Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In continuing from last night, I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013. Last night I said that I thought this was a disgraceful bill. It is a disgraceful bill because it is deliberately designed to crack down on what has been a successful program to date and there is no evidence that it has not been successful or has been rorted. Secondly, this is a disgraceful bill because it shatters the decades-long bipartisan support for skilled migration into this country.

I believe, and I said this last night, that good members of the Labor Party would be deeply embarrassed and indeed be ashamed about this bill. They would be ashamed because it actually abandons the values that they have held for a long time. They would be ashamed because it abandons the bipartisan support for skilled migration that has been so central to the economic and social success of this nation. I know that members on the other side of this chamber, such as Martin Ferguson, Robert McClelland, Simon Crean and even the former minister for immigration, Chris Bowen, would never have put forward a bill such as this one. I do not think that when it comes to voting on this bill they on the other side of the chamber will feel very proud at all that they will have to line up and vote for this disgraceful bill that has been put forward.

The bill itself is designed to completely strangle the 457 visa program in red tape. That is what it is designed to do. Make no bones about it. If there are visa rorts in this program then let us deal with them. Of course, Australians should get the jobs first and that should always be the case, but this is not about that. This bill is actually all about delivering for the unions because they have requested this bill be rushed into this parliament in the dying days of this government. We all know that if the unions say to the Labor Party, 'Jump,' then the Labor Party will say, 'How high?' They cannot bring this bill in quickly enough. I am sure they will attempt to guillotine it through this parliament later on today.

Why has the government said that we need this legislation which cracks down on 457 visas? Why have they said we need this? In essence they have given two reasons. The first is because they say the 457 visa program has been extensively rorted. The minister for immigration even gave a figure. He said that 10,000 visas have been rorted, which would constitute almost 10 per cent of the program. If that was the case, then, yes, we absolutely need to get on top of this program. But was there any evidence for this 10,000 figure? No, there was no evidence. Where did this figure come from? It transpired, after he announced this figure, that he had actually just made it up. That is right: he made up this figure and the immigration department officials, some of whom are in this chamber today, confirmed this to the Senate estimates. They said that they provided no such advice and could not provide any evidence to support that number.

When Tony Sheldon, a union leader, was asked how many 457 visa complaints he had received over the past 12 months—Tony Sheldon has been on this campaign to abolish the 457 visa program, or at least to crack down on it—do you know how many he said? Twenty-four. He had 24 in 12 months. So he is one of the key leaders out there saying, 'This is an outrage; it's being rorted on a daily basis,' and he has had 24 complaints. How many did he report to the immigration department? Zero. Twenty-four complaints, zero reported to the immigration department, and the immigration minister is running around saying there are 10,000 that have been rorted. It is a disgraceful, despicable act of this minister, who does not deserve to be in that high office.

The second reason the government has given for needing to crack down on the 457 visa process is they say there has been excessive growth in this program. They say we need to crack down on it because if there is excessive growth, then maybe it is out of control. Again, let us have a look at the numbers. What has been the growth rate between last year and this year? It has been 1.7 per cent. That constitutes 940 more visa holders this year versus last year. Nine hundred and forty, and they have the gall to come in and try to pass this bill because of that. About 940 people come in illegally on boats every few days, but they do not worry about that. But 940 additional applications this year compared to last year, and apparently that is a catastrophe.

We know what the Prime Minister said last year. Last year it was all hunky dory, all absolutely perfect because the Prime Minister herself said:

I believe we've got the visa settings right … with short-term 457 visas.

That was 12 months ago. The Prime Minister herself said that. But we have had 940 additional visa applications and apparently we need to completely crack down on this very successful program. Of course, if you were concerned about the rorting going on in the program—and if there is rorting, let us absolutely deal with it—you would not cut the compliance costs by 30 per cent, which is what this government have done since they came to office. They have cut the compliance cost by 30 per cent. This is not about dealing with rorts; this is squarely about dealing with an issue that the unions want. And when the unions want something, this government delivers.

My final point is that this is gross hypocrisy because we all know the Prime Minister herself employs a person on a 457 visa who did not go through their proposed process. (Time expired)

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The purpose of this bill is to propose a package of measures that are aimed at eliminating the illegitimate use of subclass 457 visa program and other temporary sponsored visa programs. Together with proposed amendments to the Migration Regulations 1994 and other policy changes announced in February 2013, this bill presents a comprehensive package of reforms that would balance the interests of Australian workers with the need to strengthen the protection of overseas workers, so we stop people being ripped off, being exploited. This false argument that we have heard in this parliament in the past few days on this bill, which does not give any concern for Australian workers—but one would not expect much else from the Liberal Party, the Work Choices party! One would not expect anything else from them: these false arguments being proposed, the attacks on the minister—all this false stuff.

Importantly this bill gives powers to the Fair Work Ombudsman, the Fair Work inspectors, to monitor, investigate compliance with sponsorship obligations, and to ensure workers are working in their nominated occupation and being paid market salary rates. Well, what is wrong with that? There should not be anything wrong with that, but somehow it is wrong from the Liberal Party's point of view. We had a situation in northern Tasmania: a guy was sponsored into Australia to work in Queensland as a miner and he ended up working as a plasterer in Launceston when there were six or seven other plasterers walking around the streets looking for work. That sort of thing should not occur and there should be some monitoring of that. That is all this bill is asking.

There have been a number of cases recently, some of which have been reported in the press and some others anecdotally have come to my attention, that people have been employed on 457 visas, have been employed well below the award rates and have been made to work long hours without proper income. Only on Monday this week, a case was reported on the front page of the Launceston Examiner, and that was an underpayment of $88,000. So what we had there was someone using the legislation to employ people on lower rates. There is also the incidence where 457 visa holders are being employed, despite there being in an Australian, a Tasmanian, to undertake work that is being advertised. We have an unemployment rate in Tasmania of 7.3 per cent against a 5.6 per cent rate for the rest of the country.

This legislation will now require subclass 457 sponsors to undertake labour market testing in relation to a nominated occupation in a manner consistent with Australia's relevant international trade obligations to ensure that Australian citizens and permanent residents are given the first opportunities to apply for skilled vacancies in the domestic labour market. It is of concern that, at a time when the labour market has been flattening and some sectors and regions have experienced layoffs and increased unemployment, the subclass 457 program has continued to grow—and grow it has. In the last year, the number of primary 457 visa holders has risen by 20 per cent from 80,000 to 100,000, while employment growth has been just one per cent.

There are issues here that need to be dealt with and this bill deals with them. I have real concerns that some employers are turning to overseas workers first, rather than investing in local training and local recruitment—of course, that is a whole other area about training the Australian workforce. There have also been a growing number of low-skilled industries and occupations such as retail and hospitality, while in the IT industry growth in the use of 457 visa holders has been accompanied by lower than average wages, which is the opposite of what you would expect if there were some genuine skill shortages. You would not expect lower than average wages to apply. We have considerable evidence that some sponsors are paying overseas workers below the market rate, undercutting Australians, failing to commit to the training requirements of the program and using the visas fraudulently to help family and friends migrate.

The purpose of this bill is to propose a package of integrity measures that seek to enhance the government's ability to eliminate rorts in the subclass 457 visa program and of course other temporary sponsored visa programs. Together with proposed amendments to Migration Regulations 1994, this bill represents a comprehensive package of reforms which will balance the interests of Australian workers with the need to strengthen the protection of overseas workers. We do not want people coming here on 457 visas and being exploited—well, this side of the House does not.

This bill amends the Migration Regulations 1994 to extend the period from 28 days to 90 consecutive days, enabling a more socially just outcome for visa holders as they have more time to find other jobs and to arrange their personal affairs at the conclusion of their sponsored employment. It is felt that they need to complement the reforms to the migration regulations announced in February this year. The bill will enshrine in the Migration Act the kind of sponsorship obligations which must be made by the regulations. Employers must ensure equivalent terms and conditions of employment—including payment of a market salary rate—keep certain records and provide records and information to the department and cooperate with the inspectors. These new sponsorship obligations come into effect on 1 July of this year. The obligations need to meet training requirements for the term of sponsorship approval, with no transfer, charge or recovery of certain costs from sponsored visa holders, and restrict on-hiring arrangements. These will be spelled out in the Migration Regulations 1994 and are scheduled to come into effect on 1 July this year.

There is an enforcement framework to bar or cancel the approval of a person as a sponsor with an infringement notice and a civil penalty scheme, which would be enforceable in court. This amendment will allow the minister to publish enforcement undertakings on the department's website. This is an important tool to encourage compliance by all sponsors and is a means of providing transparency to the Australian public on the monitoring of sponsors. It will get a bit of transparency in there and will not let people rip people off without having their name exposed for doing it. There seems to be reluctance on the other side of the House to want that to happen.

Importantly, the bill gives power to the Fair Work Ombudsman to monitor and investigate compliance with sponsorship obligations to ensure workers are working in their nominated occupation and are being paid market salary rates. By doing so, the government's capacity to monitor sponsors will increase from 33 active inspectors to over 300 inspectors. The government has always said that the subclass 457 visa program, where used genuinely, plays an important role in supplying skilled labour, when such labour is unavailable in the local workforce. It is intended to allow employers to quickly supplement the Australian labour market.

These bills seek to realign the program to ensure that it is only used when genuine skills shortages exist, to ensure a balance between considering the interests of employers, the Australian domestic labour force, and strengthening protection for overseas workers. It is worth noting that there has been an increase in the visa application charge from $455 to $900, and as announced in the 2013-14 budget, consideration was also given to increasing the nomination fee for each 457 position from $85 to $330. It is really about getting that balance, and the balance is not right at the moment. People are being ripped off.

Australian workers are missing out on jobs that they should have access to. There are jobs that should be advertised better. We have had these debates about the mining industry as well. I think there should be a lot more transparency in the way jobs are advertised in Australia. I have had people say to me that they have every ticket under the sun, they have applied to many websites to get jobs in the mining industry in Australia, they are quite free to travel and to live in mining communities, yet they just do not have access and they get nothing back from applications put in through websites. So there is something happening in this country which is not working properly in the field, and then you have employers sponsoring people to come in from overseas. And then we have this total exploitation taking place, as I mentioned, which was run on the front page of the Tasmanian Examiner on Monday—not a paper which one would say was a Labor radical paper in any way but it certainly got into telling the story about somebody who was in the fast food business and was brought into Australia from China. That person is going to receive $90,000 in back pay as a result of underpayment. That is what the Fair Work Ombudsman's report claimed. The story goes on to highlight that the gentleman involved was made to sign false pay slips, was forced to work enormous amounts of hours as a cook and then had to put his name to false documentation. He did not have a lot of good English so it was very difficult for him to stand up to the exploitation, but inspectors were able to do that. I guess it is about having an inspector with time to do the work and to be able to talk to people about that. It was about being forced to sign documentation which was not true and was not a true reflection of what the proper case was. So here is a prime example in Tasmania of exploitation of a 457 visa person working there. I do not know, given the unemployment rate of 7.5 per cent, if there are any chefs or cooks in Tasmania looking for work but I think there probably are.

So I think there is a great deal of need for this bill to rectify some of the problems. It concerns me greatly that the party of Work Choices do not seem to think that this is a major issue in Australia. I believe it is and I believe it needs to be rectified. I believe that the minister responsible for this bill is endeavouring to do that so I ask the House to give full support to this bill.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the member for Lyons has really put the argument very succinctly as to why the Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013 is not necessary. He has given us an example of where there has been a problem with the current system, and we are talking about the current system before this legislation had been put in place. So what has happened? The matter was looked at, it was addressed and it was dealt with. So it has been fixed without this bill, which is another clear example of why this bill is unnecessary and should not be here before us today.

Let us go back and see what has led to this bill being in parliament. I think that we should rename this bill, calling it the City West Water Bill. For those of us who cannot remember it, in February there was a dispute in Melbourne where the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union took offence at 457 visa holders, Filipinos, who were working in skilled positions constructing a water facility in Werribee. They put in place a community picket line—and we are about to see whether the AMWU were behind that community picket line or not. All of the evidence points out that the AMWU did instigate that picket line, but anyway the courts will decide whether it was a union picket line or a community picket line. In the end what happened to break that picket line was that the state government stood firm and it made sure that the water authorities, City West Water and Melbourne Water, acted. It took the water authorities a little bit of time to act. The union movement thought that they would not act and they thought the authorities would just cower and would not take unions on, but the Victorian state government—and, in particular, the then Premier, Ted Baillieu—stood very firm and insisted that the water authorities do the right thing, which they did. The workers were flown in by helicopter and ultimately the picket line was dismantled.

But the AMWU did not want to leave the matter there so they went to Victorian Trades Hall and said, 'We've got an issue with regards to 457 workers. We don't want them anymore doing these skilled jobs.' So Trades Hall then put out a pronouncement saying that if the union movement in Victoria were to get strongly behind this federal Labor government one of the conditions would be that something be done about 457 visas. So Trades Hall said, 'It's up to you, federal government. If you want additional support you do something in this area.' That is why we are here today debating this bill. It has nothing to do with evidence, it has nothing to do with facts and it has everything to do with this Labor government being dictated to by the union movement.

It is a sad state of affairs when you have a Prime Minister, desperately clinging to power, who is prepared to put the national interest over here and act in her own base political interest to try to hang on to her prime ministership. There are reports today that it is still not going to work for her, because the key ally of the union movement in this place, Bill Shorten, is meant to be off talking to the unions to see whether they should continue to support this Prime Minister or whether they should switch camps. We have a piece of legislation before us which will do nothing for this nation. As a matter of fact, it will set the cause of this nation back, all because we have a Prime Minister clinging desperately to power, hoping that the union movement will continue to back her. Now we hear on the news wires that the grip that the union movement have on her is slipping away, because they are once again looking at reinstalling Kevin Rudd.

Why is this a bad piece of legislation? It is a bad piece of legislation because, as I said before, there is no evidence whatsoever that the 457 visa system is being systematically rorted. As a matter of fact, as my good friend the member for Aston highlighted in his speech, there have been 24 complaints in the last 12 months about the 457 visa system and of those 24 complaints zero have been passed on to the immigration department. That is right: 24 complaints in 12 months and zero passed on to the immigration department. Those facts say it all. It shows what an absolute sham piece of legislation this is.

And it is worse than that, because it is adding a regulatory impact on those employers who are using this system to fill skills gaps, and there is a real need for us to continue to fill skills gaps in this country. One of the sad things about this bill is that until now there has been broad bipartisanship for the 457 visa system and for using skilled migration in this country. I take this opportunity to once again thank the former Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Chris Bowen, for the support he gave to one of my local communities in Warrnambool. Six families who had come in under 457 visas, because of some issues with regard to meeting English language proficiency, might have been sent back to where they came from—in this case, China—but the minister was prepared to intervene. The six workers had worked in the local abattoir for over five years and their families had been through the local schools. Minister Bowen, to his credit, intervened and made sure that those families could stay and continue to work in our community and participate in our community.

That is the type of bipartisan approach to 457 visas that we have seen historically. Yet, sadly, with this Prime Minister desperately clinging to power, at the behest of the union movement we see a bill like this come into this place. We on this side know that most of the good people on the other side do not support it. They have said that publicly. They do not think that this is a good piece of legislation. They know that this is a piece of legislation aimed at trying to address a problem which does not exist.

It is a great pity we are here today examining this bill, spending time on this bill, because it will add a regulatory burden on employers. We know that it will because the government refused to have a regulatory impact statement done on it. Why would they refuse to have a regulatory impact statement done on this bill? Because they know, and it is there for all to see, that it will add to the burden of employers trying to bring skilled workers into this country. And it is not as if this is a rare piece of legislation that will be adding a regulatory burden. We have seen over the course of the Rudd and Gillard Labor governments over 21,000 pieces of legislation which have added a regulatory burden for employers. This is just another one to add to this list.

The real shame is that there is a real need for the 457 visa system. Just this week I have had a group of my local councils up here—the Great South Coast Group of councils. One of the priority items on their list was to talk to ministers and shadow ministers about is how we can improve the 457 visa system to bring more skilled people into our community. They are up here on behalf of our local community asking how the system can be improved, how it can be streamlined, how it can work better to bring people in. That is what my community is seeking. Yet what do we have here? We have a government so out of touch that they are doing exactly the opposite. They are making it harder. When we are looking to get workers for our abattoirs, when we are looking to get workers for our dairy farms, when we are looking to get medical staff for our hospitals, what will we be faced with?

We will be faced with an additional regulatory burden, not a situation which makes it easier for us to cope with these skill shortages. And let us not forget that, if you do not have the nurses and you cannot get the doctors and support staff from overseas, it places great risks on our local health services.

I think this is a problem which is not understood by this Gillard Labor government. This is a real area of need. We have to continue to get the workforce so that we can keep our medical facilities operating, especially in regional and rural areas. We need to build our own Australian medical workforce, but while we are doing that we need to ensure that we can fill the gaps, because if you do not fill the gaps then you place undue pressure on these services, which can lead to parts of them closing.

So this is a bad bill. Once you start to join the dots, what has occurred here is incredibly transparent. It is like one of those children's colouring books where you are given the dots and you have to get your pencil and just follow the dots to draw the picture. Here it is very easy to join the dots. This bill has come about because of an industrial dispute that the unions were on the wrong side of in February in Melbourne. They tried to take on a contractor who was legally using 457 visas that had been approved by this government. The AMWU tried to take it on. They lost. They went to Trades Hall. Trades Hall then said: 'Okay, federal Gillard government. If you want our continued support, we want action.' And what do we have here today? We have a bill which adds a regulatory burden on the use of 457 visas, with no evidence to support the idea that there should be an additional regulatory burden added to this area. It breaks what has been a very good bipartisan approach to bringing skilled migration into this country—an approach that we are going to need in the future because, as we continue to grow and develop as a nation, we are going to have to continue to bring skilled migrants into this country.

So in many ways what we are here debating today is shameful, and I feel sorry for those on the other side who, in their heart of hearts, know that as well—who know that this is a bill masquerading as something else, trying to cover up a broader problem that this government has. That broader problem is that it does not know how to run a properly functioning immigration system. This bill should be strongly opposed. I hope that more people on the other side will have the courage also to call this bill for what it is.

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, under sessional order 142A I was wondering whether the member for Wannon would entertain a question on his contribution to this second reading debate.

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

The member for Wannon? The member for Scullin wishes to intervene and ask a question, which he has every right to do. But it is entirely up to you if you wish to answer.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, he can ask this question.

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Wannon. Without getting into the debate—because you cannot debate through a question—I ask the member for Wannon whether he believes that, in the case of the abattoirs and health services that he has talked about locally, it is appropriate that those that are employed under 457 visas get the same pay and conditions as Australians and, if so, how he believes that that should be regulated.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his question. It is a shame that he was not here at the very start of my speech, because the previous speaker on the government side on this bill, the member for Lyons, gave an example of an instance in Tasmania where there had been an issue and an employee had been exploited. Then he went through the story and gave the example of how it had been dealt with satisfactorily, how the worker had been back-paid some $88,000 and how the employer had been dealt with in having to pay that back pay. So he gave an example of how the system is working. So the reason we are here today is not to debate whether the system is working or not, because the example that the member for Lyons gave showed that it is working. What we are here debating today, and the whole point of my speech, is that this is nothing but a piece of legislation aimed at trying to fix a broader political problem that this government has, and that broader political problem is that it cannot run a functioning immigration system.

There is no evidence whatsoever to support this bill being in this place. As I indicated, over the last 12 months there have been 24 complaints, none of them—zero—referred on to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. There have been 24 complaints in 12 months, none reported on to the immigration department. This bill is here at the behest of the union movement because they saw a problem and they said to the Gillard government, 'We want you to fix this political problem for us.' It is a sham piece of legislation.

Debate adjourned.