Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is my pleasure to rise in this House to follow what was a very passionate and thoughtful contribution by the member for Canning as well as hat by my colleague the member for Cook. This Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Bill 2013 will see foreign workers on overseas resource installations fall within the migration zone of Australia, thereby requiring a visa. That is what this is all about. It follows on from a Federal Court decision in May last year called the Allseas Construction case which found that two pipe laying vessels and the workers on them did not fall within the migration zone.

We cannot support this bill because, firstly, we know what its motivations are about. The member for Canning explained to this House that this is all about improving the ability of the unions to recruit workers. This is all about payback. Secondly, there has not been a rigorous analysis of the economic impacts of this bill, because it is going to increase the burden on one of our most productive sectors in the economy—namely, our resources industry. Thirdly, we do not know what the impact is going to be on our border protection system. What happens if somebody goes onto these offshore resource rigs and starts to seek asylum that way? Do they fall within the migration zone of Australia as a result of the bill? That is a legitimate question. Given this government's absolute failure to protect our borders, where we have seen more than 43,000 unauthorised arrivals come in just the few years that Labor have been in government, we cannot take them at their word. We cannot trust this government to protect our borders, let alone to protect the resource industry which does so much for the economic growth of this country.

What we are proposing today is that this bill goes to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, where the proper questions are asked, the analysis is undertaken and, ultimately, the best interests of the Australian people and the Australian economy will subsequently be served after we have had a full debate about the merits of this bill. Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, you do not have to take my word for this. You have to hear from companies and industry bodies that are engaged in the sector to hear what they think about this government bill before us. The Australian Metals and Mines Association has said that this bill will impose a 'further level of suffocating regulatory burden' on the offshore resource sector for 'no appreciable social or other gain and at a likely high economic cost'. The member for Goldstein, the shadow minister for finance, who is sitting in this chamber, knows all about what it takes to get the productivity of our country moving. And when he hears the words of the Australian Mines and Metals Association talk about this bill in the most derogatory terms, he knows as well as I do that this is bad news for the Australian economy, an economy which, after 14 September, he will hopefully have his hands at the reins of.

This body has also said that this bill would 'put at risk the viability of current projects and weigh heavily against the commencement of future projects'. Why is that important? That is important because currently there is a pipeline of projects in Australia that is above $100 billion just for the resource sector alone. But we have seen, under this government and due to the policies of this government, significant resource projects, both onshore and offshore, either postponed or cancelled because Australia is in danger of becoming a low-productivity, high-cost economy. We all know about Olympic Dam, that $30 billion project in South Australia, and the Port Hedland extension. We know of a number of our major energy companies—I saw the Oakajee project has now been put on hold by Mitsubishi. All of these projects that would deliver untold economic benefits and employment benefits to our country have now been put on hold because of the costs of doing business in Australia. And there you have the Australian Mines and Mines Association making it abundantly clear that the legislation before this House is putting those projects in jeopardy.

We are the ninth largest energy and oil producer in the world. This is a multibillion dollar industry in Australia that contributes up to 2.5 per cent of GDP on an annual basis, and it is growing. In our region there are more than three billion people who will be entering the middle class between now and 2050. We have China, 1.3 billion people; India, another 1.3 billion people. Those people in those countries, together with Vietnam and Indonesia, are moving rapidly into the middle classes. As a consequence of that, they are demanding energy. They are demanding energy to build their economies, to put new infrastructure in place, and to provide for the homes and the services that we have all come to take for granted here in Australia and in other advanced economies around the world. So Australia is in a perfect position to service those countries as a net energy exporter to support those people as they go up the value chain and enter the middle classes. We can do that only if we are a cost-effective place in which to do business and in which to produce energy.

I said at the start we cannot support this bill because we know that it is an explicit, unashamed grab for power by the union movement, by the masters of the Labor Party in the Maritime Union and in the CFMEU. If it is not good enough to provide millions of dollars to the Labor Party, it is good enough for the unions to get 50 per cent of all Labor votes at federal and state caucuses. And to get 100 per cent of the Labor caucus being a member of the union. Now, why is this an issue? This is an issue because in the Australian economy today, in the private sector, only 13 per cent of the workforce belongs to a union. And when you take into account the public sector, it rises to 20 per cent. But the unions are dominating the legislative agenda of this government, and this is setting back the economic priorities for Australia. We had the former head of the HSU, Kathy Jackson, say of the member for Maribyrnong, who is the minister for workplace relations in this country and the former secretary of the AWU, that he is 'Dracula in charge of the blood bank'—and boy, is he that.

The member for Canning referred in his speech to the Fair Work legislation that this parliament debated a couple of weeks ago. The right of entry provisions will ensure that no worker around this country will be able to eat their lunch in peace and quiet anymore because what this House passed was right of entry provisions that will see unions enter during the lunch hours of workers right around the country to try to recruit them to their unions. And what is more, when these union reps have to travel far distances, they will be sending a bill to the employers to pay for their travel expenses. How crazy a system has this become? There are more than 120 provisions in the Fair Work Act, which those opposite have passed, that have increased the power of the unions at the expense of the employee and at the expense of the employer. And it is no wonder that industrial disputes have more than doubled under this government. It is no wonder that this government has abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission and all that that did to create billions of dollars in new wealth and productivity improvements in our economy. It is no wonder that you have launched a war on the 457 system, and it is all because you are paying back your union mates.

The 457 visas are very relevant to this debate. The 457s are about foreign workers, just as this debate is about foreign workers on overseas resource installations.

See this speech in context