Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes the failure of the Government to protect local jobs by failing to legislate strict labour market testing".

The Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017 and the Migration (Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017 seek to amend the Migration Act 1958 to provide a framework to collect an additional levy from employers accessing workers under the temporary and permanent employer-sponsored migration programs. These charges apply to the temporary skill shortage visa, which replaces the temporary work (skilled) subclass 457 visa in March, the Employer Nomination Scheme subclass 186 visa, and the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme subclass 187 visa.

Labor agrees that an additional levy on temporary skilled visas is a reasonable skilled migration policy to ensure local workers get the first shot at local jobs. The proposed legislative changes have potential impacts on Australian jobs, businesses and people seeking the opportunity to work in Australia, as well as industry bodies, unions and TAFEs. Given the complex nature of the Migration Act, Labor refers all amendments to a Senate inquiry for further scrutiny. These changes warrant further consultation and investigation, which is why these bills were referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment. The Senate inquiry was an opportunity for those affected to raise their concerns about the unintended consequences of the recent changes to skilled migration, including the government's rushed policy announcements. Labor believes there are deficiencies in the government's bill in respect of labour market testing, and I will be moving detailed amendments in due course to address the government's failures.

As mentioned, the Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017 provides a framework to collect nomination training contribution charges from employers accessing workers under the temporary and permanent employee sponsored migration programs. The bill allows the immigration minister to determine the manner in which labour market testing must be undertaken for a nominated position, including the kinds of evidence that must accompany a visa application by legislative instrument. These powers, as per the new subsection, may include the language to be used in advertising, the advertising period, the period prior to nomination in which the advertisement must occur and the duration of advertising.

The charges bill encloses the nomination training contribution charge or a levy payable under a new section. It also sets a charge limit for the nomination training contribution charge and provides for the indexation of the charge limit. As outlined in the new section 9, it is $8,000 for a nomination relating to a temporary visa and $5,000 for a nomination in relation to a permanent visa. The nomination training contribution charge will be payable by persons seeking to nominate a worker for a visa prescribed in the Migration Regulations. These are not the charges for a temporary skilled visa but, rather, a maximum or capped nomination training and contribution charge.

I note that the Commonwealth cannot be liable to pay Commonwealth taxes or fees. The new section of the Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017 makes the Commonwealth notionally liable to pay the levy. States and territories are not exempt from paying the levy, as per clause 3 of the charges bill. The revenue collected from this levy will go towards the Skilling Australians Fund—a training fund administered by the Department of Education and Training for the funding of apprenticeships and traineeships.

Regulations under the Migration Act prescribe the different charges for the different kinds of visas available under Australia's visa system. The 2017 budget detailed the government's planned charges for skilled visas. For businesses with a turnover of less than $10 million per annum they are $1,200 per visa per year for a temporary skill shortage visa and a one-off payment of $3,000 for each employee sponsored for a permanent employer nomination scheme subclass 186 visa or a regional sponsored migration scheme subclass 187 visa. For businesses with a turnover of more than $10 million per year, the charges are $1,800 per visa per year for a temporary skill shortage visa and a one-off payment of $5,000 for each employee sponsored for a permanent employer nomination scheme subclass 186 visa or a regional sponsored migration scheme subclass 187 visa.

Proper skills and training funding means Australians—especially young Australians or Australians in our regions—can have the expertise which leads to meaningful work and a real living wage. I see young people in my electorate of Blair in south-east Queensland going to TAFE Queensland South West learning a mechanical trade or taking part in training in the nursing precinct in Bundamba—a Diploma of Nursing. Young Australians could be skilling themselves for a career in the cybersecurity industry, the shipbuilding industry or the hospitality or tourism industry. However, under this government, TAFE campuses have closed in towns and regional centres across Australia. Courses have been scaled back, and fees have increased. In December, statistics from the National Centre for Vocational Education Research showed the number of apprentices and trainees in training was down by 4.7 per cent in the period from June 2016 to June 2017. According to the same statistics, there have been 144,510 fewer apprentices in training since the Liberal and National parties formed government and occupied the Treasury benches in September 2013. That is 144,510 fewer apprentices on this government's watch.

The bills before the House introduce a levy on skilled visas, which has significant financial implications. The government expects their levy to generate $1.2 billion over the forward estimates, which will go towards the Skilling Australians Fund. Given the levy will not be charged until March this year, the government is providing an additional $261.2 million to the Skilling Australians Fund in the 2017-18 financial year. Despite these figures and any argument the government would attempt to convince you to believe, the Abbott-Turnbull government ripped $2.8 billion out of TAFE, skills and training over the past five years. This gutting of skills and training funding includes a $637 million cut in the last budget. There was a 30 per cent drop nationally in government funded training in TAFE between 2013 and 2016. It's a very poor track record from the conservative parties, which leads Labor to have reservations about how much revenue the measures being introduced in these bills will raise.

The government have been unwilling to release the details of the modelling they used to determine the estimated $1.2 billion from the proposed visa levy over the forward estimates. Besides some offsetting funding they're supplementing the fund with, because it's taken the government a year to introduce this measure, the Skilling Australians Fund is relying solely on revenue raised from the levy for skilled migrant visas. Treasury testified during the Senate inquiry:

We try our hardest to come up with what is a reasonable estimate of this fund and in this case it's particularly challenging. There were a lot of policy changes going on at the same time so it was difficult …

The government's rushed skilled migration announcements put undue pressure on the departments involved. This is not good policy development and not good governance. Treasury conceded during the public hearing of the inquiry:

The level of funding may change due to the number of visas that are issued and the number of levy fees that are paid from time to time.

If the number of visas goes down, so will the funding for skills. This is not a reliable model for skills and training funding. This is not a reliable model to build a skilled Australian workforce. The government's model does not guarantee skills and training funding. The ACTU testified at the Senate inquiry as follows:

In the absence of real transparency and firm commitments from the federal government about guaranteed levels of VET funding, the measures proposed by these bills will simply never be enough.

The government needs to invest in education, skills and training more than ever, and Australia really needs it. But this is an out-of-touch government doing precisely the opposite. The government's announcements about the Skilling Australians Fund have made no reference to supporting TAFE. Labor's commitment to TAFE is unequivocal—we believe that TAFE is the backbone of our skills and training sector. I know my colleague Senator Doug Cameron has fought passionately for TAFE and its future while attacking the government's negligence, incompetence and ineptitude in this area.

The out-of-touch Turnbull government consistently washes its hands of this issue of national importance. The immigration minister, the Prime Minister and the whole of the Turnbull government have had clear and repeated failures on their watch when it comes to skilled migration policies. The government rushed to make their skilled migration announcements in April 2017 before they were quickly denounced, even by a governmental official, as a dog's breakfast, according to media reports. It's a political stunt and subsequent revisions which the minister and the Prime Minister tried to dress up as substantial changes sent waves of uncertainty through the business, innovation and education sectors. This proved the Turnbull government can't be trusted with Australian jobs, skills and training. The measures outlined in the bills before the House today were trumpeted in last year's budget and are being debated here about nine months later.

I have met with many stakeholders who have expressed their concerns about how they weren't consulted by the Turnbull government before these sweeping changes were announced. This failure to consult became a clear and consistent theme during the Senate inquiry. At the public hearing not one witness testified they were consulted about a levy on temporary work visas, nor the creation of a Skilling Australians Fund, nor the cost of the levy before the government announced this policy in April 2017. The Australian Chamber Commerce and Industry stated: 'Were we consulted about the quantum of the levy? In other words were we aware what that levy would be set at when it was set out in the budget in 2017? No. The level of the levy was a surprise to us,' according to the Chamber of Commerce. TAFE Directors Australia stated: 'We have not been consulted nor has the government been clear about what its agenda is for the training sector nationally.' The Department of Education and Training stated in questions on notice: 'Trade unions have not been specifically consulted on this Skilling Australians Fund.' Treasury answered in questions on notice: 'Prior to the announcement of the Skilling Australians Fund, Treasury did not undertake any consultations on this measure.'

The Treasury—responsible for modelling the $1.2 billion in revenue, which the government believes their visa levies will bring in for the Skilling Australians Fund—did not undertake any consultations whatsoever about the measure. We have already heard how Treasury tried their hardest to make their best estimates, and that's what they said—their best estimates. We have a genuine cause for concern if no proper consultation was undertaken by the government or their departments.

Can the Turnbull government and their poor performance and track record in this area be trusted? The Turnbull government claim they will achieve a target of 300,000 apprenticeships and traineeships over the next four years using the Skilling Australians Fund. How are we supposed to believe this out-of-touch government when apprentices and trainees in training have dropped by over 140,000, including 40,000 trade trainees and apprentices, since the Liberal and National parties have come to office—40,000 in the trades; 140,000 nationally. This is a government without any robust or reliable plan for skills and training. It has no plan for the future, and certainly no plan for TAFE. The current Prime Minister seems focused on his job, and the immigration minister on the Prime Minister's job.

A Shorten Labor government would restore integrity to the skilled migrations program and commit to building a skilled Australian workforce. With underemployment at record highs and young people across the country struggling to find work, it's only fair that Australians get the first crack at local jobs. The bills before the House today outline some requirements for labour market testing, but they're broad and undefined. Labor market testing requires employers who are wanting to bring in overseas workers to test the local labour market first. This is to make sure that there are no suitably qualified and experienced local workers readily available to fill those positions prior to bringing in overseas workers. Labor's private member's bill, Migration Amendment (Putting Local Workers First) Bill 2016, introduced more rigorous requirements for labour market tests to be incorporated into legislation, such as the requirement that jobs be advertised for a minimum of four weeks and a ban on job advertisements that target only overseas workers and exclude Australians. The provisions in the government's amendments before the House rely on us trusting in the minister's work abilities, and his intention is simply not good enough. I will address some of these concerns during the consideration in detail stage.

We have not seen any proposed legislative instruments under this legislation, and the immigration minister has not offered or proffered any detail on how labour market testing requirements could possibly change for the better. The ACTU testified to the Senate inquiry: 'We suspect that government is not serious about a proper labour market testing regime at all. We're not satisfied the changes in the bill will tighten labour market testing.' If the immigration minister has failed to legislate strict labour market testing across occupations and skilled visas during his three years on the job, what would lead us to believe this tick-and-flick minister would start legislating them now?

By comparison, Labor will establish an Australian skills authority, an independent labour market testing body, to advise government on current skill shortages and future skill needs. Labor's Australian skills authority will be responsible for creating one skills shortage occupation list in consultation with industry, unions, higher education, the TAFE sector, and state and local government. This is to ensure that skilled visas are only made available when there's a genuine skills gap that can't be met with local workers.

Labor will not waive labour market testing requirements for any new free trade agreements, unlike the loopholes the Liberals undertook in relation to trade deals with China, Japan and South Korea. The Turnbull government is relying solely on skilled visa fees to train local workers. Labor will work to get as many of these occupations as possible off the skill shortage occupation list as soon as possible by establishing a new skill-up training fund to support training that fills skill shortages. To ensure Australia's continued growth and prosperity, Labor agrees we must set a clear price signal to employers wanting to use temporary overseas workers ahead of training locals. This is part of our announced skilled migration policy.

Unlike the conservatives, only Labor will guarantee secure and stable skills and training, by reversing the Turnbull government's $637 million cut to the skills budget and investing $100 million in rebuilding TAFE. Labor will also ensure at least one in 10 jobs on Commonwealth funded projects are done by an apprentice. The impact of the Turnbull government's ill-conceived policy, devoid of all forms of consultation, also exposes how innovation was set to be forced overseas, preventing businesses' access to talent needed to help build our economy. At the same time as putting local jobs first, Labor is not closing the door to bringing the best and brightest talent to this country that will help build our economy. Labor has led the way by announcing a four-year smart visa with pathways to permanent residence for the very best educators, innovators and researchers of global standing in science, medicine, academia, research and technology. In government, Labor will take advice from the Australian skills authority to determine the skills and areas of speciality available for this visa.

What the government has done is simply not good enough. This week The Australian reported that a co-founder of Atlassian, one of Australia's most successful software companies, now worth more than $12 billion, was calling for the government to introduce a visa for high-skilled foreign workers that can help generate jobs in Australia. A co-founder of this company, Scott Farquhar, said:

Being Australian, I want to make sure Australia can become a global tech hub. I think we can, but it does involve trying to bring some of the best and brightest people from around the world to work here.

Labor's smart visa is essential to remain a world leader in innovation, medical and scientific research, and high-tech industries. It is clear that Labor's measures are better and far more comprehensive than the government's.

I have already moved a second reading amendment outlining the government's failure to protect local jobs by failing to legislate strict labour market testing. When it comes to the consideration in detail stage, I will be moving detailed amendments to attempt to fix the government's failures, because labour market testing means putting local workers first and giving them the first shot at local jobs. If the out-of-touch Turnbull government won't do that, Labor will protect them.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Mike Kelly (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Defence Industry and Support) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak later.

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017. It's a great pleasure to speak on this bill, simply because, as someone who has been the recipient of trade training in a regional centre, I remember with great fondness my first day of work at a local sugar mill, the Fairymead mill—which, of course, is not there anymore—on 13 January 1987. When we compare that to the levels of training and skills that are needed in our current workforce across the country, clearly this is something which we need to address. In fact, the sugar mill I went into was a unionised workforce with very strict demarcation and, I have to say, very strong Labor morals. There was an outrage at the time that I was employed, because the company in question—which I won't name here, because they're still a very large part of the community—put on only 23 apprentices, down from 46. Unfortunately, that organisation now employs none. We find ourselves in a difficult position. In my maiden speech. I spoke about the fact that, if we do not manage to transfer the skills from our existing workforce to our new workforce through apprentice training and all of those types of training opportunities, there'll be a great loss of corporate knowledge in this country.

There are many out there who think that an electrician is an electrician, a fitter and turner is a fitter and turner, and a guy with a welder is just a boilermaker, but there are so many classifications amongst all of those trade descriptions, whose skills take years to build. They are master tradespeople. If we do not transfer those skills, they'll be lost. If I look at my own experience in a sugar-milling operation, there were people in that organisation who were experts in particular areas—whether it be a boiler, a fugal or a sugar-milling trade—and those skills can't be replaced on the run from people around the country who have worked in other areas. We need to ensure that there is enough funding and job opportunities provided to bring those skills on for the youth of this nation.

These are long overdue changes. The amendment has three key aspects. It will require employers who nominate a worker under temporary and permanent skilled migration programs to pay the nomination training contribution, because training costs money. Unfortunately, in this country we have moved in a direction where people simply do not hire apprentices. In my local region there were always dozens of carpenters, builders and plumbers that would put on someone they knew—a friend, an associate or someone that was related to them—on the basis that they could deliver them a skill. In certain industries they knew that, if they built their skilled workforce, in the long term that was in the interests of their business. When they moved to other places, those skills advanced, and, if they came back, that was fantastic.

It allows the nominations to be accepted from persons that have applied to be an approved sponsor, and allows the minister to determine by legislative instrument the manner in which labour market testing in relation to the nominated position must be undertaken. There'll be changes in the visa categories, but the key here is that businesses with an annual turnover of less than $10 million will pay $1,200 per year for each temporary overseas worker and a one-off Skilling Australians Fund levy of $3,000 for each permanent overseas worker. If you have an annual turnover of $10 million or more, it's $1,800 and a one-off payment of $5,000. This is absolutely critical, because in recent years the increase in apprentice wages—and I certainly wish them well—has made it very difficult for small businesses in particular to employ apprentices in those trades.

As someone who has run a business, who built a registered training organisation from the ground up and was heavily involved for 15 or 20 years, I know the reality is very straightforward: small businesses in particular have to be able to afford the apprentices they have under their supervision. If they cannot, they just don't employ them. That is to the detriment of everyone: their business, the youth who are looking for work and our economy moving forward. We need to ensure those opportunities can be filled. This is an additional 300,000 apprenticeships over the next four years, and I think that is an outstanding result. This is something which is desperately needed, particularly in regional areas.

We all know that the economy is going through a transition into a far more technical arena. When I speak to employers, the challenge that they have, particularly around apprentices, is ensuring they can find the candidate that has done the right training through high school—particularly around STEM, because there is more and more argument for STEM support before they go to TAFE or before they go to a technical trade—and the one with the right aptitude. Unfortunately, the anecdotal feedback my office and I are receiving is that, around year 2, things get very difficult and we lose an awful number of people who have commenced, so the completion rate has become absolutely appalling.

We're looking to reverse the decline in Australian apprentices in training and to restore those numbers. In the long-term, we need to ensure that opportunity is around the country—not just in capital cities but also in the regions. As we all know—and the member for Riverina is sitting here at the dispatch box—people who are raised and trained in the regions tend to stay there rather than migrating to the cities where we find a lot of the population is siloing. Without those skills, it's very difficult to produce the food, the fibre and the things we trade as a nation, which are essential to our economy and essential to providing highly-paid and highly-skilled jobs in the regions.

It's unfortunate and it disappoints me a great deal that the biggest ever annual decline in apprentices in training occurred, unfortunately, under the previous Labor government, between June 2012 and June 2013, when the apprentice numbers collapsed by 110,000 or 22 per cent. Over the life of Labor's national partnership agreement, apprenticeship numbers in Australia halved. In my electorate of Hinkler, there was a drop of 38 per cent from 2011 to 2016, and that is quite simply unacceptable. I spoke in this place this week about the challenges that my electorate faces, particularly around the fact that we continue to be the lowest median income statistical area in the country. We also have an unacceptably high level of unemployment, particularly for youth. This fund will help us address those challenges. But this is not a one-way street. It takes two to tango, and we need businesses to be willing and absolutely encouraged to employ apprentices and trainees. Without the support of business, this will simply not work. That is very, very straightforward.

Figures from the National Centres for Vocational Education Research show that in 2011 there were approximately 8,800 people training in my electorate of Hinkler, with 1,400 commencements and 1,000 completions. That was, of course, earlier on in 2011. Compare that to the figures of December 2016: 5,400 in training, 850 commencements and just 600 completions. As a proportion of the population of Hinkler aged 15 to 74 years, the 2016 figures represent about five per cent in training, just under one per cent commencing training and about half a per cent in completions. In Queensland, for the same period, it was seven per cent for commencing training, and completions were slightly higher, at 0.7 per cent. The numbers for the nation were six per cent, one per cent and 0.6 per cent respectively. In 2011, the comparable figures represent almost nine per cent in training, 1.4 per cent commencing and one per cent for completions. There are different averages around the country, but the numbers are very, very stark.

In recent weeks I have spoken to a number of large employers in my region, trying to encourage them to take on apprentices—and they're interested. They are very long-term organisations and they have been committed to our region for decades. In fact, some of them were some of the highest apprentice trainers in the country. I'm a recipient of that training. I was very fortunate to actually get an opportunity, and I want to ensure that we can provide that opportunity for our youth now, for the people who are completing high school and are looking for an opportunity and—if I can be very frank—don't want to go to university. We need to admit to ourselves and to everyone else that not everybody wants to go to university. If you do a trade, you can earn incredibly good money. You can run your own business. If you want to work in the resources industry, you can do very long hours and earn incredible salaries. But you cannot do that if you don't get the initial opportunity and if you don't complete. This fund is about trying to ensure that we can get that done.

In my electorate, it's nearly all small businesses. I would really like to see a focus on the money from this fund being provided to small business, in particular, because they are passionate people who work long hours and they don't have the time to sit around doing assessments and doing the paperwork that's necessary. With the change in the way that training and skills are assessed, it's no longer simply the case that the apprentice goes off for a seven-week block at the local TAFE. They can be trained and assessed of a night-time. They can be done individually. They can be assessed locally onsite. All of those changes have changed the way that vocational training is being delivered. There are a number of reasons for the reduction in the number of apprentices taken on, but regulatory processes, more red tape and more costs absolutely contribute to that reduction.

If the Australian government, the federal parliament, cannot make the changes necessary, then why are we here? This is a good proposal. It is a substantial proposal. And the challenge, of course, is the 457 visas versus the use of Australian workers. Now, I'm fairly pragmatic, and my practical view is very straightforward. I think we need to get the balance right. We need to get the balance right, and the reality is that the balance hasn't been right. But what do you say to someone in a regional area who runs a business that might employ 30 people who requires one critical staff member? Without that critical staff member, their business closes. If they can gain that through a 457 and provide 30 people with employment, then that's something we should support. But what we should not support is people who might rort the system to their benefit and not the benefit of the people of this country.

It is absolutely essential that we continue to put Australian workers first. This fund will help do that. The Skilling Australians Fund will seek to achieve much greater training completion rates by investing in more than 50,000 pre-apprenticeship places. But, as I said earlier, we need to ensure that we get the right candidates, who've got the right mindset and who have done the right training, in particular in secondary school and through high school, and we can get them to complete. There is nothing more disappointing, not only for an apprentice or a trainee but for the business, than for them to get halfway through and quit, because they lose all of the skills they've gained.

The absolute reality is very straightforward. For a business operator, the people in the trades, particularly in heavy industry, start to become viable as an employee in terms of payment by the time they get to around their third year or halfway through the third year. That's just the nature of training and the development of skills. It can't be done overnight. We need to ensure that we get them through and we get them completions and they do have somewhere to go for a job. This fund is absolutely critical to making that happen.

So I'd say to the opposition: please support it, because there are people out there, particularly in regional Australia, who straightforwardly need the help. They absolutely need the assistance. I'm still astounded at the number of reductions of apprentices and trainees, particularly in regional areas. We can continue to reach out to business. We can encourage them to put people on. We can ensure that they are supported, that there are people out there who can help them with red tape and everything else. But without this fund it becomes far more difficult.

This nation was built on the hard work of a lot of people. It has been an incredibly successful country. As the economy transitions, we need to transition with it. One of the ways to do that is to continue to build our workforce and its skills and its capability and its experience. I spoke about this in my maiden speech in 2013 and about the loss to our economy of those master tradespeople and their skills. The time is here. The time is now. We need to take the opportunity. I absolutely support the Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017, and I would encourage those opposite to do the same.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I firstly acknowledge the contribution by the member for Hinkler. Despite a number of points where he sought to reflect on our former government—and I'm happy to go to those points—I have to say I agree with everything he said in relation to ensuring that we look after Australian workers and ensure that, where there are legitimate opportunities for Australian workers, they have to be given the first opportunity for that work.

I have to say that the member for Hinkler should still be a member of the executive government. The way in which the member for Hinkler has been treated by the Deputy Prime Minister in particular is quite shameful, to be honest. When we listened to the contribution he made today in this debate, it was testament to the fact that he was a member of the executive government.

But I think it's very important to note for the record that Labor has always supported a more rigorous approach to labour market testing to ensure that the 457 visa was applied properly. The fact is that in June 2013, when I was the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, we introduced a bill to this place to regulate and to enforce compliance around labour market testing, and those then in opposition, who are now in government, voted against that bill. The shadow minister at the time, the member for Cook, the now Treasurer, stood up and attacked the legislation, saying we should not choke the program, namely the 457 visa.

The now Treasurer, as then shadow minister for immigration, opposed our legislation to introduce labour market testing. The bill itself was not as strong as we would have liked, because we were dealing with the crossbenchers in a situation where we were a minority government. But the Liberal Party opposed that legislation, and they vowed to repeal the legislation if they were elected. Where is that legislation now? It's still on our statute books, and it's relied upon by the current government—the same government which, when in opposition, said it was a bad bill. That's the first thing I'd say.

The second thing I'd say is that the bill before us is moving in the right direction after the government has chosen to do an absolute 180-degree turn on 457s, but it's not rigorous enough. That's why Shayne Neumann, the shadow minister for immigration, made it clear in his contribution to this debate that we want to see incorporated into this bill the provisions of the private member's bill introduced into this place by the Leader of the Opposition. If the government are absolutely genuine about looking after Australian workers, giving them opportunities first, and providing opportunities for apprentices and young workers, and workers in every part of the labour market, they will support the amendments moved by Labor. Without those amendments, we will see loopholes continue and we will see Australian workers missing out on those opportunities. So there is no point in the government proposing a change to the arrangements if they're not going to be effective. That's what was made clear in the shadow minister's contribution earlier.

Quite frankly, I have to say there's a credibility problem. How can Labor believe the Minister for Home Affairs when he voted against the legislation we introduced in 2013? How can we believe the Prime Minister believes in this legislation and wants to see real change to provide opportunities to workers in regional Australia and other parts of this great nation if he voted against the legislation we introduced in June 2013 that was actually seeking to introduce labour market testing for this program? How, indeed, can we believe the Treasurer and the Prime Minister and, indeed, the home affairs minister? They lined up against legislation that was going to regulate and improve the program to ensure that there'd been an effort to look for local workers before you could get a 457 applicant to take that job.

Labor support the 457 program, but we do so to ensure that that program fills legitimate shortages in the labour market. That's why we have insisted that the amendments that are being proposed by the shadow minister are, indeed, accepted by the government. If the government's rhetoric means anything, they will support improvements to the bill, which of course are provisions that are contained within the private member's bill put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten.

So, clearly, the government have come a long way in almost five years. Five years ago, when in opposition, they said any regulation on 457 was choking the program. That's what Scott Morrison, the Treasurer, said back then when he was shadow minister. He said that any regulation that we were proposing would choke the program. And yet, in government, they kept the legislation. There were no efforts to repeal it. Now they're saying they want to improve it, but who could trust them, given their rhetoric and the attack and the accusations of racism by the then shadow minister for immigration, the now Treasurer, that I had to deal with when he was opposing the bill that we introduced into this place in June 2013? So, quite frankly, it's a long way from the rhetoric of the then shadow minister for immigration, the now Treasurer. The government's come a long way rhetorically, but we are concerned that the construction of this bill will still allow for opportunities where locals are going to miss out.

If we're going to ensure the integrity of the program and its effectiveness in genuinely supplying workers on a temporary basis who are needed to fill skill shortages, we need to get the framework right. That's what the shadow minister for immigration is proposing in this debate, and that's why he has moved amendments on behalf of Labor to say that we support the direction of the bill, but it's not strong enough, and there needs to be more rigour around labour market testing. It would then be acceptable to Labor.

I think it is important to note, given the importance of this debate, that the government, when in opposition, opposed any and every effort we made to improve the system. Indeed, in that debate back in June 2013 the then shadow minister for immigration, the member for Cook, indicated that I'd proposed that there were at least 10,000 positions being rorted. I was attacked for that. Subsequently, because we empowered the Fair Work Ombudsman to investigate breaches of 457, we found that my estimation at the time and the calculations we made extrapolating from the existing data was an underestimation of the rorting of 457s. If I'd had more information at hand at the time, I would have known it was closer to 30,000 breaches of 457 applications. So I was wrong; I underestimated the breaches. But I was being attacked for allegedly overestimating those breaches to the program.

So we feel vindicated that our legislation—which the then opposition, and now government, threatened to repeal—has withstood the test of time. It was never enough, but we were dealing with the crossbench because we had a completely belligerent and resistant opposition. I couldn't deal with the shadow minister, who's now the Treasurer, because he refused to agree with the contention that we had to toughen up the application of the 457 program. Now the government, having voted against the legislation when it was last in opposition—and, of course, having attacked us for 'racism', which was an obscene allegation made against Labor members—expects us to believe it has a totally different view on this.

I have to say that, without the amendments we're proposing, this will be a very weak bill. This is a stunt by the Minister for Home Affairs. This really does smack of poll driven legislation. The late converts to making sure we have a proper 457 program have been told that the 457 program is not entirely popular in regional areas because there's been abuse of the program, and there's been an attempt to fix it by virtue of this legislation. I'm very happy to see that the Liberal Party has now chosen to support the contention that we need to have some rigour, but we do need to ensure that we improve the labour market testing, which would have been my intention at the time I introduced the original legislation if we'd had the support of the other major party. Instead, I had to negotiate with the crossbench, and the Liberal Party was totally opposed to the idea that there was anything wrong with the 457 program.

Let's be very clear here. Temporary visas are important. They're an important supplement to our labour market, and they'll always be an important supplement. There are occasions when we need to ensure that people do have limited work rights when they are in this country. They may be students who are studying here—and our students have reciprocal rights overseas. They may be holiday-makers who are spending much of their money in our economy. They're in demand, particularly in regional areas. Farmers have a great need for labour in certain periods of the year, and they do rely upon these temporary visas. But what we can't have is an abuse of the visa program, a gaming of temporary visas. Not only will that ultimately lead to more problems and accusations of abuse but it will be to the detriment of those young workers in this country who need jobs. So we need to get the balance right.

In relation to the skilled visa—namely, the 457 visa—it is a vital visa. As the member for Hinkler said, we do need, on occasion, an individual with a particular set of skills to come in under that visa if there is a shortage in the labour market. We do need to ensure that we provide companies the opportunities to fill vacancies with particular skills that are in short supply in this country under that program, but it shouldn't be the case that it's the first option. It should be the last resort. It should be after we've explored opportunities to give people with the skills here a chance of getting that job. And then, of course, we should be seeking to use such programs to supplement our labour market to ensure that our businesses can thrive through additional skills which are in short supply in this country. Over the longer term, as the member for Hinkler said, we should be looking at trends and at where the skills shortages will be and making sure that we're investing in skills and training in areas of emerging demand in the labour market. We need to ensure that we do a better job at anticipating where the demands in the labour market are and that our vocational training providers, in particular TAFE, and our tertiary institutions do a better job at providing the skills, the knowledge and the capabilities that our citizens need to acquire to have the skills and qualifications in those areas of demand.

Too often, people are acquiring skills in areas which are disappearing from the labour market, or where 50 people are competing for one job. We must do better at understanding the nature of the labour market, the way it's changing. Our institutions and government must do better at matching up the skills and the skill demands so that we don't have to rely indefinitely, in perpetuity, upon temporary visas to supply skills. There will always be a need to slot people in and use those programs in a very considered manner, but it should not be the first port of call. It should not be that we are too lazy to work out where the demands are in our labour market, that we are too lazy to anticipate the emerging skill areas and that we don't train our own people but just continue to look overseas for those temporary options.

We're a country that was built on immigration. We require people to continue to come here to make this country a better place. It is a great country, which, of course, welcomes people from every continent. Our story is a great story to tell. We need to get that right but, in doing so, we should not use temporary visas in a way that will either prevent Australian workers from getting the opportunity to get jobs or displace those workers who are desperate to find sufficient work to look after their families and their communities.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will start with a positive observation that the Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017 is not completely terrible. I think that's an important thing to remark on. I've spoken on a number of pieces of legislation introduced by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection since joining this House. It did take me a little while to realise that you do have to be sceptical, because much of the legislation which this minister brings to the House is not serious; it's designed for stunts. Throw a bit of red meat to the right-wing base. Try a bit of leftie baiting, as he has told the world he likes to do. I think the first piece that I spoke on was an outrageous bill, which has hopefully died a death stuck in the Senate, where the minister tried to claim for himself a power buried in a little clause there to kick people out on a visa revalidation based on the class of race. So you could pick people of a particular race and just invalidate their visas. And who could forget the university-level grammar test to become a citizen of this country? If he were brave enough to come and dine in Melbourne, we could have a further chat about those bills.

This bill is not terrible, because, as has been well-remarked upon by previous speakers, it finally picks up the thrust of a lot of Labor policy, which we've been saying uphill, down dale, regarding temporary skilled visas. I will say at the outset, while we are finishing the positive bits, that I come to this debate as someone who fully recognises there is a positive, important and often critical role for temporary skilled migration and, indeed, permanent skilled migration to supplement our labour force. Before I entered the parliament, I worked in the Victorian Public Service and for some time had responsibility for the skilled and business migration programs as a public servant working for both sides of politics, so I well understand the labour market analysis which needs to underlie these kinds of decisions and the import to the economy and to businesses of a well-targeted program where there are genuine skills shortages.

However, as always, you do have to look for the concerns in the bill and also understand the context. So the positive bit is the commonsense approach of using levies—higher levies, I would argue, as is our policy, as Senate committees have recommended. Indeed, Senate committees have recommended much higher levies than are proposed by the government, and my personal view is that there is a case for higher levies. But you use those levies to send a price signal. Imagine you're the employer and you're sitting there thinking: 'Well, I've got this skill gap. I kind of need someone to do this.' The easy option, too often, is just to sponsor someone—to go overseas and pluck someone in. Indeed, unscrupulous employers love that, as we've heard in previous bills—'protecting vulnerable workers', a misnomer if ever there was one for a bill—because there is a greater ability to exploit vulnerable temporary migrants using their temporary migration status.

It is too easy to reach overseas and sponsor someone instead of doing the right thing and training a local, looking for someone in the firm and thinking, 'Well, we can invest a few grand and train them up for that job.' By unashamedly using levies to send that price signal to employers to take it into account, it puts the acid on them to do the right thing by Australians and Australian workers. And obviously, it's a pretty logical thing to say that then the funds raised should be used to boost and supplement the skills and training market. So there is no problem with the principle, but there are two fundamental concerns about this bill which the shadow minister's amendments are seeking to address.

The first one is, again, quite a familiar trick for this government—the pea-and-thimble trick: 'We'll give with one hand; we'll take with the other. Nothing to see here. Don't look over there.' If you take the estimates seriously and even believe them, we might raise about $1.2 billion over four years. So we'll put these levies in. If you get enough temporary skilled migrants coming into the country and enough people paying these levies, you might raise $1.2 billion. You might not, though, of course, but you might, but you might not, but you might. Actually, the context is that $1.2 billion comes on the back of cuts of $2.8 billion to the training system. So the funds raised from this bill don't go even halfway to making up the damage that the government has caused through its cuts to the training system. The Abbott-Turnbull-Joyce government, or maybe one day the Abbott-Turnbull-Chester government—long live the revolution! We'll see how the member for Wide Bay votes on that. He's a thoughtful man; no doubt he's got a view. We'll talk about that another time. But $2.8 billion has been cut from the skills and training budget over five years, including $637 million in the last budget, What that has led to—and these are important figures; they're not contested figures; they're facts—is 140,000 fewer trainees and apprenticeships, including 41,000 fewer trade apprentices. This is a bandaid; you cut with one hand and you give with another. It's the same modus operandi: 'We'll cut $29 billion of school funding, or make it $27 billion, or make it $17 billion. But, magically, we'll call that a $10 billion boost.' We could get onto taxes, but that's a different topic, with the one-point tax plan.

With this bill, the Skilling Australians Fund could well be better named the 'cutting a bit less from the skills and training system and picking up a bit of Labor policy and hoping everyone won't notice' bill. Even if the government's projections are right—and there are doubts over their numbers—if the visa numbers go down, if you don't get enough temporary skilled migrants coming in, then you don't have enough money to fund the training system. I was just handed the Bills Digest which came out today, and I was looking through it in the time available. In the Bills Digest, the Australian government's comments are very clear:

From 2018-19, amounts available to the States from the Skilling Australians Fund will be determined by the revenue paid into the Fund.

So, if we don't get enough temporary migrants coming into the country, there's not enough money in the fund to fund the skills and training contributions that the Commonwealth has promised to the states, and they haven't promised to make up that funding. So it's getting kind of perverse, isn't it? If you don't get enough temporary migrants coming into the country, you don't have enough money to train Australians. Indeed, Professor Peter Noonan, who I actually know from a former life, a professorial fellow and one of the doyens of the Australian vocational training market, has summed it up very well in his submission. Perversely:

… revenue for the fund will be highest when skilled migration is highest, and lowest when employment of locally skilled workers is highest. That means the revenue stream for the fund will be counter-cyclical to the purpose for which it was established: to increase the proportion of locally trained workers and to lessen the reliance on temporary skilled migration visas.

So there's clearly going to be a problem there, and it sounds a pretty dumb and shaky foundation to me, anyway, to design the basis of the government's skills and training fund. For such a critical social and economic function as training skilled workers, maybe that's something the government could reflect on and realise they've got it wrong. Indeed, Labor's approach of saying, 'These funds should supplement, should boost, funding available, not form all of the funding available to the skills and training system,' is a better approach.

I was also struck by the data in the Bills Digest, which sets out starkly—clearly, indeed—that there are 22 trade worker occupations on the major national skills shortages list: air-conditioning and refrigeration mechanics, automotive electricians, roof tilers, sheet metal trades workers, solid plasterers, panelbeaters, fibrous plasterers, telecommunications trades workers—the list goes on. So, really, on the back of enormous cuts to the apprenticeship system, which have driven down apprenticeship numbers in this country, we're leaving the whole funding foundation of restoring that and fixing that problem to bringing in more temporary workers. As the Bills Digest quite well acknowledges, although there are other factors—of course, people make judgements about employment prospects—undeniably, as apprentices are engaged by employers with funding and other support from government, then the number of apprentices and trainees is also influenced by the Commonwealth, and state and territory, funding decisions. So there it is.

The second big problem, apart from the pea-and-thimble, give with one hand, take with the other aspect of the bill, is the labour market testing. The track record of this government—as the previous speaker, the member for Gorton, who's been the minister for the portfolio, knows well—indicates that this will be a sham. Labor's made this clear for years. I've spoken on other bills, other matters, with the shadow minister for immigration. There is the nonsense of the minister's fake crackdown on 457s—you fiddle the occupation lists. We had a war on antique dealers and goat herders, or goat farmers. The minister was doing something with goats—I'm not sure. He was stopping the goats! There was a war on all these occupations that no-one had actually used for 10 years. So you take these occupations off that no-one actually uses and say you've had a crackdown but refuse to detail proper labour market testing. The record speaks for itself.

Labor in government had clear, firm, tough rules to say that, if you wanted to get a foreign worker, before you could do that, you had to test the labour market, and do that properly, and see if there was anyone in Australia—anyone, anywhere—ready to do that job. Only then could you pick up the option of using the temporary skilled migration system. Okay, that sounds pretty good. What about the proposition at the heart of this? It's good to be clear on the principle. I reckon this one passes the pub test. If you guys are in doubt—I know sometimes that's the case—you could have a plebiscite. You could have a survey. You could check this proposition, which is: before you get a foreign worker, you should try properly to find or train an Australian worker. It's a proposition. Have a plebiscite. I note the member for Wide Bay is nodding, and I applaud you; I thank you for your support. It's a fair test; it's a commonsense test. As I said, it passes the pub test. So why is it so hard? Why is there this big say/do gap? We say one thing. Perhaps if we say 'tax cuts' enough, someone will stop focusing on the fact that they actually just raised taxes for most Australians—unless you're a high income earner, of course; they're special. It's blindly ideological. There's a pattern if you're this government: 'We hate scrutiny.'

It is important to mention the trade agreements, because, for all this waffle that 'we'll do some labour market testing', the minister wants power to introduce some regulations to say what the rules for labour market testing might be. We are not going to tell you what they are right now. It might be an ad on Facebook for five minutes between midnight and 1 am in Mildura, targeted there. That might satisfy his rules; we just don't know. The government has got this pattern of signing trade agreements. They talk this rubbish that somehow we are opposed to all trade agreements and that we are trashing the Hawke and Keating legacy. They're getting obsessed with the Hawke and Keating legacy—they're a little bit jealous. It is founded on this notion that all trade agreements are good. Just because they happen to get a deal, we should sign it, without scrutiny of the benefits, even if it embeds exempting labour market testing.

Let's say the minister did the right thing and put in place some proper rules, through the regulations, for labour market testing—not funny little sham ones but proper rules. The trade agreements that they're busy signing up now would override them. You could still bring in foreign workers using the trade agreements and not be subject to labour market testing.

The government is being dishonest in this, but I did see one submission which I'll at least call out as being honest. If you want to try to understand the basis of the government's ideological objection to proper labour market testing, I was captured by the submission by ACCI, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. I don't agree with it, but at least they are honest. Everyone knows the fluid boundaries, the porous boundaries, between the people who often work for the Liberal government and work for ACCI—and that's fine; that's a thing—but their submission is at least honest and gives a good insight. They're often peas in a pod—like they were on penalty rates: 'Cut penalty rates; that's a good thing,' says ACCI, and off goes the government, 'Yeah, that's a good thing.' The ACCI submission very clearly says that we should abolish all labour market testing—all of it—because we should just trust employers. They said that labour market testing is:

… akin to asking employers to walk through wet cement—it is time consuming through the requirement (i) to advertise even when the employer knows through past experience there is no skilled worker suitable to meet their business need—

It could have been five years ago and they didn’t have a good time, so they'll just sponsor some temporary migrant workers.

That contrasts, I think, a little unfavourably with Labor's approach—a sensible approach—as was set out in the bill that the Leader of the Opposition introduced. The government could have supported that and not have done this Road to Damascus fake conversion to labour market testing. We had proper requirements in that bill. We had things like a mandatory requirement for all jobs to be advertised as part of labour market testing—you actually have to advertise them; a requirement that jobs be advertised for a minimum of four weeks—not five minutes on Facebook; a requirement—this is important when you have a look at ACCI's submission—that labour market testing should have been conducted no less than four months before you nominate a temporary skilled visa worker; a ban on the job advertisements that we've seen which target only overseas workers or specified visa classes to the exclusion of Australian citizens; and a crackdown on job ads—and this one is important, because we're seeing this in other industries and I've spoken before on it—that set unrealistic or unwarranted skills and experience requirements for vacant positions. There are some fake ads that say, 'We think you need 72 years of experience and four PhDs.' Or we hear: 'We couldn't find someone, so we'll just have to go overseas and look for someone,' or 'We couldn't find them there, but we just sponsored someone anyway.' We've seen examples of this kind of rorting going on.

So there is this blind ideology, this hatred of labour market testing. There's no basis to trust this government and say, 'Pass this. We'll give the minister a power. We'll trust you, Minister for Home Affairs and immigration and whatever else you can grab next week in the cabinet reshuffle, to introduce some good rules on labour market testing. We'll ignore the war on goat herders and antiques. We'll ignore all that and we'll trust you to do the right thing.' We say, 'No; there's a better way. You could mandate proper requirements for labour market testing in these laws, you could accept sensible changes, and you could put your money where your mouth is and do the right thing by Australian workers.'

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the few minutes that I have before we adjourn tonight, I will take the opportunity to reflect on what the previous speaker has said and actually add to it. The government is asking us to trust the Minister for Home Affairs with labour market testing. Do they really think Australian workers and the Australian people are going to buy that? This is a man who stood in here at question time yesterday, looked up in the gallery and had a go at some coalminers—called them thugs and said they were going to break arms on construction sites. The guy clearly is so blinded by his hatred for organised labour and blinded by his hatred for hardworking Queenslanders, so in it for the kill and so in it for the hunt, that he turns up to the gallery—

Mr Dick interjecting—

He can't be independent; he can't be biased—and he's the person that this government wants to put in charge of labour market testing! Labour market testing is critical when it comes to: 'Do we or do we not need overseas temporary migrant workers in this country?' The whole premise of a temporary migrant worker with a skill is the fact that we don't have those skills in this country.

Under this government, proper labour market testing has failed. I meet young nurses all the time who've just graduated and are ready to start their career but can't get jobs in our hospitals because too many jobs have gone to people who were here on 457 visas or whatever new name the government has given it. I feel for those workers who've come into our country in good faith—they've been recruited; they've come here to work—but they are now pinned against Australian workers because this government has dropped the ball when it comes to skilled migration and temporary skilled migration. This is one of the core, fundamental problems—

Debate interrupted.