Linda Kirk (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration I present the report of the committee Negotiating the maze: review of arrangements for overseas skills recognition, upgrading and licensing and seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration I wish to present the report that was tabled in the House of Representatives earlier this morning and this afternoon in the Senate. The report is essentially about maximising the potential of overseas trained workers in a time of skills shortage.

Skilled migration is the subject of much comment in the Australian community. There is a concern that the level of skills of those coming into this country is equivalent to Australian standards and that lower-skilled workers are not used to undercut the wages of existing workers. People need to know that Australia’s skills recognition system is fair and well managed. Skilled migration is not, of course, the only solution to Australia’s skills shortage. Labor has a strong commitment to training local workers and improving the skill levels of our current workforce. However, we recognise that skilled migration is one method of addressing the immediate skills shortage facing Australia.

Australia needs overseas-trained workers such as doctors and engineers, electricians and plumbers. If we have an overly bureaucratic system that impedes the timely arrival of much-needed skilled labour, this does not in any way assist industry in providing economic growth for this country.

There are also a number of issues of concern that have been in the media in recent times. The obvious example is that of Dr Patel, sometimes known as ‘Dr Death’, who, as we know, practised surgery in Queensland without a proper assessment of his overseas qualifications. This and other matters were of great concern to our committee. It is for this reason that this was a very timely inquiry for the committee to undertake.

We recognise that the current picture is complex. A number of witnesses who came before the committee likened the task of navigating Australia’s skills recognition system to trying to find their way through a maze. If they started in the wrong place they might find themselves lost in a bureaucratic muddle, unable to go either forward or back.

I want to highlight four areas of particular interest to the committee where the report makes comments and recommendations. The report also makes recommendations on English language skills and support for refugees seeking overseas skills recognition, and compares Australia’s arrangements with other major immigration countries.

First, I would like to make mention of some of the findings in relation to streamlined skills recognition arrangements. We found that there are numerous bodies involved in skills recognition in Australia: DEWR is responsible for skills assessment of trade qualifications through Trades Recognition Australia, otherwise known as TRA; DEST is responsible for monitoring assessing bodies for professional occupations; and state and territory authorities are responsible for the licensing of trades and professions in Australia. The committee has not recommended at present the creation of a national body to coordinate and harmonise skills recognition and licensing arrangements in Australia. However, the committee’s recommendations, along with recent COAG initiatives, do combine to create a more streamlined framework for the future.

The committee supports COAG’s initiative for the creation of national skills assessment and registration bodies for health professionals. For the non-health professions, the committee recommends the continuation of existing arrangements but recommends improved monitoring by DEST.

As for the trades, the committee strongly supports COAG’s push for more effective mutual recognition arrangements between the states and territories, and a new offshore assessment process for trades in demand. However, the committee highlights the need for an accelerated time frame for implementation of these arrangements and recommends a tripartite review of this initiative. The committee also recommends that the Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation Act 1946 be repealed and that TRA confine its activities to the international assessment of overseas qualifications, with the states and territories to take on the domestic trades assessment role.

The report also examines how Australia’s skills recognition procedures can be improved. As the committee heard over and over from a number of witnesses in the course of the inquiry, many migrants have been frustrated by a number of things, including: a lack of information on skills recognition processes; the gap between migration assessment and employment assessment; the different licensing requirements between the states and territories; the costs of obtaining a skills assessment; and the time taken to complete assessment processes, to name just a few.

The committee was particularly concerned, for example, to hear the account of an overseas-trained physiotherapist who had sought overseas skills recognition through the relevant assessment authority. The process had taken, for her, two years, including three attempts at the written exam costing $1,100 each time. It is important to recognise that it was not just this particular candidate who was facing problems, because in one particular year only 11 out of 76 candidates passed the written examination—and we were told that, when questions from the test were put to some Australian physios, they actually admitted they could not answer the questions. The committee has responded to these concerns with a series of recommendations and I encourage senators to look at those.

Another question that faced the committee was how the process of trades recognition and licensing could be fast-tracked without detriment to the skill level of trades. The ideal situation would be for skilled migrants to arrive in Australia job ready so they could enter the workforce in their occupations without further delay and for there to be a uniform licensing system across Australia. The committee therefore supports recent COAG initiatives to establish more effective mutual recognition arrangements across the states and territories and for a new offshore skills assessment process.

The committee has serious concerns about the performance of Trades Recognition Australia, particularly given the severe trade shortages facing Australia. Criticism of TRA’s performance was a strong theme in submissions to the inquiry. Comments were made about lengthy processing times—up to six months in some cases—poor access to TRA staff during processing of assessments, closure of offices in Brisbane and Perth and restricted telephone contact hours. It was said to us in the course of the inquiry that TRA had lifted its game during the time that the committee was inquiring. The committee certainly hopes that TRA continues to improve its performance.

Another issue facing the committee was what could be done to make sure that the qualifications of overseas trained doctors were properly assessed. As we know, there are increasing workforce shortages across a number of health professions, particularly in rural and remote areas, and therefore an increasing dependence on overseas trained health workers. The Australian Medical Council’s comments to the committee about overseas trained doctors were therefore of particular concern. The AMC stated that, while Australia has a rigorous assessment process for overseas trained doctors:

... a large cohort of those people … are coming through the system and are being registered … without anybody having assessed their skills at all.

It is important to emphasise that large numbers of overseas trained doctors have been properly assessed and are equivalent to Australian doctors, and they form an important part of Australia’s health workforce. However, as we emphasise in the report, there is an urgent need for authorities to ensure that all overseas trained doctors practising in Australia go through the appropriate assessment pathways. We can never be too careful when we are talking about the health of Australians. The committee therefore recommends that the Department of Health and Ageing ensure that the COAG initiative to establish a national process for the assessment of overseas trained doctors be implemented by December 2006. The committee further recommends that there is an urgent need for the provision of support services to assist overseas trained doctors, particularly those in rural and remote areas.

To conclude, I thank those who provided the committee with submissions and gave evidence at public hearings. They assisted the work of the committee enormously. I thank the chair of the committee, Mr Don Randall MP, and all the other members of the committee—in particular, Senator Stephen Parry—for their strong interest and contribution to the inquiry. Last but not least, I very much thank the committee secretariat for their assistance—particularly Dr Kate Sullivan, who came in very late in the piece but managed to produce what I think is an outstanding report for the committee. I commend the report to the Senate.