Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to rise in support of this disallowance motion and indicate my support for the contributions that have been made by Senator Lambie and Senator Rice. In supporting this disallowance motion, a number of issues need to be made clear.

This disallowance motion was brought to bear on Australian workers without any debate, any discussion or any validity by this parliament. It was simply made by the stroke of a pen, by Senator Cash. It meant that decent-paid workers in the mining, gas and coal industries ended up being in fear of their jobs and being replaced by workers on 457 visas, who must be paid at the applicable market rate. The market rate depends on the occupation and location of the employee, and evidence must be provided by the employer as to what the market rate is for the occupation. Until this instrument was made on 17 April 2015, if a sponsor of a 457 visa holder wanted to employ a visa holder at a salary under $250,000, the employer carried an onus to establish that the salary proposed to be paid was at the market rate. As I have indicated, Minister Cash—with no justification and no explanation—has reduced that threshold to $180,000. There is now a yawning gap of $70,000 through which employers can pass in order to sponsor 457 visa holders in occupations and locations where the market rate is somewhere between $180,000 and $250,000, without the need to provide evidence of market rates.

These are highly skilled and highly paid employees earning more than $180,000 but less than $250,000 in occupations such as marine engineers, mining engineers, medical and allied health professionals, and they all now find themselves in danger of being replaced by 457 visa workers who are paid less than the market rate. In a media release issued on 18 March 2015, this change was welcomed by the Australian Mines and Metals Association, which said:

Lowering the market salary comparison threshold from $250k to $180k reflects AMMA's advice that this should be viewed as a safeguard for lower income jobs only.

This is another example of the Abbott government doing the bidding of sectional interests. Who are these sectional interests? These sectional interests are BHP, Rio Tinto, Glencore, and Peabody—the American multinational mining company. These are the companies that are represented on the board of directors of the Minerals Council of Australia. These very same minerals executives do not put up a proposition that they should have their salaries reduced. In fact, Sam Walsh, the managing director of Rio Tinto, is one of the highest paid executives in this country, with an annual salary of $9.7 million. A couple of years ago the chief executive of BHP was on $7.5 million a year, and this is from a position where, about 20 years ago, the salaries of a BHP executive were six to seven times the average salary in the country. It is now up to 200 times the average salary. These are some of the richest executives in the country, some of the best paid executives in the country, and they are trying to reduce costs for their companies by reducing the salaries of highly paid but highly skilled Australian workers. I do not accept for one minute that signing off in the middle of the night on a regulation that takes away protections, even for some of our highly skilled workers, is what we should be about in this country.

It seems to me that this government is prepared to attack workers who seek to collectively bargain and enjoy decent wages and conditions, and they seek to do that at the bidding of organisations like the Minerals Council of Australia. When you look at that board of directors of the Minerals Council of Australia and you look at the debate we recently had about tax shifting, about shifting profits offshore to minimise the tax in Australia, these are some of the biggest culprits in this area. Yet we have this government, at the bidding of the Minerals Council and the chief executives and the directors of some of the biggest mining corporations in the country, setting about to reduce the minimum rate for skilled workers in the industry. Many people who are listening would say, '$250,000 is a massive salary' and, for most ordinary workers, that is correct. But these are workers who are amongst the most highly skilled workers in the country. These are workers who are doing jobs that maintain the capacity of our minerals industry and our gas industry to continue to operate and to export. These are not workers who are without qualifications. These are workers who are highly qualified. These are workers who take years to get the qualifications and experience that they have to do the jobs that they undertake. They are entitled to get a fair share of the profits that the minerals industry and the gas industry in this country make; they are entitled to that. And they are workers who add to the skill base of this country. We should not be relying on 457 workers from anywhere in the world to do these key jobs that keep our industries going in this country.

I am not sure why this proposition was brought forward, other than one sure thing. If the Minerals Council says to the coalition, and certainly to the Liberal Party, 'Jump!' the response is, 'How high? How high should we jump?' That is the response we got when they said, 'Cut back on this standard for skilled workers; allow us to get that $70,000 gap so that we can bring in workers on 457 visas.' These are workers who might be more complacent in terms of their approach to industrial relations, who might be more subordinate to the employer, who do not want to collectively bargain, who will come in here on a visa system that will give the employer complete control over that individual. That is the argument, basically, from the mining industry. This is an industry that has been making massive profits over the last few years, where the executives have gouged their profits, their wages, out of the industry and now they want to push down the wages of some of the most skilled workers in the country.

I just think the Abbott government dislikes workers earning decent money. They certainly dislike Australian seafarers making a decent quid. The income threshold reduction that they put in, without any debate, without any discussion in this parliament, is another example of how workers would be treated under this government if there were not the check and balance of the Senate in place. That check and balance should be exercised by senators today, because we should not accept for one minute that the Minerals Council should dictate to the government of this country and cut back the wages of workers in this country.

Tub masters working out of Bowen earn $183,000; out of Brisbane, it is $193,000; out of Kwinana, it is $184,000; and out of Newcastle, it is $198,000. I have seen tug masters bringing ships into Newcastle harbour when the conditions have been pretty awful. This is a job that not only demands skill; this is a job that also demands a lot of courage. It demands skill, courage and ability. There are not too many people who could do that job. It is not like being a fitter, which is what I was, when you could do your training; you could get people to do that work. These people are really highly skilled, really specialist, in what they do. And it is the case in terms of not only their skills but also their courage. The chief engineers are the people who keep these vessels going right around the country. They earn about $188,000. These pay rates reflect the skills of these workers.

I have to say to any senator who is listening in: if we simply allow the Minerals Council, BHP, Rio Tinto, Glencore and Peabody to dictate when 457 workers come into this country then we are allowing something that is unacceptable and that will bring this country to its knees in terms of its capacity to have the skills here to do the jobs that are so important to this country. So, I say that it should not be about the Mineral Councils and these individual mining companies making significant donations to the Liberal Party and then telling them what they want them to do in order to get their way with the workers of this country and get more so-called flexibility into the 457 system. This should be about decency. This should be about an understanding of the skills of these workers. This should be about an understanding that these workers are integral to a vast industry in this country. Even though their salaries are high, they should not be undermined by workers coming in on 457 visas.

It will be interesting to hear the reasoning behind the arguments put by Senator Cash when she makes a contribution to this debate, because at no stage have we heard any of the reasons why this government is simply doing the bidding of BHP, Rio Tinto, Peabody and the Minerals Council. I can only assume that the close, cosy relationship that the Liberal Party have with these big corporations, the funding that goes from these corporations to the Liberal Party at election time, is now being reciprocated by them delivering what the Minerals Council wants in relation to these 457 visas. What every worker in this country must now be worried about is that Senator Cash can have any employer organisation say: 'Bring down the market rate; bring 457 visas into the country,' and we see the Liberal Party delivering. It will mean that workers and skilled jobs around this country will end up facing international competition from workers on 457 visas who come into this country under the market rate. This is an issue of significant principle. This is an issue that is more important than the Liberal Party delivering for its mates in the minerals industry. This is about recognising the importance of the skills that these highly skilled workers bring and the need to ensure that we get paid decent market rates in this country.

The test is quite clear. The 457 visa system should not be used to undermine market rates in this country. The 457 visa system should not be used by the coalition and the Liberal Party in particular to pay back its mates for the funding that it gets during election campaigns. The test should be that a highly skilled, highly paid, courageous worker in this country, who is out in all sorts of seas, who is out in all sorts of conditions, gets a decent rate of pay. It should not only be the mining executives and the gas executives of the country who get the benefits of this industry; it should also be the highly skilled workers who keep this industry working, whether they are a fitter, a rigger, a boilermaker, a tug boat master or a chief engineer. They should all get a fair go, because this country has not been getting a fair go out of this industry. This industry has not been paying its fair share of tax. This industry has been under the radar for far too long in terms of its approach on wages and conditions, and we should not be allowing the Liberal Party to simply bow at the knee when the Minerals Council say, 'Lower the wages and conditions and the standards for 457 visa workers coming into this country.'

It will be interesting to see what happens with this China free-trade agreement, which we are told will be tabled next week. What will be the situation—to bring workers from China in here to operate in any industry across this country? These are massive political issues. These are huge issues about the skill base of this country. These are huge issues about ensuring that we have jobs for Australians. I thank both Senator Rice and Senator Lambie for bringing this to the Senate. This is an important decision that this Senate should make. We should stand up for the workers of Australia against the Minerals Council of Australia and the people in the Liberal Party who want to simply do their bidding. This is an important issue. The principle that applies here can apply in the rest of the economy across industries in this country. If the Senate allows the coalition to give in to the Minerals Council, they will be giving in to other industries when they try to cut the market rates for 457 visas around the country.

Brown paper bags in the front seats cars and massive support at election time should not be used to reduce the wages and conditions of workers in this country. It is an absolute outrage and the Senate should stand firm and stand up for the workers of this country against the Liberal Party, against the National Party and against their mates who fund their election campaigns.