Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Hansard source

As I was saying, Senator Cameron will be well aware that for almost two years former Prime Minister Gillard fought a query from the Office of the Information Commissioner for information on labour market testing in relation to Mr McTernan. I would also ask Senator Cameron: of those workers on 457 visas that the TWU and the MUA are employing, have you demanded to see the labour market testing that was undertaken in relation to those unions employing 457 workers, and are they displacing Australians? So it is not just those who support the coalition who utilise the 457 visa program. It is, quite frankly, businesses, industry and unions across the board that have a genuine need to access labour.

In relation to the statistics that Senator Rice raised, again, I would like to confirm for the Senate that under the former Labor government, the 457 visa program expanded rapidly. The figures are as follows: from approximately 68,400 primary visa holders in June 2010 to over 110,000 primary visa holders when Labor were removed from office in September of 2013. What is so disappointing about this growth under the former government is that this growth occurred in occupations not known to be in widespread shortage and, further, this rapid increase occurred during a period when growth in the Australian economy was slowing. Again, I assume that Senator Cameron was there in caucus saying, 'Under my government, there has been a huge blow-out in the 457 visa program. It has gone from 68,400 to in excess of 110,000, and, worse than that, the growth in it is in areas in which it is proven there is no widespread shortage.'

Since the coalition government was elected to office, there has been no growth in the 457 visa program. In fact, the numbers in the 457 visa program have fallen to 104,780 as at the end of May 2015. So they went from 68,400 to 110,000 under Labor—but apparently that is okay, even when those coming in are coming into occupations where there is no actual shortage. But when the program under this government does exactly what it should do and responds to the labour market, and it falls to 104,780, apparently we are still mismanaging the program. I will merely allow the facts to stand and speak for themselves.

In terms of the instrument that I signed on 17 April this year, Senator Cameron said, 'I'll be interested to hear the reasons behind this decision.' Senator Cameron, I will be delighted to enlighten the Senate—and those people who are listening in to this debate—as to the reasons why this government made that decision. The decision was made following an extensive independent review of the 457 visa program. Let us be very clear: we are talking about a high-income threshold here. The independent panel recommended amending the high-income threshold of annual earnings amount back to $180,000 so as to reduce the unnecessary burden on businesses employing highly paid workers.

Let us talk about the history of this threshold. Senator Cameron, in 2008 your government commissioned the Deegan review. The Deegan review looked into the 457 visa program. The Deegan review came up with a number of recommendations. I have the Deegan review recommendations in front of me. One of the recommendations was as follows:

It is recommended that market rates of pay should be paid to all temporary visa holders with salaries less than $100 000 per year …

Senator Cameron—through you, Mr Deputy President—your government did not take the advice of the person that it appointed to investigate the 457 system; that recommendation was to set market rates at $100,000. Instead, former minister Chris Evans set it at—lo and behold—$180,000. That is also the figure that stood under Minister Bowen and, I understand, Minister Burke. Labor's Minister Evans set it at $180,000. It was subsequently reset by Minister Bowen and, I understand, Minister Burke. It was only when, at the behest of the unions, Minister O'Connor became the relevant immigration minister that—with absolutely no explanation at all—this was rushed through the Senate on the last day of sitting. Senator Cameron, you refer to the stroke of a pen; well, I can assure you that that was exactly what happened under your government. This was rushed through the Senate on the last day of sitting, and that is when the increase went to $250,000.

I go back to the fundamental difference between this side and those on the other side, who make a whole lot of assertions but not one of those assertions is backed up by a fact. The former Labor government, as I said, commissioned the Deegan review into the 457 program. The Deegan review made a number of recommendations. One of those recommendations was in relation to a market rate. That market rate was $100,000. The government did not accept its own expert panel or expert inquiry's recommendation. It gave no justification as to why it did not accept that recommendation. Instead, Minister Evans set the income threshold at $180,000. It was not just Minister Evans; it was also Minister Bowen. It was not until the dying days of the former government that—quite literally with the stroke of a pen—Minister O'Connor amended it to $250,000.

The review that this government commissioned involved consultation extensively across Australia with stakeholders. It included 140 face-to-face meetings and a review of 180 written submissions from industry and union representatives. In terms of the recommendation that the independent review—based on the extensive consultation that it undertook—made in relation to the issue of the income threshold, the independent panel said as follows:

… in relation to the specific issue of threshold, no substantial evidence was provided to the panel that supported the need for the market rates exemption threshold to be as high as $250 000. If there are specific occupations and/or regions where the market rates of Australian workers would be undermined by 457 visa holders being paid $180 000 or more, then evidence of these concerns can be taken to the proposed new ministerial advisory council which would have the authority to make recommendations to address this situation for that occupation.

So this government accepted the recommendations of its independent review, which said that there was no evidence under former Minister O'Connor, who, with his stroke of the pen, increased it to $250,000, and that it should be taken back to $180,000, consistent with what it was under the former Labor government, former minister Chris Evans, former minister Chris Bowen and, I understand, former minister Tony Burke.

Another fact which has not been placed on the table is that integrity measures do still apply to those earning above $180,000. One example is the genuiness test which, again, the former Labor government brought in and which remains today. An employer is expected to demonstrate a genuine need for the particular employee. If they are not able to demonstrate that need, the particular departmental officer does not have to grant the visa.

Senator Cameron made a big song and dance about the fact that, apparently, the coalition government was acting on behalf of the mining industries in doing this. I think that I have put that to bed, because—based on an independent panel which undertook extensive consultation across Australia and made a number of recommendations, which we accepted—clearly, that is not the case.

I would put to the Senate and those listening to this disallowance debate that this particular disallowance motion has been moved at the behest of the union representing the industrial interests of maritime and power engineers seeking to shore-up their control over conditions in the sector and distort the market rate of pay in their favour. You appear to have a dispute between the MUA and the engineers union and this is the result of this dispute. Bear in mind that this is the same union that lobbied Minister O'Connor, in 2013, which resulted in—at the stroke of the pen—Minister O'Connor increasing the high-income threshold to $250,000 for no apparent reason other than the union's self-interests.

Although this disallowance moved for selective interests at the behest of certain unions, if it does go through it will impact on all employers across Australia. The instrument that is the subject of the disallowance does nothing to infringe on the conditions of some of those people who are the highest paid workers in Australia. They are highly employable. If any of the other speakers—particularly Senator Cameron—had ever gone out and worked in industry and business they would have understood that when an Australian is highly employable they are sought after by business and industry. Based on the facts of this particular disallowance motion, I would ask the Senate to not support the disallowance.