Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Cook proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The uncertainty created by the government's handling of the Roy Hill enterprise migration agreement.

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—

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Over the life of this government we have seen them declare war on all sorts of issues, as the shadow Treasurer has reminded us on other occasions: on obesity, on binge drinking, on pokies, on inflation—

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On Kevin!

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And on the former Prime Minister, Mr Rudd—of course! But in the budget the Treasurer and the Prime Minister opened up a new war: a war on their fellow Australians. It was a cheap shot, and it was a pathetic attempt in seeking to demonise Australians for their wealth, for their innovation, for their entrepreneurship, for their investment, for taking a risk and for backing their own country's future. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer, in engaging in this class war rhetoric, demean themselves and, indeed, their office.

But we learned this past week that this government cannot even get a class war right. The Prime Minister and this Treasurer have outed themselves in the course of the past week as double agents in their own phony class war, earning the rebuke of Mr Howes, who has now lost his way. He is no longer sure who he is supposed to be hating anymore and who he should be demonising. Now, I have great confidence that Mr Howes will find his way very, very soon on these things—no-one hates like the Labor Party. Just ask the former Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, about that.

But Labor's class war has been exposed as a phony war; a phony war that tries cynically to pitch Australians against each other to drive political advantage for an embattled Prime Minister, who will do whatever it takes to get herself out of the latest mess she has landed herself in by her own hand. The handling of the Roy Hill mine enterprise migration agreement announcements has been yet another panicked decision from a Prime Minister whose poor judgment has dropped her in yet another self-made mess.

Even when the government has the support of the coalition—the opposition—for a policy, as it has on this occasion, she still cannot get anything right. The Prime Minister and caucus have today issued a vote of no confidence in the minister at the table, Minister Bowen. There are plenty of reasons why I would normally join such a vote on those matters of no confidence in Minister Bowen, but on this occasion Minister Bowen has been hung out to dry yet again by his Prime Minister. It is not the first time that this minister has been hung out to dry by his Prime Minister; as we all recall, last year he was hung out to dry over the cabinet decision regarding Nauru and opposing that policy.

The question for the Prime Minister that I have today is: what has changed since a year ago? What has changed since over a year ago, when the enterprise migration agreement policy was put into place, that has so shocked this Prime Minister—that has so disturbed her—that she thinks that these arrangements that are now presented for the Roy Hill mine project are anything different to what would have been conceived of more than a year ago? What has changed? This policy was announced more than a year ago. Protections were built into the model for this policy: the department had to negotiate agreements within three months and the decision as to whether a project would have access to the MA was entirely at the minister's discretion, which is now compromised by the additional oversight and the lack of confidence expressed by his caucus and his Prime Minister today.

Rather than each subcontractor having to negotiate their own labour agreement, they fall under the umbrella agreement of this arrangement through the bulk negotiation that has occurred with the project owner. There is a need to develop a comprehensive training plan demonstrating how the project will invest in the upskilling of Australians to meet future skill needs in the resources sector. They have to set measurable targets for training that develop skills and occupations where there are known or anticipated shortages. Overseas labour will only be supplementary, with resources projects required to demonstrate effective and ongoing local recruitment efforts. Occupations that are not eligible for standard migration programs can be sponsored provided the project can justify a genuine need that cannot be met from the Australian labour market. Direct employers will need to comply with sponsorship obligations, including paying Australian market salary rates. Overseas workers sponsored under an EMA will hold 457 visas and will be subject to the Migration Legislation Amendment (Worker Protection) Act 2009. Where there is evidence of widespread abuse, contractual sanctions in an EMA will allow the department to suspend or cancel an EMA and associated arrangements. Overseas workers will need to demonstrate English language proficiency and the skills and experience necessary to perform the occupation in Australia. Relevant licensing or registration requirements will also apply.

These protections were in the original policy. It is a policy that has had the support of members on this side of the House. It is a policy that was designed to produce the type of arrangement that is now before this minister and this government in terms of the Roy Hill mine project. So what has changed since that policy was announced to have this Prime Minister go to water at the time of announcement and seek to hang her minister out to dry and pretend that she knew nothing of this until last week, when all of a sudden these arrangements were somehow not going to support projects, not going to support Australian jobs and not going to be in the national interest?

The Roy Hill application was submitted before Christmas, as the minister said today. Prior to that time they had been engaged in discussion with the department to ensure that their submission was compliant. The discussion and consultation included unions—extensively—the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, and ministers, and this went on for months. Is the Prime Minister seriously asking the Australian people to believe that she knew nothing about this until last week? If that is her testimony—that the Prime Minister of this country did not know about a project that was worth $10 billion and that is going to generate at least 6,000 Australian jobs—then she is damned by her own testimony and she should resign for that reason alone, because she does not know what is going on in her government. This is a Prime Minister who should stand condemned by her own words if that is the myth that she is trying to put on the Australian people and on members of this House—a Prime Minister so distracted by her constant bungles and self-made crises that she could not be aware of this significant project. The Prime Minister needs to get her story straight. Either she did not know and is incompetent, or she did know, has sought to mislead Australians yet again and has demonstrated that not even her own ministers can trust her, let alone the Australian people. The ministers that especially cannot trust her are the ones who voted against her and for the former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in their last leadership ballot.

It is clear that the Prime Minister did know. That is shown by the evidence put forward in the answer to the question today by the minister, confirming his briefings both to the productivity committee of the cabinet and generally through that process. Of course she knew. I may have many criticisms of this minister, but I suspect strongly that he did his job on this occasion and he did keep people informed of this. This Prime Minister has gone to water on him at the critical moment and has shamed him. She has hung him out there like a shag on a rock. Frankly, it is time for this minister to seriously take up his own advice, get an improvement in the quality of his own life and go into exile on the back bench with the former Prime Minister Mr Rudd. They can sit over there in their exiled government, because clearly this is a divided and dysfunctional government, and the events around this case purely demonstrate this.

What is the big deal here? It is not uncommon for people not to trust this Prime Minister. That is not something that is brought to this House with any sort of freshness about it in terms of the news. It is not uncommon for those on that side of the House to know that they cannot trust this Prime Minister, as this minister at the table has learnt too bitterly on too many occasions. The big deal here is this: what next? What is the impact on investor certainty and confidence in this government's ability to make a decision and stick to it? The actions of the Prime Minister have created uncertainty—not those of the minister for immigration, who on this rare occasion seems to have got something right. The minister should go into exile, as I said. I will long argue that there are many reasons he should do so, but the uncertainty created by the Prime Minister's actions is the cause here. It has created an own goal for this government, and the damage is not over yet.

As a result of the histrionics of this government and the Prime Minister in recent days, what further restrictions will now be placed on these arrangements? What additional conditions will be demanded as a result of the going to water by this Prime Minister at a critical moment when the country needed her to be strong? When will the deed to give effect to the agreement be finalised? Because, as the minister knows, that deed is still unsigned. What impact will additional conditions and delays have on this project? If it survives to that level, what will the unions do when it is time for a construction agreement to be put together for the site? Will they use this agreement—as they could—as a secondary bar to negate the impact of this agreement by once again, through that arrangement, locking out the workers that are provided for under this agreement? That is what is at risk through the Prime Minister's bungling of yet another issue. What will this Prime Minister do if the unions take that stand, and what confidence can Australians have when she so easily folded when presented with the histrionics of Mr Howes from the AWU when unions met in this place last week and went into meltdown?

What of the other projects? What will these investors and financiers now be saying about these other projects that remain in the queue, with a mining tax, a carbon tax, withholding tax increases, and increased taxes on living-away-from-home allowances for those on 457 visas, and a Prime Minister who simply cannot be trusted not to change the rules once an agreement and an investment have been made?

This all adds up to one thing, and it is called sovereign risk. Sovereign risk is the other name this Prime Minister goes by, because this Prime Minister has done more than any in this place at any time to damage the sovereign risk assessment of this nation with the measures she has brought into this place and with her bungling, constantly, of these measures. That is the risk in the way this Prime Minister has dealt with these matters.

Take another project: Chevron's Gorgon project, which I am sure the shadow minister at the table will speak about, adds a $64 billion net boost to Australia's gross domestic product in 10,000 direct and indirect jobs. That is one of the other agreements that sits in the queue, that will now be held up by this Prime Minister's histrionics. The anticipated state and federal government revenue is about $40 billion.

But it is not just investor confidence that is shot. Australians do not have confidence in this government to run an immigration program with integrity. The government's inability to get anything right, especially on our borders, demonstrates that, when the Prime Minister says that Australians will get the jobs first, the Australian people do not believe her, because they do not believe this Prime Minister can implement policy.

We have had the debacles from day one with this Prime Minister and her predecessor, and this country does not trust this government to get things as important as this right. Australians are not confident that this government can implement the agreement. That is what caucus themselves have resolved today as to this minister, this policy and this government's ability to deliver that policy—a vote of no confidence in the government's ability to meet this agreement. I only have to refer to the ACTU fact sheet itself, which I would table, which goes into great detail about the government's inability, already, to police the overseeing of 457s and abuses that occur.

The other promise the Prime Minister made was that there would be increased scrutiny for these arrangements. Yet that does not gel with what the minister knows and what the department's officials said at Senate estimates last week. When Senator Waters asked:

You said that that existing monitoring program will be extended to EMAs. Will there be any additional officers or resources to cover that new area of responsibility?

the answer was:

That will be covered within the existing number of inspectors and resources.

There are no additional resources, additional staff, that the minister has allocated in this budget, in this process, to monitor the implementation of this agreement. Yet the Prime Minister is standing before the Australian people and promising that there will be increased scrutiny. But that is not backed up. It is just more hollow words. Is it any wonder that investors are increasingly looking at this country, and this government—there is nothing wrong with this country; but there is everything wrong with this government—and seeing one thing: sovereign risk, and that will not change until this government is voted out of office and we can have investors investing in this country with confidence, knowing the rules will not be changed. (Time expired)

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Was the member for Cook seeking to table a document?

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is leave granted for the document to be tabled?

Leave not granted.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome this MPI because it is actually an opportunity to talk about something positive. As I said at question time, at last we have the opportunity, the occasion, where the opposition support a government policy—and yet they cannot bring themselves to be positive about it.

This is about managing the strength in the Australian economy. We hear a lot from the opposition, talking down the economy, and we just heard it again from the shadow minister, which I will come to in a second. Remember the minerals resource rent tax? It was 'a dagger to the heart' of the Australian minerals industry—'a dagger to the heart', we were told, of the Australian economy. And then there is the carbon price. That is going to end Australia being a first-world economy, according to the opposition. That is going to end Whyalla, and we are no longer going to be a developed economy.

Now we have the member for Cook saying it is 'sovereign risk'. Well, perhaps sovereign risk is the reason why we have a half-a-trillion-dollar investment pipeline in the Australian resources sector. Perhaps sovereign risk is the reason why Skills Australia estimates we will need 89,000 more workers in the resources sector by 2016 compared to 2010.

This does provide some challenges for managing this economy. Many of these projects of course will be built in the next couple of years—as the member for Groom, who is at the table, very well knows, as the shadow minister for resources. Many of these will be built in just the next few years: 2012, 2013, 2014. So the demands on our labour force will be very strong indeed.

It is important we get this right. The resources sector contributes 39 per cent of Australia's exports—eight per cent of GDP. Each additional job in the resources sector creates three more jobs. Every job created in the resource sector creates three indirect jobs. So if skill shortages put a handbrake on any of these projects, if skill shortages mean that one of these projects cannot proceed, then the ramifications are very significant indeed.

Let us go through how we got to this point. The National Resources Sector Employment Taskforce, chaired by the now Special Minister of State, recommended enterprise migration agreements in 2010. The budget announced them in 2011 and, in September 2011, I announced the guidelines. I said earlier that Roy Hill made its submission late last year or early this year; the member for Cook said 'pre-Christmas'. Discussions began last year. It was submitted formally in February. So that is in relation to Roy Hill.

The biggest challenge in this investment pipeline is not the carbon price; it is not the mineral resource rent tax; it is not sovereign risk. The biggest challenge in ensuring these projects proceed is access to labour, to ensure that they finish on time and on budget.

Take the Roy Hill project. This $9.5 billion project will employ, in construction, over 8,000 people. It will produce 55 million tonnes of iron ore each year for 20 years. Its current financing is the largest debt financing occurring on the planet this year. When people are looking at this project and deciding whether to finance it, deciding whether to be involved, they look at things like whether it can be finished on time and on budget. What they look at is whether there is some assurance about the skilled labour they need to finish it on time and on budget. EMAs are designed to manage this risk upfront. Any business can apply to sponsor a 457 worker, and if that application is in order it will be granted. Large construction projects regularly sponsor 457 workers. This is well known throughout the economy.

Enterprise migration agreements are designed to manage workforce needs upfront after rigorous labour force analysis to determine what the project will need, how many extra workers it may need and an agreed way forward. The principle of an enterprise migration agreement is to say to a firm, in this case Roy Hill, or to a project: if you cannot find enough workers we will give you these 457 visas. In relation to this project we have said: if you cannot find enough workers you will get 1,700 457 visas over three years. That means they must employ at least 6,700 Australians on this project. They must employ that number of people under this enterprise migration agreement. That is why this is a big win for the Australian economy and a big win for Australians looking for work in the resources sector. In addition, if this project fell over—if the financiers said, 'We can't be guaranteed of its ability to be completed on time and on budget'—there could be 2,000 ongoing jobs lost. In return for the certainty that the government has provided through the enterprise migration agreement, we have required Roy Hill to agree to 2,000 traineeships, 200 apprenticeships and 100 Indigenous training places.

This is a very substantial win, not only for jobs but also for training in the Australian resources sector. Two thousand Australians will have the opportunity to get trained in the resources sector, and 100 Indigenous people will have the opportunity for training in construction. We have negotiated a particular emphasis on mature-aged workers for the apprenticeships so that people who are affected by structural adjustment elsewhere in the economy—whether they be in the eastern states or Western Australia—or have lost their jobs can have a chance at a new career, a new opportunity to work in the resources sector.

It is important that this 1,700 figure be put in some context—1,700 is a lot of people, but we need to put it in context. There are at the moment, give or take, 90,000 457 visa holders in Australia. There have been 13,250 granted in Western Australia this year. So, these 1,700 people need to be seen in the context of 457 visas that are issued every day. Those 90,000 457 workers in Australia make up 0.8 per cent of the 11.5 million workers in Australia. I make these points because they go to the relevance of the 1,700 figure. For 1,700 457 visas we have been able to guarantee a project of 8,000 employees. This is a $9.5 billion project, a project which will produce 55 million tonnes of iron ore each year and produce those export earnings each year for Australia. That is good news and you think the opposition would welcome it. You would think the opposition would support this being implemented and not be so negative at every opportunity.

This is something the government has been working on since the Special Minister of State made that recommendation in 2010. Guidelines were issued, consultations occurred with trade unions and the sector about the guidelines, and then, of course, there was an investigation of this particular project. Let me make it very clear, because the opposition goes to the old who dunnit—the old question of who knew what, when and what did you know and when did you know it? That is all they are interested in—the intrigue, the politics, the point scoring. Let me make this clear—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Members will be quiet and the minister will be heard in silence.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition wants to hear this, but they don't really want to hear it. It is important. I made it very clear. I said it in question time and I will say it again. I will say this: of course, there was consultation across offices; of course, my office worked with other offices. The first detailed briefing for the Prime Minister was early in the week of 21 May. The first detailed briefing from my office for the Prime Minister on the details of the Roy Hill application was early last week and I am advised that she was provided with that on Wednesday. Those are the facts. So if you want to know when the Prime Minister first knew the details of the Roy Hill application, it was early last week. Very, very clearly that is a fact. The opposition can run all sorts of conspiracy theories and all sorts of claims, but that is a fact. The first time the Prime Minister of Australia was briefed in detail was early last week. I have said it; she has said it; and that is the fact. They can run any sort of argument they like, they can make any sort of claim they like, that is the fact.

Mr Morrison interjecting—

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Cook will cease interjecting.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not important who knew what when, what is more important is that 8,000 jobs are being created in the Pilbara. People who work in Western Australia or anywhere in Australia will have the first opportunity to apply for those jobs. Those 1,700 jobs will only be available for 457 visa holders if the operators have not been able source Australian employment.

My department will regularly audit Roy Hill. It will conduct six-monthly reviews to ensure that local recruitment activity is emphasised as the first opportunity. And why wouldn't Roy Hill want to employ Australians? Under the EMA, employing 457 holders is more expensive than employing Australians. We stipulate that market rates must apply and that the employer must pay the airfare to Australia and the airfare home when the 457 visa holder leaves. We make sure that that is not the course of least resistance. We make sure that employing 457 visa holders is available—it is an option—but it is not cheaper than employing Australians. That would be wrong. We are proud of the reforms we have made to the 457 visa program. We have increased worker protection. We have ensured that exploitation ceases. When those opposite were in office none of those protections applied.

I note the Leader of the Opposition made a speech a couple of weeks ago where he said that this government has made it harder to employ 457 visa holders. He is wrong. We have not made it harder, but we have made it fairer. We have ensured that protections apply. When the Leader of the Opposition says, 'We'll make it easier,' I want to know which protections is he going to rip up. Is it the English language requirements? Is it the protections against exploitation? Is it the requirement that market rates be paid? What are the conditions that this government has put on 457 visa holders that the opposition is going to rip up?

If the member for Cook is the minister for immigration one day, what proposal is he going to make to change the policy on 457 visa holders? That is what the Australian people deserve to know. There is great interest in 457 visas. People want to know what protections are in place. They know what protections are in place under this government. They know what measures are in place to ensure that Australians are employed first and that 457s are only used as a last resort. Let's see what they would be under the opposition. Let's make that clear. You have plenty of time: tell us what your policy is.

Enterprise migration agreements are something the opposition do not like because it is good news—good news for Australian workers, good news for the Australian economy. They do not like talking about good news; they have always got to go to the political pointscoring.

Mr Ian Macfarlane interjecting—

The member for Groom says he's loving it. I'm glad, because he is loving the creation of Australian jobs, if that is the case, because we are seeing a big project proceed that otherwise would not proceed.

This government will continue to ensure that a well-managed skilled migration program, whether it be permanent or temporary, creates jobs. A skilled migrant to Australia, whether they be permanent or temporary, can create jobs, not take jobs away from Australians. But it is important that we get the program right. It is important the program be well managed. It is important that an enterprise migration agreement be carefully considered. That is what this government did over many months. That is why the guidelines were issued in September, after consultation with the trade union movement and with the minerals sector.

There are some people who say that the enterprise migration agreements have too many protections in them. There are some people in the resources sector who say that. There are some people in the resources sector who say that I and the Minister for Resources and Energy have put in too many protections for workers. I do not agree. If they do not think that the enterprise migration agreement is for them, that is their right. It is available to them. But this government has ensured that protections are in place, that the enterprise migration agreement must be justified and that the enterprise migration agreement is calibrated to ensure Australian jobs are created. That will continue to be the case under this government. We will continue to negotiate with resources projects to deliver enterprise migration agreements which ensure that these projects can proceed and that unemployed people or people looking for an opportunity for a career in the resources sector—whether they be in the western suburbs of Sydney that I represent, whether they be in Queensland or Victoria, whether they be in Western Australia—have an opportunity for those jobs. It is an opportunity for the nation which we cannot afford to let go to waste. That is why we will continue to proceed with enterprise migration agreements and that is why we are very pleased that we have been able to announce in-principle agreement on the first enterprise migration agreement. For the opposition to talk about sovereign risk when we have delivered this enterprise migration agreement shows that they are only interested in political pointscoring when we are interested in creating jobs for Australians. (Time expired)

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am greatly heartened by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship's closing comments that other EMAs will proceed. It will be great when he actually delivers this one, despite the efforts of others on that side of the House this week and of those who support those on that side of the House.

The energy and resources sector is a crucial sector for Australia. It is crucial to the economy but, just as importantly, it is crucial for creating employment. It employs tens of thousands of Australians not just in Western Australia, not just in Queensland, not just in New South Wales, not just in Tasmania or South Australia or the Northern Territory, but also in Victoria. Many of those workers participate in the resources industry directly by flying in and out or by living in the resource regions, but almost as many if not more people—and the minister has said that for every one resource job there are three others, and I suppose that is right—actually benefit from the resource industry by creating services and goods for the industry to use.

So I was heartened when I heard on Friday morning that this EMA was being put in place. I thought, 'Finally the Labor Party are delivering something for the resources sector.' They have introduced a mining tax and, just as the industry was starting to digest that, they introduced a carbon tax—bigger than any other mining industry anywhere else in the world will have to face. Then just recently in the budget they introduced a withholding tax. I thought: 'Despite the fact that the government have done more to break down Australia's sovereign risk profile and done more to make sure we get less of our share of the investment dollar'—and we have seen Australia fall under the government, from getting 22 per cent of world investment in the resources sector to 15 per cent, and there is a very clear reason for that—'this time they had got it right.' Well, I would never want to play football with these guys. I played a bit of football in my younger days. There they were, the try line is wide open, the minister passes the ball to the Prime Minister, she drops it on the ground, they form a maul and then she kicks it into touch! There is a golden opportunity blown.

What we did not know at the time was that in that maul were the unions and the members of the Labor Party on the backbench who were not happy with this good news story. They wanted to see these projects stopped. They did not understand that these 1,500 workers would create jobs for 6½ thousand Australian workers. Because without these 1,500 people with those special skills that we cannot supply in Australia this project just will not happen. So, again, we saw something that could have been good for Australia completely messed up. That opportunity to improve the sovereign risk profile of Australia, once in this government's lifetime, was blown completely. We heard the assurance from the minister at the dispatch box that this is only the first of many EMAs, and I hope he is right. I hope so for the sake of Australian industry and for the resources sector and for Australians themselves who will rely on these EMAs to ensure that other projects—whether it is the Galilee Basin or another iron ore project or Gorgon—get up. This minister, though, has yet to deliver his first; he is yet to actually get it put in place.

Today we see from the caucus that the Labor Party has formed yet another committee as it seeks to portray the resources sector as something separate from the rest of Australia and as something that has to be harnessed in and tightly controlled—to form more committees and more oversights as if the resources sector is some sort of competitor to the rest of Australia. In actual fact, it complements Australia, it supports Australia, it creates wealth, it creates jobs and it gives this government money to spend. But I must admit I should have said 'waste', because that is the way Labor parties are: tax and spend, tax and spend.

We need the resources sector to continue growing. There is a window of opportunity out there. There are literally hundreds of billions of dollars worth of projects that need to proceed. They are getting jarred by a series of bad decisions by this government—

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

Like this piece of nonsense.

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, I did not hear that.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Parramatta will not interject and the member for Groom will not encourage interjections either.

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the member for Parramatta is suggesting that the EMA is a piece of nonsense. I am supporting the EMA. I am supporting the minister. I know there are some on that side, and maybe the member for Parramatta is one of them, that do not support the EMA, that actually want it stopped—there are a whole stack of them over there. If the member for Parramatta wants this stopped, perhaps she will stand up and at least out herself.

The reality is that the Labor Party generally see the resources sector as simply a cash cow, something that can be taxed at every opportunity. When they had the chance to actually do something right, the Prime Minister bungled it again—a simple, straightforward EMA announcement. She knew all about it. I knew all about it and I am not even in government. I knew what was happening. I had been briefed by the company. I had read it in the newspaper. I have seen the terms of reference. I knew what was going on. She knew what was going on. Yet in a meeting with the unions she got completely spooked and rattled and destroyed a golden opportunity for this government to give one crumb of confidence to the resources sector in 4½ years. One little crumb to demonstrate that they, the government, knew exactly what they needed to do if these projects were going to succeed—and they absolutely blew it.

We now have ourselves in a situation where, whilst the minister says this agreement will be finalised and implemented, we are not sure because we do not understand the oversight role of the committee that has been announced today. We are not sure that, if there is another EMA put forward, the conditions will be the same. There has been no deed signed for the EMA that was announced last week, and the confidence of the sector is slowly ebbing away.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Rubbish!

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Page says this is rubbish. I suggest that she spend a little bit more time with the resources sector, like I do. Every week I talk to the resources sector. I respect her knowledge on a number of subjects but I suggest she needs to spend more time talking to the resources sector and hearing what they say.

What we need is a government that can not only manage the economy, which we know it cannot, but can actually manage policy. This government cannot manage policy. The moment they get one policy that is almost right, that is what the resources sector is asking for, the interference comes into play and the confidence of the resources sector is sapped away. We see on one hand the minister trying to support a great Australian in her project, and the affiliates she has in that project, while we see the Treasurer of Australia trying to tear that person down as some sort of elitist. If that is not a confusing message I do not know what is. This class warfare that the Labor Party engages in simply is another knock—

Mr Husic interjecting—

I am waiting for your interjection—I can easily build on that.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Chifley will not interject.

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would be good if he could do a decent interjection, but he is not contributing to the debate so I am going to proceed. The knocks that those on that side of the House continue to make to the resources sector—a carbon tax, a mining tax, a withholding tax, class warfare—are continual hurdles to the Australian resources industry moving forward. What we need to see is the Labor Party actually get one thing right for the resources sector. Just one thing: put it in place, stand by it, sign the deed and say, 'The conditions for the next EMA will be exactly the same as this one,' so that there is some certainty, some predictability, some confidence for a sector which underpins the Australian economy and provides wealth for all Australians.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I always enjoy the contributions of the member for Groom. His final thoughts remind me of the day the Leader of the Opposition came to my electorate—it was the Monday after the government announced the detail of its carbon price and all that goes with it including the compensation. He decided he would visit Wambo mine, owned and operated by Peabody, in my electorate. He was there to tell the whole world, including those who live in my electorate, that the carbon price was going to bring the coalmining industry to a halt—it would destroy the coalmining industry—only to learn that while he was on his feet scaring the workers Peabody in the United States was announcing a multibillion-dollar takeover of Macarthur Coal. That is how concerned they were about the future of the coalmining industry in this country.

People listening to this debate this afternoon, whether they be in the gallery or listening on the radio in the car or at home—and I am told that there are still some masochists around that do these things—may have thought that this was a debate about the resources sector and the use of foreign workers at the Roy Hill mine in the Pilbara. But of course it is not, and anyone who listened to either the member for Cook or the member for Groom would know that now only too well. All they really said were two things. First of all, they said they agree with our policy. They agree that enterprise migration agreements are a good thing for the resources sector and a good thing for the country. That is unequivocal. They made that very, very clear.

Second, they attacked the Prime Minister over process. That is the big point they were trying to make today. In other words, they are not here talking about opportunities for the nation; they are talking about opportunities for them. I am not here to talk about political opportunism; I do want to talk about opportunities for the nation, opportunities that are presented to us by the mining boom and, just as importantly, how we maximise and capitalise on them and of course how we spread the opportunity of that boom and how we make sure that all Australians have the opportunity to benefit from what is happening in the resources sector in particular. And that is of course what the 2012 budget was all about.

EMAs, the enterprise migration agreements, were announced in the 2011 budget without much fuss. The announcement got very good publicity because everyone agreed, including the opposition, that that was exactly the sort of thing we need to be doing in the face of the resources boom to manage the capacity and constraints we are up against, particularly in skills and labour. They are ensuring that we can cater for that peak demand when the labour market just cannot provide all the workers the resources sector needs from time to time. It makes sure that valuable resources projects can proceed regardless of those capacity constraints.

Of course 457 visas, the visas used to bring in foreign workers when it can be demonstrated that the skilled labour simply is not available at any given time in Australia, can be used with or without these migration agreements. But these agreements allow us to better manage the process. They allow us to talk to the company before the applications are made about how many 457s they might need but, more particularly, about the basis on which they will be used to ensure that the pay and other conditions of the workers involved are exactly the same as those which apply to Australian workers so that companies cannot exploit the situation and bring in foreign workers at the expense of Australian workers to save money. They allow us to manage these peaks in demand well ahead of time.

In the case of Roy Hill, it is a very simple proposition. They are developing a $9.5 billion project which will require 8,000 workers, most of them skilled—engineers, electricians, plumbers, you name it—creating 8,000 job opportunities. But the company says, 'We do not believe, having tested the labour market and as much as we will try, that we are going to be able to get 8,000 people.' So based on sound advice and research, the government says, 'We will let you apply for up to 1,700 or thereabouts 457s to allow you to meet that peak demand.' What that means for anyone in this chamber—at least on this side who can do the simple maths—is that there are still more than 6,000 jobs which will go to Australians. So you can not have the project and have no jobs, or you can have the project and allow temporarily 1,700 foreign workers to come in while creating 6,000 Australian jobs and, in addition, 2,000 training places, including, I think, 200-odd apprenticeships and of course opportunities for Indigenous Australians. It sounds like a pretty good idea, but I do not really need to labour on it because the opposition have made it abundantly clear that they think this is a good idea, and we welcome their support for it.

Of course we are not just doing that in terms of our planning and management for the mining boom; we are also investing $3 billion in addition in skills to ensure that we do not have another decade like we had under the former Tory government when we did not anticipate and plan for the mining boom. If John Howard had properly anticipated and planned for the mining boom, we would probably not be bringing in 1,700 workers, because we would have taken the opportunity many years ago to skill enough people for these sorts of resources projects. But we are doing this concurrently to ensure that those mistakes are not made again.

Both the member for Cook, and the member for Groom to a lesser extent, spent a lot of time talking about sovereign risk. It was a bit offensive, because they were talking about it as if no-one on this side knew what that meant. I know who is causing the sovereign risk here. It is those who sit on that side who are trying to undermine the very agreements which they support, again, for no other reason than political opportunism.

I suspect the member for Groom in particular, and of course the member for Cook, have probably never had to raise in excess of $9 billion for a resources project, or any other sort of business for that matter. But if they have a think about it for a while they will see that it is not just a matter of picking up the phone to the local bank manager. It is far more complex and far more difficult than that. When you go to the equity funds, the banks, the private investors or whoever it might be, they do almost excessive due diligence. If you are going to invest big money in these projects, you want to know what the risks are. You do not have to be an award-winning economist—like we have on this side of course, and I do not name him because I can never remember whether he is the member for Canberra or Fraser; he is member for Fraser—to know that if you are sitting in London or New York and looking at Australia you know straightaway to ask, 'Aha, it is a $9 million project requiring 8,000 workers. Where are they going to get them from?' They will identify immediately that there is a big risk involved in this project unless those presenting the project have already taken that into account, can prove that they have taken that into account, and can prove that they have found a way of dealing with this problem. Big tick. That is what this is all about.

Gina Rinehart and others can much more easily provide peace of mind for those with concerns if they have one of these agreements. They no longer have to say, 'Well, we think that we will be able to apply for and secure 457 visas.' They no longer have to rely on a lick and a promise. They can now present one of these migration agreements to the potential investors and say: 'It's signed off. The government has agreed. We'll provide 6,000 Australian jobs, but they'll let us temporarily bring in 1,700 foreign workers so that this $9.5 billion project can proceed.' It does not get any simpler than that.

Very quickly, the member for Groom wanted to know what the caucus committee is going to do. The government decision is made. It is a done deal. The caucus committee want to participate in these matters, and so they should; they want to be diligent to make sure these things keep working well and make sure Australian workers are protected and that is exactly what the caucus committee will do. (Time expired)

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased speak on this matter of public importance about the uncertainty created by this Gillard government on handling the Roy Hill enterprise migration agreement. It is interesting that I should follow such a garbled response by the member for Hunter. I will endeavour to make it far clearer to the people who might be listening to this exercise out there.

As a proud Western Australian, the resource rich state that my electorate of Canning lies in, I spend a lot of time flying back and forth across the Nullarbor. Sadly, it is one of the downsides of the job. But a curious thing happened on the plane going back to Perth last Thursday night. I was sitting on the plane amongst my colleagues and others, as I often do, and there was the Minister for Resources and Energy, the Hon. Martin Ferguson, sitting just behind me to the right, busily engrossed in paperwork. I thought this was a bit strange. Why would we have the member for Batman coming to Western Australia, seemingly unannounced, deep in the study of his paperwork, particularly when there was a reasonable movie on about whales trying to break through the ice at the North Pole, which was what most other people were watching? The member for Batman, the Minister for Resources and Energy, was sitting there with the member for Brand. Of course, there were other ministers in this government on that plane.

It did not dawn on me until I read the paper and saw the news the following day why the minister for resources was in Western Australia. It was all very secretive to us, of course. The information eventually was revealed. There was one of the anti-Gillard supporters, a Rudd supporter, over in Western Australia on behalf of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Mr Bowen, colluding to make an announcement which would embarrass the Prime Minister. The member for Brand, Gary Gray, who I think is a very honourable fellow and liked by both sides of this House, was also there as part of the announcement. And why would the member for Brand not be there, Mr Deputy Speaker? He is on the record, as reported in the West Australian yesterday in an article headed 'Labor urged to stand by worker scheme', as saying:

Mr Gray, the Special Minister of State, conceded yesterday that failure to communicate the arrangement to Ms Gillard had undermined the selling of the policy.

The article went on:

Mr Gray said EMAs were needed because there were not enough skilled workers.

Those were his own words.

Why is the member for Brand so behind this budget? We know he was behind this before it was announced in the 2011 budget. In fact, he was part of the organisation of these EMAs from 2010 on. But why is he so interested in seeing these EMAs working in the Pilbara? Let us have a look. There are two reasons. Firstly, unlike most of those people on that side of the parliament, he has actually had a working life in business. He was a consultant to Woodside before he came into this place, so he understands the resources sector and the constrictions and the foot on the throat that is put on the ability to get some of these projects up. He is somebody who understands very well. And, secondly, the member for Brand has the highest number of fly-in fly-out workers in a metropolitan electorate in Western Australia. How do I know that? Because I have the second highest number of fly-in fly-out workers in a metropolitan electorate in Western Australia. It is very important to us that we look after our constituents, and that is exactly what the member for Brand is doing.

Why are EMAs important? As the member for Brand has said, we cannot get enough skilled workers. One reason we cannot get enough skilled workers is the Rudd government in 2007 and pressure from the unions. The details are all there. This government in 2007 said to the union movement, 'We know you don't like 457 visas, so we will allow you to inject yourself into the approval of 457 visas and the whole policy behind 457 visas so that you can take some control of it.' Why would they do that? Because the 457 visas are not unionised. They do not belong to the unions that they would like to have in the North-West, so the unions did all they could to knock them off and stop them coming into this country. The unions are essentially the gateway: they had to pass the unions before they were given permission to sign on.

The problem is Western Australia is desperately short of workers. To give you an idea, in my electorate at the Newmont Boddington goldmine—which is going to be the largest goldmine in Australia, even bigger than the open cut in Kalgoorlie where they produce 850,000 ounces of gold a year—the mine manager, Tony Esplin, the other day said to me that on any week they are short 200 skilled workers to fill vacancies in their mine. They are not fly-in fly-outs, they are drive-in drive-outs from around my electorate and other parts of Perth. So there is a huge shortage of skilled workers in this country. Have a look in the North-West. Why are there fly-in fly-out people?

I will give you an example. Today I was informed that every couple of years around Karratha they have a land lottery. Anybody who builds a house up there has to build the most basic of houses because of the shortage of land and the cost of building houses, which is well over $1 million, and you can get $5,000 a week for a four by two in Karratha. It is just prohibitively costly to house people up there.

I am a person who began his working life in a mining town called Wickham. I was a school teacher in the mining town of Wickham, which has the Cliffs Robe River port and ore refinery. In those days, people came from all over Australia and many people came from the rest of the world, but they did not have to go through this restrictive practice of getting through the union gateway. At the moment, there are many projects up there where they are not only short of workers but the cost is becoming prohibitive. The other day we heard Jac Nasser from BHP say that Australia is becoming one of the dearest places to do business for a whole range of reasons, and one of them was not only the industrial laws but the supply of skilled workers. This was backed up by Labor's own consultant in Rod Eddington, who said exactly the same thing. He thought that the Labor Party's policy on providing skilled workers and the industrial relations laws were stopping development in this country.

In the last few minutes I have available to me, I will look at how the Labor Party has bungled this. We see this as a great scheme. We have so many other projects throughout the north-west that desperately need these sorts of workers. These projects qualify for the program: the $43 billion Gorgon project, the $14 billion Pluto project, the $18 billion Wheatstone project, the $5.4 billion Sino ore project, the $5.2 billion Oakajee port and rail infrastructure project, the $2½ billion Extension Hill magnetite project and the $2.3 billion Worsley refinery growth project in my own electorate. These, and more, would all qualify under this scheme.

We are talking about this today not because we disagree with EMAs but because of the bungled way that this Prime Minister has handled the issue. First of all, she denied it. Michelle Grattan said in her article yesterday:

In Parliament, Ms Gillard did not deny she had told union officials on Friday she did not support the agreement for 1700 foreign workers for the Roy Hill development and that she had not been informed about it.

Depending on which day you get to the Prime Minister, you get a different story. The board that is now going to be created through cabinet is policy on the run. This is symptomatic of a dysfunctional government. Everybody, including those on the other side, is questioning the judgment of this Prime Minister to tell the truth, to get it right and to reflect the policies and the will not only of her party but of the Australian people.

Why am I getting phone calls from a whole range of people saying: when can we get something done about removing this dysfunctional Prime Minister from the parliament? We know that the member for Hunter, the immigration minister and the resources minister are all part of a cabal who want to see this Prime Minister off. This was just a tricky little ploy to undermine the Prime Minister. They have been caught out and she has been snookered by the whole affair. (Time expired)

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This debate should be about opportunity. This is a $9.5 billion project, requiring the single largest raising of funds on the planet. It is part of a massive investment in the Australian economy. It will create close to 7,000 Australian jobs—2,000 of which will be permanent, high-paying jobs for the 20 years plus life of this project—with billions of dollars of locally sourced construction investment and $20 million spent on training. That is the opportunity we should be discussing today. There is opportunity for Australians, for businesses, for workers and for the country.

But, for those opposite, there is only one opportunity that they are interested in, and that is their own. This MPI reflects their own opportunism. It is always about them; it is not about average Australians. This is not an opportunity to undermine confidence and it is not an opportunity to spread mistruths. It is important to outline some facts concerning the total number of 457 visas in this country. In the 2011-12 financial year, there were 56,010 457 visas granted to 30 April 2012. In Western Australia, this figure is 13,250. I understand from the department that, on current trends, WA will have the highest number of 457 visa grants out of any state or territory.

On Friday, the minister announced that the first enterprise migration agreement, EMA, would go to the Roy Hill project for up to 1,700 out of 8,500 jobs attached to the construction phase of that site. That 1,700—it is worth noting—equates to 12.8 per cent of the 457 visas in Western Australia and three per cent of 457 visas for the entire country. It is important to put that into context.

Regarding the whole process itself, in July 2010, as has been outlined to the chamber, the now Special Minister of State brought down the National resources sector employment taskforce report, which made a recommendation for enterprise migration agreements. In March, Ministers Evans and Ferguson tabled the government's response, which included in-principle support. This has been worked upon for some period of time. The Treasurer outlined in his budget speech last year that the government would implement EMAs. It was welcomed at the time as being a common-sense and important policy for the country. In September last year, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship released the guidelines and consulted with key stakeholders, including the ACTU. In November, there were active consultations with the Roy Hill project and unions about the shape of the EMA. It is important to recognise that this EMA will address skill challenges that are confronting the country. Skills Australia predicts that an additional 89,000 workers will be required in the mining sector by 2016. It is worth noting that we heard a lot from those opposite about sovereign risk and about how this agreement would undermine the mining sector in this country. Yet, if this were a sector under risk, if this were a sector that was worried about its future, how could it plan for nearly 100,000 people to be employed in a sector which is ready to invest $450 billion in the resources sector? If you think that that is risk, I do not know what your definition of risk is when you look at how strong the resources sector is for this country.

I have to declare an interest. My dad came to Australia, in part, as a result of a sort of EMA. He was part of the post-war migration where Australia was hungry for skills. There were big projects on the boil which placed major labour demands on the country, and he got to work on the Snowy Mountains Scheme. I am a big fan of EMAs. I have seen the way that they have worked in this country by providing for local jobs and by bringing in skills and talent to make our economy and our country strong, and this approach makes sense. Most people get the common sense very quickly. Projects like this one, worth $9.5 billion, will create big labour demands of their own. Big projects will provide a massive jobs boost for many locals. Over 6,700 will get the opportunity to work. But what happens when you cannot get people to fill the spots and what happens when a $9.5 billion project cannot find people to fill the spots—

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When capital is scarce.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and when capital is scarce, as the member for Moreton rightly raises? As has been pointed out, you set up a project-wide labour agreement, custom designed for a particular project like this one, negotiated with the project owner as this was, which sets the terms by which overseas workers will be engaged as they should be. It will be available to resource projects with capital expenditure of more than $2 billion and a peak workforce of more than 1,500. It is all set out in the facts sheet available on Immigration's website. It is all spelt out there. I thank the member for Parramatta, who brought this to our attention today. I follow her Twitter account and that is where she posted it today. You are able to see for yourself, in fact, what we have been doing, and it has been out there for ages. It is straightforward stuff.

I want to draw the House's attention to what the opposition said a few days ago. The member for Cook was talking to Andrew Bolt and said:

Well this project needed to get a guarantee of supply of labour in order to secure its funding. So the first 6,000 jobs, remember this is going to create about 8,000 jobs—

The member for Cook is actually selling this project quite well—

6,000 of those will go to Australians under the agreement the government has approved. So we have never had a problem with Enterprise Migration Agreements—

never had a problem—

and ensuring that our mining and resources sector has the certainty …

And then, in a couple of days things changed. When they sniffed that there might be an opportunity to cause mischief, suddenly the member for Warringah, the Leader of the Opposition, created all sorts of attempts to jump on this issue.

It is worth making the House aware of—and the member for Cook should probably pay attention—the previous government's 457 rules. Remember, they brought in 457s because the RBA had been saying for ages that the economy was threatened by capacity constraints, particularly skill shortages, which the opposition—the then government—did nothing about. So they put together the 457 process because they could not actually deal with skill shortages in this country. Remember this: under their rules, Roy Hill would have been able to sponsor semiskilled workers without consultation—no consultation with unions—without paying market wages and without formal skills assessments. That was their 457 approach.

Do the coalition actually intend to reverse our reforms? Will they retain market wages safety nets that are a feature of our regime and will they provide a guarantee against foreign workers undermining working conditions and competing unfairly against workers? These are important questions, which I suspect will never get answered because they are never interested in policy; they are only ever interested in politics. As I said, they think that this is an opportunity for them to find division instead of solution and to bag and carp instead of coming up with their own ideas. They only ever really want to create mischief by seizing on the concerns of unions.

As I said, the member for Warringah was talking about Aussie jobs but, when they needed to actually support Aussies in getting trained and meeting the skills need, they were not there. The architects of Work Choices are now the defenders of Aussie conditions. I have seen it all! It is like Colonel Sanders defending Weight Watchers. I love seeing the way these guys operate.

I certainly get that unions would want detail and would want protections. I will draw the House's attention to the comment of the CEPU's National Secretary Peter Tighe, who said:

We have to accept that there are massive projects in the pipeline, worth $300 billion to $400bn, and this country has shortages in filling the skills needs. … Australia has been bringing in people to fill skills shortages since World War II.

As a union our job is to ensure we have a say—

which they will get—

that the people coming in are properly tested—

that is right—

accredited and that we have agreements that also guarantee apprenticeships and the upskilling of the existing workforce.

EMAs are terrific for our economy and country and should not be the subject of political opportunism. (Time expired)

Ken O'Dowd (Flynn, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to talk about the uncertainty that is being created by this government in the handling of the Roy Hill enterprise migration agreement. I believe this is another classic example of just how divided and dysfunctional this government is. We like the EMA. We like the thought that 8,000 new jobs will be created in Western Australia. We like the fact that $9.5 billion is going to be created. Keep in mind, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I come from a very robust area in Central Queensland, where we have $70 billion worth of gas projects going on at this stage. We are bringing in workers on 457s from Ireland, New Zealand and many other countries in the world, including Germany, France and England, so we are well used to having overseas workers doing jobs in our state of Queensland.

But a lot of these projects that are on the drawing board are exactly that—on the drawing board. They cannot wait until our side of the House gets into government so that we can rid of this noxious carbon tax and the MRRT. They know that we are only around the corner from being in government, and they have put just about everything on hold and are waiting for the next 12 months until they go.

Mr Lyons interjecting—

Do you know what? The way you blokes are going, it might not even be 12 months. Keep in mind that we did not cause the mischief over this EMA; it was you blokes yourselves who caused it.

Government members interjecting—

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Members on my right will cease interjecting.

Ken O'Dowd (Flynn, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me get on with it, please! Do not take the resources industry for granted. It may not always be there. In only 2002 you could have bought a house in Blackwater for about $7,000 or $8,000—if you had the guts, but a lot of people did not, including me. The coal days were numbered then. That same house today would probably be worth about $500,000 or would be getting you at least $2,000 a week in rent. That is how things can change.

I had to laugh at the member for Hunter talking about how we go about borrowing money on big projects, as though we would not know. But it is all overseas money on big projects. When you are talking about $8 billion, $10 billion and $70 billion, it is not Australian money; it is overseas money and normally Chinese money. On a lesser scale, our banks even today borrow 30 per cent of their money from overseas to look after housing and small business. Small business is getting a bit of a hiding at the moment too, and they are finding it very hard to borrow money. Just ask the cattle man if he got to borrow money for buying stock. It is very hard to get money. You need very good cash flow and you need assets to back it.

The mining industry is faced with a lot of uncertainties today. We in Australia are the largest exporters of coal. Going back to 18 years ago, would you believe that our neighbour Indonesia did not export any coal? Today Indonesia is the biggest exporter of coal in the world. It exports well over 30 per cent and we have dropped to under 30 per cent. Our miners in Australia today face a lot of hurdles. It is not only the MRRT and the carbon tax. We are now looking down the barrel of these new shipping costs. We are an island nation, and of course we have to ship most of our products by sea. This really pertains to Rio Tinto in Gladstone, Weipa, Tasmania and New Zealand. If the shipping costs on top of each other break them down, not only does the Gladstone production break down but Weipa breaks down, Bell Bay in Tasmania breaks down and so does New Zealand.

So that is what the industry is facing today. There must be certainty. If you talk to big mining companies who look like coming to Australia—and I have recently spoken to a big company, the second biggest company in the world—they say, 'We can give you a list of 10 good reasons we could come to Australia, but we can also give you a list of 30 reasons why we shouldn't'. That is what we mean about certainty. They want certainty before they will come to Australia because there are big development costs involved in setting up, whether it be for gas, iron ore or coal, and this government has not been able to deliver it.

That was in the Prime Minister's statement. She is trying to run with the hounds and hunt with the fox. She is trying to run with the union but, on the other hand, she wants to keep in with those big miners—the Rineharts, the Twiggy Forrests and the Clive Palmers. Two weeks ago in this House, the government were saying what horrible people the big miners were. They were shockers; they were out there. Clive Palmer actually saved 1,000 jobs in Townsville, in the refinery. Gina Rinehart, one of the most successful women in the world—probably the most successful—invested her dollars wisely, worked hard and has been very successful. But they were no good. All the big industries that come to Australia, companies like Queensland Alumina in Gladstone and Queensland Cement, now Cement Australia, are the worst polluters in the world—and the government tell them that.

How do we give these industries coming to Australia confidence that we do want them? They create good jobs and they create well paying jobs. Our miners are the best paid miners in the world. Our gas workers are the best paid gas workers in the world. I wish someone from the other side of the House would go up to my area today and sort out the dispute between BMA and the unions, who are on strike in six coalmines. BMA have actually closed down Norwich Park in the last month. Five hundreds job there have gone. What are the government doing? Have they gone to sleep at the post? I think they might have.

As I have stated before in this place, Australia is becoming less and less attractive to investors, and this is what we have to do something about. We are all for the migration scheme itself. We are all for giving jobs. In fact, in my area we could not exist without the immigration of skilled workers and also unskilled workers. Unskilled workers play just as big a role in my area as skilled workers do. There is a citrus plantation in Emerald which employs 500 South Pacific islanders in a year. That plantation could not operate without those workers from overseas; I am talking about Tongans, Fijians and Samoans. They do a fantastic job. Without them it would not work.

Pig farmers currently bring in 457 visa holders to work in the pig industry. Mundubbera and Gayndah use Pacific Island workers and also backpackers. Backpackers play a very big part in our economy all around Australia. When I had a pub I used to rely mainly on backpackers for workers. I went to a very remote pub in my electorate, a place called Cracow. I walked in there thinking I was going to find the publican, but I found two Irish girls. They had been running the pub for 10 months and they looked like being there for another 10 months. That was the only staff that publican could get because in the meantime he had bought another pub not too far away.

It is essential that we have these migrant worker programs. To say we are against jobs is just wrong. We love to see people working. We love to see industry thriving. We like to get out of their way, get our hands out of their pocket and let them get on with getting the resources out of the ground and getting them sold overseas.

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

Once again, I am rising to speak on one of the more unusual matters of public importance that you would see in this parliament, an MPI about something both sides of the House agree on and an MPI about something that the government committed to over a year ago and has worked for in consultation with unions and business.

The opposition themselves said earlier today they were widely briefed on the enterprise migration agreements and that they agreed with them. The government has just announced one. There is a government commitment to it and yet we have an MPI about it. It is not an MPI about how good it is—and it is a good thing—but an MPI about somehow there is uncertainty about something both sides agree on and something that the government has committed to and spent a year developing.

This should be quite unusual but, unfortunately, it is not. The only uncertainty that comes into this issue comes from this MPI itself where, once again, we have the opposition getting up and trying to spread as much fear as they can, trying to give the impression that things are not as they should be and that people have the right to feel afraid. Again, let me repeat: the enterprise migration agreements are something both sides of this House agree on, something that has been worked on since Gary Gray chaired the National Resources Sector Employment Taskforce back in 2010 and something that was announced in May 2011. Now, a year later, the first of the major enterprise migration agreements has been announced. The government is committed to it and we have an MPI of this nature.

But the silliness goes further than that. The first speaker, the member for Cook, was talking as if he had discovered a whodunnit. Who did it? Did the butler do it? But there is no body here. It is hard to have a whodunnit when there is no body. You can speculate as much as you like about who might have done what to whom but there is no body here. The enterprise migration agreements are government policy. We have announced the first one. We are committed to it. It was an absolute nonsense of a speech.

The member for Groom introduced a whole new conspiracy, that somehow the fact that the resources minister was flying to Western Australia must be something to do with a leadership challenge. That is one of the most extraordinary ones I have ever heard yet. The resources minister flying to Western Australia—where there are mines, where there is gas, where there is iron ore, where there is coal, where there are resources—might be something to with something other than the fact that he is Minister for Resources and Energy and Western Australia is full of resources. What nonsense. And then the member said that the minister was flying to Perth on a public plane in the seat behind the member for Groom, in secret. A secret flight on a public plane in full view of everyone to a state with lots of resources? Wow, it must be a conspiracy. There must be something wrong going on here. But this is the length that the opposition has to go to in trying to make this MPI stick. Both sides of politics agree on this enterprise migration agreement issue. In order to make the MPI stick, they have to invent a whole range of things. They have also said that we have been happily abolishing 457 visas, and yet there has been 56,000 of them to April this year.

This is a ridiculous MPI. It is absolutely ridiculous, particularly when we are absolutely the government of jobs, absolutely the government of growth. There is a pipeline of half a trillion dollars in investment flowing into this country. It is the biggest flow of investment into this country that we have ever seen. It is of massive proportions, extraordinary proportions, and the opposition says that is a sign of how badly we are doing. We are doing so badly that we have got the biggest investment pipeline that we have ever seen flowing into this country. That brings with it absolute challenges.

A resources boom has within it its own barrier to growth because it grows to a point that it needs skilled labour that it can no longer get. It actually eats up the available skilled labour quite quickly. It has its own capping mechanism if governments do not work with the various sectors to ease the way for growth. This government has been doing that. We are the government that created over 700,000 new training places. We are the government that has been investing in trade training schools. We are the government that is making it possible for people to go to TAFE and to get HECS style funding. We are the ones that have given additional funding to universities. In my electorate alone, we have seen a 17 per cent increase in the enrolment of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. We are the government that did this.

I sat on that side of this chamber for the last three years of the Howard government and I listened time after time to the reports of the Governor of the Reserve Bank about the fact that the previous government did not invest sufficiently in skills. I sat there and watched the Howard government introduce the 457 visas without the appropriate protections. I saw the exploitation. I heard from people in my electorate who had been employed on those visas as they were, who were being paid near slave wages, who had their passports confiscated and who were in fear of being immediately deported if they complained. I saw that. We all saw that. We saw how badly the Howard government responded to the resources boom and the needs that there were for a skilled workforce.

They failed to train Australians, and they failed to respond to the needs of the sector; instead they allowed a 457 regime that was so easily exploited and which, in parallel to Work Choices—which drove down Australian wages—allowed the standards of Australians to be undermined by underpayment and by low standards under the 457. We are the government who are committed to making the 457 visa system work. We are the ones who sat down and made sure that businesses employing workers from overseas were doing so on the same conditions as Australians. We were the ones who introduced the rules that made that system work. And we are the ones who realised early on that for these extremely large-scale projects you need a one-on-one approach to negotiating how the workforce issues will be dealt with in the long term.

The enterprise migration agreements are incredibly good at that. They recognise that in boom times like this we have massive construction needs, which are essentially short-term jobs, and that the need for skilled workers will peak extraordinarily but then, as the project is completed, will settle into a lower number of long-term, good-quality operational jobs. We are the ones who recognised that we need to negotiate one-on-one to smooth those bumps out for companies for projects like the Roy Hill.

This enterprise migration agreement does all of the things that we would expect it to do. It ensures that the Roy Hill project provides training for Australians—real training for real jobs—for the long-term jobs of Australians. It ensures that Indigenous people are catered for, that there are real jobs for the Indigenous people living locally. It ensures that there are over 6,000 Australian jobs on this project—that is a lot of jobs. But it does allow the Roy Hill project to bring in the workers for the construction phase, within a certain band of skill level so that the construction can go ahead, because that needs a massive 8½ thousand workers.

This is a good agreement. It is an agreement that protects the interests of Australians. It is an agreement that makes sure that workers who come in from elsewhere in the world are employed on the market rate and at the same conditions and standards that Australian workers are working on. It ensures that the company pays the costs for those workers to get to and from Australia. But it also guarantees that the company is investing in training Australian workers for the future, and making sure that the local Indigenous people have a place to share the benefits of this project.

It is a good agreement, and both sides agree that it is a good agreement.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So what are we debating?

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

So, what the hell are we doing here talking about uncertainty for something that we both agree on? More waste of time! (Time expired)

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The discussion is now concluded.