Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (10:09): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill amends various taxation laws to implement a range of improvements to Australia’s tax laws.

Schedule 1 better targets access to the research and development—R&D—tax incentive to small- and medium-sized entities, which are more responsive to increasing their R&D spending as a result of government incentives.

This change will target support to companies with aggregated assessable income of less than $20 billion, with savings redirected to other government priorities, including measures from the innovation package A Plan for Australian Jobs. The change will apply to income years starting on or after 1 July 2013.

For companies that have aggregated assessable income in excess of $20 billion, the normal tax rules will apply in relation to expenditure on R&D activities.

Schedule 1 also makes a consequential amendment to the Industry Research and Development Act 1986 to ensure that the tests for eligibility of R&D activities conducted overseas continue to operate as intended in light of the changes being made to eligibility for the R&D tax incentive.

Schedule 2 establishes a scheme for making refundable tax offsets available in quarterly instalments.

From 1 January 2014, eligible small and medium companies will be able to access instalments on a quarterly basis in anticipation of claiming the 45 per cent research and development refundable tax offset at the end of the income year.

This is the first time that Australian income tax law has provided instalments of a refundable tax offset on a quarterly basis.

Providing the 45 per cent R&D refundable tax offset on a quarterly basis will improve cash flow for companies and support further investments in R&D in Australia.

Schedule 2 also includes amendments to the Industry Research and Development Act 1986 to accommodate Innovation Australia’s role in relation to the quarterly credits scheme.

Schedule 3 to this bill amends the GST law allowing taxpayers to self-assess their entitlement to a refund of overpayments of GST on objective conditions, rather than to rely on the exercise of a discretion by the Commissioner of Taxation.

The amendments provide additional clarity for entities that may have overpaid GST and are seeking to claim refunds.

The amendments also reflect the self-assessment regime in our tax laws.

Schedule 3 also addresses a gap in the existing law relating to refunds associated with miscalculations of GST payable on a supply. The amendments provide that the refund provisions apply to overpayments of GST, irrespective of whether the overpayment arises as a result of a mischaracterisation or miscalculation of the GST payable.

The amendments apply when working out net amounts for tax periods commencing on or after 17 August 2012, but only for refund claims lodged on or after the date the legislation is introduced into parliament.

Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum.

Debate adjourned.

Leave granted for second reading debate to resume at a later hour this day.

Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (10:14): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The bill amends the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 to introduce an unfair contract terms regime for general insurance contracts.

Since 1 July 2010, national unfair contract terms laws have applied to protect consumers that purchase goods or services using standard form contracts.

However, these laws have until now been excluded from applying to insurance contracts.

The bill will close this gap and for the first time ensure consumers are protected from terms in their general insurance contracts which unfairly favour the insurer.

This is consistent with the Productivity Commission’s 2008 report into Australia’s consumer policy framework which recommended that the unfair contract terms protections apply to all sectors of the economy.

The bill will give consumers the confidence to know that in those traumatic times when they seek to make a claim under their insurance contract, no longer will those claims be refused because of an unfair term.

The regime introduced in this bill is modelled on that applying in the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 to other financial products and services, with appropriate modification for contracts of general insurance.

The bill will extend protection from unfair terms to consumers who manage their personal risks by acquiring a standard form contract of general insurance, such as for damage or loss to their family home, its contents or their motor vehicle.

When our nation’s communities suffer the devastation of flood, fire, cyclones or other natural disasters, residents can be confident of fair treatment in their insurance claims for damage to their property. Such confidence of risk cover will also be provided to consumers making a claim for loss or damage to their property through accidents, burglaries, vandalism or other mishaps.

There are commercial practicalities and efficiencies for general insurers to determine their terms and conditions upfront in a standard form contract. The bill does not seek to interfere with these industry practices. But it does seek to provide a balance by offering protection to consumers who have little or no bargaining strength and are ‘contract takers’ consumers who may unknowingly accept unfair terms hidden in the contract’s fine print.

The bill has two objectives: to prevent an unfair term forming part of a standard form contract in the first instance, and to provide a process for consumers to seek a remedy where an insurer seeks to rely on an unfair term.

The bill meets these objectives in several ways.

First, in drafting their standard form contracts, or in reviewing existing contracts for renewal, insurers will have a clear incentive not to draft terms that are unfair towards consumers.

Secondly, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) can guide insurers on good practice in the fair construct of their standard form contracts.

Thirdly, consumers and ASIC will both be able to ask a court to declare that a term in a standard form contract is unfair. If a court declares that a term is unfair, it can award the most appropriate remedy to the aggrieved consumer.

Fourthly, such a declaration will protect other consumers because, going forward, the insurer would be expected to change their application of the contract, or amend the unfair term in all new or renewed contracts of that type.

Under the Insurance Contracts Act, insurers already have a number of statutory obligations towards policyholders, and vice versa. These will continue to operate and are taken into account in the new regime.

A core existing obligation is a duty to act with the utmost duty of good faith towards the other party. The proposed unfair contract terms regime would make it explicit that a general insurer fails to comply with this duty in relation to a standard form consumer contract of general insurance if a court declares a term in the contract to be unfair, or the insurer relies on a term that has been declared unfair. An insurer will not be able to rely on a term that is declared unfair.

This nonreliance remedy differs from the core remedy in the existing unfair contract terms regimes which makes a term void if it is declared unfair. The remedy of voiding an unfair term affects all standard form contracts that use that term whereas the remedy of nonreliance only affects the particular standard form consumer contract of general insurance that is the subject of the declaration.

This acknowledges the financial practicalities for insurers were a term to be made void across all standard form contracts when the cost of making those claims has not been taken into account in pricing those contracts. In contrast, the remedy of nonreliance, by applying to a particular contract, will not have a large-scale retrospective effect and will allow insurers to adjust their contracts on a prospective basis.

The bill defines a term to be unfair where there is significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations, the term is not reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the advantaged party, and it would cause detriment, whether financial or otherwise, to a party if it were to be applied or relied on.

The onus of proving that a term is reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate interest will be on the advantaged party, and an insurer will be taken to have established this if they prove that the term reasonably reflects their underwriting risk in relation to the particular contract under review.

Consistent with the current unfair contract terms regime applying to other products, a term in a standard form contract will be unaffected to the extent it defines the main subject matter of the contract, the upfront price payable or where a term is expressly permitted by Commonwealth, state or territory law.

ASIC will be able to use the supervisory powers it has in relation to the unfair contract terms regime under the ASIC Act. Certain supervisory powers in the Insurance Contracts Act will not be available in administering the new regime. This will prevent any duplication or conflicts between ASIC's enforcement of the unfair contract terms regime for general insurance and other financial products.

A transition period of twelve months is provided from the day the act receives royal assent. The new regime will apply to standard form contracts of general insurance that are renewed or varied after that commencement day, or to terms varied after that day.

The bill follows the regulatory path laid down in mid 2010 to give consumers and regulators the right to take action for unfair terms in other standard form contracts. Since then, Australia's consumer agencies have provided guidance about industries’ obligations under the national unfair contract terms laws and worked with them to improve terms and conditions in standard form consumer contracts. For example, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has recently conducted reviews of standard form contracts in the telecommunications and vehicle rental industries and engaged with key traders to facilitate amendments to unfair contract terms.

The bill will provide more confidence to consumers that they will be treated fairly when making an insurance claim under a standard form consumer contract of general insurance. This increased consumer protection comes from the incentive for insurers to improve the fairness of the terms and conditions in standard form consumer contracts. It is backed by the possibility of a court remedy where a term is declared unfair.

In preparing the bill, there has been considerable engagement with stakeholders. In March 2010, my predecessor, the Hon. Chris Bowen MP, released an options paper on unfair terms in insurance contracts. Since late 2010, I have held a number of meetings with stakeholders on the options available, convened a roundtable discussion of key stakeholders and there has been public consultation on a draft regulation impact statement. The bill has been through an exposure draft process which resulted in changes being made in finalising the bill.

I take the opportunity to thank all stakeholders for their active and constructive engagement in this policy and legislative development process.

I can also inform the House that the Council of Australian Governments’ Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations has been consulted on the bill.

Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.

Debate adjourned and the resumption of the debate made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Mr JENKINS (Scullin) (10:23): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the following reports:

Tenth report of 2013—Examination of legislation in accordance with the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011: Bills introduced 17-20 June 2013, Legislative Instruments registered with the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments 18 May - 7 June 2013

Eleventh report of 2013—Examination of legislation in accordance with the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011: Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act 2012 and related legislation.

In accordance with standing order 39(f) the reports were made parliamentary papers.

Mr JENKINS: by leave—I thank the House. The 10th report of 2013 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights sets out to the committee's consideration of 13 bills introduced into the parliament from 17 June to 20 June 2013, 140 legislative instruments registered with the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments, the FRLI, between 18 May and 7 June 2013 and 42 responses from the Prime Minister, ministers and private members and senators. The committee considers that none of the bills considered appears to give rise to human rights concerns. Some of these bills do not engage human rights, some engage and promote rights and a number of engage and limit rights but are accompanied by the statements of compatibility that set out an adequate justification for each of these limitations.

The committee notes that the Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 3) Bill 2013 proposes a number of civil penalty provisions. However, the statement of compatibility does not assess whether these provisions are properly characterised as civil or criminal under human rights law. The committee will write to the Treasurer to draw his attention to the committee's recently issued interim practice note 2 that sets out the type of analysis it considers may be appropriate to include in statements of compatibility accompanying bills that introduce or incorporate civil penalty regimes.

The committee has identified six instruments that do not appear to raise any human rights concerns but are accompanied by statements of compatibility, or SoCs, that do not fully meet the committee's expectations. The committee will write to the relevant minister in a purely advisory capacity. The committee has decided to seek further information from the relevant ministers in relation to two further instruments before forming a view about their compatibility with human rights.

The committee has considered 42 responses to comments made in various previous reports. The committee has concluded its consideration of 16 bills and 15 instruments, as the responses received relating to this legislation appear to have adequately addressed the committee's concerns or further information is unlikely to be elicited. The committee has made comments in relation to a further 14 responses and in some cases has recommended that a more detailed review of the human rights compatibility of the relevant legislative regime be undertaken.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank all ministers, members and senators who have responded to the committee's request for further information over the course of the 13 months since the committee tabled its first report in June 2012. For the most part, these responses have been prompt and detailed, and for the most part have addressed the committee's concerns, and the committee is grateful for the cooperation it has received.

The committee's 11th report of 2013 sets out the committee's examination of the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act and related legislation. The consideration of this package of legislation has been formative for the committee. The bills were introduced into the parliament on 23 November 2011 before the establishment of the committee. On 15 June 2012, while the bills were before the Senate and before the committee had tabled its first report, the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples wrote to the committee asking it to examine the bills. As this request came so early in the life of the committee, the committee took some time to determine how it would approach the examination of the complex issues and human rights principles involved. I would like to acknowledge the patience and goodwill extended to the committee by the national congress.

As the bills were introduced prior to the requirement for an SoC, the committee's first step was to write to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs to seek her advice on the compatibility of the bills with human rights. The committee thanks the minister for providing such a detailed and prompt response. The committee decided not to hold public hearings or formally invite submissions as part of its examination of this legislation. The committee noted that the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee had already examined the legislation in detail and had received over 400 submissions during that inquiry. After considering these submissions, the committee determined that this body of evidence provided a solid basis from which to carry out its examination of the human rights capability of the legislation. It was in this way that the committee came to appreciate the value of working in a way that complements the work of other parliamentary committees, rather than slavishly adhering to preconceived notions of committee inquiry. The committee is satisfied that its approach in this regard is not only efficient but respectful of the work of those other committees and of the time and resources of those stakeholders who engage with them.

The committee has approached its consideration of the human rights implications of the policies implemented through this package of legislation using the same analytical framework that it consistently applies to the assessment of limitations of rights in any bill or instrument that comes before it. Through its consideration of the measures in this legislation, the committee has focused on the same three key questions: firstly, whether the measures are aimed at achieving a legitimate objective; secondly, whether there is a rational connection between the measures and that objective; and thirdly, whether the measures are proportionate to that objective.

The package of legislation implements a range of measures. However, the committee has focused on three measures: the tackling alcohol abuse measures, the income management measure and the school attendance measure. It has indicated that it considers that these measures require careful monitoring and it has observed that the committee could usefully perform an ongoing oversight role in this regard.

The committee has recommended that in the 44th Parliament, the committee should undertake a 12-month review to evaluate the latest evidence in order to test the continuing necessity of these measures. This report has not specifically addressed issues such as the food security measures relating to the licensing regimes for food stores in certain areas and land reform measures and amendments relating to customary law issues. However, the committee considers that any future monitoring of the implementation of this legislation by this committee would take these issues into account.

This committee, like the committee's 9th report of 2013 on its examination of the migration legislation, exemplifies the merit of the committee's work. Like the 9th report, this 11th report is a consensus report and reflects a careful and principled response to the human rights issues raised by this legislation. I do not propose to paraphrase the report's findings. On previous occasions I have exalted members to read the committee's reports in their entirety. To cherry-pick the committee's conclusions is to fail to appreciate the sober and considered way in which the committee has approached its task.

This is the last tabling statement I will make on behalf of this committee. I take this opportunity to thank all of those who have served on the committee since it was established in March. The original members of the committee were the member for Hasluck, who has been the deputy chair—a finer deputy chair I could not have asked for in this very considerable and awesome task. The other members of the original committee were Senator Sean Edwards, Senator Gary Humphries, the member for Fremantle, Senator Ursula Stephens, the member for Wannon, Senator Matt Thistlethwaite, the member for Wills and Senator Penny Wright.

With the member for Fremantle, the member for Wills and Senator Thistlethwaite, we sent them on to greatness and they became parliamentary secretaries. Along the way, we have had some new members join us: Senator Anne Ruston, Senator Dean Smith, the member for Moreton and the member for Makin. I thank all of those members for the way in which they have taken a very collegiate view of our work. This is going to be a very important continuing committee of this parliament. It fits well into the human rights framework that was put in place by the government. And I pay tribute to the member for Barton, who I may have overlooked by mistake in my valedictory. Robert should be very pleased with his work on the human rights framework. It was part of the response to the Brennan committee and it was decided that we would legislate for this committee, and it is really a great credit to a member of executive government and to the executive government that we have this parliamentary scrutiny. In addition, I place on record my thanks to Nicola Roxon because she was the one that tapped me on the shoulder and asked me whether I would take on this task. The favourite word of the committee is 'awesome'. I did not actually realise how awesome the task was going to be. It was a learning curve for me, but it has really made my last year and a bit really worth while in this place and I thank her for that opportunity.

All this work would not have happened if we did not have a dedicated secretariat. Before I go on to making comments about the secretariat, can I say that this secretariat exemplifies the best of parliamentary secretariats throughout the parliament. In saying that, I note that all secretariats have a high standard. Now the importance of making this statement is, of course, that this is a secretariat coming out of the Senate. I have moved a long way. I am now a champion of the fact that it is one parliament, two houses, or two houses, one parliament. I apologise but I have not focus-grouped whether it should be one way or the other. But the thing is that, whilst we have two houses, we are doing the work of the one parliament and, whilst we have the rivalries across Members Hall of the two chambers, it is important to understand that we are two parts of one whole and it is the one whole that for me is the most important.

So I thank the people that have worked for the committee in the last 13 to 14 months. First of all, I would like to thank Lauren McDougall, 'Doogs', who did see the light—my having said this about the two houses—and has come across to the House secretariat system and is with the Joint Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Grouping. She was really a terrific help because she was there when there were only two people working for us. We then have Glenn Ryall, who is a senior research officer. Glenn is doing postgraduate studies at the ANU and I wish him well with those continuing studies and thank him. Anita Coles, a principal research officer, came out of Senate administration and she has knowledge of their scrutiny of bills. She has played a considerable role in the committee's work. Renuka Thilagaratnam has had a long association with the committee because she was in AG's when we were undergoing the training that Attorney-General's gave throughout the Public Service. Renuka really knows her stuff but, importantly, she has actually adapted to parliamentary life and the importance of taking a parliamentary view. I really thank her for her ability to do that, to actually know the way in which we would like to construct our work. The committee appointed an external legal adviser and we were lucky enough to get Professor Andrew Byrnes on board. He had been one of the stakeholders before coming on as the external legal adviser. I hope that he has not been too traumatised by adjusting to the parliamentary environment when has been doing his work for the committee. He has such a vast knowledge of human rights law and its application and he has been of great assistance. Finally, I come to Jeanette Radcliffe, who is the secretary. Fortunately for me, while I knew few Senate bureaucrats I knew Jeanette because she had been the delegation secretary on IPU assemblies, so that was a good start. She has done an—again our favourite word—awesome job in building this committee from a greenfields site to be so successful a committee and I hope that the hard work that she has put in is rewarded so that in the 44th Parliament this committee continues to be one of the important committees of the parliament. So to all those people—the members and the secretariat—I thank them for the dedicated and principled way in which they have all approached their job. It simply has been awe-inspiring.

Mr JOHN COBB (Calare) (11:07): I rise to speak on the Rural Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 and cognate bills. The bills will implement a number of changes to the research and development corporations which will, hopefully, facilitate small but positive improvements to these organisations to continue the proactive evolution of research and development for agriculture and agribusiness.

The amending legislation allows statutory RDCs to undertake marketing activities where the relevant industry requests this and agrees to raise a marketing levy. Currently, nine of the 15 RDCs are industry owned and can undertake marketing activities. The amending legislation will allow the remaining RDCs to also undertake marketing activities. This does not impact on government matching funds, which can only be applied and used for research and development activity. However, industry owned RDCs have demonstrated that benefits can result from combining these roles.These bills make arrangements for providing government matching funding for voluntary contributions made by industry to an RDC. Again, a number of RDCs already do this and the arrangement will be extended to all RDCs.

Industry clearly recognises that research and development investment returns far outweigh the costs. These changes are intended to encourage voluntary private sector investment in rural R&D and to ensure equal treatment of RDCs by government. The bills will provide maximum levy and charge rates for each specific commodity, to reduce the cost and delay associated with primary industry electing to increase their investment in R&D and/or marketing.

The requirement for the minister to consult with and take account of the views of levy payers when setting operative rates will be strengthened. The minister will be prevented, as he should, from setting a levy or charge rate above that recommended by industry. For statutory RDCs, board selection processes will be streamlined to reduce the time and cost of vacancies.This includes cutting the size of selection committees and creating a reserve list of suitable candidates to allow for the unforeseen circumstance where the preferred board member pulls out or serves a very short tenure. Amendments also provide that funding agreements between statutory RDCs and government will be required from July 2014.

Over the last decade, funding agreements between the government and industry owned RDCs have been used to manage governance and clarify partner arrangements. This bill extends funding agreements to the government relationship with statutory RDCs. Funding agreements create a flexible mechanism, which can be further modified to reflect the changing needs of the parties. Funding agreements will be used to promote transparency and accountability, and these agreements will be tabled in the parliament.

Another change will see statutory RDCs no longer having to submit their annual operating plans to the minister for approval. The minister will still get the operating plans but industry will not be required to wait for his approval every year, as governance issues will already have been managed through funding agreements.

The Primary Industries and Energy and Research and Development Act 1989 will be amended to clarify funding arrangements for fisheries sectors which have a statutory levy in place that is specific to that sector. The amendment will allow the future establishment of levies for individual fisheries sectors, where requested by that industry. The amending legislation also incorporates a widely supported 1995 ministerial direction requiring the fisheries RDC to spend industry funds raised from a particular fishery, industry sector or jurisdiction on R&D projects relevant to the source funds.

The government conspired with the Productivity Commission to cut R&D funding, but I am very happy to say that industry and the coalition shamed them out of it. In an effort to regain credibility on R&D, the minister put out a research and development policy statement in June. These changes to legislation are an effort to show that Labor are now doing something in this area and are trying to get the public to overlook six years of neglect, along with policies from the government that have caused immense problems for industry and destroyed the confidence of this sector.

One thing that the Productivity Commission report showed was that the Australian taxpayer gets good value out of R&D—to some extent, this bill deals with that issue—and also that we can get a better result out of research and development by the various RDCs and the various industries working together better, and I think that is needed.

The biggest issue with this legislation is the haste with which Labor is pushing everything through in the last week before we rise. Industry has had little time to review the changes, given the legislation has only been available for industry for a little over a week. Consultation has been far less than that required for good process. We will allow the bill to pass through this House, but we do reserve the right for the Senate to perhaps demand an inquiry to allow the coalition to get the assurance that industry supports this legislation. We are happy with the bill as read in this House.

Mr ADAMS (Lyons) (11:14): The Rural Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2013, the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment Bill 2013 and the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Amendment Bill 2013 amend 10 acts within the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry portfolio to implement the government's rural research and development policy. The acts being amended are primarily the Primary Industries and Energy Research and Development Act 1989, the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999 and the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Act 1999. They also include the Pig Industry Act 2001, the Dairy Produce Act 1986, the Egg Industry Service Provisions Act 2002, the Wool Services Privatisation Act 2000, the Forestry Marketing and Research and Development Services Act 2007, the Horticulture Marketing and Research and Development Services Act 2000 and the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997.

Currently there are 15 RDCs—six statutory RDCs and nine industry owned RDCs—providing services to a diverse range of rural industries. RDCs provide a mechanism for industry to invest collectively in research and development, and in marketing in the case of industry owned RDCs. The shadow minister mentioned the Productivity Commission's report, and that highlighted the need for more money to be provided in the sector from the private sector and that the investment of public dollars is used to leverage more investment in R&D for rural Australia. I think that these bills will help us in that direction following on from that Productivity Commission report.

The Australian government assists these industries by establishing a levy if any industry so requests by collecting the levy and by returning the funds to the relevant RDC, less the cost of collection. In addition, the government matches the RDCs' eligible R&D spending up to the legislated limits. The amendments will assist the RDCs to deliver improved services to levy payers and to lift the productivity of Australia's rural industries, including the agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries.

The bills will improve the efficiency, transparency and accountability of the rural research and development corporations and make technical amendments. The amendments aim to assist the RDCs to deliver improved services to levy payers and to lift the productivity of statutory funding agreements for the RDCs. This is proposed to drive performance improvements and increase transparency in the delivery of the R&D services. Funding agreements have been a flexible mechanism to provide government guidance and oversight to industry owned RDCs. These amendments will extend that mechanism to statutory RDCs.

Amendments in the bill change the process for selection of statutory RDC board directors to improve transparency and efficiency. The amendments promote due consideration of diversity in the selection process. These amendments aim to ensure high-quality boards for RDCs and reduce the time and delay associated with securing them.

The bill proposes to allow the collection and matching of individual fishery industry levies, subject to the cap based on the gross value of production of that individual fishery. This will allow specific fisheries to propose levies to invest in R&D in their industry and to undertake marketing in a similar way to other rural commodities.

Part of the bill seeks to remove redundant sections of the Primary Industries and Energy Research and Development Act 1989, including those relating to the RDCs and R&D funds which no longer exist. For example, they changed the name of the Primary Industry and Energy Research and Development Act 1989 and removed energy because there is no energy research agency currently covered by the act. Energy research is now part of the Resources, Energy and Tourism portfolio.

The amendments will not change any levy or change rates that are in operation at the moment, but they will streamline the process for changing rates in the future. Levies and charges may be increased following a request by the industry that will not be allowed to be set above the rate recommended by the industry. This will allow industries to manage their collective investment in research and marketing while also providing a safeguard for levy payers against arbitrary increases in rates.

One of the things we recognise with rural bills is the constant need for rural and regional research not only at the industry level. This was reinforced yesterday when I had a visit from the Regional Australia Institute, who showed me a new online tool for assessing regional liability, called Insight. I have to recommend it to all, because it does not matter which side of the House one is on; we all need to know how we can help regions prosper. Knowledge is strength and it can help you predict more accurately how your region, your local government area or your state will travel in the future. It can make comparisons, add information and develop policy. Along with knowledge, we need to have efficiency, transparency and accountability in legislation so that research and development information is available to guide and innovate our rural and regional industries, hopefully beyond the politics of the day.

Take, for example, the Forest Marketing and Research and Development Services Act. The forest industry is going through all sorts of changes at the moment and there need to be ways to assist the industry to capitalise on the opportunities presented by its sustainable products. Unlocking their potential requires innovative skills and the key ingredients of innovation are learning and workforce development. The sorts of skills needed and the direction in which the industry might head can be determined by ensuring the research is up to speed.

In my position as chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry, it seems that most of the recommendations made during our various inquiries have elements of pointing to the need for more research. There is also encouragement to ensure that levies are raised to undertake the research that particular industries need to develop their plans for the future, not in isolation but in the region in which they operate.

While on the question of the ARFF committee, I pay tribute to the work of the member for Hume, Alby Schultz, my opposite number on the committee, who is retiring from the House and who made his valedictory speech only yesterday. I take this opportunity to thank him for his work on the committee in his role as deputy chair and previously as chair. He has been of enormous support to me as deputy chair. Our work over the years, although not always agreeing, has been able to find a common way through. Our committee has achieved some excellent research for the parliament and there has nearly always been bipartisan support. So thank you, Alby, and we wish you all the best for the future.

These bills are mainly small in the sense of change but they ensure the modernisation of legislation, taking out the redundant parts and pulling some of the levies under one umbrella to give some more flexibility, all of which gives the industry a greater opportunity to undertake work that will put it in a more viable space for the future and helpfully promote our regional industries. I commend the bills to the House.

Dr STONE (Murray) (11:23): I too wish to speak on the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Amendment Bill 2013, the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment Bill 2013 and the Rural Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2013, which are being considered here. Obviously, these bills are of critical importance to my part of the world, where our economy is underpinned by agricultural production. That production, in turn, depends on innovation, well-funded research and industry development. We have gone through a very bad period when our different state and federal governments have pulled back from what were sometimes 80- or 90-year-old research stations. We have seen a lot of the CSIRO effort in rural and regional research no longer funded.

I am concerned, too, about things like plant breeding, which may take literally 20 or 30 years to undertake if, for example, you are looking for a new wheat variety that is particularly suited to our climatic conditions—perhaps in Western Australia. The seed-breeding program that used to be in place in Western Australia brought forward for Australia a whole new focus on quality and higher yields. For example, the noodle wheats in Western Australia, wheats like Eromanga, were evolved as a consequence of the state-supported seed-breeding program. Much of that is now lost and the business of breeding new varieties is too often in the hands of research organisations commercial and not based in Australia, and so they have other conditions attached to the buying of those varieties. It is no longer always the case that farmers can use their own seed for replanting, for example. Too often there are highly restricted conditions around the seeds—patenting or licensing. This business of research and development—including the levies raised, matched by government funding in this case—is a most important matter for the future sustainability, evolution and additional productivity in Australia's agriculture.

What do these bills do? They allow statutory RDCs to undertake marketing at the request of the industry in addition to their more traditional activities. I have a little issue with this. When an RDC does something like promote the eating of fresh fruit or a dairy product, or maybe Australian meats, this tends to increase the shopper uptake of that product. The shopper goes home perhaps with more cans in their trolley or more fruit in their diet. This is a good thing but, of course, imports also benefit from that marketing effort. If the general response to that food category is stimulated by marketing dollars, I have a view that the importing country should also contribute to that marketing effort, particularly in the case of New Zealand, where we have a great deal of two-way flow in food. We have, as we know, under the CER, or Closer Economic Relations, a longstanding arrangement whereby there are no barriers or inhibitions between the two countries in terms of tariffs, duties or quotas. Only phytosanitary considerations are in place. Yet, if RDCs are to raise levies for marketing within Australia to promote, for example, the eating of apples, I think the New Zealand Apple and Pear Marketing Board, the equivalent body, should make a contribution.

The bill will also make sure that the government's matching funding extends to voluntary contributions made by the industry. This change is intended to encourage voluntary private sector investment, and we need to see that across Australia. The bill also removes product specific maximum levy and charge rates to reduce the cost and delay associated with primary industries electing to increase investment in R&D and-or marketing. The minister will be prevented from setting the levy or charge rate above that recommended by industry, and that is a good thing, but all of this is about reducing red tape and putting more control back in the hands of the industry itself. These are important developments, I believe.

The board selection processes are to be altered and, hopefully, improved. There is also going to be a reserve list created for suitable candidates. A selection committee will create this reserve list. It will cut the size of selection committees, reduce expense and delay in filling board vacancies but, importantly, also look at the diversity and gender balance of various boards. It is too often the case that all we see on these RDCs are men and yet, in agriculture in particular—take dairying—you see men and women participating equally in the business of running their farms or, indeed, participating at a high level in industry policy development.

Funding agreements between statutory RDCs and the government will be required from July 2014. These will provide a more flexible mechanism for agreeing governance and performance issues. This will allow timely modification of these arrangements when needed without having to come back for legislative change. It will improve consistency in the government's relationship with RDCs—that is the aim—a bit like local EBAs. I think it can only be good where, if the industry is in agreement and the government is in agreement, you do not have to come back and queue to see legislative change put in the pipeline.

So these measures look at cutting red tape; they allow marketing to also be an activity of the RDCs although not to have, we understand, government funds put into the marketing arena—just into the R&D activities. That is appropriate and understandable. But we are concerned about the consultation time frame. The industry has had no time to review the legislation and we, the coalition, have hardly had any time at all to look at the issues. There are a large number of stakeholders from very diverse industry sectors who really should have been consulted. There should have been extensive feedback in relation to these changes.

Perhaps we can still have some feedback. We do need more flexibility and less red tape in this area. We need to increase the funds available for R&D in Australian agribusiness in particular. We have had a real problem of productivity not growing in Australian agribusiness sectors for quite a while. Of course we have had floods, droughts and pestilence—that is for sure—but it is interesting to see the productivity advances being made by our neighbours like New Zealand, but also in Asia. Those productivity increases in the agribusiness sector have been quite astonishing, while in Australia we have been standing still.

I was particularly concerned when our crisis—our tragedy—struck in the Goulburn and Murray valleys, where virtually overnight the canning fruit industry found no market for their produce. We needed to consider quickly what alternative varieties to plant which might have greater market value, or indeed whether there were vegetables or some nut varieties to make best use of the soil types, the climate and the human capital in my part of the world. So we looked around for research and development capacity at the state level, at the federal level and in the private sector, but we found there is in Australia a real dearth of expertise and funded support for research and development in horticulture. We used to have the work of the Tatura Research Institute, which did such amazing things as developing the Tatura trellis system. This revolutionised the way fresh apples and pears were grown. It is a system that has been emulated throughout the world. But that particular place, the Tatura Research Institute, now has virtually no research scientists still employed. Unfortunately their places have been backfilled with public servants who are employed by the Goulburn-Murray Water authority and who unfortunately are highly inefficient and a burden not a help or an assistance in keeping our agribusiness in place given the unconscionable fees and charges that they are now imposing.

We do need to look very hard at research and development activity in Australia. The statutory RDCs are a critical part of that. I also hope that, if we stimulate our statutory RDCs to be more flexible and to also have a marketing focus, they will address or somehow stimulate a younger generation—the next generation of people working in primary industries. We have so much distress and concern in horticulture. Our dairy industry are hardly making any return above their costs of production. We have a serious problem in many parts of our country with the costs of doing business. Whether it is energy charges, veterinary supplies, farm chemicals of any description or fertiliser, the costs confronting our primary industry sector are making us less competitive, and that is without even starting to discuss the labour costs in Australia compared with our competitors.

So research and development is critical. We once led the world in innovation in our seed-breeding and in our livestock genetic development. We supplied the world with the most superior genetics in our wool-producing sheep varieties. We developed cattle species that are able to survive in tropical Australia and can resist ticks. These cattle have a virtually disease-free status compared with other varieties of cattle who have traditionally been bred in other parts of the tropical Southern Hemisphere. We have done an amazing job in the past but we are now slipping with our research and development effort. That is reflected in our virtual flatlining of productivity growth over the last 10 or so years. It is also reflected in the lack of decent returns for people working in primary industries. It is reflected in the fact that we have a crisis in the next generation's reluctance to take up agribusiness. We have very low levels of investment in food manufacturing or indeed even back on farm.

Perhaps the saddest reflection of all is on the state of our agribusiness or our agricultural science training in universities. Unfortunately, universities now have a funding model which depends on how many students they can seat in their hallowed halls, how many of those students are overseas full fee payers and how many refereed journal articles or pieces of research can be published. Unfortunately, the agricultural science courses do not tick any of those boxes. They are not popular with overseas full-fee-paying students. They are very expensive to run. They do not necessarily lead to additional publishing in refereed journals. These facts are reflected in the collapse in numbers in agricultural science teaching across all of our universities and the near disappearance of institutions like Dookie Agricultural College and other great Victorian institutions—agricultural colleges that, I would argue, trained some of the best agribusiness specialists in the world. Certainly they were in demand as such.

I am concerned about the rush and the lack of consultation in relation to these matters of significance to agribusiness and the future of agriculture in this country. The industry has not had sufficient time to review the legislation, nor has the coalition. However, having said that, I need to say the changes do appear to be positive and I am anxious to see that more work is done in the closing days of this parliament in relation to these issues.

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (11:36): It is always a pleasure to follow the member for Murray, who like me represents an agricultural region vast in the variety of produce it produces not only to feed our nation but to feed other nations as well. I know how desperately worried the member for Murray is about a future for farming. These bills are to do with agriculture, and agriculture is under great pressure at the moment through a combination of factors, not least of which is the high Australian dollar. Fortunately, that high Australian dollar is weakening—fortunately, that is, for the farming sector, who rely on overseas importers in order to export their produce at a price that is reasonable and good for them so that they get the maximum price at farm gate. With a high Australian dollar there is a disinclination for those overseas countries to continue to trade with many of our fine farmers.

Australia does have the world's best farmers—there is absolutely no question about that. I know the Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries at the table would concur with me on the fact that Australian farmers are the very best in the world. They are using world's best practice. They are using less water to grow more. Yesterday I commended the member for Braddon, who is the Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, on the wine-marketing export arrangements—the new statutory body which is being formed. But, unlike with that particular piece of legislation, I do not think that there has been due diligence or sufficient consultation with respect to this bill. It bothers me that in the last few days of this parliament we are seeing this rushed through without the coalition being properly consulted, and moreover without industry bodies and key stakeholders being consulted. They are the ones who are going to wear the effects of any changes and they need to have the comfort and security to know that the government of the day is doing the right thing by them. But I am not certain that they have those assurances.

We have seen agriculture under enormous pressure, and not helped at all times by this government. There has not been the focus on regional Australia that there should have been in this parliament. I hope that in the next parliament, whichever party has the Treasury benches—

Government members interjecting—

Mr McCORMACK: You do not come from regional Australia and so, quite frankly, would not know. There needs to be a greater emphasis on regional Australia, and I know that the members opposite would agree with me there, whichever party is on the Treasury benches. Regional Australia grows the food to feed this nation and others. Regional Australia is the backbone of this country—it always has been and may it long continue to be. But it is not being shown the respect that it should have been shown.

These bills will implement the changes to the rural research and development corporations, or RDCs, as the statutory RDCs will be permitted to undertake marketing activities where the relevant industry requests this and agrees to raise a marketing levy. Government matching funds may only be used for research and development activities, but industry owned RDCs have demonstrated that benefits can result from combining these roles. These bills make arrangements for providing government matching funding for voluntary contributions made by industry to an RDC. This change is intended to encourage voluntary private sector investment in rural R&D to ensure equal treatment of RDCs by the government of the day.

I heard Warren Truss, the Nationals leader, saying in answer to a question about foreign investment that one of the reasons why there is so much interest by overseas countries in Australian agriculture is that it is the very best, but more than that there is not the same inclination by Australian companies—and, indeed, superannuation funds and others—to invest in Australian agriculture. That is a pity, because there is a bright future for Australian agriculture. There is a bright future for regional Australia, and it is a shame that more Australian investors do not acknowledge that fact. At the moment we see Archer Daniels Midland, an American company, attempting to take over GrainCorp. There needs to be more investment by governments and certainly by the private sector in Australian agriculture. I heard the member for Murray talking about the R&D factor. Research and development in genetic foods and better farming methods and practices is so very critical. I know the great work that Charles Sturt University, in Wagga Wagga and other regional campuses, is doing in that space.

These bills will remove product-specific maximum levy and charge rates to reduce the costs and delay associated with primary industries electing to increase their investment in research and development and/or marketing. The requirement for the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to consult with and take note of the opinions of levy payers when setting operative rates will be maximised, bolstered and strengthened. The minister will be prevented from setting a levy or a charge rate over that recommended by industry. That is not such a bad thing—in fact, it is a necessary thing.

For statutory RDCs, board selection processes will be changed to reduce the size of selection committees and lower expense and delay in filling board vacancies. That is a good move, too. Selection committees will create a reserve list of appropriate candidates and more emphasis will be put on diversity and gender balance.

Funding agreements between statutory RDCs and government will be required from July next year. Funding agreements will provide a more flexible mechanism for agreeing governance and performance issues, something that I am sure industry will concur with. This will allow timely modification of these arrangements where and when needed without requiring legislative change. It will improve consistency in the government's relationship with RDCs—there is certainly no argument there. To try to match the coalition commitment to cut red tape and moreover green tape and to try to add some substance to Labor's hollow promises to reduce regulation—because we have seen more and more red tape and green tape in this 43rd Parliament—statutory RDCs will no longer have to submit their annual operating plans to the minister for approval.

The bills make several small and minor arrangements to improve consistency in governance between RDCs. They will clarify the role of RDCs and they will simplify the arrangements of governance. The Primary Industries and Energy Research and Development Act 1989 will be changed to clarify funding arrangements for the fishery sectors, which have a statutory levy in place which is specific to that particular sector. This amendment will allow the future establishment of levies for individual fishery sectors where requested by industry. Certainly, the fishing industry has not been at all assisted by this government—locking up marine reserves, the case with the supertrawler which was banned from Australian waters. There are so many factors and so many ways in which this government has disadvantaged the fishing industry, so anything in this will be looked forward to.

The amendments will also incorporate a widely supported 1995 ministerial direction requiring the Fisheries RDC to spend industry funds raised from a particular fishery industry sector or jurisdiction on research and development projects relevant to the source of funds. That is a good thing. The government committed in the commitment to regional Australia—and it is a shame that the government has not followed through on some of the other commitments to regional Australia—to reviewing the RDC model. Passage of these bills will implement changes arising from that very review.

The government conspired with the Productivity Commission to cut R&D funding, and shame on it for that, but industry and the coalition shamed them out of it. That was necessary. In an effort to regain credibility on R&D—and nothing is more important than R&D, particularly in the farming sector—the minister put out a policy statement in relation to research and development, and now these changes to legislation are an effort to show that Labor is coming to the party in this particular area. We could say, 'Too little, too late,' but we have two days of parliament to go. Finally, even though it has rushed it through and even though there has not been consultation, the government is doing it.

Given the short time frame, the lack of consultation is a major issue. It is a significant issue. Industry has had no time to review legislation. A lot of the legislation that industry is often tackling here is complicated and complex, and industry needs to talk to its grassroots stakeholders to see how it will affect them. Often, the devil is in the detail; it is something that is forgotten on that side of the parliament. We heard the Senate bells going crazy last night and again today as upper house members scurried about trying to get through the dozens upon dozens of bits of legislation that this government is rushing through at—symbolically—five minutes to midnight in these last few days of parliament. It is not good enough. The public deserves better. Industry has had no time to review the legislation and, like the coalition, it has not seen it before its introduction last week. That is simply not good enough.

However, we have spoken to a large number of stakeholders. As you would expect from the coalition, we consult with people. We care about people and we care about those affected. Their feedback—and you might be surprised to know this—has been relatively positive, with no substantive concerns raised. The changes appear positive, as they allow RDCs to undertake marketing at the request of industry, and that was an industry request. It enables the government of the day, by providing matching funding for voluntary contributions to all RDCs, to encourage the private sector to invest in rural R&D. It removes the requirement for statutory RDCs to submit their annual operating plans to the minister of the day for his or her sign-off. It makes statutory RDC board selection processes more streamlined, and that is a good thing. It introduces funding arrangements for statutory RDCs to drive performance improvements, something we might see on the other side eventually. Performance improvements—that would be good. It increases transparency in the delivery of R&D services and allows individual fisheries industry levies to be collected and matched, subject to a cap based on the gross value of production of that industry. It removes product-specific charge and levy rates.

The coalition has consulted with a number of stakeholders, including the National Farmers' Federation, that important, august body. I had the Chief Executive Officer of the NFF, Matt Linnegar, in my office yesterday and he is hopeful for better things to come. He is hopeful for an improved relationship between the government of the day and the primary industry sector because he obviously knows—and coming from the Riverina he would well know—the benefit of good consultation between government and the agricultural sector. Having worked at Murrumbidgee Irrigation he has seen how the water rights debate did not go as well as it ought.

There are many farmers in my area who are hoping to see better legislation. They are looking very much forward to buyback being capped at 1,500 gigalitres so that farmers can get on with the job they have been doing in the Riverina for 100 years; that is, growing the food to feed our nation. I know that water is important for South Australia, even in regional areas such as Kapunda, in the member for Wakefield's electorate. I know that water is important for South Australia, but it is also important to be able to utilise that water as it flows down the Murray-Darling and Murrumbidgee systems to enable the farmers to get on with the job that they have been doing and that they were asked to do by government 100 years ago.

They are getting on with the job. SunRice is certainly getting on with the job, having reopened its mills at Deniliquin and Coleambally, and with all the rain we have had in recent weeks we are very much looking forward to a great grain harvest. We certainly hope that the profits of that grain harvest will stay right here in Australia and that they will not be going overseas to be decided by a boardroom in Illinois. I ask that the Treasurer reject the ADM takeover of GrainCorp out of hand because it is un-Australian, it is not necessary and we need to keep the future of Australia's grain harvests in Australian hands. That is so very important.

Mr SIDEBOTTOM (Braddon—Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (11:51): It gives me great pleasure to sum up the debate on the Rural Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2013, a bill which is very significant for the primary industry sector of our economy. I would like to thank the members for Calare, Murray and Lyons, in particular, for their comments. Also, I cannot let my friend from the Riverina leave the chamber without making a few remarks on the comments that he made.

First and foremost, contrary to the templated sheet that was handed out to those opposite, consultation on not only these amendments but also the intent and most of the content of the bill was carried out over a three-year period and very much formed the content of the 2012 research and development policy statement of this government. I hope the member for Riverina—who is, I must say, a very diligent member—has read that policy statement, because he, like me, in terms of primary industries and rural and regional development, believes that good ideas should be shared and, if they are very good, they should be followed. Prior to the exposure draft going out it was offered to some 72 relevant stakeholders, and only seven of them replied and even the majority of those were highly positive. The member for Riverina—who I know gets around his constituency and his agencies—was able to report a positive response to these amendments, and do you know why? It is because they have been part of the consultation process since cocky was an egg. So, frankly, I think that was a bit of a red herring.

I would leave you with one thought before we go on to the amendments themselves. This government created a ministry for Regional Development Australia and has done more for regional and rural Australia in the last three years in particular in terms of infrastructure and recognition than the other side did over decades. I think the Nationals member representing the Riverina is a little bit envious of what we have been able to do in that time, and I think it is only fair to due give recognition to that.

Anyway, let us move on to the amendments. The Rural Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 updates and refines the Australian Research and Development Corporation, or RDC, model in line with policy commitments made by the government in the Rural Research and Development Policy Statement some years ago. In preparing the policy statement the government met and consulted with stakeholders around Australia and took into account many submissions. Extensive consultation continued in the process leading to these legislative amendments before us.

The bill will allow statutory RDCs to carry out marketing activities on behalf of their industries if a marketing levy is in place. RDCs undertaking marketing will be able to use their industry expertise to provide cost-effective, targeted marketing activities in accordance with industry needs and priorities. I would like to note that no changes to levy rates or new levies are part of these amendments. The amendments will encourage private sector investment in rural R&D by extending to all RDCs the arrangements for government matching funding to voluntary contributions for eligible research and development.

Statutory funding agreements for statutory RDCs are proposed to drive performance improvements and increase transparency in the delivery of R&D services. Funding agreements have been a flexible mechanism for providing government guidance and oversight to industry owned RDCs, and these amendments will extend that mechanism to statutory RDCs. Amendments in the bill change the process for selection of statutory RDC board directors to improve transparency and efficiency. The amendments promote due consideration of diversity in the selection process. These amendments aim to ensure high-quality boards for RDCs and reduce the time and delay associated with securing them.

The bill proposes to allow the collection and matching of individual fishery industry levies, subject to a cap based on the gross value of production of that individual fishery. This will allow specific fisheries to propose levies to invest in R&D for their industry and to undertake marketing in a similar way to other rural commodities. The burdensome requirement for ministerial approval of statutory RDCs' annual operating plans will be removed and other minor technical matters will be addressed.

The Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment Bill 2013 removes the maximum levy rates for research and development and marketing levies on primary industry products. Similarly, the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Amendment Bill removes the maximum charge rates for R&D and marketing changes that are duties of Customs. The numerical maximum levy and charge rates will be removed, and the rates will be limited to no more than the level recommended by an industry body following consultation with the levy and charge payers. The amendments will not change any levy or charge rates that are in operation at the moment, but they will streamline the process for changing rates in the future. Levies and charges may be increased following a request by industry, but will not be allowed to be set above the rate recommended by industry. This will allow industries to manage their collective investment in research and marketing whilst also providing a safeguard for levy payers against an arbitrary increase to rates.

Finally, I would like to thank the ministerial staff, the DAFF departmental officers and the drafters of the bill for their work and I also want to thank all those who contributed to the consultation process. I recommend this legislation to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Mr SIDEBOTTOM (Braddon—Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (11:59): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr SIDEBOTTOM (Braddon—Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (12:00): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr SIDEBOTTOM (Braddon—Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (12:01): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (12:01): It is my great pleasure to speak on the Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013. It has been a long and exhaustive debate—I did not think I would get a chance to speak because there were so many speakers before me. Of course one of those was the member for Canning who made some headlines when he accused the government of racism. I found that comment to be intemperate and obviously offensive but it also does not match my party's history.

My party and, in particular, Arthur Calwell, as the first immigration minister, gave this country the postwar migration scheme. Indeed, Calwell was the father of that scheme and he very famously made a ministerial statement to this House saying that we would have 22 million Australians by 2020. He brought millions to this country who settled and brought their skills, their innovation and their energy from a destroyed postwar Europe. They built the Snowy Mountains scheme, many of the railways and most of the postwar infrastructure that was put in place by the Curtin and Chifley governments—continued in large part by the Menzies government, no doubt about that.

Migration was a fundamental part of that postwar reconstruction, as it was called. If you look on Google and type in 'Arthur Calwell', a very old video will come up—it is a video now but it would have been a film back then—of Arthur Calwell saying, 'Give me the ships and I will bring the right type of people to this country.'

Mr Ruddock: 'Two Wongs don't make a White'!

Mr CHAMPION: The member for Berowra should take it easy; he has a habit of interjecting. My party are the architects of postwar migration, and Arthur Calwell can rightly be seen as the architect of multicultural Australia. So much of his legacy has been diminished by people who want to simply reel off his responses as interjections in this place as some sort of evidence of racism when, in actual fact, he was, as I said before, the father of the postwar migration scheme, the father of multicultural Australia. At the heart of that scheme was that people would come here, have permanent residence, become citizens, work and bring their skills, their innovation, their ideas and their families to this country and make a permanent contribution to it

The 457 scheme does not do that. The 457 scheme is a guest worker program—that is what it is; that is what it has always been. I am not a fan of the scheme; I do not like it. I think in so many ways it does not do this country a service. The great trick of the conservatives has been to equate what is a guest worker scheme with skilled migration when the two things are quite different. The two things are different in this respect: your visa under 457 is linked to your job; lose your job, lose your visa. That is the way it works—lose your job and you have got 28 days to leave the country. That is how it works and that was implicit in its design in the Howard years.

The second thing I do not like about the 457 scheme is that much of the money that is earned here, much of the income, is remitted. It does not stay in this country; it is remitted to many countries abroad. Those remittances are good for these countries—there is no doubt about that. Many countries around the world rely on remittances, but it is not good for Australia to have the earnings of these people remitted to other countries. It does not stay in the country.

The last thing is the skills are also sent home. At least half of the people return after their visas have concluded and they take their skills, their innovation and what they have learnt with them. The other half stay. Why not have them stay in the beginning? Why not give them the security of permanent residence in the beginning? If they are good citizens, why not keep them?

As long as a person's visa is linked to their job, they will be forever vulnerable. That is the truth of the matter. Anybody who has ever been at a work site understands that implicitly. It is not surprising employers think these workers are great workers. They are great workers because they have to be, they do not have a choice. If your job is linked to your visa and you have a family that is reliant on your remittances, then you are in a vulnerable position. And if the boss says, 'Jump,' you will jump. If you talk to people who have had experience with these visas you will find employers are glowing in their appreciation of it—no doubt about that. But if you talk to the workers who work alongside them, there is often a great deal of sympathy for people on 457s, because they do not have that opportunity to raise an objection. They live with that fear, with that idea, that if they speak up, if they say anything to their boss, they could lose their job and thus lose their visa. I think that is at the very heart of what is a guest worker program.

We get a lot of rhetoric from the opposition about skills, and about how employers need these skills. But this scheme, the 457 scheme, does not serve the country in the long term. It serves it in the short term. It gives you a short-term solution to a skills problem. We all know there is a skills problem in this country. The fact that we cannot find enough doctors and nurses for our hospitals is a disgrace. The fact we cannot find enough diesel mechanics is a disgrace. But a 457 program, a guest workers scheme running indefinitely, just makes employers lazy. It does not give them any incentive to invest in skills. It does not give them any inducement to invest in skills if they know that they can just get another diesel mechanic—once one visa has concluded, they can just get another worker on another visa—and it makes them lazy about planning for the skills they need in the long term.

The 457 visa scheme provides no incentive for employers to drag people into the labour market who are currently outside of it, such as mature age workers and young workers. In my electorate, there would not be a week goes by that I do not meet a mature age worker who wants to work and cannot get a start, cannot get a job—and it is not for want of trying. The same could be said for young people as well. Often they cannot find a start, or they get the wrong start. This program, the 457 program, in the long term is lazy and it is counterproductive and it does not encourage skills formation. All of the skills that are brought to this country, or at least half of them, evaporate; they leave the country with the workers.

In my electorate I often see the by-product of what I call fast-food traineeships. People on both sides of parliament have got up in this House and talked about the extraordinary number of traineeships and the like, contracts of training, that have been occurring over the past 15 years or so, but so many of these traineeships come out of fast-food businesses. I see young people all the time signed up on a contract of service for a low training wage, and I think they get questionable benefits out of this in some sectors. Some of the traineeships are very good, but some of them are of very poor quality. It really saddens me that when I go to the trades school in my electorate—St Patrick's trade school—I hear of young people who want to sign up for an apprenticeship, but at some time in the past they have gone to a fast-food establishment and signed up to a training contract—and, of course, you only get one training contract. In effect they are denied a trade because at some point in the past they signed up, often without thinking about it too much, to a traineeship in fast food or in retail or in hospitality. There is a definite problem with the quality of some of these traineeships. That is another area that we have to look at. We have to make sure the money the government puts in for skills training actually gets used for training in the skills where we have real shortages: diesel mechanics, doctors and nurses, and all of the classifications on the list for 457 visas.

In summarising my views, I think the 457 scheme should not be confused with skilled migration, and it is certainly not a long-term solution; it is a bandaid. And if those opposite think they can fix our skills problem by making this scheme even easier to utilise for employers, all the while engaging in dark partisanship on a whole range of other migration matters, they have another think coming. If they think they can lower the standards of this guest worker scheme and make it easier for employers to bring foreigners to this country to work and that the Australian public will just stand by and give a bit of a golfers clap to that, they have another think coming. They must have rocks in their heads, particularly when, as I said before, so many Australians are looking for work and cannot find it.

As I said before, the details of this bill are not all that I would want them to be. I would want a much stronger response to the 457 program, and I have expressed that view in my party room. But this bill does have a lot of merit. The first one is that it requires employers to undertake labour market testing. Labour market testing is as simple as advertising for a job to see if you can find any Australians before you bring in someone from overseas to take a job. It does not seem like that much of an onerous requirement to me to advertise, to see if you can find an Australian to take the job. It does not seem difficult. In fact, I think most Australians would think that is a fair thing to do. This bill gives the minister some mechanisms to make sure the sponsorship obligations can be enforced and that they are actually undertaken by employers. That is done through enforceable undertakings and making sure that employers actually meet the training requirements and the like of having these visas.

Most importantly, it allows the Fair Work Ombudsman to monitor and investigate compliance and sponsorship obligations, and that takes the number of inspectors from about 30 to about 300. One of the big problems with this program at the moment is that the good employers who follow the rules and do the right thing get a pat on the back, but the employers who do not do the right thing get away with it because there is inadequate inspection. This bill provides inspectors. I would have thought that that is a pretty basic requirement: that if you are going to have a program you make sure there is compliance in it—a pretty standard thing, I would have thought.

The bill provides—and I think this is terribly important—the visa holder with additional time to find a job if they lose their job. It amends the Migration Regulations 1994 to extend the period from 28 days to 90 consecutive days for visa holders who lose their job and want to look for another one.

This bill is a pretty moderate attempt at cleaning up a program which I think has serious deficiencies, which in the long term does not serve the country's interests. As I said before, I would prefer to see the back of this scheme. If people are going to migrate to this country, I would prefer to see them come here as permanent residents, that they bring their families, that they settle and that we keep the skills and innovation and their entrepreneurialism in this country.

Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (12:16): To speak to some of the principles behind this bill, the Greens have argued for a long time that in this country we need to share the benefits of what may well be a once-in-a-generation mining boom fairly. We have argued that in respect of the mining tax. We have ended up with a mining tax where, if it is spreading the benefits of a boom, I reckon it is spread so thinly that most people really cannot taste it because, up until recently, we have had a situation this year where the mining tax has brought in less revenue than the government was taking from single parents by cutting their payments. We have consistently argued for a proper mining tax, for one that would allow us to fund education and health and to set Australia up for the future.

We have also argued that with respect to the jobs that flow from the mining boom in particular. We are in a situation where the owners of all our mineral wealth—the Australian people—are not getting a fair return. When we have a situation where 83 per cent of the profits are going overseas, as is the case at the moment, there is an argument for fixing that. But, more so, the jobs that have been generated from the minerals that all Australians own should also ensure a proper return to our country. That means opportunities for people to work and it also means making sure that we use some of the money for training the next generation so that we do not just have people come and work and share the benefits of the wealth and then leave. We do not want to wake up when the mining boom is over to find that all the skills have gone with it. That has been the real risk of the government's 457 program. Over a number of years I have certainly heard many stories of that program having been abused—of people coming in as 'project managers' without any requisite qualification and essentially being put to work doing any task. That obviously affects local workers, because local workers are being undercut.

If you bring someone in from overseas, they are probably less likely than an Australian worker to know how to enforce their rights in the Australian legal system and they are probably less likely to know what they are entitled to. That affects the local workers, but it also affects the workers who have come in on 457s. They have been open to significant exploitation. We have seen significant reports of that, and that is, in part, the reason the Greens have been pushing for the government to ratify the international convention on the rights of migrant workers, because abuse of this scheme hurts everyone. It hurts the people that come over here who can find themselves essentially in a form of indebted slavery and it hurts the people who do not get jobs because they are being undercut.

We have been arguing for some time that, up until the introduction of this bill, we were getting the worst of both worlds. We were getting rhetoric that verged on xenophobic, without any meaningful action. The Greens argue that we need to dial down the rhetoric, but turn up the meaningful protections for local employment. So I am pleased that the principle we have been advocating for some time, which is advertising first, has been adopted and is recognised in this bill.

One concern that we have expressed is that the protections in this bill seem to stop at workers who require degree qualifications or other similar qualifications. When there are reports in areas like nursing and engineering, where we are coming off the back of a downturn in mining and with manufacturing also under pressure, those people ought to be entitled to exactly the same protection. That is something we have advocated for strongly.

I also want to put on the record that this is not a situation where we are advocating that there should be no-one or only a limited number of people from overseas coming here to work. Having people from overseas coming and working in Australia on temporary or long-term arrangements is unquestionably a good thing. In some areas—for example, education and science—we should make sure that we remain open to people with significant expertise coming and spending time in this country. It is good for them and it is good for us.

There is also a good argument that when people are legitimately here on holiday or other arrangements they are entitled to perform some kind of work while they are here, provided that that does not turn into a backdoor way of abusing the system. Provided that it does not, it benefits those people and it benefits us. Some people are lucky enough ultimately to translate their work here on a temporary visa into citizenship, and I have met many of those people, including in my electorate of Melbourne. But at the end of the day our primary responsibility as the Australian parliament should be to ensure that we look after the Australian people. If that means standing up to big business and saying, 'No, you can't get away with whatever you want; you need to spread some of the benefits of this boom and of operating a successful company in Australia to local workers,' then we should insist on that.

Aside from those issues of areas where the bill ought to be improved, as I have been advocating for some time, I am pleased that this bill was brought before the parliament and that we will have an opportunity to pass it before parliament rises.

Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton—Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) (12:23): I thank the members for their contribution to the second reading debate on this bill. I remind the House that the Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013 amends the Migration Act to reinforce the importance of overseas skilled workers to the Australian economy while ensuring there are employment and training opportunities for Australian citizens and permanent residents.

This bill will require employers to first look to the Australian labour market before seeking to sponsor workers from overseas by requiring 457 visa sponsors to undertake labour market testing in a manner consistent with Australia's international trade obligations. This will ensure that the subclass 457 visa program is used only to address genuine skills shortages when local labour is unavailable. In my second reading speech I indicated that the time frame for undertaking labour market testing would be within six months; however, after further consideration, I have proposed that four months would be a more appropriate time frame. Six months may be too long a period in a dynamic labour market where conditions can change rapidly.

The bill also builds upon the sponsorship framework introduced in 2009 as a result of the worker protection act. It will enshrine in the Migration Act the kinds of sponsorship obligations to be prescribed in the migration regulations. The bill will also build on the current enforcement regime by expanding the suite of options available to the department to take action against sponsors who are found not to be meeting their obligations. In addition to the civil penalty provisions introduced in 2009 and the administrative sanctions to bar a sponsor or cancel the approval of a person as a sponsor, the minister may now also consider enforceable undertakings. This will be an important tool to encourage sponsor compliance.

The bill further builds on the capacity of the government to monitor and investigate compliance with the temporary work sponsored visa program by expanding inspector powers to the Fair Work Ombudsman. The bill will also deliver a more socially just outcome for visa holders by extending the time that they can seek another sponsor or arrange their affairs to leave Australia from 28 to 90 days.

I turn now to some of the points that were raised in the debate on the bill. Members of the opposition have suggested there is not sufficient evidence to warrant changes to the current arrangements. I would refute that. The 457 scheme is intended to fill job vacancies where there are skills shortages. There is extensive empirical and anecdotal evidence suggesting that the 457 program is not being used for that purpose. Departmental records of 457 breaches underestimate the problem because there are 32 inspectors to investigate, monitor and enforce breaches of 108,810 457 visas. Over the past three years, visits, sanctions and warnings fell by 80, 60 and 40 per cent respectively. Question 7 of the survey published by the Migration Council asked, 'Do you find it difficult to hire workers from the local labour market?' If they asked, they were told 'local' meant Australia. There were three options: 'yes, very', 'yes, somewhat' and 'no'. Fifteen per cent answered no. Fifteen per cent of employers would have had no difficulty in hiring locally but did not.

As at 30 April, there were 108,810 457 visa holders. That represents a 20.4 per cent growth over the previous year. For the whole economy, employment is growing at around one per cent per annum. There was once a close correlation between the job vacancies for the whole economy and the 457 applications. These used to track closely together. Since May 2011, vacancies have declined or remained static while 457 application rates have continued to trend upwards.

Consider the pattern of 457 nominations and job vacancy advertisements in the past 12 months for the most common occupations for 457 visas. Cafe manager nominations are up 189 per cent and ads are down three per cent. For chefs nominations are up 33 per cent and ads are down six per cent. For call centre managers nominations are up 226 per cent and ads are down 14 per cent. For information technology nominations are up seven per cent and ads are down 24 per cent. For accountants nominations are up 21 per cent and ads are down 16 per cent. The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations's own rating for the occupation of accountants suggests there is no shortage. For accommodation and food services there has been a 101 per cent increase in primary applications lodged in this industry in the year to 30 April at a time when vacancies for cooks have been falling. Cook is currently the top sponsored occupation for 457 visas.

Consider these two facts for New South Wales. To 30 March this year, 730 primary applications were lodged for cooks in New South Wales. This is a 99 per cent increase on the same period in the previous program year. Over the same period apprenticeship commencements in commercial cookery were down 12 per cent in New South Wales compared to the same period in the last financial year. Over the past four years in retail aggregate employment has decreased by a bit more than one per cent; but, compared to just one year ago, applications for 457s for retail have increased by 69 per cent.

During debate, again and again the opposition said that labour market testing would present an additional burden upon business in Australia. The government rejects this as most businesses already advertise vacancies to seek to recruit Australian citizens and permanent residents. This bill simply seeks to ensure that those employers who do not do the right thing will first look to recruit locally.

The opposition has also persisted with what I believe is a contemptible debate which suggests that the government is seeking to demonise foreign workers. Far from the government endangering social cohesion, the opposition has fuelled a debate based on false notions. The government has always said and will continue to say that the subclass 457 program is a valuable supplement to the domestic labour pool when used appropriately. For the opposition to generate ill will in this way is, quite frankly, absurd and I take personal offence at it. The opposition has also suggested that the absence of the regulatory impact statement was an issue notwithstanding the fact that the majority of elements in this bill did not require a regulatory impact statement, as advised by the Office of Best Practice Regulation. While I agree that an impact statement is desirable, in this case the impact upon business because of the labour market testing element, which is the only element requiring an RAS, will be minor while the outcome for Australians seeking employment and for visa holders requiring protections will be improved.

The opposition said there is insufficient consultation. I have consulted with my ministerial colleagues, the Ministerial Advisory Council on Skilled Migration, and my department has consulted with relevant Commonwealth agencies throughout the development of this bill. Consultations will be ongoing as the measures in this bill are implemented. The opposition has said that the existing legislative framework provides sufficient options to take action against sponsors who do the wrong thing. By tightening the sponsoring obligations and by enhancing the penalty framework by including enforceable undertakings, the integrity of the subclass 457 will be improved. This can only benefit Australians searching for work and protect vulnerable visa holders from unscrupulous employers.

I refer to the member for Lyne, who I have always felt has engaged on matters genuinely. I respectfully disagree, however, with his remarks that it is all about resources and enforcing the current provisions. The advice I have received is that we cannot enforce some of the provisions, that the undertakings are not enforceable. Insofar as the resources are concerned, as I have indicated, we have announced a very significant increase by the use of the Fair Work inspectorate officers.

I also refer specifically to the contribution from the member for Canning. I found that inflammatory and insulting insofar as he attempts to attack my motives, particularly in relation to believing that in any way I would act in a manner that was discriminatory against anybody of a particular race. I found it highly offensive. I also found it somewhat odd because he was chair of a parliamentary inquiry that recommended in 2007 that there be a trial for labour market testing when he was still a chair and when the Howard government was still in government. He did suggest only a trial and he did focus on a limited number of occupations, but in fact on that occasion there were 58,000 visa applicants. Yet, as someone who got up only a few days ago to challenge the motives and the cogency of our argument, he himself was chair of a committee that had recommended a trial for labour market testing.

Finally, I would like to thank all of those who I have not referred to who have contributed. This is a very important debate in this place. I understand why there would be different views but I think that these improvements are important. The bill acknowledges the benefits of the temporary sponsored skilled migration program while recalibrating the legislative settings to ensure that the intent of the program—namely to temporarily fill genuine skilled vacancies—is achieved in practice. I commend the bill to the House.

The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

The SPEAKER (12:45): The question now is that this bill be read a second time.

Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton—Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) (12:55): I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (16).

Leave granted.

Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR: I move government amendments (1) to (16):

(1) Schedule 1, heading, page 4 (line 1), omit "purpose", substitute "preliminary".

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (after line 32), after section 140AA, insert:

140AB Ministerial Advisory Council on Skilled Migration

(1) The Minister must take all reasonable steps to ensure that, at all times, there is in existence a council that:

   (a) is known as the Ministerial Advisory Council on Skilled Migration; and

   (b) is established under the executive power of the Commonwealth; and

(c) includes representatives of unions, industry and State and Territory governments and other members (if any) nominated by the Minister; and

   (d) meets at least quarterly.

(2) Without limiting its functions apart from this section, the Ministerial Advisory Council on Skilled Migration is to provide advice to the Minister in relation to the temporary sponsored work visa program.

(3) Schedule 2, item 2, page 6 (lines 15 to 18), omit paragraphs 140GBA(3)(b) and (c), substitute:

   (b) the nomination is accompanied by:

      (i) evidence in relation to that labour market testing (see subsections (5) and (6)); and

      (ii) if one or more Australian citizens or Australian permanent residents were, in the previous 4 months, made redundant or retrenched from positions in the nominated occupation in a business, or an associated entity, of the approved sponsor—information about those redundancies or retrenchments; and

(4) Schedule 2, item 2, page 6 (line 19), after "evidence,", insert "and information (if any),".

(5) Schedule 2, item 2, page 6 (lines 19 to 22), omit "the Minister is satisfied that a suitably qualified and experienced Australian citizen or Australian permanent resident is not readily available to fill the nominated position.", substitute:

      the Minister is satisfied that:

      (i) a suitably qualified and experienced Australian citizen or Australian permanent resident is not readily available to fill the nominated position; and

      (ii) a suitably qualified and experienced eligible temporary visa holder is not readily available to fill the nominated position.

(6) Schedule 2, item 2, page 6 (line 26) to page 7 (line 18), omit subsections 140GBA(5) and (6), substitute:

   (4A) Despite paragraph (3)(a) and subsection (4), if there have been redundancies or retrenchments as mentioned in subparagraph (3)(b)(ii), the labour market testing must be undertaken after those redundancies and retrenchments.

Evidence of labour market testing

(5) For the purposes of subparagraph (3)(b)(i), the evidence in relation to the labour market testing:

   (a) must include information about the approved sponsor's attempts to recruit suitably qualified and experienced Australian citizens or Australian permanent residents to the position and any other similar positions (see also subsection (6)); and

   (b) may also include other evidence, such as:

      (i) copies of, or references to, any research released in the previous 4 months relating to labour market trends generally and in relation to the nominated occupation; or

      (ii) expressions of support from Commonwealth, State and Territory government authorities with responsibility for employment matters; or

      (iii) any other type of evidence determined by the Minister, by legislative instrument, for this subparagraph.

(6) For the purposes of paragraph (5)(a), the information mentioned:

   (a) must include details of:

      (i) any advertising (paid or unpaid) of the position, and any similar positions, commissioned or authorised by the approved sponsor; and

      (ii) fees and other expenses paid (or payable) for that advertising; and

(b) may also include other information, such as:

      (i) information about the approved sponsor's participation in relevant job and career expositions; or

      (ii) details of any other fees and expenses paid (or payable) for any recruitment attempts mentioned in paragraph (5)(a) (including any participation mentioned in subparagraph (i) of this paragraph); or

      (iii) details of the results of such recruitment attempts, including details of any positions filled as a result.

(7) Schedule 2, item 2, page 7 (before line 19), before the heading to subsection 140GBA(7), insert:

   (6A) If the approved sponsor elects to provide other evidence and information as mentioned in paragraphs (5)(b) and (6)(b), the Minister may take that evidence and information into account. But if the approved sponsor elects not to provide such other evidence or information, the Minister is not to treat the nomination less favourably merely because of that fact.

(8) Schedule 2, item 2, page 7 (after line 20), before the definition of Australian permanent resident in subsection 140GBA(7), insert:

   associated entity has the same meaning as in Part 2A of the regulations.

(9) Schedule 2, item 2, page 7 (after line 22), after the definition of Australian permanent resident in subsection 140GBA(7), insert:

   eligible temporary visa holder: a person is an eligible temporary visa holder in relation to a nomination by an approved sponsor if, at the time when the nomination is made:

   (a) the person is the holder of a temporary visa referred to in the regulations as a Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa or a Subclass 462 (Work and Holiday) visa; and

   (b) the person is employed in the agricultural sector by the approved sponsor (or an associated entity of the approved sponsor); and

(c) the temporary visa does not prohibit the person from performing that employment.

(10) Schedule 2, item 2, page 9 (line 3), after "qualification", insert ", other than a protected qualification".

(11) Schedule 2, item 2, page 9 (line 4), after "experience", insert ", other than protected experience".

(12) Schedule 2, item 2, page 9 (line 12), after "AQF", insert ", other than a protected qualification".

(13) Schedule 2, item 2, page 9 (line 13), after "experience", insert ", other than protected experience".

(14) Schedule 2, item 2, page 9 (line 25), omit the heading to subsection 140GBC(6), substitute:

Definitions

(15) Schedule 2, item 2, page 9 (after line 28), at the end of subsection 140GBC(6), add:

   protected experience means experience in the field of engineering (including shipping engineering) or nursing.

   protected qualification means a qualification (however described) in engineering (including shipping engineering) or nursing.

(16) Schedule 2, item 6, page 11 (line 19), after "applies", insert "(subject to subsection 140GBA(4A))".

The amendments to the bill are in relation to the requirement for sponsors to undertake labour market testing prior to lodging an application for nomination approval. In the bill as it currently stands, the labour market testing requirement is met if the minister is satisfied that a suitably qualified Australian citizen or an Australian permanent resident is not readily available to fill the position. It is proposed to extend this to include eligible temporary visa workers on a work-and-holiday 462 visa or a working holiday 417 visa in the agriculture sector who are lawfully employed by the sponsor or an associated entity of the sponsor at the time of the application for nomination. The labour market testing requirement will now be satisfied if a suitably qualified and experienced Australian citizen, Australian permanent resident or eligible temporary visa holder is not readily available to fill the nominated position.

In relation to the evidentiary requirements for sponsors, I propose that it be mandatory for a sponsor to provide information about their attempts to recruit suitably qualified and experienced Australian citizens or Australian permanent residents to the position and any similar positions. Sponsors must also provide details of any advertising, paid or unpaid, of the position and any similar positions commissioned or authorised by the approved sponsor and fee and other expenses paid or payable for that advertising. In the bill as it currently stands, the provision of information about recruitment attempts is only one of several evidentiary options that sponsors may choose to provide as proof that they have adequately tested the local labour market prior to lodging a nomination. Requiring the mandatory provision of such information provides a much stronger test of a sponsor's efforts to fill vacancies in their business with Australian workers.

This amendment also clarifies that, if the approved sponsor elects to provide evidence and information other than evidence of advertising and fees or payment of fees to support their claims to have tested the labour market, the minister may take the evidence into account. The nomination will not, however, be treated less favourably if the approved sponsor elects not to provide such additional evidence or information. In addition, I propose a mandatory requirement for sponsors to provide information if one or more Australian citizens or permanent residents were made redundant or retrenched from positions in the nominated occupation in the sponsor's business or associated entity in the four months prior to the lodging of a nomination. If there have been redundancies or retrenchments, labour market testing must be undertaken by the sponsor after those redundancies and retrenchments.

The bill currently allows for skill and occupational exemptions to the labour market testing requirement to apply to specific occupations by legislative instrument within skills level 1 or 2 as currently described in the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations. I now intend to restrict the skill and occupational exemptions in relation to labour market testing, with the effect that nominations made by the approved sponsors requiring either experience or a qualification or both in engineering, including shipping engineering, or nursing cannot be exempt from labour market testing. This will be applied in a manner consistent with Australia's international trade obligations. Furthermore, in line with the reduction in the period over which a sponsor will be required to test the local labour market from six to four months, I propose a consequential amendment to the evidence requirement for labour market testing in relation to research on the labour market trends generally, and in relation to relevant occupations I propose to reduce the period in which this research would be released from six to four months prior to a sponsor lodging a nomination.

Lastly, to ensure that the views of the relevant stakeholders are considered in any regulatory changes to the subclass 457 visa program and in recognition of the advisory function of the Ministerial Advisory Council on Skilled Migration, I propose the inclusion of the requirement that the minister must take all reasonable steps to ensure that at all times there is in existence the Ministerial Advisory Council on Skilled Migration—a body which includes representatives of unions, industry, state and territory governments and other members, if any, nominated by the minister—and that it meet at least on a quarterly basis. Without limiting the functions, the Ministerial Advisory Council on Skilled Migration is to provide advice to the minister in relation to the temporary sponsored work visa program. I commend the proposed amendments to the House.

Mr MORRISON (Cook) (13:01): These amendments are fundamentally driven by the member for New England in the discussions he has had with the government over these matters. When we had those discussions with the member for New England, they were about reducing the regulatory burden. The government has put forward an amendment here which increases the regulatory burden, and this is to a bill and a set of measures that were already designed to choke the 457 scheme. We heard the last speaker for the government speak on this bill, and I think he was quite honest about the government's real intentions here. He wants to see the 457 scheme completely abolished and abandoned. There are two ways to do that: you can abolish the scheme or you can choke it to death through the measures this government is introducing through this bill in its attack on skilled migration.

In this bill, and in this amendment in particular, the government seeks to legislate in the Ministerial Advisory Council on Skilled Migration, a council that does a good job. But one has to question why there is a need to actually mandate its presence in the legislation, other than when you get into the amendment and you note that the government is mandating the presence of unions in the formation of that council and, by law, hard-wiring the union into the process into the future. This is something we have seen from this government now for some time in the dying days of this 43rd Parliament as they do the bidding of the unions, even here in this last amendment they are seeking to put forward in this bill.

The amendments also make one worthy suggestion, though, and that deals with the transfer arrangements for those on skilled temporary visas or other temporary visas where they might translate. Why would the government seek to put this all in one omnibus group of amendments and not deal with that separately? If it had dealt with it separately then the coalition might have had the opportunity to support that matter. But, because it is bundled up here with the increased regulation the government has put on the table courtesy of the member for New England, we find ourselves in a situation where this is not an amendment we can support.

There are more mandatory obligations presented in the amendments put forward by the government than they had in their first bill. The red union tape only chokes this measure and chokes this scheme all the more tightly as a result of what the minister has brought in and put on this table today. I believe he has the purpose of trying to see this scheme run into the ground and taken out of the vital role that it plays in our economy. At the behest of the unions he would see this scheme go by the wayside, despite the fact that there are already significant powers and protections that were introduced into these measures back in 2008 as a result of the Deegan review. That gave powers to the government to go out there and police these measures.

We have seen that, despite a 20 per cent increase in the number of active sponsors, the number of sponsors monitored by the government has fallen by 67 per cent and the number of sponsor sites visited has fallen by 51 per cent. The budget for detection onshore of visa compliance has fallen from $74 million to $52 million under this government. So a government that says it wants to crack down on abuses has not given it the budget and has not increased its level of inspection despite the increased powers it was given. That is why the member for Lyne made very good points, in the debate earlier on the second reading, about powers that existed and the lack of any need, based on the lack of substantiation put forward by the government in bringing these measures to this House, to go forward and actually go and police the laws that it currently has. Our argument has been simple. The government has not done the appropriate work to bring this measure into the parliament and now it is seeking to add insult to injury through these amendments by applying further red tape to this measure, courtesy of the member for New England's support for this bill.

I note also that the minister notes that there are special restrictions applied for those in nursing and engineering. I note his comment about international trade issues and I would welcome the minister tabling what those international trade issues are, but I would make this point. We know that 457s are used as a critical measure to get nurses into regional and rural areas of Australia. It is a very important part of this scheme. The minister has not explained why he is seeking to make it harder to get nurses into rural and regional areas or to get engineers into major construction projects or major resource projects, which is a critical need, nor has he tabled the details of why he would add an additional burden on industry and on the health system to get the people it needs to provide the care and support workers required. (Time expired)

Mr DUTTON (Dickson) (13:06): I want briefly to contribute to this debate because this is an incredibly important issue, particularly for regional areas that are in desperate need of trained nurses who otherwise cannot be found in the domestic market. If anybody wanted a demonstration of how this government puts its political masters ahead of the interests of the Australian people, they need look no further than what Minister O'Connor is providing for in this bill. This is an attack on the average worker and it is an attack on regional Australia. The fact is that this government is fully owned and operated by the union movement in this country, and this bill proves that beyond any doubt whatsoever. It is very difficult indeed for regional hospitals to attract the nursing skills that they need. It is very hard to attract the clinical services that specialist nursing staff require and in many cases need to be brought in under a 457 visa.

It is the case that this government promised to fix public hospitals. They promised that they would fix public hospitals by mid-2009 or seek at a subsequent election to take financial control of those 750 public hospitals. They said that as a government they had a plan for hospitals in this nation. They wanted to make it easier for people to see a doctor or nurse in a regional hospital. But, by their very action today, they show that they were at very best misleading in that claim after the 2007 election.

This is a government that has been filled with promises that have been broken on a daily basis. This is a government that has put the interests of union bosses ahead of Australian patients. This bill today demonstrates that again. This government, in its dying days, has demonstrated to the public yet again that it cannot be trusted. It has demonstrated to the Australian public, particularly those who live in regional areas where they find it incredibly difficult to get not just nursing staff but doctors and specialists, that this is a problem of the government's own making. This is a government that makes it harder for Australians, not easier. This is a government that makes it harder for Australia's public hospitals to operate, not easier. That is why this government should be condemned in relation to this bill.

I endorse very strongly the member for Cook's contribution to this debate, because this is a minister that is morally corrupt, that is completely owned and operated by the union movement—and it is unacceptable.

Mr Brendan O'Connor: I would ask the honourable member to withdraw those comments. I take them as a personal insult and I take offence.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Symon ): The member for Dickson will withdraw.

Mr DUTTON: If it assists the House, I withdraw. But it is a matter of public record that this minister's links to the union movement have spanned decades, and it is now Australian patients, doctors, nurses and those running public hospitals in regional areas who are going to suffer because of those very links. This minister is motivated not by patients or by helping out regional hospitals but by pleasing union bosses. That is why this government, in the public's eye, is done. The deals that this government has presided over with the union movement, with its bosses, condemns it to failure at the next election. That is why this parliament should oppose a particularly bad piece of legislation.

Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (13:10): I rise to support the amendments. As the House would be aware, I had circulated a previous set of amendments I referred to in my second reading speech. The Greens were always concerned to make sure that the protections in this bill extended across the board. There are particular areas of concern to us, and those are for people in higher skilled and degree qualified occupations. These are nurses, people working in IT, engineers—particularly engineers who are working in mobile areas, like ships or planes—who are in areas that I have been made aware of as having many instances of abuse and concern.

Because the government has accepted some part of those amendments that I have moved, I will not be proceeding with my own amendments. But I commend the government for approaching this legislation in a way that is different from the approach to some other pieces of legislation. This process has been marked by a willingness to work with members of the crossbench. I commend the amendments to the House.

Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (13:11): I rise specifically to touch on the issue that has also been addressed by the member for Dickson, and that is the position which we see in the area of health care and social assistance. This is one of the largest groups which use 457 visas, with 12,580 subclass 457 visas as at 30 April 2013.

This has been a very important area for Australia. There is a specific carve-out for nurses in this area, where nurses often have a relevant bachelor's degree. When you look at our skilled migration program, Australia has been admired around the world for the robustness of our skilled migration program. When you travel to other countries, they know that we have a rigorous assessment. We have details of quantifications where there are shortages. How important this has been to our economy should not be underestimated.

One of the things that the Howard government did when it was elected in 1996 was to get the balance right between skilled migration and family reunion. Under the previous government, there had been too much of a focus on family reunion and not enough on the skilled migration program. When you look at the ways our economy can grow, there are basically three sources. Growth comes either from population growth, from participation or from productivity. Those are the only three ways we can see our economy grow.

Support for our skilled migration program has been very important for Australia being a prosperous economy. It has been very important in addressing the constraints to growth. We now see the Labor Party responding to their union bosses and a campaign which has been run and dictated by the unions to try to remove a very important source of economic growth, particularly in areas where people are finding it hard—where hospitals, health services and aged care are finding it hard to attract nurses under 457 visas. This is one of the problems that the opposition has with this bill.

Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (13:14): I have great respect for the member for Dickson. I think he has showed a lot of moral courage and intelligence on a number of occasions, but I have to disagree with him and the previous speaker on this issue on the Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013. I have had to live with it all of my life, trying to get nurses and doctors into rural Australia, and we now have eight new universities turning out doctors, with about 12 or 15 turning out nurses. The cavalry is on the way.

But what is happening is that we are getting people from overseas. In Queensland we had the dreadful case of Dr Death at Bundaberg, but there are many other cases similar to that. With a lot of the people coming in it is very difficult for the migration services, and I think the health services have been a little lax in allowing people in who are not qualified like our Australian doctors. We would like to think our medical training in Australia is superior to the rest of the world in the area of medical technology. It is one of the very few areas in which Australia is still holding its ground against the rest of the world. We would like to think we are very advanced in these areas. If we are, then rural Australia is getting the rough end of the pineapple; we are not getting as good a product as is coming out of our Australian universities.

But as always we are acting like we need 457 visas. We had never had 457 visas in our history until about 15 years ago. It is rather intriguing that the Liberals are advocating the 457 visas when they allowed only 38,000 in—God bless them—whereas the current mob are allowing 100,000 in. If we judge political parties on their performances then I would be giving an A to the Liberal Party and a Z to the Labor Party on this issue. I find the few points being put forward today rather ironic. I choose the word 'ironic', but there is obviously another word in my mind. Why, suddenly, in the last 15 years have we not had any nurses, any fitters, any miners? Mr Deputy Speaker, please do not insult our intelligence! At Boggabri there were 100 people from overseas, from one of the cheapest labour countries in the world. They decided they needed cutbacks, so there were 100 of them brought in and put there. Then they sacked all of the Australian workers. They are insulting our intelligence. This is about undermining pay and conditions.

The Leader of the Nationals was so stupid yesterday as to let the cat out of the bag, which we will make sure the people of Queensland and of other places know, when he said that the real problem here is that the base issues are the wages. Thank you, you have just said it all. The real problem is the wages, and we have to get the wages down. He did not say that, but it was implied in what he said. He gave the wage figures from New Zealand, the United States and Australia. He said $8 an hour. The implication of what he was saying was clearly that we should be working here for $8 an hour. A person on the opposition benches made such a stupid statement, and she at least had the decency to apologise to the Australian people; I doubt we will getting that out of the Leader of the Nationals. No, what we are talking about here is undermining our pay and conditions, having a totally supine workforce where the boss holds the deportation order and can crack the whip of the deportation order any time he feels like it. It is to the eternal shame of the Labor Party, and it will be remembered in history as the party that brought in 125,000 foreign workers on top of the nearly 200,000 that are coming in under the migration program.

I am not blaming anyone in my electorate, many of whom employ 457 workers. You would be a mug if you did not—you know you can pay them less! You know you can tell them to do whatever you want them to do. There is no issue of pay and conditions— (Time expired)

Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton—Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) (13:19): In response to the member for Cook's comments, it is unfair of him to praise entirely the member for New England when he talks about the amendments. In fact, the member for Kennedy, the member for New England, the member for Denison, the member for Dobell and the member for Melbourne have worked with the government on a range of these amendments. In fact, it was the member for New England who recommended the reference to temporary work visas, which was the one amendment that the member for Cook supported in his contribution. I am not sure why he is showing any particular enmity towards the member for New England's position in light of the fact that the one amendment that he did agree upon was suggested by the member for New England.

In relation to international treaties, I have referred to that insofar as our bilateral arrangements that would confine labour market testing between certain countries. That is in the second reading speech. Insofar as the nursing exemptions go, there have been some concerns about graduates of nursing schools in Australia not getting opportunities to fill positions. All the while, certain employers are filling those positions with temporary skilled nurses. We need temporary skilled nurses in parts of the country—no doubt—and all that will be required is an advertisement. The same applies to engineering. We have had concerns about certain areas of engineering. Again, let us remember what is being asked here. There is no proscription on these occupations insofar as 457s are concerned; it is suggesting only that there should be an advertisement and that the local market be tested. I think that is entirely reasonable.

Insofar as other comments made, I understand the comments and some of the views of the member for Kennedy, and I respect his views. We disagree on some of them, and I know he has some amendments to move shortly. I will say more about it then if I need to.

Mr MORRISON (Cook) (13:22): Very briefly, I would ask the minister if he could clarify that in the amendment that he puts forward there is no justification, as I understand it, for the special singling out of both nurses and engineers in placing a higher test in terms of labour marketing testing for nurses and engineers than is otherwise provided for in the original bill, which exempts from labour market testing a person with a relevant bachelor degree or higher qualifications or five years or more relevant experience. The minister is singling out nurses and engineers to require them to be subject to labour market testing, whereas any other person with a bachelor degree or higher qualification or five years or more of relevant experience would not be subject to that. I just want to be very clear that the minister is not saying that that is because of any international treaties or trade arrangements.

Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton—Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) (13:23): No; the international treaties were in reference to some of the areas that we are confined to insofar as labour market testing is concerned. I would refer the honourable member to my second reading speech. What I also said and made very clear in my second reading speech is that, whilst we would look to consider occupations in level 1 to be exempt from market testing, that would be done by legislative instrument, in the main. What I have done in this instance is included two professions that I think require what is still a very low level form of testing. This is not an overly rigorous or onerous testing.

What I made clear in the second reading speech is that there would be occupations in level 1 that may have to go to market testing. That was clear from the beginning. It has been put to me by a number of other members—and I have also had evidence provided to me—that there are some concerns in relation to those particular very important professions. For that reason, they are expressly referred to in the legislation. But that would not prevent us from ensuring that other levels and other occupations would in fact require labour market testing if we chose to do that by legislative instrument beyond the enactment of this bill if it passes both houses.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Symon ): The question is that government amendments (1) to (16) be agreed to.

Mr MORRISON (Cook) (13:35): by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 2, item 2, page 6 (lines 10 to 22), omit subsection 140GBA(3), substitute:

(3) The labour market testing condition is satisfied if the Minister is satisfied that the approved sponsor has undertaken labour market testing in relation to the nominated position:

   (a) within a period determined under subsection (4) in relation to the nominated occupation; and

   (b) by means of advertising the position in the media in the manner prescribed by the regulations.

(2) Schedule 2, item 2, page 6 (line 26) to page 7 (line 18), omit subsections 140GBA(5) and (6).

(3) Schedule 2, item 2, page 7 (line 26), at the end of the definition of labour market testing subsection 140GBA(7), add ", by the means and within the period referred to in subsection (3)".

The amendments put forward achieve one simple purpose—that is, to give effect to the minister's own statement and the member for New England's own expressed desire of amendments to this bill and the discussions that were held with the coalition.

The minister said at the Skilled Migration National Employer Conference in Melbourne on Friday, 21 June—and I have heard him make this same statement on numerous occasions in relation to these measures:

Labour market testing is putting an ad in the paper, that's it—there are no other undertakings required from the employer.

As we know, that is plainly not true in the bill that was presented in this House in terms of the many other obligations that are put on employers in relation to the labour market testing that was introduced, found not to be effective, found not to be working and was abolished and replaced with the reference to the skilled occupation list.

These amendments are to ensure that we can be true in this bill to what the minister has represented for this bill and that the amendments that have just been put forward by the government are indeed what the law actually says. What these amendments do is simply ensure that the act will say that labour market testing means advertising the position in the media in the manner prescribed by the regulations—nothing more, nothing less.

What the coalition is suggesting here is that the labour market testing regime, which the government has forced onto this parliament, be restricted to only what the minister has said it is outside of this place and, indeed, inside this place—that is, it should only be to have an ad in the paper. So if the minister is true to his word, if the minister actually wants to reflect in the law what he has represented this bill to be outside of this place, then the government should support the amendments. The government should support ensuring that all that is required, to use his own words, is that labour market testing is putting an ad in the paper. That is it. There are no other undertakings required from the employer. That is what the amendments do. That is exactly what the amendments do.

What the government has done is bring amendments in here with the support of Independents, who all sought to have even greater regulatory burdens put on as a result of this bill. But also what the minister has said outside of this place is to just bring it back to the simple requirement to have advertising placed in the manner and form prescribed by the regulations. Why would we require it to be done by regulation? Obviously there is a need to specify what form this would take. Technologies change, readership patterns change: is it local, is it national, is it on the internet, is it on Seek.com, is it in the local newspaper? All of these things would need to be addressed. They are properly addressed in the regulations, not in the substantive bill.

What we have here is a con. We have the minister who we already know was caught out, when it came to his substantiation for this bill, making up the claim of 10,000—caught out. Now we have the minister caught out again in making representations outside of this place, and even inside of this place it would seem, suggesting that all the bill requires is an ad in the paper when it plainly requires far more red union tape than that. He has been caught out misrepresenting it again. And if the House wants further evidence of that, then in the one inquiry that has been undertaken into this bill, rushed through the Senate last week—the House inquiry that was to be undertaken on this matter before this parliament even considered it, was dodged by the government—Senator Cash asked the officials from the department of immigration:

… what Minister O'Connor stated. He stated, 'Labour market testing is putting an ad in the paper. That is it. There are no other undertakings required from the employer'—

quoting the minister, and she went on:

… upon what basis does Minister O'Connor make that statement?

That was the question to the official. And the answer was:

… I cannot speak to why the minister would have made that statement.

Once again, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship has left this minister hanging out to dry on another false claim that he has been making. Whether it is trying to make up the evidence for the bill that he has brought before the House or make up what this bill actually does, the minister has been caught out serially and seriously misleading what the true intentions and effect of this bill are. The government and the crossbenchers have the opportunity to make sure this bill only does what the minister has told the Australian people that it would do. It should just be an ad in the paper. That is what these amendments will require, and I call on members to support them.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

The SPEAKER: Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.

The SPEAKER (14:01): The question is that the motion moved by the honourable Prime Minister be agreed to. As a mark of respect, I ask all present to signify their approval by rising in their places.

Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places.

The SPEAKER (14:01): The question is that the motion moved by the honourable Prime Minister be agreed to. As a mark of respect, I ask all present to signify their approval by rising in their places.

Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places.

Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (17:39): by leave—I move amendments (2) to (4), as circulated in my name, together:

(2) Schedule 2, item 1, page 5 (line 7), omit "or 140GBC".

(3) Schedule 2, item 1, page 5 (lines 12 to 15), omit "Section 140GBC provides for exemptions from the labour market testing condition to apply in relation to the required skill level and occupation for a nominated position.".

(4) Schedule 2, item 2, page 8 (line 22) to page 9 (line 28), omit section 140GBC.

The purpose of these amendments is to extend the labour market testing exception for all skilled workers, doctors and anyone with a degree. I do not wish to take up the time of the House extensively on these issues and will not repeat what I have said in a number of speeches in this place.

I live in my home town of Charters Towers—I feel very embarrassed with the great congratulations going on with the member for New England. Most certainly it is the passing of an era. But my home town is a good example; we have lost 1,500 jobs with the closure of mines there. We were looking forward to having numerous jobs in the Galilee Basin coalfields, but the operators there are continuously asserting that they will man these mines with fly-ins from overseas. Even if they are not saying it, that is the way I think it will end up. Those 1,500 people have been left with homes they cannot sell, because prices for homes are down in Charters Towers. They cannot get jobs or starts anywhere. Companies operating out west say you have to go and live in Townsville. In Townsville, again, many people come loose from the Army every year. They are desperate to get starts in the mines and, once again, they cannot get starts in the mines. The copper stream in Mount Isa is arguably partly closing—maybe even totally closing—so the people of Mount Isa and Cloncurry, my homeland, are also desperately short of jobs. We do not want to see these jobs taken by overseas people. We believe that bringing them in will undermine our pay and conditions in Australia and we simply will not have the jobs to go to.

Nearly 200,000 migrants come into Australia a year, and some 1.3 million or 1.4 million people are seeking full-time employment. There is an inadequate pool there that can provide jobs that will enable us to go on as we have in the last hundred years in Australia: providing our own workforce in these areas. If people say to us, 'We brought large numbers from overseas,' that is not true compared with what we are doing now. People from Australia could get starts in the mines. I got my first start there. There were a lot of what we then called New Australians working in the mines. There were an awful lot of First Australians working in the mines as well. For a lot of my First Australian brothers, in a very real sense they will not be able to get the golden opportunities that were available to us when I was a young person, because the new jobs are being taken by these contractors.

I think there are four steel fabricators in Cloncurry, my home town, and one does a lot of fly-in. They have all lost their contracts at Cloncurry, and those positions have been taken by one company employing section 457 workers. So I am not talking about something that is unreal to me; I am talking about an issue that is immediate and real. Again I praise Andrew Forrest in Western Australia, who has trained up nearly 2,000 First Australians over the last 10 or 15 years; 400 or 500 are still employed in his mines as we talk, and many have gone off to jobs elsewhere, but they had a start in life which he afforded them. If you say we cannot get people, there would be at least 40,000 or 50,000 people of First Australian descent across the top of Australia who would give their eye teeth to get a start and have a job in the mines. So I commend the amendments to the House. I have broken them into two. The first one is to extend labour market testing exception for all skilled workers. I move that amendment first.

Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (17:45): Speaker, I do not want to take up the House's time but I seek clarity. My understanding is that, despite what the member for Kennedy has said, the amendments he has moved and was speaking to are (2) to (4), which are about no labour market testing, and that separately after this we will have a division on (1) and (5), which is the cap and disclosure.

The SPEAKER: That is my understanding of how we have set out the procedure. We are dealing with amendments (2) to (4) and after we have done that we will go on to the next amendments, (1) and (5). So the amendments on no labour market testing are the first to be moved.

Mr Katter interjecting—

The SPEAKER: I thank the member for Kennedy. I hope that clarifies it for the member for Melbourne. The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Mr Katter interjecting—

The SPEAKER: You do not need to apologise for the processes of the parliament. Nobody needs to apologise for the processes of the parliament.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

The SPEAKER: As there are fewer than five members on the side for the ayes in this division, I declare the question negatived in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Question negatived, Mr Katter, Mr Wilkie and Mr Bandt voting aye.

Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (17:51): by leave—I move amendments (1) to (5), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), after "Schedules", insert "2A,".

(2) Schedule 2, item 1, page 5 (line 7), omit "or 140GBC".

(3) Schedule 2, item 1, page 5 (lines 12 to 15), omit "Section 140GBC provides for exemptions from the labour market testing condition to apply in relation to the required skill level and occupation for a nominated position.".

(4) Schedule 2, item 2, page 8 (line 22) to page 9 (line 28), omit section 140GBC.

(5) Page 12 (after line 12), after Schedule 3, insert:

Schedule 2A—Cap and disclosure for Subclass 457 visas

Migration Act 1958

1 At the end of section 38

   Add:

(3) In relation to Subclass 457 visas, the regulations are taken to have prescribed as a criterion that the grant of the visa would not cause the number of Subclass 457 visas granted in a particular financial year to exceed 6,000. For the purposes of subsection (2), this is taken to be a criterion allowed by subsection (1) of this section.

(4) In subsection (3):

   Subclass 457 visa means a visa referred to in the regulations as a Subclass 457 (Business (Long Stay)) visa or a Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) visa.

2 After section 140ZI

   Insert:

140ZIA Register of approved sponsors of 457 visas

(1) The Minister must maintain a register, to be known as the Register of Approved Sponsors of 457 Visas, in which the Minister includes the following particulars:

   (a) the identity of each approved sponsor who is sponsoring the holder of a Subclass 457 visa;

   (b) the number of holders of Subclass 457 visas being sponsored by that approved sponsor;

(c) a description of each position occupied by the holders of the Subclass 457 visas.

(2) The Register may be maintained by electronic means.

(3) The Register must be made available for inspection on the internet.

(4) The Register is not a legislative instrument.

(5) In this section:

   Subclass 457 visa means a visa referred to in the regulations as a Subclass 457 (Business (Long Stay)) visa or a Subclass 457 (Temporary Work (Skilled)) visa.

I do not wish to take up the time of the House again on this issue. I reiterate the irony of the ALP attacking the Liberal Party, who are only bringing 38,000 457 workers into the country. I reiterate the figures: almost 200,000 migrants a year are now coming into the country. There are a number of categories under which people can get workers. Why, over the last five years, do we suddenly have to bring 100,000 workers into Australia? There has been no burgeoning of unemployment. In fact, 16,000 people have been put off from manufacturing in the last 12 months alone and almost that number from the agricultural and tourism sectors as well. There is a huge work pool there that can be drawn upon. We do not need to go down this pathway.

In addressing the specific amendments here, we have asked that the 457 workers be capped at 6,000. I do not wish to embarrass Minister Burke, but he venomously attacked the Liberal Party when they were bringing in 15,000 a year. He and his government have been notoriously silent, when they are bringing in 125,000 a year, not 15,000 a year.

This thing is not a rort, insofar as you will not find people acting criminally in this regard. As far as I am concerned, the system is the rort. You now have complete control of your worker. He has no rights because you as the employer are holding the deportation order in your hand. Quite frankly, there are myriad arrangements by which you can bypass the award system. You cannot do that with an Australian worker because, somewhere down the track, he is going to blow the whistle. But a 457 worker aint ever going to blow the whistle because, when he blows the whistle, the whistle will be shoved down his gullet and he will be sent back overseas with the deportation order.

The SPEAKER: The question is that amendments (1) to (5) moved by the member for Kennedy be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The SPEAKER: The noes have it. As there were not two voices on the ayes, no division can be called.

Debate adjourned.

The SPEAKER (17:55): I present report No. 86 of the Selection Committee relating to private Members' business and its consideration of bills, together with minutes of proceedings. The report will be printed in Hansard. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.

The report read as follows—

Report relating to the consideration of private Members' business. and the consideration of bills introduced 24 to 26 June 2013

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday 26 June 2013.

2. The committee recommends that the following item of private Members' business listed on the notice paper be voted on:

Orders of the Day—

Sharps injuries (Dr Washer)

3. The committee determined that the following referral of bills to committees be made—

Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services:

Insurance Contracts Amendment (Unfair Terms) Bill 2013.

REASONS FOR REFERRAL/PRINCIPAL ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION:

The proposals contained in the bill need additional scrutiny, in particular in regard to potential cost impacts and any unintended consequences.

Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts:

Renewable Fuel Bill 2013.

REASONS FOR REFERRAL/PRINCIPAL ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION:

To receive further information regarding costing impact on motorists.