Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

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

I have four minutes in continuation, so I might just recap where I got to in that brilliant one-minute speech, just in case those listening at home have forgotten. The proposition which sits behind the amendments is simple: if there's an Australian who can do the job, they should get the job, and you should only be able to access the temporary skilled migration system if there's no suitable Australian who can do the job. That shouldn't be radical, but what the government is saying in its legislation as put forward is: 'Trust us. If you pass this bill, then we'll introduce an instrument.' As we've said to the minister, 'Show us your instrument. If you want us to believe that you're going to have proper rules for proper labour market testing then get out your instrument and put it on the table.' We don't know what it's like, we don't know what's in it and we don't know what the rules are. Right now, there is nothing in this bill to prevent the minister from writing some rules that say, 'It's okay to have an ad on Facebook for five minutes between midnight and 1 am targeted at Mildura.' That's not proper labour testing, but it's not ruled out in this bill.

The shadow minister's amendments are moderate, reasoned and not over the top, just like the shadow minister. They provide for sensible, minimum requirements for advertising—things like:

The period—

of advertising—

must not start earlier than 4 months before the nomination is received by the Minister.

That means that the employer can't just say: 'About five years ago, I advertised for a job like that. We didn't get anyone. Five years on, it's probably still the same. I'll just get a temporary migrant. Why not accept that?' Why not show us the instrument and say, 'This is what we propose.' Then we can have a debate and say: 'Okay, that sounds all right. Maybe it's reasonable.'

A requirement in amendment (2) is:

The Minister must not make a determination ... unless the Minister is reasonably satisfied that any advertising of the position undertaken in the determined manner:

... that a significant proportion of suitably qualified and experienced Australian citizens or Australian permanent residents would be likely to be informed about the position ...

I go back to the example of putting a dodgy ad in the paper for a week in an obscure regional newspaper and saying that it satisfies labour market testing. Clearly, if you at least put this in as a sensible threshold minimum, you'd be forced, under the amendment, to ensure that Australian citizens and permanent residents are likely to be informed about the position.

Secondly—and this is important; we've seen examples of it—amendment (2) says that job ads 'set out any skills or experience requirements that are appropriate to the position'. I've spoken before on examples in the shipping industry, in relation to 400 visas. The shadow minister and I looked through folders of evidence in relation to this. Minister Dutton has received numerous letters, which have never received adequate responses, that jobs are being advertised in the shipping industry requiring levels of skill far above what is actually needed to do the job. Magically, they could say, 'We didn't find anyone, so we'll get some temporary migrants whom we can pay a bit less.' They're vulnerable to exploitation and it locks out Australian workers. Importantly, the shadow minister's amendment provides that jobs must be advertised for a period of at least four weeks. If you're going to go to all the trouble of using the skilled migration system to sponsor a temporary migrant, it doesn't sound unreasonable to me that you'd be required to advertise the job for, at a minimum, four weeks.

These rules as proposed in the amendments are not fully prescriptive; they set a few basic minimum standards.

Honourable Member:

An honourable member interjecting—

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

I hear some comments from afar, somewhere over there, about running a business. The reason we don't trust the government and we can't trust the government on this is that there seems to be a last-minute, road-to-Damascus conversion on labour-market testing. At least St Paul believed it.

We get an insight into what the government really thinks from their good friends at ACCI, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. They say in their submission—and at least they're honest, unlike the government—that labour-market testing is 'akin to asking employers to walk through wet cement'. They say that it is time-consuming to even advertise, when the employer knows through past experience—sometime in the past in recent years—that there's no-one available. So ACCI's submission says honestly: 'Abolish all labour-market testing. Just get rid of it.' At least that's honest. It's bad policy, but at least it's honest. We urge the government to accept the amendments. They don't impose anything that's unreasonable and they allow the minister to colour his instrument however he likes.

Matt Keogh (Burt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In April last year, the Prime Minister told ABC's Sabra Lane that Australian jobs are for Australians, first and foremost. In that interview, he heralded this bill and he said that this would deliver on that promise—that commitment for employers to conduct and provide evidence of labour-market testing. As it actually turns out, as the member for Bruce so eloquently said, this legislation doesn't do that at all. What the government is doing with this piece of legislation is it's walking into this parliament and saying, 'Trust us.' And I'm sure, when the people of Australia hear those words from this government, they shudder in their boots. I can say from my experience in my short term in this House that when I hear this government say 'Trust us', I know that it's usually followed, around three to six months later, by my having to consider some amending legislation to fix the problem they created with the first piece of legislation. This government has form when it comes to the idea of 'Trust us.'

Here, what they want to do is say that, when it comes to labour-market testing, we'll hand it all over to the minister responsible, instead of making sure that this parliament guarantees that we have a proper labour-market testing regime to ensure that Australian jobs are first and foremost for Australians. So, instead of taking the approach that we would like them to do, they want to give this to the minister. When we look at the track record of this minister, when it comes to this minister saying 'Trust us,' let's just see what the stats show.

Interestingly, we have a bit of a tension here within the government. We have the employment department, which is responsible for job vacancies and skills shortage research, saying just 28 occupations are on the list of major skills shortages that it's identified. But then when we turn to the immigration department, there's a list of over 450 occupations where you can come in on a skilled migration visa for apparent 'skills shortages'. When this government has almost multiplied this by a factor of 10—more than 10, almost 20—the number of jobs that are available when compared to those that there's an actual shortage in, how on earth can we trust the minister to deliver a delegated piece of legislation that we can rely on, that we can have confidence in, that is actually going to make sure that Australian jobs go to Australians first? The difference here is quite critical to people in my electorate, as it is to people across Western Australia and the nation. You can't trust the Turnbull government when it comes to genuine labour-market testing. You can only trust Labor to deliver on actual labour-market testing.

If we look at the testimony given by the ACTU, they said, I think, '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.' Well, neither do we in the Labor Party, and it's why the Leader of the Opposition introduced a private member's bill dealing with just this issue—to introduce more rigorous requirements for labour-market testing so that we could have it incorporated into the legislation of the country. Those amendments would make sure that there was an actual minimum period of advertising time—that this was conducted no more than four months before the job was going to be filled by a skilled visa; that it was targeted so that we were not just letting laissez faire immigration happen on different types of occupations. But, instead, the government doesn't want to go down that route. Who knows why? It's a very interesting problem for the government to create for itself. If it was so signed up to making sure that it protects Australian jobs, why not actually put it into Australian legislation? But, no.

Not only have they done that, of course; this just compounds all of the failures of the government when it comes to protecting Australian jobs and Australian incomes. Instead, what they want to do is let a whole heap of people come in and undermine the wages of Australians in their Australian jobs and, at the same time, you are taking away their penalty rate protections as well. I'm sure the people of Australia feel just so confident at home every day knowing that the government are looking after their jobs in such a way that they stand up and say to the people of Australia: 'It's okay. Just trust us.' When the people of Australia look at the form of the government, there is absolutely no way that when it comes to skilled migration and labour market testing that they are going to trust the government or the minister responsible.

Labor will fight hard. We will fight to make sure that there is strict labour market testing because, I can tell you, out there, in the real world, people are concerned about this. The member for Swan talked about small business. Only just the other weekend, when I was out doorknocking to the good people of Canning Vale, did a small business owner in construction raise with me his concerns about people who are coming into Australia without the adequate skill requirements and undermining Australian jobs on building and construction sites. That's what this government is delivering. Shame.

Cathy O'Toole (Herbert, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am fed up with the Turnbull government's relentless attacks on Australian workers. This is a government for overseas workers, not locals. This is a government for the casualisation of work, not secure jobs. This is a government hell-bent on eroding workers' rights over a quality job. This is a government that does not care about Australian workers but cares for big business.

The Turnbull government has voted five times in this place to give big business a $65 billion tax cut but will not lift a finger to protect workers. This is demonstrated by the Oaky North miners' situation. Last week, I met with the CFMEU Oakey North miners, and the absolutely abhorrent treatment that they have received, and are receiving, from Swiss based Glencore is disgusting. This company was revealed in the Paradise Papers as having a tax-dodging swap financing scheme that has been the subject of scrutiny by the Australian tax office. This same company, Glencore, has now locked out the miners at Oaky North for more than 210 days. Let me be very clear: these men and women are not on strike; they want to work. These men and women are being treated in a disgusting and disrespectful manner by Glencore because they are fighting against casualisation and for better and fairer conditions. This lockout is a smear on the Turnbull government. It shows that this government is not fair dinkum when it comes to standing up for workers. It shows that this government cannot be trusted when it comes to secure, quality and well-paid jobs. This bill proves this government cannot be trusted to protect Australian jobs.

Unlike the Turnbull government, Labor believes in genuine labour market testing for employers nominating overseas workers. Labour market testing requires employers wishing 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 available to fill the vacant positions prior to bringing in overseas workers—common sense, one might say.

In my electorate of Herbert, we are experiencing 9.1 per cent unemployment. We want all of those local jobs because we are in desperate need. But the Turnbull government clearly doesn't care about local jobs for Herbert, because this bill doesn't legislate for strict labour market testing conditions. The Turnbull government's bill asks Australians to trust that the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Peter Dutton, will do the right thing via a legislative instrument. Surely this government must be kidding? It's got to be a joke, because I don't think there's a person in Australia who trusts the minister for immigration, Peter Dutton, on anything.

It is only Labor that will stand up to these worker bullies, and it is only Labor that will fight for local quality jobs. Labor's amendments will ensure labour market testing: is advertised for a minimum of four weeks—this is not too much to ask; has been conducted no more than four months before the nomination of a worker on a skilled visa; 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 excludes unrealistic and unwarranted skills and experience requirements for vacant positions with the effect of excluding otherwise suitable Australian applicants. These are the strict protections that Australian workers need and deserve to ensure local jobs. One would think that an Australian government would be hell-bent on legislating to back Australian workers. This bill does nothing to reassure the confidence of Australian citizens that that is the case.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd have to say, as I said in my contribution to the substantive debate on the Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017, the biggest challenge facing Australia's digital economy and our tech sector is access to talent. The skills shortage is the biggest issue confronting the digital economy in this country right now. And this is not a new thing. This is not something that has just occurred. This has been a problem for a while. We've even had the need for and the challenge as to skills stressed or highlighted in a report released just a few weeks ago: the report Australia 2030: prosperity through innovation, done by Innovation and Science Australia. I'm holding the report up just to show those opposite, because this report is going to be forgotten. It will join the many other reports that have been prepared in this country that talk about the need not only to promote innovation but also to do something about it—and those opposite like to equate innovation with report preparation but not actually do anything about it. This report says, in the executive summary:

Despite present fears about automation eradicating jobs, by 2030 a shortage of workers is a more likely problem than a shortage of jobs.

Another report, released in 2016 by the now Minister for Jobs and Innovation, Tomorrow's digitally enabled workforce,isgathering dust. No action is being taken to address skills requirements in this country. We can go back to 2013 and the ICT workforce study that highlighted the skills shortages affecting the digital economy sector—a massive issue.

Now we've had this situation, where there are not enough skills, last for years. We've seen cuts to schooling, vocational education and tertiary education. And what did the government do all of a sudden last year? They decided they were going to cut the only other avenue that the sector had. All of a sudden, out of the blue, without consultation, they cut the local sector's access to overseas talent to help meet its needs.

I noted the interjection by the member for Swan saying, 'You've never run a business!'—those opposite supposedly knowing what works in a business and what doesn't. Yet what happened when the local tech sector, Member for Swan, had the temerity to raise its concerns about the fact that the government's 457 changes will affect the tech sector? What happened? We had the Minister for Immigration, Peter Dutton, ask of one firm, Atlassian, which the assistant minister would be well aware of, in an interview:

How many young Australians are they employing? Are they going into schools looking for young kids to come and work in jobs? Are they employing mature aged workers …

One of the founders of that firm tweeted:

Wow... did I just get trolled by a govt minister as being un-Australian?

Atlassian, the firm which hires local graduates; Atlassian, which provides local scholarships; Atlassian, which actively hires Australians and is an unquestionable Australian success story was being trolled by the immigration minister because these changes brought in all of a sudden had caught the entire tech sector off-guard.

It is not good enough to not invest in local skills and local workers' ability to fill tech jobs, and then, all of a sudden, to clamp access to overseas talent. And bear in mind, too, with the tech sector, that they'll provide a lot of employment opportunity for locals, but they also actually need to blend in overseas talent. There will always be a degree of overseas hiring, because there are things that are being done in different parts of the world where you want to bring those skills in and wash them in with local talent to improve local business. That is going to be a reality. But those opposite made this sudden change.

I would be very interested to hear from the minister responsible: what has been done to listen to the concerns of the tech sector? The government say that they've been consulting with the tech sector and claim that they've been listening. I'd be very interested to hear what they have done in a tangible, concrete way (1) to recognise the concerns, and (2) to respond after this shambles that we have had to live through in the last year where the government said there wasn't a need for extra skills and that they had to reform 457s, then all of a sudden scrambled to respond. It's not good enough. The local sector deserves better treatment from those who supposedly—like the member for Swan suggests—'know business' better than we do and yet do all these terrible things to the Australian sector, Australian jobs and the ability to grow firms in this country.

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

I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017. We heard today in question time from the minister that there's nothing to see, that this government is getting on with the job with labour market testing. It was an opportunity for the minister to outline what is in the instrument. It was a chance, here in our question time, to answer some of the questions that people on this side have raised. But, no—it is still, again, lots of spin but no detail. We still have no detail from this government and this minister of what they will do in regard to labour market testing. They say it will be mandatory. But what is it? Again, they could have done some homework over the weekend. We raised these issues last week. We've raised them every time this bill has been before us. What is this government's commitment to labour market testing? Genuine labour market testing, in the amendments that we have before us, is the only way that we will know and Australian workers will know that local jobs will be for locals first—that Australians with the skills in an area will be offered a job first.

We heard from the member for Herbert, who actually stood up and said loudly and clearly that in her area there is higher unemployment than there is in other areas of Australia. She is right. There is a problem in Townsville in areas like hospitality, where they would much rather the big hotel chains bring in 457 visas than offer local jobs first. There is a network that is working between the hotel chains, between their training providers. They recruit international students over here. Once they've finished as international students, they sign them up on 457 visas so that they can work in the hotel industry. The two years experience they got was as an international student. It is part of the same organisation, locking local young people with the skills out of having those jobs.

Somebody just mentioned Adani in the mining sector. That's fewer than 1,000 jobs. What about the jobs we already have in the mining sector? What about guaranteeing that those jobs will be for local people? The minister also said that it stopped at about 70,000. What he doesn't recognise is the mining boom we had back in 2011-12. He doesn't actually acknowledge that there's also been gross exploitation of people who've been here on 457 visas. Perhaps the fact that we have trashed our reputation because of our treatment of temporary workers in this country is causing fewer and fewer of them to apply to come here. We talk about countries like the Philippines, who now have black bans and have said, 'Don't work in Australia in construction, because you're likely to be exploited by Australian construction companies.' The exploitation of temporary workers has also not been addressed by this government.

Another thing that has also seen a drop in 457 visas, which this government will not acknowledge, is how many unions have actually put in their collective agreements a limited use of 457 visas and conditions that they must recruit locally first. Unions are doing the labour market testing for the government because it's failed. The meatworks industry is another one. This government has failed to match unemployed Australian meat workers with the jobs that exist in this country. It should. That is why this government should show us what's in the instrument.

Tell us how you're going to do labour market testing. Young Australians want to know how this government will guarantee young Australians for Australian jobs first. They should show us the instrument before expecting us to blindly support them in this bill. They should support Labor's amendments because they've failed to come up with their own. They keep talking about young Australians wanting jobs. They keep talking about how they're going to help secure well-paying jobs. Well, how? How are you going to do that? Get beyond the rhetoric and actually put something concrete in front of us. It doesn't matter whether it's the meat industry, the hospitality industry, the mining industry or the construction industry. These are all still industries on the skills shortage list; yet there are young people wanting those jobs. They boast about the fact that they've taken goat herders and goat farmers off the list. That's not where we have a skills shortage in this country, and they're not the industries that people want to work in in this country. We're not about to have an explosion in goat farming in this country. Where we do have work is in the mining industry, the hospitality industry, the meat industry and the construction industry. They're the secure jobs that Australians want. And only with genuine labour-market testing can we guarantee that they get the first opportunity to work in these industries. I urge those opposite to support the Labor amendments that are before us in this House.

Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to be able to rise in defence of Australian workers and Australian jobs. This government clearly has no commitment to Australian workers working in Australian jobs. Throughout this debate—in fact, throughout the last week in parliament—the subtext of this government has been all about lowering the costs of Australian workers' wages and lowering costs for business. It sees Australian workers, and paying Australian workers a decent wage, as an impediment to business growth. I reject that. I think Australian workers are worth every dollar that is invested in them, because it's Australian workers who provide the profits that employers make and the livelihoods that employers enjoy.

This debate is increasingly about those of us who believe that Australians should get first go at Australian jobs versus those opposite, who want to pave the way for cheap labour to come in from overseas. We acknowledge that there is a place for people coming from overseas to take on jobs when there are no Australians available to do those jobs. We acknowledge that, on occasion, we need people from overseas to take jobs. But there are hundreds of thousands of Australians available to take on jobs right now who are not getting jobs, because this government will not put in place the mechanisms that encourage employers to employ Australians.

What are we asking for here? We are simply asking this government to put in place a decent and workable labour-market testing instrument and then to show us what that instrument is. The government says: 'Trust us. Trust the minister. The minister will get this right. He's a good bloke.' Well, over the four or five years of this government, there's been nothing but broken promises. You've broken promises on education, not a dollar difference—broken. You've broken promises on health; you've cut the health budget—broken. Two years ago, the Prime Minister said: 'We've learnt our lesson. We know there's an issue with the Medicare rebate freeze. Maybe we should do something about that.' Two years later, it's still in place—no action. Debt has more than doubled under this government, when there was apparently a debt and deficit emergency just a few years ago. This government breaks every promise that it makes. It can't be trusted on labour-market testing and it can't be trusted to do what it says it will do.

It needs to be in the legislation, in black and white, that Australians get first dibs at Australian jobs and that jobs are advertised for four weeks. We don't want employers thinking: 'We'll just pretend to advertise or maybe make the conditions too hard. We'll write in a few extra conditions—you've got to be a brain surgeon in order to be a meatworker.' We don't employers advertising overseas and flooding the market with overseas workers. If you need a meatworker, what is wrong with advertising for four weeks in an Australian newspaper or on seek.com.au for an Australian meatworker with the required qualifications? A job shouldn't be just for a short-term five minutes. We need Australian workers in long-term jobs. If you're looking to invest in somebody, is it really too much to ask that you invest in four weeks of advertisements to get the right person—the right Australian—for the job? If, at the end of those four weeks, you haven't got the replies in, if nobody's presented themselves, then by all means you can put yourself forward for bringing in overseas employees. We are not asking for anything onerous here. We are simply asking this government to put Australian workers first for Australian jobs.

Part of the reason that we're here is that this government has defunded skills and education training in this country. TAFE has been gutted. Trades and training centres have been stopped. One of the first decisions this government made was to stop trade training centres. Trade training centres were a Howard government initiative, which Labor kept—we thought it was a good idea. This government came in in 2013 and necked it—all of that hospitality training and skills training out the window. All that Labor is asking for is for this government to show proper regard for labour market testing in this country, have four weeks of advertisements and make sure that Australians come first when it comes to Australian jobs.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This request of the Labor Party shows that we fundamentally value Australian employment. Deputy Speaker Vasta, as you know, my electorate is a very multicultural one. I want to put it on the record up-front that there's a significant difference between xenophobia, cultivating fear, and a little bit of economic nationalism. We are a trading nation. I know, and most sensible Australians know, that we will only achieve a higher standard of living by trading in goods, services, commodities and the like. That means that we have to reach out to Asia and the rest of the world wherever we can. That means, on occasion, if there is a skills shortage in a sector of the labour market or a geographic area, we might turn to overseas workers and bring them in so that endeavours or industry can do well. However, as previous speakers have said, we turn to overseas workers as a last resort. The local labour market must be spoken to first. The local labour market, if appropriately qualified, should be turned to first.

We hear from the Turnbull-Joyce government that they should be trusted to do the right thing, that they will protect labour market testing. However, here we are in the fifth year of the Turnbull-Joyce coalition government and we know that they cannot be trusted when it comes to looking after Australian workers. We are asking that there be a minimum of four weeks where people in the local area—or a broader area, if need be—are given the opportunity to apply. Gone are the days of the CES and one noticeboard where you have to turn up to find the job. Nowadays, with electronic media and national newspapers, jobs can be advertised around the world. But we are saying that the local jobs that will be made available for Aussies should have their advertising conducted no more than four months before the nomination of a worker on a skilled visa so that the employer, if they have had to turn to bringing in overseas workers as a last resort, has certainly tested the local market.

I know—and I say this from my position as the MP for Moreton with my office in Sunnybank—that within 500 metres of my office there are over 100 restaurants. It is some of the best food—Asian food, particularly—in Queensland. Deputy Speaker Vasta, I'll take that nod from you as assent to that. As you know, it is a great community. And there are certain skills when it comes to some Asian cuisine. On occasion, some of those restaurants have had to bring in someone from another country. They're not necessarily skills that you could pick up at the local TAFE, even if our local TAFEs hadn't been gutted over the last few years.

My focus, the Labor Party's focus and every sensible Australian government's focus should be on giving Australian applicants a chance to take these jobs. We need to make sure that there aren't unrealistic and unwarranted skills that are being attached to jobs as a sneaky, back-door way to exclude Australians. As I said up-front, this is not about xenophobia; it's about showing a little bit of economic nationalism and making sure that we put Australian people in these jobs first.

I've mentioned the retail industry when it comes to chefs, but I've also seen it in the construction industry. We've seen people brought in from overseas to do jobs that should be done by Australians. I do acknowledge that the minister and the coalition government have decreased the number of jobs on the list by nearly 200. I think that there were some jobs on that list that were quite ridiculous, really. So I do commend the minister for that, but I would ask him to come back to the fundamental point that we're making here about labour market testing. We must get the balance right. We must give appropriately skilled Australians a chance to have a job, a job with fair pay, rather than having their wages and conditions undercut by people who are coming in. Overseas workers should be turned to as a last resort, not as a first resort by employers who are trying to undermine the process.

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

Labour market testing puts local workers first. It makes employers prove there are no local workers. They can then fill jobs with overseas workers. We're not against people bringing in skill, talent and ability from overseas to enhance our economy. But what we're about here is making sure that, with these much-hyped changes, the 457 visa scheme is actually remedied. What the government did back in April last year was rebadge the 457 visas, giving them a new name. Only eight per cent of 457 visas granted under the current government were actually affected by the changes. They cracked down on goatherds and antique dealers, while cooks, bricklayers and cafe managers—jobs which could easily be filled by local workers—are still available to overseas workers.

At least 18 occupations that hadn't had a visa issued in the last 10 years and 46 that hadn't had a visa issued in the last year were removed from the list. There are no speed limits for over 400 occupations, and what the government did was add them back. Why is this important? It's really important because, in relation to the particular announcement that we saw in April last year, which is really the subject of the Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017 before the chamber, the government said, 'We're going to provide a legislative instrument that provides labour market testing.' This would be the first time ever in my experience—and certainly the first time in this place in the last decade—that the coalition has supported labour market testing. They can do it by legislative instrument, but it's not disallowable, of course. To be determined by legislative instrument, they can include the language used for advertising, the method of advertising, the time at which the advertisement must take place prior to nomination—and they could pick up the four months that we've put in our amendment—and the duration of the advertising.

We looked at this matter in the inquiry of the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, which reported on Friday. Labor senators were gravely concerned that the revenue raised by this particular piece of legislation was insufficient to meet the obligations that would succeed the National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform. What the government have said is that they're going to raise $1.2 billion and throw in another $261 million to make sure they've got this Skilling Australians Fund. But what they're actually saying is, 'We're going the rely on that and on the overseas workers to provide the funding to make sure we've got enough money to get over the $2.8 billion of skills and training funding we've cut.' They're saying they've reduced 457 visas, but they're expecting to bring in lots more, because they need to increase the fees—and they're doing so; they're increasing the levies and nominations fees—to make sure they've got the money for this fund, which will have a shortfall. That's the contradiction in the government's position.

In question time today, the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs said:

… to ensure that overseas workers are only brought when there are genuine skills needs. We are about to introduce new rules for how jobs must be advertised so that Aussies get the first chance at the jobs.

What are the new rules? They announced this in April last year. The Minister for Home Affairs has clearly handballed the portfolio to the poor old Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, and what's he doing? Why has he got skills and this sort of stuff in his portfolio in the first place? By the way, I'd like to see his charter letter for it in due course. If either minister were serious about Aussies getting the first chance at local jobs, they'd vote for the amendments.

What about the member for Dawson, who wrote on his Facebook page on 15 November 2016: 'The unemployment rate through Central and North Queensland is higher than the national average. As such, there's no need for the issuance of any 457 foreign worker visas in our region.' I wonder whether he'll vote with us tonight. Will he support Labor's amendment and stand up for proper labour market testing, although I doubt the honourable member's ability to act as a labour-market-testing body himself, which he put himself up for on 15 November 2016?

If he were serious about ensuring Australian workers got the first shot at jobs in Central and North Queensland he'd vote for these amendments. How about the member for Dawson's North Queensland and Central Queensland colleagues, the member for Capricornia and the member for Flynn? I wonder whether they'll vote for these amendments. Will they stand up for local workers having the first shot at local jobs by enshrining labour market testing in legislation?

You can't trust the Turnbull government to support labour market testing. They've never supported it, and they won't tonight. It goes to show that they have no commitment to local jobs.

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

We are obviously going to have to keep going over this. But, to be fair to the minister, he's new to the portfolio. He got a hospital pass from the Minister for Home Affairs and he's still trying to figure it out. But we'll keep going over it and hopefully it will sink in. Because of your government's track record, we're concerned that you don't mean this about labour market testing. Why would that be the case, I wonder. Well, when Labor was in government in July 2013 we legislated for proper rules for labour market testing. The government changed, and what happened? They watered down those rules. At every turn you voted against proper labour market testing, which is to require Australians to be given a fair crack at a job before you offer it to a migrant worker. It's not a difficult proposition.

In response, this bill removes all of the protections currently there to require labour market testing. So, if we pass this bill, it removes all the safeguards in the legislation. And you say, 'Don't worry; we're going to have an instrument—and it's going to be a great instrument!' We don't know whether it's a big, fat, robust instrument that will have all the matters covered off', will do the job and fix the problem. We don't know that. It might be a skinny little instrument with just one or two requirements which mean nothing in the real world. We just don't know.

Mr Neumann interjecting—

Even worse, as I heard the shadow minister say, it's not disallowable. So, if we don't want this instrument and the parliament sees it and goes: 'We don't want this thing; it doesn't do the job,' we can't even disallow it, which is the normal practice when tabling delegated legislation and putting it before the parliament. Of course, that's not a new thing.

The other reason we don't trust you, Minister—this is important even though it's not your portfolio—goes to your government's track record and your government's habit of exempting labour market testing in all of your trade agreements. We have myriad examples of this. We raised concerns about it. We eventually backed it, but we raised concerns about the way that labour market testing provisions were written into the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. The recently updated Singapore free trade agreement provided further labour market testing exemptions, so that companies can just bring in services workers willy-nilly instead of testing the local market. We've raised the same concerns about the next version of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the TPP—or TPPPP, or whatever it's called at the moment—where, again, you're proposing to exempt labour market testing and not require companies to offer jobs to Australian workers first. So it's not surprising that we stand here trying to speak slowly and make the point to the government that there's a big say/do gap. We don't trust that your instrument, when it's finally revealed and put on the table, will do the job to protect Australian workers.

It is important to say that our concern for this is genuine. It is not driven by a xenophobic anti-migrant sentiment. You're not going to find people on this side of the House running the line of your dear friend Senator Hanson and saying, 'We should stop all migration,' or saying, as the member for Warringah would say, 'We should just cut migration'—because, QED, that will somehow fix the economy and improve the opportunities for Australians to get jobs. The truth is that a well-targeted migration program is good for the economy. If we bring in the right skilled workers who add value to a business, the evidence out there is clear that it helps grow local jobs and creates more opportunities for Australians.

Indeed, I was pleased to see that the government acknowledged this in a report recently tabled on migrant settlement outcomes, where it made it clear that there are positive economic outcomes from well-targeted migration programs. However, we also know through evidence, but also from being in our electorates—I picked this up doorknocking numerous times around the suburbs of Dandenong and Glen Waverley—that IT workers cannot secure work in Australian IT companies because they apply, or they don't apply, and they're usurped by sponsored workers from overseas who undercut them on wages and conditions and, of course, as we know, they are vulnerable to exploitation. So these are not anti-migrant amendments; they're sensible safeguards to provide at least the minimum level of assurance that your instrument, when it's revealed, is not going to be some skinny little thing that doesn't do the job but it's going to be robust and to protect Australian workers.

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

Everybody on this side of the House knows that you shouldn't take what Labor says for granted. Instead, you have to look at what they actually do because, if you sat here in this chamber today listening to what they were saying, you would think that they have always been vigorous protectors of Australians getting Australian jobs and that, when they were in government, they would have issued almost zero 457 visas. That's what you would think listening to the rhetoric from those opposite. What we know on this side of the House is: look at what they do; don't listen to what they say.

What did they actually do in relation to 457s when they were in government? What they did was issue record numbers of 457s. The numbers peaked in 2012, with 130,000 457s granted in that particular year. The extraordinary thing about that particular year was: at the same time that they were issuing record numbers of 457s for overseas workers to come here and work in this country, do you know what was happening to the job market generally? The job market was in decline. Do you know what was happening to the unemployment queues at the same time? The unemployment queues were going up. So there were fewer jobs overall and there were more and more Australians on welfare—but who were getting more jobs? The overseas workers were getting more jobs in this country at record numbers during that time. That is the extraordinary thing about the Labor Party when they were in government.

We are not going to stand here and take lectures from the Labor Party in relation to prioritising Australian jobs for Australian workers because we are happy to look at our record, and I encourage those listening to the parliament to look at our record in relation to prioritising Australians for Australian jobs. Let's compare and contrast. We've just discussed what the Labor record was, and that Labor record was a declining number of jobs, more people on the welfare queues but more overseas people taking Australian jobs. That was their record.

Let's have a look at our record, in the last 12 months even. In the last 12 months on the jobs front, 400,000 jobs were created—a record number of jobs were created in this economy. Let's look at the welfare queues. We've got the lowest proportion of working-age people on income support payments in 25 years—the lowest proportion. And now let's look at the number of 457s which were issued: the number was almost half the peak under the Labor government. So the trifecta on this side of the House is: more jobs overall created for the economy; more Australians off welfare and taking those jobs; and fewer overseas workers coming into the country. The skills gaps aren't there because Australians have been taking those particular positions.

The contrast with the Labor Party is absolutely stark. We are very proud of our record in relation to prioritising Australians for Australian jobs. We are very proud of our record at job creation—record numbers of jobs are being created. We're not going to take lectures from the Labor Party in relation to this. I, again, emphasise to those people who are in the galleries today or who are listening in on the radio, to look at what the Labor Party does. Don't listen to what they say, because their record is atrocious.

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

That was an opportunity for the minister to outline what's in the instrument, but again he has failed. Perhaps it's because he's the Minister for Citizenship and Multiculturalism Affairs and not the minister who will actually be responsible for the instrument. Where is the minister responsible for the instrument, the Minister for Home Affairs? Why isn't he in here defending the legislation? Perhaps because he and the rest of his government don't know what's in the instrument. This is the critical point. We are saying on this side we need to define labour market testing. What the minister is referring to, the increase in 457 visas, is the exact reason why Labor in government introduced labour market testing, which every single person on the government side, when they were in opposition, voted against. We know they don't like labour market testing. We know they don't like telling business that they have to hire Australians first. And why do we know that? Because every single time that this side of the House has put up labour market testing they have voted against it—when we were in government; when we pushed for it to be in the China free trade agreement; and when we pushed for it to be in every free trade agreement. Every time we put it up as an amendment or as a private member's bill, this government votes against it.

The minister also failed to explain how many 457 visa holders we will need to enter this country to raise the $1.2 billion for their training fund. They've got an expectation to raise $1.2 billion in a training fund. How many visa holders will they have to bring in to reach that target? So rather than directly funding skills and training, they're actually saying, 'This is our goal. We're going to have to bring all these extra people in to reach the goal.' It just doesn't make sense.

We are in desperate need of extra training funds in this country, because this government has cut funding. Now they're saying to our TAFEs and to the TAFE sector that the best way to get funding into the TAFE sector is by increasing the number of 457 visas. You couldn't make this stuff up. This is at a time when we don't have labour market testing for a whole range of other visas. We know the stats: over a million people have entered this country on a temporary arrangement and have work rights. The 400 visas, the 462 visas, the 417 visas and international students can all work in this country in industries directly competing for jobs against young Australians or other Australians. I've met nurses and social workers who are here on the backpacker visa. A social worker works in community and child protection for six months and moves on to the next employer. It is ludicrous what is happening in the temporary skilled migration space. Yet what we are not seeing from this government is a genuine commitment. Instead, they are standing here and saying 'Just trust us', when the minister responsible for defining the instrument won't even turn up.

We heard again in question time today, 'We have plans to.' That's not good enough. How are you going to do labour market testing. In this legislation, if it's weak, if it's the skinny instrument, if it doesn't go anywhere near to matching up to what needs to be done to give Australians jobseekers and Australian workers security that the demands that they have will be considered first, it cannot be disallowed by the Senate. So nervous are they that the Senate will reject their version of labour market testing that they won't even allow this place to reject it.

I urge those opposite: do not do what you've always done and push labour market testing to the side. We know we cannot trust companies to employ Australians first, just like we cannot trust companies to give Australians a pay rise just because they're making record profits. This government is delusional when it comes to big business. They seem to believe that big business will hand over money, hand over profits, give it away in high wages. There is no evidence of that. That they will employ Australians just because they should—well, they don't.

We must have strong labour market testing to guarantee every skilled worker, whether they be in mining industry, an engineer, a nurse, or they work in IT or in any number of skilled professions who have been locked out of jobs; whether they be in our maritime industry, another industry where we are rife with 457 visas taking away jobs from local people. What is in your labour market testing? Come clean and tell us what's going on or support Labor's amendments. Finally protect Australian jobs and make sure Australians get access to Australian jobs first.

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

I hear the minister saying, 'Spare us,' so I take that as a sign of optimism that the penetrating points from this side of the House in this debate on the Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017 are finally getting through to the minister. I'll go back to something the minister said, because he kind of popped up and read out a whole bunch of statistics. That was all really lovely. He obviously got Minister Dutton's notes from question time, which pop up every now and again. He didn't say CFMEU or Chiquita Mushrooms, but maybe that will come in the next contribution.

The minister said, 'Don't look at what the Labor Party says; look at what they do.' Let's apply the same say/do test to the government, to the Liberal Party, and then we might start to understand why we're still going on about this. We'll keep making the point until, I predict, one of two things will happen. The first is that the government will see sense, and they'll say: 'We've been persuaded. People don't trust us on this matter. They want to see the instrument. We'll give them the instrument. We'll table it here in the parliament and allow people to make their own assessments of whether it's adequate for the job or not.' We may be delighted—it's true, we may be delighted—when we see it. We may say: 'Goodness me, they've really thought this through. Maybe we're wrong. They've had the conversion. They've been persuaded. They've accepted the principle that Australians should have the first crack at getting jobs before we offer them to temporary migrant workers.' Maybe that will be the case. We'll think: 'Goodness, they've covered off minimum advertising periods. Well done, Government.' We'll think, 'Goodness me, they've really got it.' You actually have to have had advertised a job and tested the market within the last few months. Something that happened a few years ago is not relevant now. 'Goodness me, well done, Government.' They may have set some requirements that people have offered jobs that can be reasonably seen and applied for by all Australians, not just popped in the back of a trade journal that's circulated in one obscure town in a state, for instance.

We may be delighted, but of course we may be horrified or underwhelmed by this instrument. As we've said, if we don't want this instrument, if we don't think it will require employers in a meaningful way to offer jobs to Australians before we reach over and use the temporary migration system then there's nothing the parliament can do about it. There's a general default convention that these kinds of instruments can be disallowed by either house of parliament. That's the normal practice. For my sins, I spent quite some time over January reading about practice. I have been through 604 of the 777 substantive pages. There are a few chapters to go. I wouldn't say I've absorbed it all. There's a lot there and it's quite dense—a bit like the government on this point. But if we don't like the instrument, if it's not going to protect Australian workers, there's nothing we can do. It's too late.

Yet again, the government goes, 'Trust us!' When we look at their record on the say/do gap, they vote against proper labour market testing every time. That's not a basis to trust them, is it? When you look at their record, they've opposed it every time. When we have a look at their record of trade agreements, as we've said, at every turn they seem to provide more and more loopholes and exemptions so that companies will no longer be required to do things, so who knows what's in the rules? From the government's point of view: 'Who cares what's in the rules? We'll just keep signing up to trade agreements without any independent, proper scrutiny to get around all these rules in this instrument'—this magical, mythical instrument that no-one's seen.

The amendments could have gone further. I made the point before, and we'll start to illustrate that now. They're modest. They're sensible. There's a lot more that we could've put in there and, indeed, there's a lot more in Labor policy. It could've been a lot harder for the government to accept, but we're trying to be sensible about this and put forward amendments which the government should see its way clear and be capable of agreeing to. They may need to swallow their pride. Minister Tudge has been sent in here on some hospital-pass mission. He may have to go back to his superior, Minister Dutton, wherever he is in Home Affairs, and get some instructions. He may need to go back and say: 'There's been robust debate, and our instrument is not going to cut it. We should accept the Labor Party's amendments and do the right thing by Australian workers.'

Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I love business. I come from a business background. I was my own sole trader for some time, and before that I worked in private enterprise for many years. I love business. But I understand that business will always do what it can to minimise its costs and maximise its profits. That's its role. If you own a company, you want to maximise your profits. You're in a competitive world. You're trying to outcompete your rivals and make as much as you can. Indeed, corporations are required to act in the best interests of their shareholders. They're not required to look after the interests of the community. They are required to look after the interests of the shareholders. So, whenever they can, they'll pay wages as low as they can. We see this overseas. We see it in the United States with Walmart, which pays wages so low that even full-time workers can't survive without food stamps from the federal government. We see it in factories in developing countries that pay cents on the hour, and these factories are owned by some of the wealthiest corporations in the world.

This happens because government regulation is not as strong as it needs to be to protect those workers. All that stands between Australian workers and scraping the bottom of the barrel is Australian government regulation. This is where labour market testing comes in. Without proper labour market testing, Australian workers can have no confidence that this government will look after their best interests when it comes to foreign workers coming into Australia when they're not required. We've said previously—and we stand by the fact—that we know there is a place for foreign workers when Australian workers are not available for that work. What we need is an instrument and a mechanism—a legislative promise that Australian workers will be guaranteed work in Australia first and foremost.

But we have no confidence that this government is doing that. It's refusing to show the parliament, refusing to show the Australian public, the instrument by which it makes this promise. How can we trust it? We've said previously that we know that on past performance this government cannot be trusted at its word. We need to see the detail.

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

I thought that was the end.

Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a pause. It's a dramatic pause, Minister. Youth unemployment in my electorate is very high. Across districts of my electorate, youth unemployment is around 20 to 24 per cent. I know there are a lot of young people in my electorate who would love the opportunity to work in hospitality as chefs or cooks or across a range of industries without having to compete against workers coming in unnecessarily from overseas.

The government needs to be transparent about this. Labor are not asking for anything that is unworkable. We're not asking for something that's pie in the sky. All we're asking this government to do is put Australian workers first and guarantee that Australian workers will be put first, not just say, 'Oh, trust us'. On past form we know that this government cannot be trusted.

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

Winston Churchill said that there's nothing more important in the education of a politician than fighting elections. Well, I would say that there's nothing more important for a conservative or Liberal-Nationals minister than listening to Labor speakers talk about labour market testing. It's really important.

Mr Tudge interjecting—

It's really important for the education of the minister at the table. I notice he's only defended his position by the talking points. He hasn't really told us anything about the instrument—no parameters about what the government will do, when they'll do it and what particulars they'll put in the instrument or not.

So, what are the consequences of the vote we're about to undertake? If Labor are successful and if the government has the road-to-Damascus conversion experience we've talked about and, for the first time in decades, actually votes for labour market testing tonight, we'll have it in the bill—proper labour market testing, picking up what Labor put in our bill on putting Australians workers first that the Leader of the Opposition introduced in 2016. If we do that, that's what will happen: proper labour market testing. Then, of course, the provision in relation to the minister's discretion in relation to a legislative instrument becomes completely redundant.

If the minister were fair dinkum when he announced his changes back in April last year, he would, at some stage, have undertaken consultation with, for instance, the Ministerial Advisory Council on Skilled Migration—and we would have had evidence before the House today. I have not heard words to that effect from those opposite or from the minister in any contribution that he's made tonight or last week. There's no evidence at all that the government has consulted the body that's been established to advise in relation to skilled migration. Indeed, so lacking was the consultation in relation to this that the Labor candidate for Batman—a very senior person in the ACTU—resigned from the council, because the government was not consulting whatsoever in relation to these changes.

We're not opposed in principle to charging employers a levy for temporary and permanent skilled visas; we think that that is reasonable in the circumstances. But we strongly oppose the lack of a guarantee for stable funding for the Skilling Australians Fund that this government's creating. What the government hasn't picked up—and the member for Bendigo was right—is how many 457 visas, and how many under the temporary and permanent skilled visa that they're going to bring in in March this year, are going to come in? How many people are going to be required to raise $1.2 billion? The minister at the table, Mr Tudge, has been bragging and boasting tonight about a reduction in 457 visas, but if that keeps going there could be a huge shortfall, and we know that he's put in $261 million more in relation to it. We don't even have the responsible minister, the member for Dickson, here to justify it. He has not defended these issues in any way at all. We don't even know whether the minister at the table actually has carriage of this in his charter. I'd be surprised—he's dealing with multiculturalism and citizenship—if he actually has skilled migration and this visa as well. I'd be very surprised if this is part of his portfolio.

What we're trying to do tonight is something that the coalition has refused to do. I can remember the very last thing that the member for Gorton had to do when we were trying to bring in proper labour market testing under the Rudd government. We had to go to the crossbench, because those opposite—in opposition—opposed us every step of the way. They claimed, in relation to this, that we had undertaken—there were some terrible things said about our motivations in relation to this issue, when all that we were trying to do was support local jobs and put local workers first. The now Treasurer—then spokesperson for immigration—opposed the member for Gorton, the responsible minister, uphill and down dale. Tonight, the government has a chance. Tonight, we'd like to see the Liberal and National parties, for the first time in decades, actually vote for labour market testing. It would be good if they could and would. They should have a look at the recommendations that the Labor senators put in the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee inquiry report which they handed down on Friday. But they haven't responded to that and none of the contributions we've heard from those opposite—mind you, there's only one minister who's talking in this consideration detail—have talked about the report. They've completely ignored it, which gives us absolutely no confidence in the mythical legislative instrument that the responsible minister claims he's going to enact.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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