Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (4):

(1) Title, page 1 (line 1), after "Customs Act 1901", insert "and the Migration Act 1958".

(2) Clause 1, page 1 (line 5), after "Customs", insert "and Migration".

(3) Schedule 1, page 17 (after line 17), after Part 2, insert:

Part 2A—Labour market testing

Migration Act 1958

2A After section 38B

  Insert:

38C Temporary Work (Short Stay Activity) visas

(1) This section applies in relation to an applicant for a visa referred to in the regulations as a Subclass 400 (Temporary Work (Short Stay Activity)) visa if:

  (a) the applicant is applying for the visa on the basis that he or she will be engaged to undertake work that is highly specialised; and

  (b) the applicant will be engaged to undertake work as an installer or servicer of equipment or machinery that was supplied on the condition that it be installed or serviced by persons engaged by the person for whom the applicant is undertaking the work; and

(c) it would not be inconsistent with any international trade obligation of Australia determined under subsection 140GBA(2) to require the person for whom the applicant is undertaking the work to perform testing of the Australian labour market, and give evidence and information to the Minister, in relation to the work as set out in paragraph (2)(a).

(2) It is a criterion for the visa that:

  (a) the person proposing to engage the applicant to perform the work has:

     (i) performed testing of the Australian labour market, in accordance with the regulations, to demonstrate whether a suitably qualified and experienced Australian citizen or Australian permanent resident is readily available to undertake the work; and

     (ii) given the Minister the evidence in relation to that labour market testing, and the information about redundancies or retrenchments in a business or associated entity of the person, that is prescribed by the regulations, and

(b) having regard to that evidence, and information (if any), the Minister is satisfied that:

     (i) a suitably qualified and experienced Australian citizen or Australian permanent resident is not readily available to undertake the work; and

     (ii) a suitably qualified and experienced eligible temporary visa holder is not readily available to undertake the work.

(3) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, exempt applicants in a specified class from the operation of subsection (2) in relation to specified work if:

  (a) the Minister is satisfied that:

     (i) an event has occurred in Australia, whether naturally or otherwise, that has such a significant impact on individuals that a government response is required; and

     (ii) the exemption is necessary or desirable in order to assist disaster relief or recovery; or

(b) the Minister is satisfied that:

     (i) either or both a qualification prescribed by the regulations, or experience of a kind and for a period prescribed by the regulations, is required to undertake the specified work; and

     (ii) the work is of a kind prescribed by the regulations.

(4) The Minister must ensure that, as soon as reasonably practicable after the commencement of this subsection, and at all later times, there are in force regulations for the purposes of subparagraphs (2)(a)(i) and (ii).

(5) Words and expressions used in this section have the same meanings as in section 140GBA.

(4) Schedule 1, page 17, after proposed item 2A, insert:

2B Paragraph 140GBA(1)(a)

  Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

  (a) the approved sponsor is:

     (i) approved under the regulations as a standard business sponsor; or

     (ii) in a class of sponsors prescribed by the regulations; or

     (iii) a party to a work agreement that is entered into on or after the commencement of this subparagraph (other than a Minister); and

There are a few holes in this bill and problems in this agreement, and I want to draw attention to one of them and seek to try to close it. That is a hole that exists regarding people being brought in to work in Australia, the conditions under which they do that and whether there are any limitations on it. Broadly speaking, there are two sets of ways in which people can be brought into Australia under this agreement and under our migration laws. One set that has been the subject of recent debate and discussion between Labor and Liberal and has been the focus of articles is around work agreements and large projects. But there is another stream that allows people to be brought into this country under these provisions and to work here, and that is through the usual standard business sponsor arrangement, where a business will sponsor someone to bring them in or potentially bring them in under subclass 400 visas—short-stay activities.

What we know under this agreement, because it is very clear in its terms, is that the starting point of this agreement in article 10.4(3) is that unless it is specified otherwise in the annexe—and I will come to the annexe in a moment—there will be no more labour market testing. This means the starting point is that you do not have to advertise locally for a job before you can bring someone in under this agreement. There have been some amendments reached between the government and the opposition about large-scale work agreements, project agreements and the like. What I want to do is try to close a loophole that exists with respect to a second set of people, and that is those that are referred to in the annexe and those that are called 'installers and servicers' or 'contractual service suppliers'.

The situation is this: despite all of the agreements reached between Labor and the coalition, under this agreement, unless we amend it today, it will be possible for businesses in Australia to bring in an unlimited number of people to work in Australia without having to advertise locally first, provided that they call them either 'contractual service suppliers' or 'installers and servicers'. There are a number of other criteria that they would have to meet but they will not have to advertise locally first. If that loophole is not be closed, then all these other protections that have been negotiated are next to worthless, because there is now a separate way for businesses in this country to bring people in, provided that they call them 'contractual service suppliers' or 'installers and servicers', given that the opening words in 10.4(3) say that there is not going to be labour market testing for them anymore.

The second thing that this set of amendments does is to put into legislation one of the protections that has been supposedly negotiated. At the moment, when it comes to those larger-scale work agreements, the only protection that has been negotiated between the government and the opposition is to issue a new regulation. Everyone knows that what a minister regulates one day they can take away the next, and I for one am not prepared to put labour protection solely in the hands of a coalition workplace relations minister or a coalition immigration minister. Those protections ought to be in law. So the second component of these amendments is to put that protection about a party work agreement back into the front part of the legislation rather than in regulation.

This is a sensible set of amendments that will close the loophole. As I say, the way these trade deals are negotiated means that we are presented with 'take it or leave it', so you do not have the opportunity to amend the agreement itself, but we do have the opportunity to amend our migration laws. That is something that the minister has said he is going to do with respect to regulations, and so the proposal to this House is that the government and the opposition agree to close one further loophole. We say that you have not gone far enough, but in the way that you have indicated you want to do with project agreements and work agreements, let's do it as well with these other categories, these contractual service suppliers. If we do not close the loophole, it will mean that someone can come in and work as a nurse or an electrician without the job having to be advertised locally first, and they could do it for up to four years. That, I think, is something that most people would not agree with.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade and Investment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is little bit disappointing, I must say, to hear the same arguments that have been parroted for months and months and months. It is also disappointing that the member has not sought a briefing, where we could have clarified in a matter of minutes those comments and serious misrepresentations. It has gone on for so long. It worried the Chinese in a way that should not be the case. Here is a country that feels so proud about the quality of this agreement—a country that feels it has demonstrated to the rest of the developed world that it can do a world-class agreement, a high-quality agreement across goods, services and investment—and about taking our relationship to a further level. We hear this parroting of misrepresentations again and again and again, creating fear in the community. It is unacceptable, I have got to say. It is about time, after months and months and months, that some responsibility was shown by everyone in this House. I just reject the comments that have been made by the member for Melbourne, and I do wish that he had bothered to come along and get a briefing. He would have found out that the misrepresentations that have been peddled by a bunch of union thugs are wrong and wrong and wrong.

There is no case for the amendments that have been put by the member for Melbourne. I reject them out of hand. I would have been very grateful had the member for Melbourne took the time to come and find out the substance and the protections embodied in this agreement. At no stage did we move outside of the worker protections that currently exist as government policy—and existed under our predecessors, by the way—because we were determined that we would not have something that would create fear and concern amongst the Australian community. We went to great lengths to ensure that. But what did we get? Endless misrepresentation by the unions, and now the member for Melbourne is still perpetuating those misrepresentations. It is unacceptable.

This is creating a great deal of confusion in China, and yet the member for Melbourne would be the first person to say that we should as a government be doing everything possible to build peace and stability in our region, especially with our major neighbours such as China. We have heard this misrepresentation, this fearmongering, this dog whistling, for months—serious dog whistling. The member from Melbourne should be ashamed of himself. I do feel that we all have to grow up in this chamber and recognise the things that are very important for our country. The opposition have been involved in negotiating this deal for 10 years, and I am very pleased that they have agreed to support this bill in a bipartisan way. I totally reject the amendments.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It seems that the era of reasoned debate in this place and judging issues on their merits did not last very long under the new leadership. The suggestion that we cannot have a reasoned debate about closing loopholes when that is exactly what the minister has just been doing with Labor for the last week is offensive. They want to have a debate about advertising locally, and the minister has just written a letter to the Labor Party, to Senator Penny Wong, saying he is prepared to discuss that in some respects. But when we get up and ask whether we can extend discussion to a couple of others matters all of a sudden there are claims of dog whistling—and that is offensive. The minister should know better; the minister should be bigger than that. We should be able in this place to have a reasoned debate. These are issues that we have been raising for some time. If the minister chooses only Labor as his dancing partner and says he will talk to them and chooses not to talk to other members of this parliament, that is a matter for the minister. But people have been raising these issues for some time.

I am putting forward what I believe are reasonable amendments based on a report from Dr Joanna Howe, senior lecturer at the University of Adelaide Law School, who has gone through this agreement and the amendments and said, 'This would be a sensible amendment to make.' I think we should have the right to come to this place and say, 'Well if you can change (a) and (b) in the agreement, we would like to change (c) as well' and not be accused of being offensive or being racist. That is just minimising the minister's standing and minimising the status of debate in this House. I am a member of an electorate that has a substantial Chinese community, and I have said at press conferences there are good things in this free trade agreement that should be supported, but what we do not like is the fact that when we come here and get told as a parliament take it or leave it—and the way treaties are discussed and negotiated means people like us and people who have genuine concerns never get a chance to input into them—it means we are left to come in and try to fix the holes at the last minute like this. We should be entitled to do so and we should be able to do so with respect. We should be able to do so in a dignified manner.

When anyone in Australia says 'I just want a bit of analysis and I want to be sure that the safeguards are there,' it does not mean they are xenophobic. I and many in my electorate want more trade with our neighbouring partners and are happy to talk about how we do that. People just want to know that there will be protections there at the end of the day. When we come here asking for that we should be entitled to be treated with the respect that our constituents who are for globalisation but want it to be happening on terms that protect important parts of our way of life deserve. We should be entitled to be treated with dignity when we come and raise these matters.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade and Investment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Melbourne's crocodile tears are again a misrepresentation of what I was saying. What disturbed me most was that the first thing he said when he stood up was that if you go and look at the chapter on the infrastructure facilitation agreements it says that you do not need labour market testing. Over months of debate I and others have sought to answer many questions in all sorts of forums, in many speeches, and that has been the key misrepresentation by the unions from day one.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was not talking about IFAs.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade and Investment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not interrupt you; if you listen you might form a different view. That one key misrepresentation has become a lightning rod. Everyone knows, with three minutes of investigation, that the signing of the infrastructure facilitation agreement at the start of a project in no way changes the need for labour market testing when the project starts. Why would you have labour market testing two years before the project starts? You do not even know what labour is necessary at that stage.

The member for Melbourne perpetuated this myth with his first comments when he stood up, and that is what irritates me. This debate has been going on for months and months and months and these misrepresentations have been going on, and you have not bothered once to come and get some clarity. I would have given you any amount of contact with the department, whatever you wanted. You have taken the view of one person with a particular reputation in this area from an Adelaide university and that is the basis of your argument.

We all have responsibilities in this place, and one is to do the best job we can to inform ourselves before we jump to our feet—not to come in and, with weasel words, continue to raise fabricated concerns that have been perpetuated by $10 million to $12 million worth of advertising by the union movement. I say to the member for Melbourne: if we want to have a reasoned debate, and I agree that is very much the case, then we need to be as informed as possible and, if we have queries, take the opportunity to walk down the corridor and say, 'I'd like a meeting.' And you will get it every time. You will get it. This is such an important issue that I talk to anyone and everyone to try and inform people of the detail.

Finally, we have not changed our agreement with the Labor Party. Again, this is sleight of hand or maybe a misunderstanding. The fact of the matter is that not one word, not one commitment, not one element of the agreement, the MOU or the side letter has been changed—none of it. It is as it was signed off on in June. None of it has changed. What we have done is provided an assurance to the Labor Party that what is already in the agreement will continue to be in the agreement, that it will not be changed by government fiat some years down the track. If it is to be changed, it will go as a regulation before the parliament and it will then be allowed or disallowed by the parliament. That is an assurance that what we have agreed, the worker protections that are in there, are satisfactory and there is no reason for people to fear for their jobs or their salary levels, or to fear that cheap labour will come in. As I said to you earlier, Member for Bandt, nothing has changed, absolutely nothing. But in an act of good faith, with goodwill on both sides, we have sought to provide the assurances that the Labor Party needed—that what is in the agreement, which they accept, is not to be changed but is binding on our government or any government, for that matter, unless there are changes put to the chambers as regulation for approval or disapproval.

Again, even if we see the passage of this bill today, my offer to the member remains: my door is open if you want to come and see me.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear what the minister is saying about the regulation and the commitments that have been made about whether or not that regulation will change. Firstly, as well as a number of other issues, this is something that our relevant spokesperson has been pursuing in the Senate since day one, so this ought to come as no news to anyone—because we have been pursuing it with the department, pursuing it with everyone. Secondly, I heard what the minister said about IFAs in his opening words, and the scare campaigns, as he calls them. The minister may not have heard what I said in my opening words: I am not talking about those. I am talking about the other stream of visas, apart from IFAs, and the fact that that is not dealt with in any of the matters that have been traversed with the Labor Party in their agreement. I take it from what the minister says that there is an acceptance that I am right—that the holes that are there with respect to non-IFAs, just the ordinary stream of visas, still remain and are not dealt with in the exchange of letters.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade and Investment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is nothing to really answer there. If that sort of logic is going to prevail, so be it. As I said, I think the best thing would be for the member for Melbourne to come and avail himself of some information about what is and what is not in the agreement, how it will work and how binding it is. This agreement is a rolled gold, rock-solid agreement which will protect workers, protect their jobs and protect their salary levels. In fact, it is going to create tens of thousands of jobs in the years ahead. Perpetuating this sort of fear campaign—and that is what it is, to be brutal about it—continues to create uncertainty and to undermine the confidence that is being generated daily by this agreement. It just detracts from the opportunities that are there for the taking and from which all Australians can benefit.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Melbourne be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

As there are fewer than five members on the side for the ayes in this division, I declare the question negatived in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Question negatived, Mr Bandt and Mr Wilkie voting aye.

The question now is that the bill be read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.