Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry, Procurement and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Vanstone. Can the minister explain what powers she has under migration law to approve labour agreements that allow employers to undercut the legislative minimum salary rate for 457 visa holders? Has the minister approved any applications for agreements with employers that provide for salaries below the statutory minimum? If so, can the minister indicate whom those agreements apply to?

Amanda Vanstone (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator for his question. Labour agreements have been used by this government and previous governments for some time to deal with either an industry wide agreement, as might be the case with, for example, the meat industry—and there is an agreement under negotiation there that has not yet been resolved—or an agreement for a particular company that may want advantages in terms of its understanding of its capacity to bring people into Australia.

What comes to mind here is—and, if you like, perhaps it was a precursor to the labour market agreements—the regional headquarters agreement made by the previous Labor government, signed by, I think, Senator Cook, with Amex to bring its regional headquarters to New South Wales. A competition—it was pretty much a bidding war—was held between, I think, two Labor states, but one might have been a Liberal state, to attract the Amex regional headquarters. In the end, New South Wales won the Amex regional headquarters.

That occasioned Amex to shut some call centres in a number of places around Asia and to seek the opportunity to bring in hundreds—I do not have the details with me, but it was either 460 or 640 or something like that; let us say it was 400, but I will get you the details just in case I am remembering another brief—of people from those other call centres to set up in Australia. The only condition on that agreement was that they pay according to Australian law. In fact, it is subsequent versions of that agreement that have required some sort of salary uplift and some focus on what skills are coming in. It is that agreement that Amex now seek to renew.

It is true that Amex wrote to this government and suggested that the agreement be rolled over, under which, as I am advised, the same salaries would be paid as those paid to Australians in the job, and they would be roughly akin to the salaries paid to other Australians in some other call centres. I am certainly advised that a look at websites dealing with call centre operator jobs confirms that. Nonetheless, those salaries are below the minimum salary level. I have asked the New South Wales government for their view of that, and they are not happy with that.

It seems somewhat extraordinary to me since it was a New South Wales Labor government that attracted Amex to New South Wales, but nonetheless my department is negotiating with Amex to see what can be done in that context. The reason is that the minimum salary level is judged on a base salary on, I think, a 38-hour week, not taking into account other supplementary payments. It may be that Amex will choose to rejig the structure of its salaries so that there is more of a base salary to enable it to come up to the minimum salary level.

In any event, I have the capacity to do that. I have not done it yet. When we have had labour agreements we have included the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations. The initial one relating to the Amex call centre—and there would be others—was not in fact with the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, which did not exist then. It was with the department of industry under Senator Cook. It was part of the regional headquarters program, and there was a supplementary agreement to that to attract Amex here. I have not been involved in negotiations in relation to any others. (Time expired)

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry, Procurement and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. My question did not relate particularly to Amex—it was a more general proposition—but, having given that answer, can the minister indicate how many of those agreements have been signed and how many workers on 457 visas are employed under these agreements? If the minister does not have that information to hand, can she take the question on notice and report back to the Senate at a later date? Can the minister also report on whether she has approved any applications for agreements with employers that provide for salaries below the statutory minimum and, if so, can she indicate whom those agreements apply to? If the minister has not finalised those negotiations to date, can she also advise the Senate in due course as to whether there are any such negotiations in progress at this time?

Amanda Vanstone (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have not been involved in any other negotiations. There are negotiations going on now with the meat industry. I did, however, receive a letter from the then acting Premier of New South Wales urging us to enter into, as a matter of urgency, a labour market agreement with the meat industry in Western Australia because of the alleged shortages they had and, with an upcoming drought, the need for a large number of animals to be slaughtered very quickly. But that has not been signed because the meat industry is not happy with the requirements that the government has insisted upon. You might like to ask me a question at another time, Senator Bishop, about whether some of the states believe that the minimum salary level is too high for them.

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on a point of order: I would like to request a ruling from you regarding the admissibility of Senator Fielding’s question to Senator Minchin on embryonic stem cell research. I base my point of order on standing order 73(1)(k) and 73(1)(l) or, indeed, standing order 73(2). If you cannot give a ruling now, I would appreciate one later.

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand it has been the practice in the past that questions have not been allowed until debate on a bill has started. I understand that Senator Stott Despoja’s bill has been introduced—Senator Patterson’s bill has not yet been introduced. I think it has been the practice of past presidents—and I will check this out for you—to allow questions of that nature, and that is why I did allow it. There has been no debate on the bill at this point in time. I will review that and get back to the Senate next week.

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: perhaps you could also consider standing order 73(l), which talks about proceedings in committee not reported to the Senate, because I understand that question has also been referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs.

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will look at that as well.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: I listened very closely to Senator Fielding’s question and it was nothing to do with the bill at all. It was about the results that had been obtained with the expenditure of $100 million on embryonic stem cell research. It made no reference to any bill. So I put it to you, Mr President, that Senator Fielding’s question was well within order.

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said, I will look at it, but I do believe that what you say is quite correct, Senator Boswell.

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.