Sam Birrell (Nicholls, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

From 1 July the temporary skilled migration income threshold will rise from $53,900 to $70,000 per year. The Albanese government announced this increase as a down payment on the type of migration system it wants to build, and the change was supposed to provide employers and migrants with more certainty, but this is the government of unintended consequences. We've seen that with IR laws, aged care and energy policy and we're now seeing it with skilled overseas workers. Where the government wants certainty there is now a lot of uncertainty. I have businesses in my electorate contacting me about workers currently being recruited and whether these businesses should pull the plug on it. I have businesses—particularly mechanical businesses in the motor trade— in my electorate with workers already filling skills gaps that can't be filled by Australian workers, and they are considering whether to enter their employment. These businesses face significant challenges because of Labor's snap decision to increase that threshold up to $70,000 in one hit. These businesses already have a pay scale in their workshops, and that is based on experience and skill. This decision puts the overseas workers at the top of that pay scale, earning more than the most experienced Australian technicians with the leadership and management responsibilities.

The cost of recruiting workers from overseas is not a material cost to their bottom line; it corrupts the current employee pay scale in the business and will undoubtedly lead to higher wage claims from current employees. That's not getting wages moving; it's setting of a wage spiral. The advice that I've been given is that, had the government consulted and phased in the increase, businesses could have planned and absorbed it over a number of years, but now they have limited choices thrust upon them. Do they not employ the overseas workers they desperately need, putting downward pressure on the businesses' growth and upward pressure on the level of frustration their clients experience as they wait longer to get the services they need? Do they employ the workers and absorb the cost, including the inevitable lift in the wages of the existing workers, which puts their profitability at risk? Do they pass on the cost to consumers, thus adding to already crippling cost-of-living pressures? It's antibusiness and it's inflationary, and it's seemingly based on the premise that, if we force employers to pay more, we will get more-qualified overseas workers, but it ignores the fact that many businesses need less-qualified workers who they can always pay appropriately. These businesses support these workers, they develop their skills and they continue to pay them according to their experience and skill level. Once again we're seeing this government using policy to make a statement, forgetting that there are businesses—small businesses, particularly in regional areas—who end up dealing with these consequences, and it's unsustainable for them.