Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to be able to continue my remarks on the Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013. Before the debate was adjourned on Thursday, I was speaking about the general context of this legislation, in particular, suspicion in the community and in this parliament that the legislation is being constructed by the minister and the government for two reasons only: the first as an attempt to seek to divide Australians on the basis of place of birth for some sort of perceived political advantage; and, second, as an attempt to distract from their real policy failure—the decision to weaken Australia's border protection laws.

Over the past weeks the evidence that these suspicions are correct has proved compelling, so much so that the Australian Financial Review has concluded in its editorial this morning under the heading 'Populist policies an embarrassment' that:

The federal government has yet again been caught out using hyperbole to position the 457 visa scheme as a core issue in the populist politics that dominate its agenda. Freedom of Information documents obtained by The Australian Financial Review have revealed that Immigration Minister Brendan O'Connor had no evidence from his department to back his claim in late April that there had been "10,000 rorts" of 457 visas as he sought to justify a government crackdown on the scheme. Mr O'Connor's error is an embarrassment to a government that will today attempt to force changes to the scheme through Parliament in a last ditch attempt to find issues it thinks will appeal to voters who are likely to desert it at the September 14 election. Its continued pitch to protectionist elements within the labour movement runs contrary to all objective evidence suggesting the 457 scheme is as a modest and controlled system for allowing guest workers to supplement the workforce.

If the government can provide no justification for changes to this visa then there is not a basis for this legislation.

The 457 is a temporary visa designed to fill temporary skills shortages in the short term. It can be held for a maximum of four years by the visa holder. The role of the government should be to analyse the figures, find out where the skills shortages are and provide Australians with the opportunity to gain the skills to fill these in-demand occupations. That is where the focus of this government needs to be. The government's cuts to higher education in the budget certainly do not assist with this goal.

A point that needs to be remembered is that it is a temporary visa only and the statistics show that it is working as intended. In 2012-13, Western Australia recorded 21.1 per cent of lodgement applications by location. This 6.4 per cent decrease on the number from the previous year demonstrates the flexibility of the current system and perhaps indicates a slowdown in the boom that many commentators, including the former resources minister, have been discussing. For members interested, the top nominated industry for application in Western Australia in the last year was mechanical engineering technician. There was a notable 51 per cent decrease in geologist 457 applications in Western Australia, however. The point to make here is that the 457 visa seems to be flexibly responding to the market conditions and doing exactly what it is supposed to do, and there would seem to be no need or justification to change that status quo.

I note that on 21 March 2012 the then immigration minister, Chris Bowen, stated: 'The statistics clearly show that the 457 visa program is working extremely well for Western Australia.' Referring to a young kid sitting at home in Kwinana, the Prime Minister said:

I believe we’ve got the visa settings right particularly with short term 457 visas.

On this basis, it was a surprise to many when straight after the third Rudd-Gillard leadership crisis in March, which precipitated the resignation of Minister Bowen, the new immigration minister, Brendan O'Connor, backed by the Prime Minister, starting putting about some divisive rhetoric on 457 visas—and I will speak about that divisive rhetoric. I was in my electorate on the weekend and met Mick from Atlanta, Georgia. He was originally from India but came through the USA and he is over in Western Australia doing a job for a company. No-one in Australia was available to do that work, so he was brought in from the USA on a 457 visa. He says that he now feels like he is the pariah in the system because of this legislation. He said that, because of this legislation, he feels as though he cannot tell anyone that he is on a 457 visa as he feels as though he is stealing other people's jobs. He asked me to please pass on a message to the government: 'I'm not here stealing anyone's jobs; I'm here because no-one else can do this job.' He said, 'I've been trained in the US to do it and that's why I'm here.'

The government started talking about rorts in the system and, under pressure to provide some sort of justification, the immigration announced 10,000 cases of abuse in the system. In trying to justify these comments on the program in March, Minister O'Connor referred in the House to a Department of Immigration and Citizenship document on strengthening the integrity of the 457 program, provided to his Ministerial Advisory Council on Skilled Migration earlier this year. However, when the coalition managed to obtain a copy of the document under freedom of information, we found that the document did not suggest any widespread rorting or concerns with the program, but rather put forward a number of sensible housekeeping measures to improve program integrity. Subsequently, it was revealed in the Financial Review that the minister's personal office admitted within two hours that it had no evidence to back up Minister O'Connor's claim of 10,000 rorts; however, the pretence has been kept up ever since—culminating in this legislation today.

The bill intends to amend the Migration Act to reinforce the obligations of employer sponsors of 457 visas; require prescribed classes of sponsors to undertake labour market testing for Australian workers prior to recruiting from overseas using the 457 program; require evidence of that labour market testing and provide for exemptions from labour market testing in some circumstances; enshrine the kinds of sponsorship obligations that the minister must ensure are prescribed in regulations; empower Fair Work inspectors under the Migration Act, including their access to employer premises, for the purposes of the act; provide for inspectors to determine whether an employer has contravened a civil penalty provision or other employer sanction provision; and extend the period that an employee can seek new sponsored employment from 28 days to 90 days. I understand feedback from the Migration Council of Australia and a number of industry groups to these changes has been universally negative towards the new labour market testing requirements in particular. It does seem that this is a major area of concern associated with this bill.

The people I employed from overseas never came on a 457 visa. They were from New Zealand, but we were required to employ them initially back in the eighties because there was a shortage of skilled refrigeration mechanics. I am sure the intent of most companies in Australia is to provide jobs to Australians before having to employ overseas people on 457 visas. So I do not support this bill.

See this speech in context