Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Vanstone. Will the minister outline to the Senate the importance of skilled migration to the Australian economy? Is the minister aware of any alternative views?

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

I thank Senator Fierravanti-Wells for the question. All Australians appreciate the benefits of the economic boom that we are enjoying. It is good news. But it does, of course, lead to some skills shortages, especially if you come into government following a government that has cut funding to the training of apprentices and trainees. The Labor Party would of course sabotage this boom with reckless spending and pandering to minority interests—as they have done every other time there has been a boom in Australia. We all remember the five minutes of economic sunshine generated by Mr Keating’s government’s management of the Australian economy. I should have said ‘mismanagement’.

The long-stay business visa, the 457 visa, allows Australian business to take advantage of the growth in the economy when we have a boom, because it allows them to bring in the skills that they need so that they can take on new contracts, be more profitable, and keep Australian jobs and Australian companies secure. The visas mean that they can hire more Australian workers, because they can employ the skilled migrants needed to keep their businesses running. At the same time, the trade skills training visa is another important element in ensuring that smaller regional communities can also have that opportunity.

As to the issue of whether there are other views, it did occur to me yesterday that I had read something about some other views and I took the opportunity to look them up. In the Australian on 20 January there was a rather large article headed ‘Unions’ foreign worker windfall’. You will understand, Mr President, that I thought, ‘That might be interesting; I’ll give it a read.’ It starts by saying:

THE nation’s most powerful unions are staring at multimillion-dollar windfalls in the form of a training trust fund stemming from Australia’s labour crisis.

It goes on to assert:

The Australian Manufacturing and Workers Union and Australian Workers Union are in talks with international labour contracting specialist Brunel Energy to bring an initial batch of up to 400 skilled migrants from Southeast Asia to work on oil and gas rigs and heavy engineering projects around the nation.

I thought: ‘That’s a good thing. The unions are understanding that we need skilled workers and will bring them in.’ But then I read on and it said:

It is believed Brunel has offered under one proposal to pay the workers half the salary an Australian worker would receive, with the other half to go into a trust fund controlled by union and industry bodies.

The fund would be used to train Australian workers.

I thought: ‘This is very, very interesting. You can bring migrants into Australia as long as you give the unions a bit of money—put a bit of money in their trust fund and you’ll be right.’ So with interest I went on and read:

AMWU national organiser Pat Johnston, one of the key negotiators in the deal, said his union would not enter any agreement if Australian labour was available.

What does that mean? If Australian labour was not available, they would have entered into this agreement and they would have creamed money off if they could have gotten away with it. I read on. The article went on to say:

AWU secretary Bill Shorten—

who was not quite as well known in January as he is now—

said different pay scales for similar jobs would cause resentment.

Surprise—I thought that was a stunningly intuitive remark from him! He went on and said, ‘This is an honest attempt to address labour shortages in the country.’ By saying this is an honest attempt, I think he confirms out of his own mouth that this article is in fact correct—that the union movement were engaging in discussions with labour hire companies. Australia would like to know: did the union movement in any form have discussions about bringing in foreign workers and taking some money for a union trust account? (Time expired)

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister have any additional information to throw light on what she was just saying about the unions’ foreign worker windfall?

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

No, that question is out of order. You were asking about opposition policy, and I think you should know the correct way to ask questions about that. I call Senator Webber.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Order! Senators on my left, your colleague is on her feet, and I ask you to come to order.