Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, of which I am a member and have been a member ever since I came into this place, I think. The report, which was tabled a month or so ago, is entitled Negotiating the maze: review of arrangements for overseas skills recognition, upgrading and licensing. I have spoken on this before, so I will not take up my full 10 minutes—at least I do not plan to. Once I get started it sometimes can be hard to stop, but I will try not to take up the 10 minutes.

I again want to draw attention to the report, because I think it is an important report. It is a unanimous report that deals with skills in the migration area. Given the contention around that whole area politically at the moment, it is quite an achievement to have a unanimous report on anything to do with skills and migration in the same sentence. For that reason, I think it is a report that is very much worth noting.

I do try to take the opportunity whenever we speak to committee reports, either at this stage on a Thursday evening or at other times during the week, to continually urge the government to do a lot better at responding to committee reports. A lot of work goes into these reports not just from the members and senators and the secretariat but also from the community, who have the expertise and the real world experience of what the pieces of legislation, the policy and the administration of all our laws are like for the people that are subjected to them. They put in all that effort, and we take on board their experiences and expertise and present that to the parliament. The least the government could do is respond. They do not have to agree; but the least they could do is respond much more promptly.

This report has only recently been tabled, so hopefully this will be an example where there is a response within what is supposed to be the required three months—though I would suggest that it would be a very small minority that are responded to within that period of time. The government should respond promptly, particularly when reports are unanimous and particularly when members of all sides—and I put the Democrats as well as the Labor and Liberal members of the committee in this category—have sought to work together to address existing problems and put forward constructive solutions, which is what has been done here.

It is worth emphasising that the area of skills recognition of people overseas—and this includes not only recognition of qualifications but also upgrading and licensing arrangements with regard to those skills—is, by and large, not dealt with by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, which is partly one of the problems, although it cannot be avoided. Skills recognition is often still done on a state-by-state basis in some circumstances with some industries and trades. It is also still done through a whole range of industry bodies, and sometimes that is the best way to do it. There is certainly a lot of heavy involvement from the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, rather than the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs—and, again, there is some logic to that. As the title of the report suggests, it is a maze—and it is very hard to negotiate. For people like us, who are connected to the system, it is hard to negotiate; but, for people who want to come here, whether as permanent migrants or temporary residents, the skills area is a maze.

I think we need to recognise it is always going to be difficult and a bit messier than we would like in an ideal world, though that should not stop us from trying to make it better—and I think we should make it better. One of the reasons it is all the more important, and also more difficult, to do that is the massive increase in people coming here under various skilled visas. That is one of the reasons why areas like the 457 visa are, in my view, becoming more contentious—not because of any fundamental problem with the concept but because the numbers coming here have increased so dramatically so quickly.

Here I cite one of the reports we were recently considering—the immigration department annual report, which has only just been tabled—and note the increases in this area. The number of people who entered Australia through the permanent skilled stream in the last financial year increased from 77,880 to 97,340. That is an increase of 25 per cent in one year in the number of people coming through the permanent skilled stream, which is not on 457 visas, I might say; that is in areas like skilled independent, employer sponsored, state and territory sponsored, skilled Australian sponsored, business skills visas and distinguished talent visas, almost all of which involve issues to do with skills recognition.

On top of the nearly 100,000 arrivals in the last financial year, we have the temporary resident area, which is where the skilled 457 class comes in. The number of visas issued by category in the skilled visa classes has increased in the last financial year from 55,600 to 74,600, a change of 34 per cent. If you go back a year, it went from 48,000 to 55,600. So in one year we have had increases of 25 per cent in the permanent area and 34 per cent in the temporary skilled area. As is noted with regard to the 457 visas sponsored area, there is a performance measure that 100 per cent of 457 visa sponsors are monitored for compliance with their visa conditions. The goal of 100 per cent was met two years ago—they checked the lot of them. The following year it was 96.6 per cent—a bit of a worry but not too bad. In the last financial year 65 per cent were checked—less than two-thirds of the people who came here on 457 visas were actually monitored to see if they complied with their visas.

I believe that is the core problem: we do not have the resources in the department to adequately deal with compliance. The government has talked a lot about compliance in the migration area with regard to people who come here under other circumstances but is letting in 20,000 or 30,000 extra people a year—which I do not oppose, let me emphasise. I support it if it is done in a way where the regulatory regime around it is able to be properly monitored and complied with. That is the problem. When the problems outlined in the core report I am talking about here come into play as well, that is magnified. People might still get here, but then there are all of the difficulties of having their skills adequately recognised.

By way of a final comment, I would mention what it means with regard to the culture of the area. In recent years the immigration department and the minister have notoriously acknowledged that the culture of the department went bad. Things went bad. Not just the laws—although I have been very critical of those—but also the culture surrounding the administration went bad. I think that is a valid issue when looked at against the workplace changes. It is not just what is in workplace laws—we all have views about that, of course; they are different on all sides—it is the signals that are sent to people in the community that the culture has changed. That is another example of where some people in the community may have got the mistaken message that, because of the political debate surrounding things, workplace culture has changed so it is now okay to try and exploit people and see what you can get away with. That is all the more reason to do better with compliance; that is why it is important.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak also to the report Negotiating the maze: review of arrangements for overseas skills recognition, upgrading and licensing. I commend the Joint Standing Committee on Migration for the work that it has done. The report highlights a range of issues and the importance of getting our immigration system and arrangements correct. It also notes the importance of working holiday-makers. It is interesting that, just this afternoon, the Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Education tabled the report Perspectives on the future of the harvest labour force. I acknowledge Senator Bartlett’s comments in that debate, as he has just been discussing immigration arrangements. In the debate earlier this afternoon he referred to my supplementary comments in that report and noted his support for those.

In that regard and with regard to getting the system right, I proposed a targeted and tightly controlled pilot scheme to meet a demonstrated labour force need in a certain area over a certain time. That was based on visiting places like Mildura, Robinvale, the Northern Territory, the Ord River, the mango farms in and around Katherine and the vegetable-growing areas in Queensland. Even in my home state of Tasmania, during certain times of the year there is a desperate need for labour. There is clearly a labour shortage at a certain time, and there has been a growing reliance on working holiday-makers over the years. Over 100,000 working holiday-makers have been employed in the last 12 months. Their make-up is ever increasing, and seasonal horticultural workers are an increasing part of that sector. It is acknowledged that that is important, but it is quite clear that there are two distinct needs in these areas: one is the labour shortage and the other relates to the reliability of that labour. Working holiday-makers are obviously there for a time to do the work, get the cash and then get back to their holidays. For the small or larger businesses that might be employing them it is a very serious matter. The serious labour shortages and the issue of reliability have caused no end of difficulties and challenges for the various groups.

I note that there has been strong support for a pilot scheme from Australian Citrus Growers Inc, Yandilla Park Pty Ltd, Growcom and Horticulture Australia, not to mention the National Farmers Federation. I also note and acknowledge the very good work of Peter Mares and Nic Maclellan, two of Australia’s foremost experts on seasonal labour schemes.

The World Bank completed a report. Dr Manjula Luthria, representing the World Bank, put forward a very substantive report and strong evidence basically saying, ‘Yes, a pilot scheme would be appropriate for Australia.’ Crop losses in Australia due to labour shortages have been estimated by the World Bank at some $700 million. That is a huge amount of money, so this is an opportunity to get the system right and to consider it, as I say, in very tightly targeted areas under strict conditions. If growers ever breach those conditions then they should face the full force of the law.

The full payment and the minimum payment of the award or the appropriate agreement—whichever is the case—should apply. There should never ever be an opportunity for undercutting. Issues of transport and accommodation need to be dealt with, and in my view those costs should be covered by the employer in each case. I also support the view that the community should support those particular guest workers, whether it be for three to six months or three to eight months. Let us look at and at least consider the merits of a pilot program. In those circumstances, I think we could see the merit or otherwise of such a scheme. In areas like Mildura, Robinvale and the other places that I have mentioned, I know that there is certainly very strong support for such a pilot program, not to mention support from many members of the National Farmers Federation.

The protocol is set out in chapter 4 of the report that was tabled earlier today, and I commend that. A strict protocol is definitely required. Seasonal workers should be paid in accordance with the Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard and the relevant classification that applies in the particular award or agreement operating in that workplace. I have made that point and, if at all possible, the community should support such an arrangement.

In terms of the migration arrangements, I think it is worth looking at. I appreciate the work of the committee and of the committee secretariat. Of course I was disappointed not to have the opportunity to express some of those views earlier today. In the context of the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, the views that I have expressed can hopefully be considered. I thank the Senate.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.