Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

As a member of this committee—indeed, I think I have been a member of this committee since I first came into this chamber 10 years ago—I welcome this report, which is a unanimous report. There are two paragraphs of additional comments from the Labor members of the committee, but it is a unanimous report. It is also a comprehensive report, and one that I certainly endorse as the Democrat representative on the committee. I think it is a valuable contribution to the debate around 457 visas and, indeed, temporary business and skilled migration in general. For people who are interested in the substance of the issue, as opposed to the politics of it, I recommend they read the report to get the full detail of the reality of how the program works, the reality of the requirements that currently apply, some of the changes that have been put in place in recent times and the facts, basically, about the 457 program.

I would like to make a few key points on the issue. Let me start, though, by expressing my regard for the work of the committee as a whole and the secretariat. The issue of 457 visas is of course a politically contentious one. Skilled migration in general, temporary migration and migration across the board are always politically contentious. The fact that the committee, particularly this close to an election, managed to come up with a unanimous report and a constructive contribution to this issue does reflect very well on the committee—and, indeed, on the chair, Mr Randall, the Liberal Party member for Canning in Western Australia. I think it should be noted that the committee approached the issue constructively. The report is a constructive one. It is a unanimous one, as I said, and given the politically contentious nature of the topic, that is to be acknowledged and welcomed—particularly, I might say, given the potentially divisive nature of the topic, that is to be doubly welcomed. And it should be reinforced: it is a unanimous report.

The report contains 25 recommendations on how the program could be improved with regard to the 457 visas and the temporary business visa program in general. Those recommendations are to be welcomed, and they are ones that I endorse. But it reinforces the core point. It is one the Democrats have tried to make, and I have tried to make repeatedly whenever concerns have been raised about specific problems with the 457 visa program. I wholeheartedly agree that there needs to be a more rigid enforcement of the program to prevent exploitation of vulnerable people. Temporary migrant workers are potentially extremely vulnerable in some circumstances, not least because of the wider powers the minister has under the Migration Act. That is a wider matter but, as Dr Haneef’s case showed, being here on a temporary skilled visa does not necessarily give you a lot of protection if you get caught up in political point-scoring opportunities for the minister and the government of the day. That is a wider problem with the Migration Act and the extreme discretion and powers that go to the immigration minister. It is not unique to the 457 visa program, or any other visa for that matter—temporary or permanent. Anyone here on any sort of visa is subject to little protection if they get caught up in a minister wanting to throw their weight around or score some points.

As with any area, if you look at the core aim of the program, there are problems there. We should work at fixing the problems, not using them as an excuse to attack the whole program. My view has certainly been that temporary skilled migration makes a valuable contribution—indeed, it currently makes an essential contribution, not just to the Australian economy but to the adequate provision of services for people in the Australian community and to the continual, very dynamic and changing nature of the Australian social fabric.

I had been concerned with some aspects of the debate, and some of the concerns raised about 457 visas and temporary skilled migration, that it has been used as a Trojan horse to attack any sort of migration program that brings people over here to work. There is a long history in Australia, including from sections of the labour movement going back to the 19th century, of seeking to play on community fears about migrants and attack migrant workers as driving down wages and conditions as a matter of automatic consequence. Certainly, if there are not adequate protections in our workplace laws or not adequate enforcement of them, then there is that risk that it can be used as a deliberate way of undercutting labour costs. But that is an argument for ensuring proper protection of basic employment conditions; it is not an argument for not allowing migrant workers to come here.

The committee itself, in the report’s introduction, specifically emphasises its unanimous view that the 457 visa is a skilled visa and it should remain a mechanism for skilled workers; it should not be used to meet unskilled labour shortages. I have views, as I have expressed in this chamber—which are not necessarily shared by others in my party, let alone in other parties—that labour shortages in some regions are such that we should be looking at programs to bring in unskilled labour, particularly from Pacific island countries. There is a separate committee report into that matter, which you would be well aware of, Mr Acting Deputy President Barnett. If we are talking about specific, regionally based or market based gaps in unskilled labour that are not able to be filled by other mechanisms, I think we should be examining a program looking at unskilled labour from people in our region. But we should not be using the skilled visa program as a backdoor way of filling those market gaps—not least because it breaches the actual conditions of the program and it encourages lax enforcement of the program.

One of the reasons there has been a spate of more problems with the 457 visa program has simply been the massive increase in the numbers. I do not have a problem with a massive increase in numbers per se if the demand is there. I believe migration has been of massive benefit to the Australian community economically, socially and culturally. I totally repudiate any of the suggestions that migration of any size, such as migration up to the current levels, is some sort of economic or social negative to Australia. If the programs are managed properly, if we provide adequate settlement assistance and other support for migrants when they come here—and that includes their families—then there is no doubt that it is a net benefit to Australia.

The simple fact is that there has been a huge increase, a huge leap, over the last 10 years—particularly in the last two or three years—in the numbers coming in on these visas, and the figures on page 15 of this report show that. This is particularly so when you count the secondary visas, which is partners or spouses, which have gone from 33,000 in 2001-02 to over 70,000 in 2005-06 and the numbers are even greater than that in 2006-07. This is a huge leap in a very short space of time, and it is not surprising in that circumstance that there has been an increase in the number of unscrupulous employers who ignore their conditions and requirements under the program and seek to exploit people.

The solution is, as this report provides through its recommendations, to close the loopholes, prevent exploitation, ensure proper enforcement, ensure adequate protections and maintain the program. That is what this report recommends, and it in no way should be seen as excusing a great failure on the part of this government in allowing the skills shortage to develop. It is a disgrace that that has happened through underinvestment in higher education and in skills and training development across the board. The Democrats have continually condemned the government for that over the past 10 years, and we will continue to do so. We will use our role in the Senate to maintain that pressure on whoever wins the next election. However, that should not be used as an excuse to attack migration per se. It is a dual role: we need to constantly strengthen the skills of those who are here, including those recently arrived migrants, whilst also enabling a vibrant migration program to assist in continuing to develop economic prosperity in a balanced way.

This is a positive report and one that the Democrats endorse. I strongly support the contribution of migrants, permanent and temporary, to the Australian society and its economy. If no-one else is going to speak on this document now, I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.