Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and move government amendments (1) and (2) together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (line 8), before "The", insert "(1)".

(2) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (after line 22), at the end of section 140ZN, add:

  (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1) (e), the penalty payable must be a civil penalty not exceeding 60 penalty units.

The Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017 amends the Migration Act 1958 to provide for the collection of a nomination training contribution charge for employers nominating overseas skilled workers. This measure is a critical element to the government's employer sponsored skilled migration reforms, ensuring that Australian workers are given the first priority for jobs in this country.

The amendments to the bill set 60 penalty units, which is currently $12,600, as the maximum penalty that may be prescribed in the regulations for underpayments of a nomination training contribution charge. The amendments will provide certainty regarding the maximum amount of any penalty that may be prescribed in the regulations for underpayments of a nomination training contribution charge. This addresses the concerns of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in relation to the Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017, the amendment bill.

The administration of the Skilling Australians Fund will increase the transparency and accountability of training contributions made by employers utilising the skilled migration program. This will increase public confidence that skilled migration and the businesses that bring in skilled migrants are doing their part to help Australians prepare for the workforce.

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

Labor will support these amendments. This is just fixing up sloppy drafting, and we are happy to assist the government in whatever way we can in a bipartisan way. We support the amendments.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) together:

(1) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 10), after item 14, insert:

14A At the end of subsection 140GBA(4)

  Add "The period must not start earlier than 4 months before the nomination is received by the Minister.".

(2) Schedule 1, item 15, page 8 (after line 24), after subsection 140GBA(6), insert:

  (6AA) The Minister must not make a determination under subsection (5) unless the Minister is reasonably satisfied that any advertising of the position undertaken in the determined manner:

  (a) will be targeted in such a way that a significant proportion of suitably qualified and experienced Australian citizens or Australian permanent residents would be likely to be informed about the position; and

  (b) will set out any skills or experience requirements that are appropriate to the position.

  (6AB) A duration determined for the purposes of paragraph (6)(d) must be at least 4 weeks.

As I highlighted in my speech in the second reading debate, these amendments are to ensure proper labour market testing is in place. There needs to be real, genuine and strict labour market testing. Labour market testing requires that employers who want to bring in overseas workers test the local labour market first, to give Australians and permanent residents the first chance at local jobs. This is to make sure that, if no suitably and qualified local workers are readily available, we can bring people from overseas with the skill, talent and ability to contribute to our economy. These amendments are all about putting local workers first.

Although the legislation allows the immigration minister to determine by legislative instrument the manner of labour market testing, it doesn't provide that he can follow through on it. The minister may only include the following in the legislative instrument: the language to be used in advertising, the advertising method, the period during or prior to nomination in which the advertisement must occur, and the duration of the advertising. The government's bill asks Australians to trust the immigration minister to do the right thing in this legislative instrument, which is non-disallowable. Many on the opposite benches, including the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, when he was the shadow minister for immigration, have voted again and again in this place against labour market testing. They can't be trusted to do the right and proper thing to protect Australian jobs.

I remember in the last days of the Rudd government, back in 2013, when those opposite, then in opposition, including the now Treasurer, went on the rampage against us when the member for Gorton tried to bring in proper labour market testing. We had to go to the crossbench, and didn't get the strictness we wanted, because the then opposition, now government, opposed us. They have voted in this place again and again against labour market testing. What have we seen since they announced their clampdown on 457s? Have we seen any details of the legislative instrument? Have we seen media reports, pronouncements or major speeches by the immigration minister, anything that would give us any confidence whatsoever that they will do the right thing? We have not.

I have been in this place for 10 years, and I know the Liberal and National parties haven't been committed to this. They haven't been champions of proper labour market testing. At the public hearing of the Senate inquiry the ACTU, the organisation that represents workers, testified:

Labour market testing is critical to this whole debate. The fact of the matter is the government opposed labour market testing up hill and down dale until April 2017, when they suddenly were converted to the idea of labour market testing.

It's probably the greatest conversion since Saint Paul on the road to Damascus—and we believe they're going to carry through and not backslide? I think they're going to commit apostasy. They don't have any religious fervour in this area. They have no commitment whatsoever to labour market testing. I'll talk about what those opposite will do in due course during this consideration in detail. The ACTU, a great organisation whose unions represent workers in the workplace, said:

… quite frankly, given the government's history on labour market testing, why would you trust this government to implement a serious regime of labour market testing? We just don't.

And neither do we on this side of the chamber. We know that the Turnbull government has failed to protect penalty rates for 700,000 Australian workers. Now this out-of-touch government wants us and the Australian public to believe that it'll do the right thing with this legislation, yet for month after month it has done absolutely nothing, made no announcements of details, and put in place these very narrow guidelines for a legislative instrument.

These amendments, which were circulated in my name, reflect the provisions of the opposition leader's private member's bill: the Migration Amendment (Putting Local Workers First) Bill 2016. Amendment (1) circulated in my name ensures that labour market testing must not start earlier than four months prior to the nomination. We've got details about what the minister must be reasonably satisfied about, and we've also put in a provision that the advertising must be real and the duration must be at least four weeks. There is more I'll say in the course of this debate, but I urge my colleagues to also say more words about it.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He died with a dozen spears in his back—I know the feeling! We people in the mining industries or representing the mining industries of Australia are particularly perturbed because it's very rare now for a coalminer or a hard-rock miner to get three years of continuous work. It's all done on contract now, and the CFMEU, God bless them, have pointed out again and again the nature of the casualisation of labour in Australia. If you don't have a permanent job, you can't buy a house. The bank won't loan you money. If you haven't got a permanent job, you can't buy a car. The bank won't loan you money. So it is all part of the new contractor, fly-in fly-out mining.

Everyone accepts fly-in fly-out mining, which is quite remarkable because I was brought up in a world where it was rejected totally. It was banned in Western Australia under Charles Court, which precipitated WA Inc. Some $240,000 was donated to a stamp album so that Alan Bond could fly in his workers to his diamond mine, the Argyle. So fly-in fly-out mining was born in corruption. In Queensland, it was banned under the Bjelke-Petersen government. Here are two of the most conservative governments in Australian history. Neither of them would allow fly-in mining. There are destructive implications for families from fly-in mining. If you're a fly-in miner, you don't see your daughter at the eisteddfod or the ballet. You don't see your son playing football on the weekend. Do we work to have a life, or do we have a life to work? That is the question that is always asked.

The ALP are not the innocents in this. Thirty-six thousand were coming in under the LNP, and that was raised to 147,000 under the ALP. So as far as fly-in fly-out workers from overseas are concerned—section 457, which is what we're talking about here today—the naughty boys were the ALP. You took it from 36,000 under the LNP up to 147,000, which was pointed out with great venom, God bless him, by Michael O'Connor, President of the CFMEU, no less, to the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. He said, 'Don't go blaming the Tories, because, Prime Minister, it was you, and this union is not going to brook any further section 457s coming into this country.'

And they say, 'Oh, we can't get Australians to work these days.' Well, as an Australian, I don't particularly like being called a bludger, and the people I mix with I wouldn't call bludgers either. So who exactly are these Australians? Fifteen years ago we didn't need any section 457 workers. There were virtually none coming into this country. So how come suddenly, in 15 years, the people of the country have all become bludgers and we need to bring in section 457 workers from overseas?

The illustrious and highly respected cabinet minister at the dispatch box, no less, referred to the fact that welfare will jump from 25 per cent of the federal budget to 50 per cent of the federal budget over the next 10 years. Why? Because we're bringing 640,000 people a year into this country on long-term visas, which means they're not going to go home. They get four years and they can extend it for four years. They're never going to leave the country. Like Mexican wetbacks, once they cross that border you won't ever get them out. They haven't done it in America and you're almost certainly not doing it here, in respect of the major parties.

There are 640,000 people and there are only 200,000 jobs. And there are over 200,000 school leavers. We've got 840,000 people chasing 200,000 jobs. Something has got to break here. I suspect it's the social welfare system. And, as Minister Porter pointed out, the welfare budget is going to jump from 25 per cent to 50 per cent of the federal budget—of course it is. You're bringing in 640,000 people a year from overseas. Australians are losing the jobs, because preference is being given to people from overseas— (Time expired)

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We won't be supporting these amendments. We understand their intent. The government is, as part of its reform package, putting forward a stronger regime of ensuring that there is good advertising to ensure that Australians get that opportunity to get that job. The amendment bill that was put forward provides the framework for an instrument to be tabled in the parliament and to detail exactly what is going to be required for the market testing.

It's interesting that those opposite, and particularly the shadow minister in his initial contribution, made as one of their critiques of the government in relation to our significant changes to the 457s that there was supposedly a lack of consultation, and yet that is exactly what we are doing right now in relation to the labour market testing. We are putting up the framework today, and then we've got an opportunity to consult in relation to the labour market testing. So, I would have thought that those opposite would actually want to support that particular proposal to do proper consultation in relation to this.

I'll finish, because I don't want to delay the passage of this bill, but let me remind those opposite—and the member for Kennedy pointed this out in his eloquent manner—that in fact the world record holders for the number of 457s coming into this country is the Labor Party opposite. It was back in 2012, and guess who the minister in charge of that was at the time when that world record—130,000—was achieved in terms of the number of 457s coming in? It was none other than the now Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten. It was the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, who was in charge of that program, taking in 130,000 people, and now we're down to about 70,000 people who are coming into this country.

As I said previously, we're only taking 70,000 people into this country on the 457s, at the same time that we have record jobs' growth in the country and at the same time that we have the lowest proportion of people on welfare payments in 25 years. That is a great trifecta. It means that we are prioritising Australians for Australian jobs, and we are growing the number of jobs so they can have the wealth and prosperity which they expect and deserve.

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

It is very disappointing to hear that the government will not be accepting Labor's amendments, because we are trying to help the government out here. The Australian people don't believe them when it comes to labour market testing, and they have good reason not to believe the government when it comes to labour market testing, or to leave it in the hands of the minister when it comes to labour market testing. It wasn't that long ago that members opposite, when we were talking about the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, accused this side of the House, and accused Australian workers, of being racist and of being xenophobic, because we wanted labour market testing to be in place. This is the track record of those opposite. They have vilified people for standing up to say, 'We want there to be a test. Before you bring a temporary worker into this country and hire them, we want to know that you've actually gone to market and tested it.' Quite frankly, this idea of consultation that the minister is talking about—allowing it to happen by the minister's decision—is again more delaying.

When we were in government, they voted against our changes to strengthen labour market testing. They voted against it. That's their track record. They have fought it every step of the way. Now they have an opportunity to support sensible amendments which will give Australian jobseekers and Australians confidence that the government finally understands the importance of labour market testing, that they will live up to the 'locals for local jobs first' plan that is being put forward. Instead, they're saying, 'Nothing to see here. We're going to come up with a couple of instruments.' Australians don't trust this government when it comes to temporary work visas.

The government is also not doing anything to really lift standards and crack down on some of the exploitation that we've seen of these temporary workers. I really feel for some of the temporary guest workers who come into our country. They don't know that Australians are missing out on jobs. They don't know that they're taking a position that hasn't been properly labour market tested. They aren't aware of the circumstances in which they're entering this country. Yes, it is true that a lot of them come here on a temporary arrangement with the want and the willingness to stay. We should encourage more migration to this country. We should encourage people to migrate here.

What we have before us is a real lack of commitment from this government to genuinely have labour market testing. That is why Labor has moved these amendments. We are calling on the government to do the right thing by Australian jobseekers and accept Labor's amendments around labour market testing. We need to mandate to make sure that companies advertise for a minimum of four weeks—and that it's not just a Facebook ad to a closed group. We need to mandate to make sure that it is done no more than four months before nominating a worker—that it wasn't done two years ago. I've met some employers who have said, 'I did that 10 years ago,' or 'I did that a while ago' or 'I just put it up on Facebook.' That is not enough. There need to be targets set. We need to make sure that we are prioritising Australian citizens and permanent residents for jobs and positions.

Quite frankly, as a country, we need to do better at matching jobseekers with the available jobs. It is far too easy for companies to look overseas and use a labour hire company to recruit people in. That is why it is so disappointing that the government is again using another delaying tactic by saying, 'Trust the minister to do it.' Given the track record of this government and given their failure to genuinely crack down on visa rorts and exploitation, we cannot trust them. They should accept the amendments Labor has put forward. They should listen to the Australian people, listen to the union movement and genuinely engage.

Their blind hatred of the union movement has again come up in this debate. Our unions raise issues that Australian workers raise. When they raised this issue about the importance of the labour market testing, what did they get from those opposite? They were told that they're racist—they're racist for saying, 'We want Australians to have jobs.' That is the kind of maturity that we have from the government when people say that workers coming into this country are, firstly, not being treated properly and, secondly, being brought into the country under false pretences because there hasn't been proper labour market testing. Corporate Australia needs to be held accountable. That is why we need to put these rules in place. The government should join with Labor, support these amendments and give young jobseekers in this country not only an opportunity but also the knowledge that they will be considered first.

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

Normally I'd like a bit longer than a minute but I'll make a start on my speech on the Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017. I'm just going to restate a couple of propositions which are important, because they underpin the principal, the foundation, as to why we believe labour market testing is required. If there is an Australian who can do the job, they should get the job and you should only have access to the temporary skilled migration system if there is no suitable Australian who can do the job.

The government is proposing through this bill, the substantive bill that the House has now read for a second time, to remove all of the specific requirements currently in the Migration Act for labour market testing and to come up with an instrument. We don't know what that instrument is. Maybe the minister here has it under the table. You could show us the instrument. You could tell us what's in it. Then we might be able to make an informed assessment about what the government actually proposes.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member for Bruce will be given an opportunity at that time to conclude his contribution.