Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I indicated in my speech in the second reading debate, there are some issues with these bills. One of the key issues is the lack of defined parameters on labour market testing, simply leaving it to ministerial discretion. Minister, could you advise whether any parameters have been determined by the minister in relation to labour market testing?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks for that. Is there any chance you could table the document you just read from so we can have a quick look at it?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Any idea how long that would take?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate that. From my rough notes: as you went through quite a range of issues, you did talk about chefs. Why would chefs not be part of an advertisement for suitably qualified Australian workers?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, who would make the determination if it's a top international chef? Would that be the minister? Would the company be seeking to put a proposal to the minister so that it's not included?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I'm asking is: how would the minister make such a determination? Somebody would have to advise the minister, surely, that they are seeking an exemption from the bill as it stands.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister having discretion is Minister Dutton. Is that correct?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given Minister Dutton's past performance as recently as, I think, last week, when he made some really disparaging remarks to workers in the gallery—I think he got himself confused, as he normally seems to be, about what area these workers came from—how can we be assured that workers in a certain area of the labour market won't be discriminated against because of the bias of the minister?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How can we be assured of that, given the statements he made to workers who were members of the CFMEU mining division? He got them mixed up with, I assume, workers in the construction division, so he has got a bias against certain workers in certain industries. You're saying that he would, when exercising his discretion, not exercise it in a biased way. Wouldn't that then mean that there should be regulations applying to it and the exercise of discretion should be removed from a who that has shown such bias?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on that position. Given that the minister has discretion, what areas of discretion could he exercise in relation to an employer seeking to bring in skilled workers?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While you're getting that advice, I'll ask: I think in your remarks you indicated that one of the parameters was to advertise for 21 days. Will that be included in every instrument and for every time an employer needs to advertise?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't have the document that you've read from, so I'm just going from memory on this; I might have to come back to this when I get the document before me. I think you also indicated—was it six months before lodgement?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will that be consistent or can that be amended by the minister exercising discretion?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That leaves an opportunity for different ministerial discretion for different areas. Why wouldn't there be a standardised inclusion within the bill? Is there any reason why these points that you read out were not included in the bill to give people an understanding of how it would work?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, could you outline any areas where the labour market testing may not operate?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could you now outline where those international obligations apply and what countries would be exempt under those obligations?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you have any idea how many workers are coming into the country under the various so-called free trade agreements—they are actually bilateral preferential trade agreements; is that correct? They are actually bilateral preferential agreements, not free trade agreements?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're going to provide the details. Let's just take the China bilateral agreement. I've got to say that I'm surprised that anyone associated with the minister's department is unaware of the difference between a 'real' free trade agreement and a bilateral preferential agreement. I think it's clear that these are bilateral preferential trade agreements. You'll confirm that, I hope.

So let's take one of the bilateral preferential trade agreements: say, China. In what areas would a company be able to bring in, say, Chinese mechanical or electrical tradespeople without having any need for labour market testing?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I'm trying to establish is, firstly, how robust would any labour market testing be, given that it is a matter of discretion for the minister? And, secondly: how many overseas workers can come in without having to go through labour market testing? If a mining company in Western Australia, in the resources sector, wanted to use a Chinese company to build an extension to the mine, would that be covered by labour market testing?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes: what's the definition of a 'genuine temporary migrant'?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Minister. In the context of ministerial discretion, that could vary from minister to minister if the minister changed, couldn't it?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I give you not a hypothetical example but a real example. If a Chinese corporation established a subsidiary in Australia and made a bid to build the inland rail, would those workers be subject to labour market testing?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But, Minister, this is not up to the minister. It's certainly not up to the minister. Your government and you have spoken of these issues in this chamber on the so-called free trade agreements. It's not on what occupations come in, is it? It's wider than that.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, can I then draw your attention to article 10.4, 'Grant of Temporary Entry', under the China Free Trade Agreement. I will take you to subparagraph (3) in that agreement. It says:

In respect of the specific commitments on temporary entry in this Chapter, unless otherwise specified in Annex 10-A, neither Party shall:

(a) impose or maintain any limitations on the total number of visas to be granted to natural persons of the other Party; or

(b) require labour market testing, economic needs testing or other procedures of similar effect as a condition for temporary entry.

So, when you say it's based on the facts and it's based on the classification, it's not correct, is it?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the department here? Surely the—

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay, so that's for temporary entry. I now take you to 'Article 10.4: Grant of Temporary Entry'. It's on page 113 of the China-Australia so-called free trade agreement. It says:

In respect of the specific commitments on temporary entry in this Chapter, unless otherwise specified in Annex 10-A, neither Party shall:

(a) impose or maintain any limitations on the total number of visas to be granted to natural persons of the other Party; or

(b) require labour market testing, economic needs testing or other procedures of similar effect as a condition for temporary entry.

So the minister would not be applying any discretion to Chinese tradespeople entering the country in this context, would he?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I can now take you to 'Annex 10-A: Specific Commitments on the Movement of Natural Persons'. This goes to business visitors of China. Would they be subject to any labour market testing?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm happy to clarify. It's business visitors of China.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So now I will go to 'Intra-Corporate Transferees of China'. This is not a hypothetical; this could be the Inland Rail that Minister Joyce keeps telling us will be built. If there is an 'employee of an enterprise of China established in Australia through a branch, subsidiary or affiliate which is lawfully and actively operating in Australia', they can fill a position in the branch, subsidiary or affiliate of the enterprise in Australia. Then it goes through (a), (b) and (c). In (b) it talks about:

… a specialist, who is a natural person with advanced trade, technical or professional skills and experience who must be assessed as having the necessary qualifications, or alternative credentials accepted as meeting Australia's standards, for that occupation, and who must have been employed by the employer for not less than two years immediately preceding the date of the application for temporary entry.

This is part of the intracorporate transfer. Could you just confirm this: if a Chinese company establishes a subsidiary or affiliate in Australia and then brings skilled trade, technical or professional people in, they would not be subject to labour market testing?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So, really, labour market testing is limited, and limited by the terms of these so-called free trade agreements. This is clause 9, under the heading 'Contractual Service Suppliers of China':

Entry and temporary stay shall be granted to contractual service suppliers of China for a period of up to four years, with the possibility of further stay.

If you were building the inland rail, or you were a Chinese company which is a contractual service supplier providing equipment for a new mine, you could come in for up to four years with no labour market testing. Is that correct?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, this is the second time you've said that it depends on their individual circumstances. It doesn't depend on that individual's circumstances; it depends on the terms of the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. And the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement means that any labour market testing would be redundant in the context of a Chinese company using a subsidiary to build the inland rail, or of a Chinese company or subsidiary building an extension to a mine or installing equipment, because the agreement says 'installers and servicers of China'. Subclause 12 says:

Entry and temporary stay shall be granted to installers and servicers of China for a period of up to three months.

So if one of Gina Rinehart's companies engages a company from China to install mining equipment, then there would be no labour market testing. Those installers could come in for a period of three months to install or service the machinery and equipment without any labour market testing. Is that correct?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Minister. Have you now had advice as to which other countries would be provided labour access without any labour market testing under the basis of bilateral trade agreements?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is it a legislative instrument, Minister? Or is it an agreement?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before we go back to this issue—because you're going to get me some more details—the tabled document has the heading 'Proposed Policy Settings for Labour Market Testing'. These are not guaranteed labour-market-testing provisions, are they?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are there any proposed policy settings to ensure job advertisements don't list unwarranted or excessive skills and experience?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If it's not the intention, how can you assure the opposition that you won't have a company doing what other companies have done in the past, and that is to advertise unrealistic expectations so that the labour-market-testing requirements can't be met by local workers—for instance, listing a bachelor's degree for a construction position? How do you stop that happening?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's the exact point I'm making. When we're talking about operating in accord with the instrument, you could operate in accord with the instrument but list unwarranted or excessive skills and experience as the requirement. What can be done in the labour-market-testing area to stop that happening?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Maybe you could ask the officers here from the department whether that has been done. If that has been done, can you table those guidelines?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could you outline what those guidelines are? You have the officers here.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Minister. The proposed policy settings state that an exemption applies 'where labour market testing is not appropriate due to the nature of the position'. But it provides no further details, other than some examples. Are there any safeguards associated with this exemption?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But surely, if you are asking for support for this bill, these are legitimate questions that really demand an answer before you would be expecting senators to sign off. So can you get some more information on it?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you saying that we can get those details prior to these bills being voted on, or are we supposed to take it that they will be done after the bills have been passed?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I just take you to the document that you tabled. It has a heading, 'Setting,' and then another heading, 'Proposed'. We have discussed the period of labour market testing. How did you come to the decision of 21 calendar days?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, you indicated there was stakeholder consultation. Who was consulted?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While we're waiting for 'very shortly', was the ACTU or individual trade unions consulted?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given that we're narrowing it down a little bit, who were the individual trade unions that were consulted?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While we're waiting for that, can I now take you to the issue that says 'number of advertisements'. You say 'at least two'. It refers to 'The method of advertising'. It says, 'This could take a number of formats that should consist of at least two of the following'. So you've got to pick two of the five that are indicated in the document. What other formats in addition to this are you looking at?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just so I'm clear, when you talk about how this could take a number of formats, it can only be any combination of two of the five?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So this is not a definitive list; there could be other formats. When you talk about formats—sorry to do this to you, Senator, because I know this is not your area, but I really need to try to get some idea of this. Maybe the advisers could tell you why they needed to say that a number of additional formats, as you've just explained, could be there. Why do you need additional formats? Can you give me any idea of what these formats could look like?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate that, because I'm just trying to think about what the other formats could be and why you would need to leave this open and, again, lack a definitive approach on this. So it would be good if you could come back to me on that—what other formats you are considering. Let's forget the other formats at the moment, because you don't know what they are. You could have a national recruitment website or national print media and radio—that could be one aspect—but, as I read this, you could have a recruitment agency advertising and you could combine that with internal advertising for intracompany transfers. Does that satisfy the labour market testing?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Say a recruitment agency could be an agency newly established, with very limited reach, and the company may advertise internally. You could have, say, workers in Ballarat and a company in Ballarat, but that company would not even be advertising in print in Ballarat. So the recruitment agency that some workers would not even know existed could advertise and the company could do internal advertising, and that's it. Is that seriously the position?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, it can be genuine. You can genuinely advertise with a recruitment agency with limited reach, and you can genuinely advertise internally, and a boilermaker, a fitter or an electrician in Ballarat would maybe have no chance—absolutely no chance—of knowing that there was a vacancy. Isn't that correct?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The decision-maker being the minister?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And who would be the delegate? Who would be an authorised delegate?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So a bureaucrat—sorry, I withdraw that. A public servant in Canberra could make a decision in relation to a company having satisfied these methods for a business in Western Australia or Ballarat. Is that correct?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't know how they do it, Minister! Is there an operating manual or a procedural manual to guide these officers?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate that, Minister. If you're going to provide the operating manual or procedures manual, that's good. What would happen if the company advertises internally and the recruitment agency is not a national recruitment agency? Is that satisfactory? Does that satisfy labour market testing?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's fine, Minister. Thanks for that. But I certainly think that using a recruitment agency with limited reach, and doing internal advertising with very limited reach, is a real problem. What accredited sponsors would be able to use social media or their business's website?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the method of advertising, it's got 'the business's website or social media for accredited sponsors'. What is an 'accredited sponsor', and are there accredited sponsors now?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Minister. I appreciate that. When the business uses social media, could that be a single tweet? Could that be a Facebook post that goes up for one minute? As Senator Molan knows, Facebook posts can go up and come down—and can disappear, Senator Molan! We know all about Facebook posts. So what's the situation there?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, will you update these methods once it's been determined that you're going to have a different approach? And will the procedures manual be updated once these proposed policy settings come into effect?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, and I appreciate that you've given an undertaking to provide that information, Minister. On the issue of the funding that this will generate, the Business Council of Australia, ACCI and most of the witnesses at the inquiry were very sceptical about the capacity for this fund to deliver sufficient funding. When questions were asked by me at the inquiry, I was told that what was guaranteed was the method of funding but not the quantum. Is that still the situation?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What was the methodology used by the agencies to determine that that funding could be achieved?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The budget papers I have show figures for income over the forward estimates. If, as happens in many areas of the budget, there is a significant shortfall—not at the margins but a significant shortfall—does the government guarantee the VET system in this country will continue to be funded, consistent with the budget paper forward estimates?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If state governments commit to bilaterals in relation to this, can they be guaranteed that the funding will be provided through bilaterals to the states? I will just clarify that: that the funding equivalent of the budget is available?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The portfolio here is migration, is it? Given that this is the migration portfolio, I did ask about the methodology. Could you give me some idea before we move on as to how the outcome of the funding envelope in the forward estimates was calculated?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll try again. If you want to negotiate bilaterals, surely the states and territories need some confidence that, if they are committing funding, the government can provide the funding in the forward estimates. You can't give me any guarantee on the budget paper forward estimates that the amount year by year will be achieved or available, can you?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, you've been around long enough to know that what's laid out in the budget papers and what you expect don't materialise on many occasions. So that's a real concern.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a former member of the Economics Committee, I've heard Treasury being confident on many occasions on many issues and it not being delivered. We are now talking about the VET system, the system that makes this country competitive internationally, the system that lets us engage in international trade, and yet we are expected to accept that the Treasury has this right when they have on so many occasions gotten it wrong. Will the government provide an ironclad commitment to the funding that is outlined in the forward estimates?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you're so confident, why won't you commit to the funding?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here we go again. This is a government that simply cannot be trusted. That's the problem: they can't be trusted. I seek leave to move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8372 together.

Leave granted.

I move the amendments:

(1) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 10), after item 14, insert:

14A At the end of subsection 140GBA(4)

Add "The period must not start earlier than 4 months before the nomination is received by the Minister.".

(2) Schedule 1, item 15, page 8 (after line 24), after subsection 140GBA(6), insert:

(6AA) The Minister must not make a determination under subsection(5) unless the Minister is reasonably satisfied that any advertising of the position undertaken in the determined manner:

(a) will be targeted in such a way that a significant proportion of suitably qualified and experienced Australian citizens or Australian permanent residents would be likely to be informed about the position; and

(b) will set out any skills or experience requirements that are appropriate to the position.

(6AB) A duration determined for the purposes of paragraph (6) (d) must be at least 4 weeks.

These amendments try to deal with the lack of certainty that has been expressed by business, the vocational education system, academics and states and territories around the country. These are designed to make sure, if we've got labour market testing, that the labour market testing is understood, that it is genuine and that those employers that want to bring in overseas workers properly test the local market. It's to make sure that there are no suitably qualified and experienced local workers readily available who cannot get access to the employment to fill the positions.

The bill doesn't legislate strict labour market testing. The government's bill asks Australians to trust the immigration minister. For anyone listening in, if you know the immigration minister, you should be very, very wary about that. It's also saying that the immigration minister will do the right thing. Watching the immigration minister in action, who would assume this minister would do the right thing in a legislative instrument? He has proved time and time again that he can't be trusted to do the right thing and protect labour market testing. This is a minister who actually attacks working people, and attacks them outrageously, from the coward's castle of the floor of the House of Representatives. When workers are sitting in the viewing areas of the chamber trying to see how this system is working, to see how parliament's working, Minister Dutton attacks them. It is absolutely outrageous.

The ACTU testified at the Senate inquiry into the bill:

… quite frankly, given the government's history on labour market testing, why would you trust this government to implement a serious regime of labour market testing? We just don't.

The opposition leader, Mr Bill Shorten, introduced a private member's bill in 2016 to introduce more rigorous requirements for labour market testing to be incorporated into legislation or associated program guidelines. Labor's amendments that are before the Senate now would ensure that labour market testing is advertised for a minimum of four weeks, that it has been conducted no more than four months before the nomination of a worker on a skilled visa, and that it is targeted in such a way that a significant proportion of suitably qualified and experienced Australian citizens or Australian permanent residents would be likely to be informed about the position. And it would ensure that there are not unrealistic and unwarranted experience requirements for vacant positions with the effect of excluding otherwise suitable Australian applicants.

These are similar to the labour market testing requirements that Labor successfully fought for and included in amendments to the Building Code as part of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013. For the crossbench, we are saying that the Senate has already adopted these types of safeguards for labour market testing. I call on the crossbench to ensure that in this bill we do the same thing as we did with the ABCC bill and make sure that Australian workers have access to the jobs and that they are not simply sent overseas, because it's easier for the employer to do so.

The Turnbull government has failed to protect penalty rates for 700,000 workers, and now it's failing to protect the first shot at local jobs for local workers. We will always fight for strict labour market testing that ensures local workers get the first shot at jobs. On that basis I call on and appeal to the Senate to be consistent with what the Senate did in the ABCC bill and protect Australian workers, because, as you've heard in the responses in this committee debate, there is a complete lack of clarity and credibility in what the government is proposing. It is absolutely essential, in my view, that the amendments we propose on sheet 8372 are adopted.

The CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8372, as moved by Senator Cameron, be agreed to.

Fraser Anning (Queensland, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the amendment on sheet 8381:

(1) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (after line 6), at the end of section 140ZM, add:

Exemption for small businesses

(3) However, a person is not liable to pay nomination training contribution charge to the Commonwealth in relation to:

(a) a nomination by the person under section 140GB; or

(b) an application for approval of a nomination of a position in relation to the holder of, or an applicant or proposed applicant for, a visa;

if both of the following apply:

(c) the person carries on a business that in the financial year before the financial year in which the application or nomination is made had a turnover of less than $5 million;

(d) the application or nomination is made for the purposes of employing a person in connection with that business.

Employment is always a concerning issue, and it's especially critical that we provide for our young people—

The CHAIR: Excuse me, Senator Anning. I just remind senators: we're back in session; you shouldn't be walking across the chamber. Please continue, Senator Anning.

Employment's always a concerning issue, and it's especially critical that we provide our young people with the many opportunities that are required to develop and prosper. The employment of 457 visa holders is a contentious issue, especially when it is perceived that foreigners are taking jobs from Australians.

I know this bill encourages businesses to employ Australian skilled workers. There is no distinction between skilled and unskilled visa holders and no distinction between small family operations and large multinationals. They both need to pay a levy. How is it a viable situation for a single mum running a coffee cart or, like me previously, a publican and small-business operator? We are slugged with a $1,200 fee while trying to staff the business.

I'll always support the business interests of Australians and our community first, and, in doing so, I've always tried to employ Australians to fill any vacancies. However, in some instances, trying to get Aussies to move out to Richmond in Far North Queensland or Prairie or even Babinda, south of Cairns, is more often than not a very hard ask. When I had a hotel in Gladstone, trying to—

The CHAIR: Senator Anning, would you resume your seat. Senators not participating in this debate, could you please leave the chamber and not walk across the chamber when the chamber is in session.

When I had a hotel in Gladstone, trying to get kitchen staff for $30 an hour was an impossible ask when a gas development on Curtis Island was paying $90 an hour for a similar position. You have to serve your customers somehow. In these cases, I had to employ 457 visa holders to fill the vacancies.

Under the government's proposal, small-business operators would be slugged with a $1,200 levy for each staff member employed under the 457 visa scheme. This is an unreasonable ask when, in a lot of cases, the bush hotels, the corner stores or the mums' coffee carts run on very slim margins. I will be supporting this bill. However, there needs to be a distinction made. As such, I propose an exemption for businesses with a turnover of less than $5 million per year. We need to ensure that, in the process of looking after some Australians, we are not making it harder for others.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, Senator Anning has nailed his flag to the mast. The only crossbencher who came over to that side and voted against the amendments, voted against the interests of Australian workers, then has the hide to stand up here and say that he is supporting Australian workers. You voted against Australian workers, Senator Anning.

We will not be supporting this amendment. We will not be supporting it, because you have got your values and principles in the wrong place on this issue. Hopefully, in the future, you will make up for it and not continually vote with a government that doesn't care about Australian workers, a government that cuts penalty rates, a government that wants to give $65 billion to big business while it's increasing tax on ordinary Australians. You've just got your priorities wrong on this one, Senator Anning, because—I'll tell you—if you continually vote with the government, you won't be here for long, because they are on their way out. They are a divided rabble of a government, a government that just can't concentrate on the issues of importance for Australian workers. They are an absolute rabble of a government. They don't care about Australian workers.

The CHAIR: Senator Cameron, resume your seat. Senator Whish-Wilson.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron should be directing his comments to the chair. He's clearly intimidating Senator Anning.

The CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson. I do remind you, Senator Cameron, to direct your remarks to the chair.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And another stupid intervention from the Australian Greens, who turned Senator Molan into a victim—

The CHAIR: Senator Cameron!

Senator Molan into a victim—how dopey can you lot be?

The CHAIR: Senator Cameron, resume your seat! Senator Bernardi.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just on a point of order, and in the interests of getting to question time without having to listen to too much more from Senator Cameron—

The CHAIR: Senator Bernardi, please get to your point of order.

I'd like you to reflect upon whether saying that Senator Whish-Wilson is stupid, which is what I think Senator Cameron just suggested, is appropriate.

The CHAIR: Senator Bernardi, I was listening carefully. Senator Cameron did not say that.

Progress reported.