Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

In terms of the disallowance of the Migration Amendment Regulations 2007 (No. 7), Senator Bartlett was right when he said that it is a complex issue. It was only put in yesterday and on relatively short notice. As Senator Bartlett recognised, it would have been much better to have been dealt with in the next sitting period to allow all matters to be examined in detail prior to having this debate. I do recognise that this is potentially the last week we will sit before the election unless the government chooses to rule that out and allow us some confidence that we will be able to debate it in the next sitting period. I doubt that the government is in a position to be able to do that, quite frankly. So, notwithstanding that, I understand why Senator Bartlett has brought this matter on, recognising that it is at short notice.

The opposition will not be supporting the disallowance motion. We think it is a complex matter. We think that it is a substantial regulation, and the point that Senator Bartlett was trying to make about this complex regulation is one point within a range of matters. I understand that the way disallowance motions work—and I think Senator Bartlett went to that point—is that you have a matter where you have a blunt instrument and you can only say yes or no to the regulation, even if you disagree with or wish to change only one part of it. It is not like legislation, where you can seek to amend it and change only that part which you might disagree with.

When you look at the change that has been put forward, you see in the explanatory statement to the amending regulations that the new paragraph is 1128B(3)(da). As an aside, someone should go through and try to renumber that to make it more intelligible. Notwithstanding that, it provides that an application by a person seeking to satisfy the primary criteria for the grant of a subclass 138 skilled Australian sponsored visa must be made before 1 September 2007. The effect of this amendment is to prevent further applications being made on or after 1 September 2007 for a skilled Australian sponsored migrant class BQ visa by persons seeking to satisfy the primary criteria for subclass 138. That describes the Australian sponsored matters, following the Evaluation of the General Skilled Migration Categories report.

Senator Bartlett went to that particular report, and it is interesting to note in that report that what seems to be suggested is that where you have subclass 138 sponsored migrants, successful applicants who benefit from this concession are not required to live near their sponsoring relatives. About half settle in Sydney and 15 to 20 per cent settle in Perth, according to DIMA settlement data. The other issue raised in that report was that offshore migrants who are sponsored, especially those sponsored by family or by region, do least well in obtaining employment soon after arrival. Almost 30 per cent of the latter two groups are not employed. Furthermore, at least a quarter of those who are working are only employed part time. The report stated:

While we cannot be completely certain of the reason for this lower rate of employment, it is likely that it is caused in part by the less stringent selection criteria that these two concessional categories require.

The report went on to state:

The visa categories that do worst on annual earnings are the 138, 139 and 882. These are the Australian sponsored visas, where successful applicants faced a lower pass mark, or were not points tested. The large negative effects for annual earnings reflects the fact that these groups have more difficulty in finding fulltime work, as well as face a wage penalty when they do find a job.

The report did make recommendations. When you look at the overall change, though, the government did not follow those recommendations in the strict sense of the word. They lowered the points in some respects for the skilled portion but have brought a rather complex regulation forward.

We note that the government is dealing with a significant problem in this area, where those who have been relying on sponsorship to meet the points requirement have been least likely to obtain employment soon after arrival. To that extent, Labor is not convinced that the points mechanism is the only way or indeed the best way of dealing with this problem. Nevertheless, Labor does recognise that it is an attempt by the government to increase the likelihood that those arriving under the skilled migration program do in fact enter the workforce. We will continue to monitor the success of these changes to see how they work.

The Ethnic Communities Council of New South Wales strongly urge, as Senator Bartlett has done today, that the government reconsider the proposed regulations. It is recognised that they have a strong voice in the community, representing ethnic communities right across New South Wales. To the extent that the government have the opportunity today, they should be able to provide further justification, their reasons, for the changes that are mooted and how they will ensure that the changes do not adversely impact upon programs that have been important to the ethnic communities of New South Wales. Having said all that, I also say that the position we have adopted is that we will continue to monitor these changes to ensure that they have an impact that is positive rather than negative in those communities.