Division Description Changes — Bills — Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017; Consideration in Detail — 12th Feb 2018

Change	Division
representatives vote 2018-02-12#2 Edited by mackay staff on 2023-07-28 07:54:01	Title Bills — Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017; Consideration in Detail Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017 - Consideration in Detail - Labour market testing Description ~~<p class="speaker">Ross Vasta</p>~~ ~~<p>The question is that the amendments be agreed to.</p>~~ The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2018-02-08.44.1) introduced by Blair MP [Shayne Neumann](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/blair/shayne_neumann) (Labor), which means they failed. ### What did the amendments do? Mr Neumann [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2018-02-08.44.1): > ... these amendments are to ensure proper labour market testing is in place. There needs to be real, genuine and strict labour market testing. Labour market testing requires that employers who want to bring in overseas workers test the local labour market first, to give Australians and permanent residents the first chance at local jobs. This is to make sure that, if no suitably and qualified local workers are readily available, we can bring people from overseas with the skill, talent and ability to contribute to our economy. These amendments are all about putting local workers first. > > Although the legislation allows the immigration minister to determine by legislative instrument the manner of labour market testing, it doesn't provide that he can follow through on it. The minister may only include the following in the legislative instrument: the language to be used in advertising, the advertising method, the period during or prior to nomination in which the advertisement must occur, and the duration of the advertising. The government's bill asks Australians to trust the immigration minister to do the right thing in this legislative instrument, which is non-disallowable. Many on the opposite benches, including the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, when he was the shadow minister for immigration, have voted again and again in this place against labour market testing. They can't be trusted to do the right and proper thing to protect Australian jobs. ### Amendment text > (1) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 10), after item 14, insert: > >> 14A At the end of subsection 140GBA(4) >> >> Add "The period must not start earlier than 4 months before the nomination is received by the Minister.". > > (2) Schedule 1, item 15, page 8 (after line 24), after subsection 140GBA(6), insert: > >> (6AA) The Minister must not make a determination under subsection (5) unless the Minister is reasonably satisfied that any advertising of the position undertaken in the determined manner: >> >>> (a) will be targeted in such a way that a significant proportion of suitably qualified and experienced Australian citizens or Australian permanent residents would be likely to be informed about the position; and >>> >>> (b) will set out any skills or experience requirements that are appropriate to the position. >> >> (6AB) A duration determined for the purposes of paragraph (6)(d) must be at least 4 weeks. ~~<p class="speaker">Julian Hill</p>~~ <p>I have four minutes in continuation, so I might just recap where I got to in that brilliant one-minute speech, just in case those listening at home have forgotten. The proposition which sits behind the amendments is simple: if there's an Australian who can do the job, they should get the job, and you should only be able to access the temporary skilled migration system if there's no suitable Australian who can do the job. That shouldn't be radical, but what the government is saying in its legislation as put forward is: 'Trust us. If you pass this bill, then we'll introduce an instrument.' As we've said to the minister, 'Show us your instrument. If you want us to believe that you're going to have proper rules for proper labour market testing then get out your instrument and put it on the table.' We don't know what it's like, we don't know what's in it and we don't know what the rules are. Right now, there is nothing in this bill to prevent the minister from writing some rules that say, 'It's okay to have an ad on Facebook for five minutes between midnight and 1 am targeted at Mildura.' That's not proper labour testing, but it's not ruled out in this bill.</p> <p>The shadow minister's amendments are moderate, reasoned and not over the top, just like the shadow minister. They provide for sensible, minimum requirements for advertising—things like:</p> ~~<p class="italic">The period—</p>~~ ~~<p>of advertising—</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">must not start earlier than 4 months before the nomination is received by the Minister.</p>~~ <p>That means that the employer can't just say: 'About five years ago, I advertised for a job like that. We didn't get anyone. Five years on, it's probably still the same. I'll just get a temporary migrant. Why not accept that?' Why not show us the instrument and say, 'This is what we propose.' Then we can have a debate and say: 'Okay, that sounds all right. Maybe it's reasonable.'</p> ~~<p>A requirement in amendment (2) is:</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">The Minister must not make a determination ... unless the Minister is reasonably satisfied that any advertising of the position undertaken in the determined manner:</p>~~ <p class="italic">... that a significant proportion of suitably qualified and experienced Australian citizens or Australian permanent residents would be likely to be informed about the position ...</p> <p>I go back to the example of putting a dodgy ad in the paper for a week in an obscure regional newspaper and saying that it satisfies labour market testing. Clearly, if you at least put this in as a sensible threshold minimum, you'd be forced, under the amendment, to ensure that Australian citizens and permanent residents are likely to be informed about the position.</p> <p>Secondly—and this is important; we've seen examples of it—amendment (2) says that job ads 'set out any skills or experience requirements that are appropriate to the position'. I've spoken before on examples in the shipping industry, in relation to 400 visas. The shadow minister and I looked through folders of evidence in relation to this. Minister Dutton has received numerous letters, which have never received adequate responses, that jobs are being advertised in the shipping industry requiring levels of skill far above what is actually needed to do the job. Magically, they could say, 'We didn't find anyone, so we'll get some temporary migrants whom we can pay a bit less.' They're vulnerable to exploitation and it locks out Australian workers. Importantly, the shadow minister's amendment provides that jobs must be advertised for a period of at least four weeks. If you're going to go to all the trouble of using the skilled migration system to sponsor a temporary migrant, it doesn't sound unreasonable to me that you'd be required to advertise the job for, at a minimum, four weeks.</p> ~~<p>These rules as proposed in the amendments are not fully prescriptive; they set a few basic minimum standards.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Honourable Member</p>~~ ~~<p>An honourable member interjecting—</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Julian Hill</p>~~ <p>I hear some comments from afar, somewhere over there, about running a business. The reason we don't trust the government and we can't trust the government on this is that there seems to be a last-minute, road-to-Damascus conversion on labour-market testing. At least St Paul believed it.</p> <p>We get an insight into what the government really thinks from their good friends at ACCI, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. They say in their submission—and at least they're honest, unlike the government—that labour-market testing is 'akin to asking employers to walk through wet cement'. They say that it is time-consuming to even advertise, when the employer knows through past experience—sometime in the past in recent years—that there's no-one available. So ACCI's submission says honestly: 'Abolish all labour-market testing. Just get rid of it.' At least that's honest. It's bad policy, but at least it's honest. We urge the government to accept the amendments. They don't impose anything that's unreasonable and they allow the minister to colour his instrument however he likes.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Matt Keogh</p>~~ <p>In April last year, the Prime Minister told ABC's Sabra Lane that Australian jobs are for Australians, first and foremost. In that interview, he heralded this bill and he said that this would deliver on that promise—that commitment for employers to conduct and provide evidence of labour-market testing. As it actually turns out, as the member for Bruce so eloquently said, this legislation doesn't do that at all. What the government is doing with this piece of legislation is it's walking into this parliament and saying, 'Trust us.' And I'm sure, when the people of Australia hear those words from this government, they shudder in their boots. I can say from my experience in my short term in this House that when I hear this government say 'Trust us', I know that it's usually followed, around three to six months later, by my having to consider some amending legislation to fix the problem they created with the first piece of legislation. This government has form when it comes to the idea of 'Trust us.'</p> <p>Here, what they want to do is say that, when it comes to labour-market testing, we'll hand it all over to the minister responsible, instead of making sure that this parliament guarantees that we have a proper labour-market testing regime to ensure that Australian jobs are first and foremost for Australians. So, instead of taking the approach that we would like them to do, they want to give this to the minister. When we look at the track record of this minister, when it comes to this minister saying 'Trust us,' let's just see what the stats show.</p> <p>Interestingly, we have a bit of a tension here within the government. We have the employment department, which is responsible for job vacancies and skills shortage research, saying just 28 occupations are on the list of major skills shortages that it's identified. But then when we turn to the immigration department, there's a list of over 450 occupations where you can come in on a skilled migration visa for apparent 'skills shortages'. When this government has almost multiplied this by a factor of 10—more than 10, almost 20—the number of jobs that are available when compared to those that there's an actual shortage in, how on earth can we trust the minister to deliver a delegated piece of legislation that we can rely on, that we can have confidence in, that is actually going to make sure that Australian jobs go to Australians first? The difference here is quite critical to people in my electorate, as it is to people across Western Australia and the nation. You can't trust the Turnbull government when it comes to genuine labour-market testing. You can only trust Labor to deliver on actual labour-market testing.</p> <p>If we look at the testimony given by the ACTU, they said, I think, 'Quite frankly, given the government's history on labour-market testing, why would you trust this government to implement a serious regime of labour-market testing? We just don't.' Well, neither do we in the Labor Party, and it's why the Leader of the Opposition introduced a private member's bill dealing with just this issue—to introduce more rigorous requirements for labour-market testing so that we could have it incorporated into the legislation of the country. Those amendments would make sure that there was an actual minimum period of advertising time—that this was conducted no more than four months before the job was going to be filled by a skilled visa; that it was targeted so that we were not just letting laissez faire immigration happen on different types of occupations. But, instead, the government doesn't want to go down that route. Who knows why? It's a very interesting problem for the government to create for itself. If it was so signed up to making sure that it protects Australian jobs, why not actually put it into Australian legislation? But, no.</p> <p>Not only have they done that, of course; this just compounds all of the failures of the government when it comes to protecting Australian jobs and Australian incomes. Instead, what they want to do is let a whole heap of people come in and undermine the wages of Australians in their Australian jobs and, at the same time, you are taking away their penalty rate protections as well. I'm sure the people of Australia feel just so confident at home every day knowing that the government are looking after their jobs in such a way that they stand up and say to the people of Australia: 'It's okay. Just trust us.' When the people of Australia look at the form of the government, there is absolutely no way that when it comes to skilled migration and labour market testing that they are going to trust the government or the minister responsible.</p> <p>Labor will fight hard. We will fight to make sure that there is strict labour market testing because, I can tell you, out there, in the real world, people are concerned about this. The member for Swan talked about small business. Only just the other weekend, when I was out doorknocking to the good people of Canning Vale, did a small business owner in construction raise with me his concerns about people who are coming into Australia without the adequate skill requirements and undermining Australian jobs on building and construction sites. That's what this government is delivering. Shame.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Cathy O'Toole</p>~~ <p>I am fed up with the Turnbull government's relentless attacks on Australian workers. This is a government for overseas workers, not locals. This is a government for the casualisation of work, not secure jobs. This is a government hell-bent on eroding workers' rights over a quality job. This is a government that does not care about Australian workers but cares for big business.</p> <p>The Turnbull government has voted five times in this place to give big business a $65 billion tax cut but will not lift a finger to protect workers. This is demonstrated by the Oaky North miners' situation. Last week, I met with the CFMEU Oakey North miners, and the absolutely abhorrent treatment that they have received, and are receiving, from Swiss based Glencore is disgusting. This company was revealed in the Paradise Papers as having a tax-dodging swap financing scheme that has been the subject of scrutiny by the Australian tax office. This same company, Glencore, has now locked out the miners at Oaky North for more than 210 days. Let me be very clear: these men and women are not on strike; they want to work. These men and women are being treated in a disgusting and disrespectful manner by Glencore because they are fighting against casualisation and for better and fairer conditions. This lockout is a smear on the Turnbull government. It shows that this government is not fair dinkum when it comes to standing up for workers. It shows that this government cannot be trusted when it comes to secure, quality and well-paid jobs. This bill proves this government cannot be trusted to protect Australian jobs.</p> <p>Unlike the Turnbull government, Labor believes in genuine labour market testing for employers nominating overseas workers. Labour market testing requires employers wishing to bring in overseas workers to test the local labour market first. This is to make sure that there are no suitably qualified and experienced local workers available to fill the vacant positions prior to bringing in overseas workers—common sense, one might say.</p> <p>In my electorate of Herbert, we are experiencing 9.1 per cent unemployment. We want all of those local jobs because we are in desperate need. But the Turnbull government clearly doesn't care about local jobs for Herbert, because this bill doesn't legislate for strict labour market testing conditions. The Turnbull government's bill asks Australians to trust that the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Peter Dutton, will do the right thing via a legislative instrument. Surely this government must be kidding? It's got to be a joke, because I don't think there's a person in Australia who trusts the minister for immigration, Peter Dutton, on anything.</p> <p>It is only Labor that will stand up to these worker bullies, and it is only Labor that will fight for local quality jobs. Labor's amendments will ensure labour market testing: is advertised for a minimum of four weeks—this is not too much to ask; has been conducted no more than four months before the nomination of a worker on a skilled visa; be targeted in such a way that a significant proportion of suitably qualified and experienced Australian citizens or Australian permanent residents would be likely to be informed about the position; and excludes unrealistic and unwarranted skills and experience requirements for vacant positions with the effect of excluding otherwise suitable Australian applicants. These are the strict protections that Australian workers need and deserve to ensure local jobs. One would think that an Australian government would be hell-bent on legislating to back Australian workers. This bill does nothing to reassure the confidence of Australian citizens that that is the case.</p> ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~

~~Ross Vasta~~
~~The question is that the amendments be agreed to.~~
The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2018-02-08.44.1) introduced by Blair MP [Shayne Neumann](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/blair/shayne_neumann) (Labor), which means they failed.
### What did the amendments do?
Mr Neumann [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2018-02-08.44.1):
> *... these amendments are to ensure proper labour market testing is in place. There needs to be real, genuine and strict labour market testing. Labour market testing requires that employers who want to bring in overseas workers test the local labour market first, to give Australians and permanent residents the first chance at local jobs. This is to make sure that, if no suitably and qualified local workers are readily available, we can bring people from overseas with the skill, talent and ability to contribute to our economy. These amendments are all about putting local workers first.*
>
> *Although the legislation allows the immigration minister to determine by legislative instrument the manner of labour market testing, it doesn't provide that he can follow through on it. The minister may only include the following in the legislative instrument: the language to be used in advertising, the advertising method, the period during or prior to nomination in which the advertisement must occur, and the duration of the advertising. The government's bill asks Australians to trust the immigration minister to do the right thing in this legislative instrument, which is non-disallowable. Many on the opposite benches, including the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, when he was the shadow minister for immigration, have voted again and again in this place against labour market testing. They can't be trusted to do the right and proper thing to protect Australian jobs.*
### Amendment text
> *(1) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 10), after item 14, insert:*
>
>> *14A At the end of subsection 140GBA(4)*
>>
>> *Add "The period must not start earlier than 4 months before the nomination is received by the Minister.".*
>
> *(2) Schedule 1, item 15, page 8 (after line 24), after subsection 140GBA(6), insert:*
>
>> *(6AA) The Minister must not make a determination under subsection (5) unless the Minister is reasonably satisfied that any advertising of the position undertaken in the determined manner:*
>>
>>> *(a) will be targeted in such a way that a significant proportion of suitably qualified and experienced Australian citizens or Australian permanent residents would be likely to be informed about the position; and*
>>>
>>> *(b) will set out any skills or experience requirements that are appropriate to the position.*
>>
>> *(6AB) A duration determined for the purposes of paragraph (6)(d) must be at least 4 weeks.*
~~Julian Hill~~
I have four minutes in continuation, so I might just recap where I got to in that brilliant one-minute speech, just in case those listening at home have forgotten. The proposition which sits behind the amendments is simple: if there's an Australian who can do the job, they should get the job, and you should only be able to access the temporary skilled migration system if there's no suitable Australian who can do the job. That shouldn't be radical, but what the government is saying in its legislation as put forward is: 'Trust us. If you pass this bill, then we'll introduce an instrument.' As we've said to the minister, 'Show us your instrument. If you want us to believe that you're going to have proper rules for proper labour market testing then get out your instrument and put it on the table.' We don't know what it's like, we don't know what's in it and we don't know what the rules are. Right now, there is nothing in this bill to prevent the minister from writing some rules that say, 'It's okay to have an ad on Facebook for five minutes between midnight and 1 am targeted at Mildura.' That's not proper labour testing, but it's not ruled out in this bill.
The shadow minister's amendments are moderate, reasoned and not over the top, just like the shadow minister. They provide for sensible, minimum requirements for advertising—things like:
~~The period—~~
~~of advertising—~~
~~must not start earlier than 4 months before the nomination is received by the Minister.~~
That means that the employer can't just say: 'About five years ago, I advertised for a job like that. We didn't get anyone. Five years on, it's probably still the same. I'll just get a temporary migrant. Why not accept that?' Why not show us the instrument and say, 'This is what we propose.' Then we can have a debate and say: 'Okay, that sounds all right. Maybe it's reasonable.'
~~A requirement in amendment (2) is:~~
~~The Minister must not make a determination ... unless the Minister is reasonably satisfied that any advertising of the position undertaken in the determined manner:~~
... that a significant proportion of suitably qualified and experienced Australian citizens or Australian permanent residents would be likely to be informed about the position ...
I go back to the example of putting a dodgy ad in the paper for a week in an obscure regional newspaper and saying that it satisfies labour market testing. Clearly, if you at least put this in as a sensible threshold minimum, you'd be forced, under the amendment, to ensure that Australian citizens and permanent residents are likely to be informed about the position.
Secondly—and this is important; we've seen examples of it—amendment (2) says that job ads 'set out any skills or experience requirements that are appropriate to the position'. I've spoken before on examples in the shipping industry, in relation to 400 visas. The shadow minister and I looked through folders of evidence in relation to this. Minister Dutton has received numerous letters, which have never received adequate responses, that jobs are being advertised in the shipping industry requiring levels of skill far above what is actually needed to do the job. Magically, they could say, 'We didn't find anyone, so we'll get some temporary migrants whom we can pay a bit less.' They're vulnerable to exploitation and it locks out Australian workers. Importantly, the shadow minister's amendment provides that jobs must be advertised for a period of at least four weeks. If you're going to go to all the trouble of using the skilled migration system to sponsor a temporary migrant, it doesn't sound unreasonable to me that you'd be required to advertise the job for, at a minimum, four weeks.
~~These rules as proposed in the amendments are not fully prescriptive; they set a few basic minimum standards.~~
~~Honourable Member~~
~~An honourable member interjecting—~~
~~Julian Hill~~
I hear some comments from afar, somewhere over there, about running a business. The reason we don't trust the government and we can't trust the government on this is that there seems to be a last-minute, road-to-Damascus conversion on labour-market testing. At least St Paul believed it.
We get an insight into what the government really thinks from their good friends at ACCI, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. They say in their submission—and at least they're honest, unlike the government—that labour-market testing is 'akin to asking employers to walk through wet cement'. They say that it is time-consuming to even advertise, when the employer knows through past experience—sometime in the past in recent years—that there's no-one available. So ACCI's submission says honestly: 'Abolish all labour-market testing. Just get rid of it.' At least that's honest. It's bad policy, but at least it's honest. We urge the government to accept the amendments. They don't impose anything that's unreasonable and they allow the minister to colour his instrument however he likes.
~~Matt Keogh~~
In April last year, the Prime Minister told ABC's Sabra Lane that Australian jobs are for Australians, first and foremost. In that interview, he heralded this bill and he said that this would deliver on that promise—that commitment for employers to conduct and provide evidence of labour-market testing. As it actually turns out, as the member for Bruce so eloquently said, this legislation doesn't do that at all. What the government is doing with this piece of legislation is it's walking into this parliament and saying, 'Trust us.' And I'm sure, when the people of Australia hear those words from this government, they shudder in their boots. I can say from my experience in my short term in this House that when I hear this government say 'Trust us', I know that it's usually followed, around three to six months later, by my having to consider some amending legislation to fix the problem they created with the first piece of legislation. This government has form when it comes to the idea of 'Trust us.'
Here, what they want to do is say that, when it comes to labour-market testing, we'll hand it all over to the minister responsible, instead of making sure that this parliament guarantees that we have a proper labour-market testing regime to ensure that Australian jobs are first and foremost for Australians. So, instead of taking the approach that we would like them to do, they want to give this to the minister. When we look at the track record of this minister, when it comes to this minister saying 'Trust us,' let's just see what the stats show.
Interestingly, we have a bit of a tension here within the government. We have the employment department, which is responsible for job vacancies and skills shortage research, saying just 28 occupations are on the list of major skills shortages that it's identified. But then when we turn to the immigration department, there's a list of over 450 occupations where you can come in on a skilled migration visa for apparent 'skills shortages'. When this government has almost multiplied this by a factor of 10—more than 10, almost 20—the number of jobs that are available when compared to those that there's an actual shortage in, how on earth can we trust the minister to deliver a delegated piece of legislation that we can rely on, that we can have confidence in, that is actually going to make sure that Australian jobs go to Australians first? The difference here is quite critical to people in my electorate, as it is to people across Western Australia and the nation. You can't trust the Turnbull government when it comes to genuine labour-market testing. You can only trust Labor to deliver on actual labour-market testing.
If we look at the testimony given by the ACTU, they said, I think, 'Quite frankly, given the government's history on labour-market testing, why would you trust this government to implement a serious regime of labour-market testing? We just don't.' Well, neither do we in the Labor Party, and it's why the Leader of the Opposition introduced a private member's bill dealing with just this issue—to introduce more rigorous requirements for labour-market testing so that we could have it incorporated into the legislation of the country. Those amendments would make sure that there was an actual minimum period of advertising time—that this was conducted no more than four months before the job was going to be filled by a skilled visa; that it was targeted so that we were not just letting laissez faire immigration happen on different types of occupations. But, instead, the government doesn't want to go down that route. Who knows why? It's a very interesting problem for the government to create for itself. If it was so signed up to making sure that it protects Australian jobs, why not actually put it into Australian legislation? But, no.
Not only have they done that, of course; this just compounds all of the failures of the government when it comes to protecting Australian jobs and Australian incomes. Instead, what they want to do is let a whole heap of people come in and undermine the wages of Australians in their Australian jobs and, at the same time, you are taking away their penalty rate protections as well. I'm sure the people of Australia feel just so confident at home every day knowing that the government are looking after their jobs in such a way that they stand up and say to the people of Australia: 'It's okay. Just trust us.' When the people of Australia look at the form of the government, there is absolutely no way that when it comes to skilled migration and labour market testing that they are going to trust the government or the minister responsible.
Labor will fight hard. We will fight to make sure that there is strict labour market testing because, I can tell you, out there, in the real world, people are concerned about this. The member for Swan talked about small business. Only just the other weekend, when I was out doorknocking to the good people of Canning Vale, did a small business owner in construction raise with me his concerns about people who are coming into Australia without the adequate skill requirements and undermining Australian jobs on building and construction sites. That's what this government is delivering. Shame.
~~Cathy O'Toole~~
I am fed up with the Turnbull government's relentless attacks on Australian workers. This is a government for overseas workers, not locals. This is a government for the casualisation of work, not secure jobs. This is a government hell-bent on eroding workers' rights over a quality job. This is a government that does not care about Australian workers but cares for big business.
The Turnbull government has voted five times in this place to give big business a $65 billion tax cut but will not lift a finger to protect workers. This is demonstrated by the Oaky North miners' situation. Last week, I met with the CFMEU Oakey North miners, and the absolutely abhorrent treatment that they have received, and are receiving, from Swiss based Glencore is disgusting. This company was revealed in the Paradise Papers as having a tax-dodging swap financing scheme that has been the subject of scrutiny by the Australian tax office. This same company, Glencore, has now locked out the miners at Oaky North for more than 210 days. Let me be very clear: these men and women are not on strike; they want to work. These men and women are being treated in a disgusting and disrespectful manner by Glencore because they are fighting against casualisation and for better and fairer conditions. This lockout is a smear on the Turnbull government. It shows that this government is not fair dinkum when it comes to standing up for workers. It shows that this government cannot be trusted when it comes to secure, quality and well-paid jobs. This bill proves this government cannot be trusted to protect Australian jobs.
Unlike the Turnbull government, Labor believes in genuine labour market testing for employers nominating overseas workers. Labour market testing requires employers wishing to bring in overseas workers to test the local labour market first. This is to make sure that there are no suitably qualified and experienced local workers available to fill the vacant positions prior to bringing in overseas workers—common sense, one might say.
In my electorate of Herbert, we are experiencing 9.1 per cent unemployment. We want all of those local jobs because we are in desperate need. But the Turnbull government clearly doesn't care about local jobs for Herbert, because this bill doesn't legislate for strict labour market testing conditions. The Turnbull government's bill asks Australians to trust that the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Peter Dutton, will do the right thing via a legislative instrument. Surely this government must be kidding? It's got to be a joke, because I don't think there's a person in Australia who trusts the minister for immigration, Peter Dutton, on anything.
It is only Labor that will stand up to these worker bullies, and it is only Labor that will fight for local quality jobs. Labor's amendments will ensure labour market testing: is advertised for a minimum of four weeks—this is not too much to ask; has been conducted no more than four months before the nomination of a worker on a skilled visa; be targeted in such a way that a significant proportion of suitably qualified and experienced Australian citizens or Australian permanent residents would be likely to be informed about the position; and excludes unrealistic and unwarranted skills and experience requirements for vacant positions with the effect of excluding otherwise suitable Australian applicants. These are the strict protections that Australian workers need and deserve to ensure local jobs. One would think that an Australian government would be hell-bent on legislating to back Australian workers. This bill does nothing to reassure the confidence of Australian citizens that that is the case.
~~Long debate text truncated.~~