, the report recommends that DIAC provide clear guidelines for 457 sponsors and workers on their rights and obligations, particularly following termination of employment.

Thirdly, the report makes recommendations to protect employment and training opportunities for Australian workers. The 457 visa assists in overcoming short-term skills shortages but is not a substitute for investment in the training and skills development of Australians. Accordingly, the committee recommends that DIAC ensure effective training objectives under the program that uphold the commitment to training Australians and appropriate resources for monitoring and compliance with training requirements, and that the 457 visa program is limited to skilled occupations where there is a demonstrated skills shortage.

Finally, the report looks at maintaining program effectiveness to meet needs of business, particularly the urgent need to streamline the 457 visa processing times. The committee welcomed the government’s announcement that it will fast-track visa applications for employers with a track record of complying with the program requirements. A follow-up review in this area has recommended building on the success of the industry outreach officer program. The committee also recommends that DIAC commission research into how industry use the 457 visa program to ensure it meets their needs. There are additional recommendations relating to the needs of business.

To conclude, I thank all of those who participated in the inquiry. I also thank other members of the committee, some of whom are in the House today. On that matter, I would like to say that the committee worked together in a most comprehensive and cooperative manner. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will note that this is a unanimous committee report, and I thank the committee for that. I also thank all of the committee support staff, particularly Joanne Towner and Dr Kate Sullivan, who did an outstanding job in delivering a report which I believe will be very useful to the Australian workplace and Australians.

Laurie Ferguson (Reid, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Urban Development and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I join the previous speaker in congratulating the committee staff on the professionalism they brought to this report of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration. On behalf of opposition members, I commend the chairman on his role in initiating this investigation by the committee and also on the way in which he took a very even-handed approach to witnesses and members of the opposition in the inquiry.

Whilst the opposition would wish it were otherwise, the reality is that, when you look at the OECD figures in regard to the percentage of GDP spent on education, at the number of maths and science graduates as a percentage of university graduates, and at how much the average family is expected to devote to education out of their own pockets as opposed to taxpayer funded education, unfortunately, we have reached a certain state. Whilst, as I say, we would wish that we did not need to have this huge dependency on a skilled intake, the reality is that we have seen growth in the number of 457 visas granted from 31,000 in 1997-98 to 65,000 in March this year. I do not have the figures after that date. So there has been huge growth in this area. It is a matter of serious concern to a number of sectors.

With respect to those who gave evidence to the inquiry, a significant number of unions were represented, such as the LHMU, the CEPU, the AMIEU and the AMWU, as well as a number of employer groups—the chamber of industry, the Mine and Metals Association, the meat processors association, the chamber of commerce, and also Restaurant and Catering Australia. The issues relate very much to the preservation of the conditions of workers in this country and the degree to which they might be undermined by the exploitation of people brought in under these visas. So that was the crux of this investigation.

I believe we have come down with a very balanced report. The Age newspaper might not think it is sensational and world shattering but, as I say, I think it represents a very worthwhile outcome. I note the evidence from the Migration Institute and their call for further controls over external contractors supplying labour to the market through visas and also to overseas migration agents. I note also, importantly, the evidence of Dr Wise and Dr Velayutham, who spoke about the impediments to whistleblowers, the inadequacy of protection for whistleblowers, their fear of job loss, their fear of the loss of the minimal incomes that they receive, and their fear of deportation. They said it was desirable that people are ‘able to freely make a complaint without fear of reprisal’.

They were some of the important issues that came up in regard to this matter. I am on the conservative wing regarding the requirement for English. There is a provision in the report that emphasis should be placed on English being necessary where it is related to occupational health and safety, where there is a history of employer abuse and where it is worth while having regard to the particular nature of the industry. That in no way reduces the responsibility of workers coming into the country to attain English. I am very much in accord with the government’s recent tightening up; perhaps it was a bit too late but it was necessary.

Amongst the measures contained in the report are the need for a further report on the adequacy of the salary system; an independent review of regional certifying bodies, who came in for significant flak from a number of parties; a requirement for more information on websites for workers coming into the country; and a more comprehensive and confidential complaints mechanism, as I mentioned previously. The question of training benchmarks and resources for monitoring seemed to be another driving issue from a lot of complainants—the lack of monitoring by the department. Evidence given clearly showed that it was very haphazard and irregular and, in some cases, did not seem to occur at all. There was the question of adequate resources for the department to monitor compliance.

I believe that, having regard to the broad expanse of issues in this field, the committee report is balanced and sensible and comes up with answers in areas that were the subject of evidence and complaints. The committee worked well in what is often a very controversial area, and I endorse the report.