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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Senator Evans) to a question without notice asked by Senator Fierravanti-Wells today relating to immigration and jobs.

Senator Ronaldson was talking about spin over substance, and it is not just about spin over substance in aspects of the production of documents. Today’s announcement is just another example, another version, of rhetoric and flourish rather than acting decisively in relation to the decision. What is being advocated as this cut to immigration in the skilled migrant sector is, in reality, still an increase. One only has to look in the budget statement on 13 May 2008 by Minister Evans:

The Rudd Government has moved to ease pressure on employers struggling with the skills shortage by adding an additional 31 000 skilled migrants to the 2008-09 Migration Program

So today the minister, with great flourish, announces a 14 per cent cut of 18,500. But that actually still leaves a net increase of 12,500 skilled migration places in the 2008-09 program. Looking back, it is actually an increase of about 7,000 over the skilled places in this 2007-08 migration program.

Of course, the coalition has been asking the government to pay attention to what has been happening on the ground in relation to jobs. Jobs have been disappearing in the Australian economy, and since October last year the shadow minister for immigration, Dr Stone, has been focusing on this. She has been saying these intake targets give rise to unemployment and has been asking that consideration be given to the plummeting of confidence in the business sector. So you can imagine the frustrations of our plumbers, builders and brickies on hearing that immigration totals are still at record levels when in fact we have been calling for months and months—since before Christmas—for the government to make a realistic assessment and slow down immigration. Really, this government should have acted earlier.

Look at the way this government has been handling these sorts of issues. Look at the way it has absolutely bungled the guest worker pilot. Two-and-a-half thousand seasonal Pacific islanders were supposed to be on their way; in reality only 50 Tongans arrived in the regional area of Robinvale. It was not fair to them—facing the hostility of a community saying they need jobs for their own locals. In the end, let us not forget we still have about 150,000 as the general skilled migration target, and that is still a lot of jobs that Australians could have.

When you say that there are and there have been skills shortages, the business of filling skilled positions that cannot be filled by Australians—and there is recognition that there are those categories—is protected through the section 457 visa process. We are not saying that that should be curtailed. Certainly, there has been some revision of that program. The reality is that we are a country built on migration. I am the daughter of migrants to this country, but when my parents came to this country there was a job for them. They came here and they were welcome here because there was work. But we now have a situation in which this government has taken one of the best economies in the world and driven it into recession by the way they have talked down the economy and bungled their reactions with things like the bank guarantee. They have driven this economy into recession. This is a time when we should be looking at migration in a much more holistic, global sense— (Time expired)

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not quite sure how to interpret those comments from the opposition, but that sounded like a resounding endorsement of the government’s activities in this area of policy. The senator ought to know that these changes follow measures announced in December that resulted in only those migrants sponsored by an employer or in an occupation on the critical skills list being granted visas under the permanent skilled migration program, with over half of the permanent visas being granted to applicants already living and working in Australia. So this latest decision by the government to cut the program by another 14 per cent is further proof of us responding to the global financial crisis and the downward pressure it is putting on our economy.

As a responsible government the federal Labor government is moving fast to respond to these challenges. Not only are we now specifically addressing another measure with respect to the migration program but also we have done many things already this year, as all senators know, to address the pressure on our economy, the slowing of our economy, and the need to stimulate jobs and, where we possibly can, forestall the loss of jobs in key sectors. It is worth while in the context of this debate to talk about the stimulus package that the Rudd Labor government has put in place, the most recent component of which is $42 billion worth of spending, which includes a substantive investment in our education sector. Building the Education Revolution is about providing jobs in a clever place and stimulating the economy at the community level. For many working people this kind of stimulus will mean the difference between keeping a job and not keeping a job, and the complementarity provided by the cut in the permanent skilled migration program as announced today starts to fit pieces of this very challenging puzzle together as neatly as we can possibly manage.

It has long been the case, as I think all senators in this chamber know, that the government can adjust immigration levels according to the economic circumstances of the day. Last week’s cabinet decision to cut the skilled migration rate in light of the worsening economic situation is further proof of the Rudd government’s responsibility to act in the face of this worsening crisis.

Another change to the program is the removal of the building and manufacturing trades, such as bricklayers, plumbers, welders, carpenters and metal fitters, from the critical skills list. The list will remain but will now comprise mainly health, medical, engineering and IT professions, in which there are still some skills shortages. Particularly in health care we need to maintain a program to ensure that we source the skilled professionals that we need whilst still protecting local jobs and the wages and conditions of Australian workers. The Rudd Labor government is still committed to a migration program but will continue to monitor the migration intake and will set the 2010 migration program to reflect the economic climate as part of the budget process. We understand, as the senators throughout this chamber know, that it is an essential part of our economy.

I will take the last minutes of my time to reflect on some of the comments made by the previous senator in this debate. Senator Fierravanti-Wells compared the handling of migration by the federal Labor government with that of the former government. The former government had a very poor credential with respect to skilled migration, and I make particular mention of the temporary skilled migration program. I saw firsthand abuse of that program, with employers seeking to exploit temporary skilled migrants in local employment here in Canberra. This resulted in a number of those employers incurring a penalty in the Federal Court because of their poor treatment of those workers. It stands on the record as a very poor reflection of the previous government, with its lack of attention to the quality of the temporary skilled migration program, and it is also a symbol of the extreme neglect of what was happening on the ground. It was one thing for the former government, along with employers around the country, to stand up and claim the great work they were doing to assist with the skills shortage, but they never took the care to ensure that these workers were looked after, and, in fact, paid and provided with conditions in accordance with the law. The Howard government has a disgraceful record of management of immigration policy. (Time expired)

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also stand to take note of the answer by Senator Evans today. It is the same issue to which Senator Lundy and Senator Fierravanti-Wells were addressing their remarks: migration numbers and, specifically, the bungling by the federal Labor government on this matter.

A decision made by cabinet last week and confirmed yesterday is that the permanent skilled migration program will be cut from 133,500 for the financial year 2008-09 to 115,000—that is a cut of 18,500, or 14 per cent. The government says that this is due to the changed economic environment, the global financial crisis and growing unemployment. But I want to note that it is still a 12 per cent increase over the 2007-08 numbers which were set in place by the former, Howard government of some 102,500. It is still a considerable increase on the numbers for the previous financial year.

What has the minister been saying about this matter? This matter has been raised on the public record in Senate forums, and specifically in the supplementary budget estimates on 20 and 21 October 2008, when Senator Ellison, Senator Fierravanti-Wells and I asked the minister: ‘What are you doing and what will you do about the migration numbers, and specifically skilled migration numbers, coming to Australia?’ The response was: ‘It will be considered in the budget context and a decision will be made in May next year.’ That was part of his answer. Of course, he gave a very fluid and flowing answer about the economic circumstances of the day, but he did say that that decision would have to wait until May next year. We again asked questions on this matter in February this year—just a month or so ago—in the Senate committee hearings on additional budget estimates. Again, the answer was the same: a decision will be made in the context of the budget in and around May this year. We know that over the weekend the government responded and made that decision public. Why didn’t they act sooner?

We know that the global financial crisis has been around for a long time and that the government’s decision to increase skilled migration numbers by record levels was made about 12 months ago, yet we have had to wait nine months for a decision and a response by the government. Have they ballsed it up? I do not know, but all the hallmarks are there that they have. All the hallmarks of the bungling and the mismanagement of this process by the Labor government are there. In answers at additional estimates, Senator Evans referred to an Access Economics report which is well over 12 months old. Indeed, he relied on that report for the decision to increase the skilled migration numbers more than 12 months ago.

We have had the global financial crisis since then and skyrocketing unemployment. We had one giant cash splash in December and then another giant cash splash just a month or so ago, with the funds being expended not only here but also overseas. When I say ‘overseas’ I mean ‘overseas’. Some 69,000 Australian pensioners overseas received approximately $80 million. That giant cash splash was designed to strengthen the Australian economy; it was designed to strengthen our economy to create jobs in Australia, yet that money in the December cash splash has gone overseas. That is exactly what happened. We know how much money went overseas; it is on the public record. And the government will not answer the question as to how much of the $42 billion giant cash splash recently expended has gone overseas. We do not know. And we do not know exactly to whom and whether it was paid to deceased estates or whether it was paid to the beneficiaries of those deceased estates—whether they be families or pets. Has it been paid to pets? We do not know. The government should answer those questions and come clean.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I noticed in the last couple of minutes of Senator Barnett’s five-minute contribution that he actually stopped talking about the issue that he was taking note of, which was the answer regarding migration that was given by Senator Evans during question time. He started talking about the economic stimulus package and what he called the ‘cash splash’. He claims that money from this package may go to pets overseas. What it demonstrates is that this opposition is all over the shop. In the last 10 or 15 minutes, we started taking note—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order regarding relevance to the taking note motion. The motion to take note of answers was directed towards an answer given by Senator Evans today in response to Senator Fierravanti-Wells, and Senator Forshaw is nowhere near that.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Mr President: the debate has ranged widely and Senator Barnett, who has just left the chamber, sought to extrapolate a connection between jobs and the jobs stimulus package. I suggest that it is in order to address a matter raised in that context, given the relationship which obviously Senator Barnett felt that matter had to the debate in question. Addressing that, I would suggest, is in order.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has been the custom in taking note of answers to allow people to range pretty wide and far, but I would remind Senator Forshaw that we are taking note of the answer given by Senator Evans today.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I am surprised at that point of order. I had been speaking for 50-odd seconds and I drew attention to the fact that Senator Barnett could not even spend five minutes on the issue. I intend to spend the next four minutes on the issue and I think I am entitled to respond to Senator Barnett’s failure to deal with the issue for the full period of time. What I was going on to say was this: concerning migration and the recent announcement by the government, for many years immigration was treated as a bipartisan issue. That stopped with former Prime Minister Howard many years ago and the tradition of bipartisanship has not continued since that time. We saw what happened with issues relating to boat people and with the Tampa and so on. I wish we could get back to a situation where immigration was treated on a bipartisan basis, because we know a couple of important things. Firstly, there is agreement around the country and I believe across the political divide that an orderly immigration program is vital to our economic future. It is clear that in times of economic stress particularly and in times of economic growth and prosperity we should always have regard to our immigration intake. That is understood to be the case particularly for skilled migration because two factors are in play. One is: what are the demands of our labour force for skilled professional people to ensure that our country continues to grow and prosper? Also: what are the effects upon the Australian population and upon workers in Australia in an economic downturn where you continue to have an immigration program?

This government has recognised that in the current circumstances it is necessary to reduce the intake for this year’s permanent skilled migration program by 14 per cent. I found it interesting that Senator Barnett referred to the fact that the opposition asked questions of the government back in October—I think that is what he said—during supplementary estimates and again during additional estimates in February this year. He was critical of the government. Now the government has given him an answer. We have announced the revised figures for this year’s skilled migration intake and Senator Barnett, having got that answer in the last couple of days, now criticises the government for taking this decision—yet he wanted to criticise the government for not taking the decision back in October or February.

The economic circumstances have changed dramatically since September last year—one of the biggest changes in economic circumstances in the history of the modern world. When you look at an issue like this you have to make decisions with due consideration and that is what this government has done. I make a further point that you have to look at the total package of immigration programs. We note that the intake under the 457 program has been 30 per cent lower in the last couple of months.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also wish to take note of the response of Senator Evans to Senator Fierravanti-Wells question. It is interesting to note that Senator Forshaw has suggested that other speakers might have strayed away from the particular point on immigration. Given that he himself strayed into illegal immigration, I am not sure what point he was trying to make about how our migrant workforce should be arranged.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr President: the question to the minister during question time referred to the supposed failure of this government to deal with increasing numbers of boat people.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Forshaw, that is part of a debate; it is not a point of order.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps I would be better to use the response of Senator Lundy as a starting point to discuss this question. She pointed out that immigration is part of a very complex puzzle that needs to be addressed if we are to get our economy right. The problem is that puzzles tend to be something you do in a very leisurely, stop-start fashion. Unfortunately, that is exactly the approach this government is taking to vital questions that need to be answered to address the problems in our economy, of which the migration workforce question is one. It was not until unemployment jumped to 5.2 per cent last week that the minister managed to act by cutting the skilled migrant workforce program by 14 per cent. As other speakers have pointed out, there have been signs for months and months—since October last year at the very least, when it was first raised by the shadow spokesperson for the coalition, Dr Sharman Stone—that action was needed not in a leisurely, stop-start fashion but in a prompt and targeted fashion.

In my own state of Queensland 24,100 people have become unemployed since February 2008. I do not think we had to wait until now to begin to address that question. This month alone 3,100 more Queenslanders have lost their jobs. It has been pretty clear since mid last year that business after business was having to put off staff because they simply could not survive. I am aware of one major plumbing supplies company that has put off 500 workers since Christmas, many of them skilled tradesmen, simply because the economy has slowed to the stage where there is no-one buying the products that the supplier sells. The question goes on and on. Of course, there is a complexity to this. If you look at the so-called fair work legislation, if you look at the emissions trading scheme legislation that is proposed, they all tie in with jobs—they all tie in with the need for action well before now on cutting our migration workforce numbers.

In May last year the government proudly boasted that they were bringing in a record number of skilled migrants. I think it was pretty clear last year that that was not the case. We have been calling for a managed, strategic response to this problem for the last six to eight months. We have not been the only ones. The National Retail Association pointed out today that youth unemployment in Australia is rising very rapidly. It has gone from 11.9 per cent 12 months ago to 17.9 per cent in February 2009. With figures of 17.9 per cent for youth unemployment, we are heading back to the dreaded figures of ‘the recession we had to have’.

The figures in Queensland, where the Premier is purporting to be interested in jobs whilst not having the courage to tell her federal counterparts what to do about Fair Work Australia or the emissions trading scheme, just grow and grow as well. Manufacturing has lost 3,200 jobs; construction has lost 10,600 jobs. Youth unemployment has also climbed massively in Queensland. The figure for under 25s looking for full-time work in Queensland has gone from 8,900 in February last year to 20,500 in February 2009. Yes, this is a complex problem. It needs an intelligent answer. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.