Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

The coalition will be supporting the Migration Legislation Amendment (Worker Protection) Bill 2008 but, in doing so, wants to raise some major concerns highlighted by the lack of availability of the regulations to the bill. Whilst the coalition is conscious of the various instances of exploitation of workers, it is important that legislation defining obligations be upfront and specific. It is very important that the good reputation of Australia and of Australian sponsors of temporary labour be maintained and not be eroded. In this respect the coalition believes that a framework for sponsor obligations is necessary. Indeed it was a process that the coalition commenced through the Migration Amendment (Sponsorship Obligations) Bill 2007. The then Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Kevin Andrews, allocated additional resources to ensure implementation of more streamlined processes in this area.

We share the concerns that have been highlighted by the majority of the submissions to the inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. In particular there are two areas of concern, regarding imposition of unknown obligations on sponsors which are contained in regulations which the government has not yet introduced and the potential for ongoing changes of obligations by regulation in the future. Indeed, some witnesses advocated that the bill be deferred until the regulations are presented and considered so that passage of both be effected together. The coalition notes that the Deegan report was not available at the time of the Senate committee inquiry and at the time of its reporting. Accordingly, my comments today are confined to the bill before us and to the Senate committee report on the bill.

The government has made much of the consultation process, although the adequacy of this process was questioned in the Senate committee inquiry by some witnesses who described it as truncated and inadequate. The coalition take at face value the government’s indications about sponsor obligations. However, we place on record our concerns about the enactment of legislation which imposes obligations which are not available for scrutiny at this point but are to be contained in regulations which will be available in the future. The question arose in the inquiry as to whether these obligations ought more properly be contained in the bill rather than relegated to regulations. The Department of Immigration and Citizenship, DIAC, insisted that it requires flexibility and hence the government has opted to impose obligations in this manner. This was the very concern of stakeholders who feared that this flexibility will permit the Rudd government to make changes to regulations and thus alter obligations as it sees fit and without appropriate consultation. This is a concern we too share.

I turn to the specifics of the bill. The objective of the bill is to amend the Migration Act to strengthen the framework for employer sponsorship with a view to ensuring that working conditions meet Australian standards and sponsorship costs be more fully identified. Visa holders are currently sponsored by employers who must meet a series of undertakings. These undertakings are now to be specified in the new regulations. The regulations will be drawn up in 2009 to be followed by months of consultation and education about the changes. All currently engaged sponsors will be transferred to the new regime. This is the nub of the concerns, because sponsors are being required to sign up to obligations which are yet to be defined.

In 1996 the coalition introduced new visa categories to allow employers to sponsor skilled workers on a temporary basis for between three months and four years to help ease labour shortages. The Howard government’s 457 visa program has been a great success in satisfying the demand for skilled workers and helping to ensure that Australia maintains its international competitiveness. The annual intake for the 457 visa program has steadily increased from 16,550 in 1996-98 to 22,370 in 2003-04 and to 58,050 in 2007-08. Table 3.1 of the Senate committee report sets out these statistics. Indeed in this 11-year period 304,400 section 457 visas were granted. In addition, 251,200 secondary visas were granted to spouses, interdependent partners, dependent children or other relatives of the section 457 visa holder, making a total of 550,600 visas granted under this umbrella. There are currently nearly 19,000 employers using 457 visas. Nearly 30 per cent of 457s are employed in New South Wales, with the New South Wales government—and indeed state governments generally—being the most prolific user of 457 visas.

Despite its successes, Labor and the unions have mounted a scare campaign surrounding the 457 visa system. As then shadow minister Senator Ellison pointed out, the previous scare campaign was debunked when the Rudd government released the final report of its review of 457 visas in May this year. This report recognised that 457 visas are essential to meet short-term skills shortages in Australia where no local labour is available. It also confirmed that businesses are experiencing significant delays in having visas processed, with 37 per cent of low-risk onshore visa applications taking longer than eight weeks to be finalised. The report went on to point out that there is ‘a need to reduce visa-processing times and improve flexibility of the temporary skilled migration programs’. As Senator Ellison indicated at the time, the coalition had already announced funding in last year’s budget to introduce a new fast-tracking system in early 2008. Unfortunately, Labor had delayed in getting this system up and running.

The coalition accepts that there have been breaches by employers of their undertakings and that these have been reported in the media. At the Senate inquiry, Mr Sutton from the CFMEU gave evidence of alleged ‘many’ instances of breaches and of his longstanding campaign in this area. In response to questions requesting that specific details be produced substantiating this assertion, Mr Sutton appears to have produced some documents detailing about 17 instances of breaches. The union assertion of ‘many’ breaches was disputed by many of the witnesses. As indicated, the coalition condemns the exploitation of workers. However, the number of breaches ought to be placed in the context of two important statistics detailed in the Senate’s report. Firstly, since 1997-98, 304,400 section 457 visas have been granted. Seventeen instances, whilst deplorable, do not constitute the alleged rampant breaches sought to be portrayed by the unions. Secondly, according to DIAC’s own statistics in its 2006-07 report, only 1.67 per cent of sponsors were found to have breached their sponsorship obligations.

There are areas of concern about this bill. While the framework in the bill can be supported by the coalition as a further evolution of our obligations of sponsorship, we do not yet know the details of the regulations. We will need to subject them to the usual scrutiny when they are revealed. The April 2008 discussion paper released by DIAC does, however, describe potential new payment obligations for sponsors of 457 visa workers and their families, including meeting all of the education costs of minors accompanying the worker; covering all medical costs through either insurance or direct payment, including covering medical costs where the insurance company refuses to pay; paying migration agents’ fees or other costs of recruitment up to a maximum specified; paying all travel costs to Australia—only travel from Australia was required previously; and paying any licence or registration fees associated with the worker taking up employment in Australia.

I would now like to turn to the four key issues raised in the Senate inquiry and reflected in its report. Regrettably, the short time frame and the lack of willingness by the government to afford longer time for greater scrutiny of the legislation meant that only the main points of concern were elicited.