Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia is well placed to provide the world with highly educated, highly skilled employees. Those working in areas like the sciences, engineering and mathematics are constantly researching and innovating to further our knowledge about diseases, the environment and technology. We should value these highly skilled individuals, yet this government does not value my constituent Dr Jagdev Sidhu or his wife, Dr Kavita Sarang.

In 1993 Dr Sidhu received his PhD in pharmaceutical sciences from the University of Queensland and departed Australia to find work in specialist clinical pharmaceutical posts, which did not exist in Australia. Dr Sidhu, his British wife and their children relocated back to Melbourne in 2010 after living in the UK for 17 years so that Dr Sidhu could accept a highly skilled high-level position with CSL Ltd. Dr Sidhu had been headhunted for this position by CSL, and CSL has made a very significant investment in him, returning him and his family to Australia because of his unique skills and experiences.

Dr Sidhu's wife, Dr Sarang, is herself highly skilled and practises as an anaesthetist. Naturally she wanted to find work in Melbourne to continue her career. She also wants to be available for her family, an issue that so many families have to struggle with: to find the right balance between work and family. Dr Sarang applied to the Department of Health and Ageing for an exemption under section 19AB of the Health Insurance Act 1973 to provide her with a Medicare provider number to give her full scope to practise. The spousal provisions of section 19AB allow an overseas trained doctor to obtain an unrestricted Medicare provider number on the basis that their spouse's occupation is listed on the Department of Immigration and Citizenship's Skilled Occupation List. Dr Sidhu's occupation is listed on the Skilled Occupation List, and as his family has migrated to Australia his wife would automatically be eligible for the exemption, yet the minister rejected her application. The effect of this decision is profound. The department says the rules are clear—as does the minister—and that only a non-citizen can take advantage of this exemption. This means that an overseas-trained doctor whose spouse is not an Australian citizen and who has migrated to Australia to work in a position based on the skilled occupation list would be granted an exemption. It is my view that Dr Sidhu and his wife are being discriminated against on the basis that he is an Australian citizen.

I met with the Minister for Health earlier this year to raise my concerns and to ask her to reconsider her decision. She has refused to do so. It seems patently unfair that an Australian citizen's spouse would not be given an exemption, whereas the spouse of a non-citizen migrant in the same situation would be given the exemption. Because of this decision Dr Sarang cannot find appropriate work that suits her skills and her family's circumstances. As a result, Dr Sidhu and Dr Sarang are considering returning to the United Kingdom so that both can find work in their respective fields. This would be an enormous loss to Australia. Australia would lose both a skilled anaesthetist and a highly-skilled Australian citizen, whilst CSL would lose a highly skilled employee whom they specifically headhunted to return.