Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Energy and Resources) Share this | Hansard source

Yes, they have their French way of doing croissants and cooking in Vietnam. So it can be an excellent scheme. As I said, I was the chair of the joint standing committee that did an inquiry into this. As a Western Australian member, I clearly see the importance and effectiveness of this scheme. We know that these visas have gone a long way to helping to fill skills shortages in Australia in recent years. For example, as we know, in Western Australia at the moment unemployment levels are at 2.2 per cent, which is below any level of unemployment—in fact, it is negative—and that is why we seek skilled employees through this scheme for a whole range of industries, from hairdressers to anaesthetists and other most professional people. Yet we still have shortages in all the ASCO codes in Western Australia—and, I suspect, in other states of Australia. Certainly New South Wales would not be in the same position. However, New South Wales is one of the biggest users of 457 visas. We know that the New South Wales government, particularly in the area of health, is the largest employer of 457 visa holders.

In February of this year there were 67,000 primary 457 visa holders, with 57,000 family members. There are currently nearly 19,000 employers using 457 visas. Western Australia is, as I said, second only to New South Wales in its use of 457 visas, with around 12,000 migrants on the 457 visa subclass. The coalition introduced this new visa category to allow employers to sponsor skilled workers on a temporary basis for between three months and four years to help ease the chronic labour shortages that I explained just a moment ago. After two years, a visa holder can generally make a permanent residency application, and around half of them do so. One reason we provided this visa in the form that we did was that we as a government believed that, unlike the situation with guest workers in places like Italy, there should be a migration outcome as part of the visa itself. We know that many people, as I said, apply to become permanent residents, and then after four years they have an opportunity to apply for citizenship. As I said, many of these people are making great citizens and adding to Australia’s colourful fabric and skilled workforce.

The bill amends the Migration Act 1958 to create a new sponsorship framework and to strengthen enforcement provisions and investigatory powers. It also amends the Taxation Administration Act to enable the sharing of information with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. In September last year, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration—which, as I said, I chaired—tabled its report into the temporary business visas. The report was entitled Temporary visas … permanent benefits: ensuring the effectiveness, fairness and integrity of the temporary business visa program. Months of hearings revealed that there was overarching support for tougher compliance mechanisms to reduce exploitation of 457 visa holders as well as to ensure that the system continued to benefit employers and the broader community. I add that it was a unanimous bipartisan report. The members on the committee included the former member for Fremantle Carmen Lawrence, the member for Reid and the member for Fowler. So we had a number of people who were strident in their views on migration, and to come up with a unanimous report was something that I and, I think, all members of the committee were very proud of. The committee came up with some excellent recommendations. I have some reason to believe that Barbara Deegan might have had a sneaky little look at that report, because many of her recommendations are in line with those of that report as well.

As I and previous speakers have said, that was to guarantee the integrity of this subclass of visa and the migration system generally. There were some examples of exploitation. However, the committee found that DIAC lacked the enforcement provisions to fine sponsors for breaches of obligations and recover unpaid wages and that it had to refer certain matters to other agencies for investigation. The bottom line was that the department essentially lacked the power and resources for adequate monitoring. Much of this legislation before us was put forward by the coalition government. It was introduced into the House as the Migration Amendment (Sponsorship Obligations) Bill in June 2007 last year. However, it was not debated prior to the election last year. Many of the committee’s recommendations have been adopted in the legislation before us today.

Those before me have detailed the current legislation, so I will not dwell too much on the individual provisions. Suffice it to say that this bill details a new system of statutory regulations for sponsorship obligations, widens the sanctions for support breaches and includes new monitoring, compliance and information-sharing powers. The significant amendments include sponsors being required to satisfy sponsorship obligations automatically, as opposed to when the visa has been granted. In addition, DIAC can disclose personal information about the visa holder and the sponsor to both parties and other government departments without the need for written notice. Inspectors will have the power to compel document production. The introduction of new civil penalties may apply to sponsors for breaches, including fines of up to $6,600 for individuals and $33,000 for a body corporate. The primary difference between the bill being debated here today and its predecessor is that this bill does not seek to bring these obligations directly into the Migration Act. These all-important obligations will be made by regulations to be drawn up in the coming months, and the government can be sure that it will be carefully scrutinised by the coalition.

It is a bit disappointing that the coalition do not know the detail of this bill. In essence what the government and the minister are saying is, ‘Trust us, we will give you the detail later.’ It is a blank piece of paper, a blank cheque. They are saying, ‘Trust us, we’re politicians. We’ll make sure we get it right some time later on.’ We are very concerned that the regulations that are going to be in force are not available now so that they can be scrutinised as we talk to this bill before this House today.

This delay is for reasons of responsiveness and flexibility—or so the government tells us. It could be a reflection on the underresourced department, the lack of consultation with stakeholders and a government with its immigration credentials in tatters. Without a strongly regulated migration system, we have already seen Indonesian people smugglers back in business. The front page of the Australian today states that the ALP says that arrivals are not a result of its policy. Also, when referring to the integrity of the immigration system, the Australian exposes the fact that in Kabul in Afghanistan it appears that the Indonesian embassy is selling visas to Indonesia for a couple of thousand dollars so that people get to Indonesia and can use it as a springboard to reach Australia. It sends a very bad signal.

In Western Australia just the other day we had a shipload of people believed to be Tamils swimming ashore at Shark Bay. What is happening to the system now? There is a green light out there that says, ‘If you can get here, you can stay here.’ That is not the integrity that we want in our visa system. We have been very proud over the last number of years of sending strong signals to people smugglers that they should not arrive here unlawfully. There is another story in the Australian today of Kurds being stranded in Indonesia because their boat sank. Thank goodness they did not drown. That is the signal—the green-light signal—that a softening of the migration system sends to would-be people smugglers and those who see Australia as a green-light destination.

On 28 November the Financial Review reiterated the coalition’s concerns that not all of the obligations to be imposed on employers are spelt out in the legislation before us. It said:

Business is being told to use the 457 scheme without clarity on what precise obligations it will have to fulfil in a few months time. … In securing integrity, business should not be dissuaded from using the scheme to maintain growth in a time of economic uncertainty.

The department’s April discussion paper on business long stay subclass 457 and related temporary visa reforms leading to this bill has been met cautiously by employer sponsors and small businesses. The overwhelming majority of these people do the right thing by their skilled migrant employees.

It is vital that there be a balance between employees and employers. We cannot afford to deter businesses from using the system and we must protect employees from abuse. Some indication of the associated costs that employer sponsors will have to incur—which will, I understand, be in the regulations—can be drawn from DIAC’s discussion paper. They include education costs of minors accompanying the worker, medical costs through insurance or direct payment, migration agents’ fees, travel costs to Australia as well as from Australia, and licence and registration fees associated with employment.

As I said, because we are signing on to this blank piece of paper, there is great concern in the industry about whether this is to be retrospective. Will a line be drawn in the sand for those who arrive after this date? What proportion of the costs will be met by the migrant themselves or the sponsor when they transfer to another sponsor? What is the obligation on the next sponsor or the previous sponsor in terms of retrieving large amounts of money spent to get the 457 visa holder here? There are so many uncertainties in this that I am concerned about, and they do need to be clarified, but we are told ‘Wait, we’ll fix them up later.’ There is concern that these new obligations and costs could impose a much greater burden and result in greater red tape for employer sponsors to cut through.

The department’s 2006-07 annual report indicated that only 1.67 per cent of sponsors of temporary entrants were found to have breached their sponsorship obligations. This is what we found in our report in the previous parliament. There were only a very small number of people doing the wrong thing. Any percentage is too much. I agree with that and that is why there has to be greater support for compliance, monitoring and surveillance so that they can be dealt with expeditiously and with a strong message that this is not to happen.

The fact that so few employers have in the past breached their visa conditions, particularly in the light of the tremendous increase in the number of visas issued, indicates that much of the concern about the creation of an underclass of foreign workers has been exaggerated, particularly by the unions looking to their own personal interest. On this point—my previous committee members will reinforce this and the deputy chair, Senator Polley, would also, I am sure, reinforce this—the only people coming to give evidence to the inquiry that had a negative view of the 457 visas were the unions. I remember one case in Sydney where the visas were painted as being the most draconian thing. This smacked to me of the fact that the union movement wanted to control the flow of workers into jobs.

One of the concerns with this legislation is that it is going to be a de facto method for the unions to be the sponsor and the surveillant of these workers, and their track record is not too holy on this. The fact is that most 457 visa holders are not members of unions and they want to unionise those coming in. If they place the unions in charge of the workers on these sites—and it has already been mooted that they will get to vet any of the workers before they commence work—it really means the unionisation of the 457 visa scheme. We will be watching that very carefully in the regulations that come forward. I know there are certain people in this House that might applaud that. We know they have a vested interest. However in saying that, any exploitation is too much. It should be investigated and it does need action.

Small business and recruitment agencies for franchises in Australia are rightly concerned about the impact these changes will have on their ability to use the 457 visa program. On that note, I will mention that the discussion paper and the discussion in the media and from the minister generally is that market rates of pay should be looked at in terms of these visas. Our inquiry also endorsed market rates of pay as the ideal that we should move towards. It is wrong that somebody on a 457 visa should go into a workforce and be paid less than an Australian in the same job. However, there are a lot of issues surrounding market rates of pay, and an example I will use again is that of the bakery where the 457 visa holder was on more money than the Australian baker on the award. That actually did have a benefit for the Australian worker because, obviously, we had to bring him up to the same rate of pay as the 457 visa holder.

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry submission suggests:

Far from increasing confidence in the 457 visa, it is ACCI’s concern that the proposed changes will in fact discourage a large number of Australian businesses from using the 457 visa at all. This will place increasing pressure on the (already over-stretched) resident skilled workforce, drive up wages (through artificial market interference), and ultimately reduce the ability of Australian businesses to compete in a global market.

Whilst additional monitoring and oversight measures would enhance the integrity of the visa program, the possible additional financial burden on sponsors may be too great for some businesses. Will Aldous of Targeted Staffing Solutions in Melbourne has raised these concerns both with me and with the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, as has one of his clients, Stainless Tube Mills. Mr Aldous noted that the changes could make it harder for their business to get staff rather than easier. Presently, Stainless has many skilled migrant workers and looks after them, including finding them accommodation, helping them learn English and providing them with transport. Both organisations echo the sentiments of many industry stakeholders that they are concerned about the compliance costs associated with the obligations set out in the paper. Mr Aldous says that the proposed additional costs are seen by many in the industry to be an additional penalty on those already under pressure because they cannot source local labour.

I asked to table a letter and have been told I may not—so I will not, the government member at the table may be happy to know. But I will raise the case to illustrate where abuse can sometimes get out of hand. This is the case of Mr Tony Cummins, who has written a 12-page letter to me. He was in Australia and applied for a 457 visa position. He has explained to me extensively the problems he was having with his sponsors. Mr Cummins is presently in Malaysia following the cancellation of his visa. A multitude of events which I do not have time to go into in full has led to the current situation, but Mr Cummins’s case is a classic example of one that has slipped through the cracks. On occasion Mr Cummins was not paid overtime after sometimes having worked more than 60 hours a week. As we know, you work 38 hours a week and then you are paid the hourly rate afterwards, but he was working 60 hours a week. He was generally treated poorly by his previous employer, who was quite ill-tempered and often violent and endeavoured to manipulate his salary in many different ways, which I intend to notify the Taxation Office about in my role as a member of parliament. He was forced to look for an alternative sponsor. His previous employer made allegations about Mr Cummins’s work ethic and essentially conducted a character assassination of him to the department. His migration agent failed to notify Mr Cummins that his visa was in jeopardy—he did not pass on the mail, in other words—and Mr Cummins did not realise his visa had been cancelled until his new application was lodged. He was paying this migration agent thousands of dollars, by the way, to do the work for him. Mr Cummins is a highly experienced horse trainer from Ireland. He now has an employer willing to sponsor him. He will be an asset to an industry, and I think he would be particularly needed in the Perth racing industry. I trust a decision will be made on his case very shortly.

The coalition supports the basis of this legislation because it does strengthen the integrity of the system. However, the failure of the government to produce the regulations leaves us in doubt about where this is going. I endorse the bill. (Time expired)

See this speech in context