Deputy Speaker,

I, and the Coalition, support efforts to engage more with our Pacific neighbours.

You only have to visit the Mildura, Robinvale and Swan Hill regions, along the Northern border of Mallee, to see how migrants from the Pacific Islands contribute to our industries and communities – working on farming properties or in other labourer roles.

Mallee is home to approximately 74% of Australia’s almond production, 70% table grapes, 57% of nectarines, and 19% of oranges, with most grown in the north of the electorate in the region I just mentioned.

Growers from these areas have been dealing with workforce shortages for years, which continues to create anxiety and uncertainty for farmers at harvest time.

If workers cannot be found, harvest is at risk of falling to the ground, resulting in losses in the billions.

REMPLAN now estimates Mallee’s Gross Regional Product at $9.92 billion, with an annual economic output of more than $14 billion – a large part of that built on the horticulture industry.

The Pacific Islander workforce in Australia contributes heavily to that industry in particular, and not just in Mallee but around Australia.

Currently under the Coalition-introduced Pacific Australia Labour Mobility – or PALM – Scheme, employers in the horticulture sector have access to a reliable workforce where there is not enough local Australian labour to meet seasonal demand.

It is also an opportunity for workers from partnering countries to earn good wages and learn new skills.

The money they earn is often spent on their children’s education, family medical bills, or even used to build a house, or start a small business in their home country.

This is sound policy that supports our growers, the workers and their families back home.

Now the Labor Government is seeking to make their own mark on our immigration system by introducing two pieces of legislation that will see a new Pacific Engagement Visa (PEV) developed.

To be fair, this concept has merit.

Our Pacific neighbours are welcome in Australia, we can agree on that.

However, Labor’s new PEV will allow up to 3,000 nationals per year of Pacific Island Countries and Timor-Leste to be drawn from a ballot and migrate to Australia as Permanent Residents.

This is significantly new territory – moving away from Australia’s current immigration policy.

There is no precedence for this process, under the Migration Act 1958.

Just because a process is new, doesn’t mean it is right

Labor wants to turn our Immigration system on its head. Which may lead to perverse outcomes.

Instead of policy based on attracting skilled migrants who contribute to the economy, this Government wants to pull names out of a hat for a chance to become a Permanent Resident.

What’s more, their families will be brought in, with no eligibility and well on the road to Australian citizenship.

With Permanent Residency they will be eligible for Medicare and other social security benefits – unlike many other visa holders who have worked and contributed to this country before there is a pathway to permanency.

DFAT’s website expects the cost to enter each ballot to be $25 for each time a person enters it.

It is Permanent Residency awarded at random.

I, and my colleagues in the Coalition, support well-structured and well-planned immigration policy.

We have a proud history in this country of depending on migration to build our workforce and enrich our nation.   But a ballot system brings risk that is unacceptable.

It sees employers taking chances on workers with limited exposure to Australian culture and conditions.

There is no regional policy in this legislation, there is no guarantee of adding to our workforce.  Indeed, day two, people could begin to rely on welfare rather than work.  Thereby increasing the burden on Australian tax payers.

Labor’s policy turns immigration into a game, with Australia as the prize.

Employment

This legislation does raise significant questions regarding how it will be implemented and the Government needs to provide detail before we can call it good legislation.

From information provided to the Opposition by this Government, it appears to be successful in gaining a PEV the applicant must simply have an offer of employment offer in Australia.

There’s no room for exploitation here then, or is there?

We know Australia has a workforce shortage – across many sectors.

I’ve already mentioned growers having trouble finding fruit pickers – something the PALM Scheme helps alleviate.

But there are many, many sectors desperate for workers.

Earlier today I met with representatives from Clubs Australia.

They stressed to me the importance of overseas workers to the club industries workforce by filling labour and skills shortages.

Overseas workers fill skilled occupations, such as chefs and cooks, as well as other occupations like food and beverage attendants.

In fact, they told of one club who hadn’t had an Australian apply for a chef role in years.

They simply can’t get an Australian person to apply – but overseas workers will.

Hospitality and horticulture are just two examples.

But Deputy Speaker how easy do you think it would be for someone applying for this visa to obtain a job offer for a whole host of industries in this current workforce climate?

If they tried hard enough there would be employers willing, or perhaps even desperate enough to take the chance, particularly under the systems this visa would put in place.

From the perspective of the employer, this PEV could mean less work getting workers.

For the worker, as a result they would have a job offer that would mean they come to Australia as a Permanent Resident.

Both parties win when you cut out the red tape associated with current visa processes.

Deputy Speaker, on face value this almost reads like a great plan, it truly does. A nice carrot to get jobs filled and an easy way through the immigration process for willing participants.

But, once again the devil is in the detail – and this isn’t the first time that phrase has applied to Labor policy.

Another springs to mind, the expansion of the Distribution Priority Areas, which has resulted in regional areas bleeding health professions to major centres.

The words ‘unintended consequences’ describe a lot of Labor policies – health workforce and now the immigration system.

It appears that once in Australia these applicants could quit their job or be sacked after a day and be eligible to access to full range of welfare entitlements for them and their family.

One can only imagine there would be unscrupulous individuals out there happy to exploit this loophole.

Deputy Speaker, Australia’s Migration system is well-structured and rigorous for a reason – but this legislation is not.

Skilled or unskilled

The Government has stated they envisage the eligibility criteria for the visa will include being aged between 18 and 45, having a formal offer of employment in Australia, English language ability, health and character requirements, although it will not have a skill level or occupation requirement or a regional requirement.

This raises alarm bells as to its capacity to fill any workforce shortages we have – how would an employer know the person they are getting would be suited to the role they are to undertake.

The short answer is they wouldn’t truly know until this person showed up to work.

This new visa would move away from the Skill stream of Australia’s Migration Program.

This program targets young, highly skilled migrants who can make an economic contribution to our country and temporary migrants who can make an economic contribution by addressing workforce shortages.

These are key cornerstones for any migration program – we need to ensure we have the right people coming in to fill jobs and contribute to Australia.

It is also a concern that this visa has no requirement for prior work experience in Australia, increasing the risk of visa recipients and their families having unsuccessful settlement experiences in Australia.

And that is a risk that puts a lot of pressure on diasporas to support new immigrants.

Drain on Pacific Island nations

Going into the last Federal election this Government had a policy of a Strong Pacific Family.

After all, the Pacific Islands are our closest neighbours and it is important we in this part of the world remain united.

But how is this unstructured ballot that offer a new country families from their home nation and bring them to Australia to make the Pacific family stronger?

It seems like it would do the opposite.

It would weaken the rest of the Pacific, all to address the issues we have here in Australia.

These are fears shared by others, not just this side of the chamber.

In January this year, Samoa’s Acting Prime Minister told their Parliament that the Australian Government made the announcement on new visas without consulting the with the Samoan Government.

His worry was that this would hurt the Samoan labour workforce, as it is already strained.

Does Australia really want to rob Peter to pay Paul?

Is this what entails being part of a Strong Pacific Family?

Under the current PALM Scheme the worker in Australia sends remittance back to their families in the Pacific Islands.

This in turn plays a part in stimulating their economic prosperity.

Under this Labor policy our Pacific neighbours worse off.

Another unintended consequence.

If this visa is a test of Labor’s foreign relation and economic policy to make a stronger Pacific family then the signs are not looking good.

What we support

The Coalition is strongly committed to providing employment opportunities in Australia for citizens of Pacific Island Nations and Timor-Leste.

We extended our hand out to our neighbours and are glad to work with them.

Not to take from them, but to offer opportunities for their people that would in turn help their countries.

This was the aim of the PALM scheme, which I know growers around the northern part of Mallee have been thankful for.

I am sure there are many other communities relying on Pacific Island labour around Australia, in the agricultural industries or in abattoirs and numerous other sectors.

We will remain strongly in support of mechanisms that provide employment opportunities for citizens of the Pacific Islands and Timor-Leste, along with pathways to permanent residency, in a sustainable manner.

But this legislation isn’t going to do that.

As I said at the start of this speech, the PEV does have merit and I would be willing to work with the Government and Pacific nations for the development of a sustainable PEV – knowing what it means to Mallee in terms of our workforce issues.

A pathway for permanent residency is valid, particularly for those who have shown the capacity to work in Australia.

That is something I support and will continue to support.

What I can’t support is the legislation in its current form.

The PALM scheme itself could be a suitable vehicle to develop a PEV – if under the current system PALM Scheme participants are able to enter the ballot.

PALM Scheme participants have proven their suitability to work in Australia because they are already here working under a temporary visa – they would be ideal for a more concrete PEV agreement.

We know that under the PALM Scheme there have been mutual benefits for all parties – including Australia, Pacific Island nations and individual workers, employers and even families and communities of workers back in the Pacific Islands.

This Government should look at the PALM Scheme and its participants more closely and in effect make the PALM Scheme a step on the way to a PEV.

This would ensure any PEV recipient was better placed to successfully take up Australian Permanent Residency rather than creating a whole new game.

Wouldn’t this be a solution in line with the country’s current migration program that would avoid the need for a lottery and the risks it poses. I would think so.

Australia as a nation has long enjoyed strong bipartisan support for our nearest neighbours in the Pacific Islands and Timor-Leste, and we want to see that continue.

So lets find solutions we can all agree on.