Bills Digest No. 76,
2017–18
PDF version [369KB]
Claire Petrie
Law and Bills Digest Section
Hazel Ferguson and Henry Sherrell
Social Policy Section
7
February 2018
Contents
Purpose of the Bills
Commencement details
Background
The impetus for the
Bills—Commonwealth funding arrangements for skills training
The status of skills reform
National skill shortages and the
decline in apprenticeship numbers
Table 1: major national skill
shortages, Australia, 2016–17
Figure 1: total apprenticeship
commencements and completions 1963–2016
Figure 2: trade (apprenticeships) and
non-trade (traineeship) commencements 1995–2016
National skill shortages and
immigration policy
Training benchmarks
Table 2: national Partnership on the
Skilling Australians Fund 2007–18 Budget State allocation estimates, including
average yearly funding comparison with National Partnership Agreement on Skills
Reform(a)
Committee consideration
Education and Employment Committee
Senate Standing Committee for the
Scrutiny of Bills
Policy position of non-government
parties/independents
Position of major interest groups
Skilling Australians Fund
Skilling Australians Fund—Charges
Financial implications
Statement of Compatibility with Human
Rights
Parliamentary Joint Committee on
Human Rights
Key issues and provisions
Note about contingent amendments
Nomination approvals
Nomination training contribution
charge
Requirement to pay the NTC charge
Charges Bill
Penalties and Commonwealth liability
Skilling Australians Fund Revenue and
visa trends
Permanent sponsored visas
Temporary sponsored visas
Figure 3: Primary 457 visas granted
each quarter 2005–2017
Labour Market Testing requirements
Background
Existing provisions
Proposed amendments
Application provisions
Concluding comments
Date introduced: 18
October 2017
House: House of
Representatives
Portfolio: Immigration
and Border Protection
Commencement: At
various dates, as set out in the digest.
Links: The links to the Bills,
their Explanatory Memorandum and second reading speeches can be found on the home
page for the Migration
Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017 and Migration
(Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017, or through the Australian
Parliament website.
When Bills have been passed and have received Royal Assent,
they become Acts, which can be found at the Federal Register of Legislation
website.
All hyperlinks in this Bills Digest are correct as
at February 2018.
Purpose of
the Bills
The purpose of the Migration Amendment (Skilling
Australians Fund) Bill 2017 (SAF Bill) is to amend the Migration Act 1958
(the Act) to:
- require
employers who nominate a worker for a temporary or permanent skilled visa to
pay a ‘nomination training contribution charge’, which is to be imposed by the
Migration (Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017
- clarify
that a person does not need to be approved as a sponsor at the time of lodging
a nomination application and
- give
the Minister the power to determine by way of legislative instrument, requirements
for undertaking, and providing evidence of, Labour Market Testing.
The purpose of the Migration (Skilling Australians Fund)
Charges Bill 2017 (Charges Bill) is to provide for the imposition of the
nomination training contribution charge, enable the amount of the charge to be
prescribed by the regulations, and specify a limit on the charge.
The Bills were introduced in the House by the Minister for
Immigration and Border Protection. From 20 December 2017, this portfolio
is part of the Home Affairs portfolio.
Commencement
details
Sections 1 to 3 of the SAF Bill commence on Royal Assent.
Schedule 1 commences on Proclamation or six months after Royal Assent,
whichever occurs first. Schedule 2 will commence at the same time as Schedule 1,
but:
- Part
1 of Schedule 2 will not commence at all if the Migration Amendment (Family
Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2016 (Family Violence Bill) has already been
passed and commenced and
- Part
2 of Schedule 2 will not commence at all if the provisions of the Family
Violence Bill have not yet commenced.[1]
Sections 1 and 2 of the Charges Bill commence on Royal
Assent. Sections 3 to 10 commence at the same time as Schedule 1 of the SAF
Bill—that is, on Proclamation or six months after Royal Assent, whichever
occurs first.[2]
Combined, these two Bills will facilitate the introduction
of the training levy which commences March 2018 and supports the new Temporary
Skill Shortage (TSS) Visa.
Background
The impetus
for the Bills—Commonwealth funding arrangements for skills training
The SAF Bill and Charges Bill respond to the Government’s
2017–18 Budget commitment to provide a new fund for skills training, following
the expiry of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) National
Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform (NPASR) on 30 June 2017.[3]
Under the Intergovernmental
Agreement on Federal Financial Relations (IGA-FFR), the Commonwealth
supports states and territories to deliver skills training services through National
Specific Purpose Payments (SPPs) under the National
Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development (NASWD). From 2017–18 to
2020–21, approximately $1.5 billion in SPPs will go to the states and territories
each year under the NASWD.[4]
The NASWD aims to:
- halve
the proportion of Australians nationally aged 20–64 without qualifications at
Certificate III level and above between 2009 and 2020
- double
the number of higher level qualification completions (diploma and advanced
diploma) nationally between 2009 and 2020
- improve
the proportion of VET graduates with improved employment status after training.[5]
To support the aims of the NASWD, the Commonwealth
committed $1.75 billion through National Partnership Payments (NPPs) under the
NPASR from 2012–13 to 2016–17, to improve the accessibility, transparency,
quality, efficiency and responsiveness of the vocational education and training
(VET) sector.[6]
NPASR implementation plans varied according to jurisdictional needs, however
the overall focus was on achieving structural change through improved quality
assurance, data collection and management, and financing arrangements,
including the extension of income contingent loans (then VET FEE-HELP) to
government-subsidised Diploma and Advanced Diploma courses, and a limited
number of Certificate IV courses (where this had not already been implemented
at the time of NPASR commencement).[7]
The status of skills reform
Although
2015 saw the Review of the National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform (the NPASR Review) raise a number of concerns about the NPASR
in relation to quality and transparency, especially in light of growing
concerns about unscrupulous providers accessing VET FEE-HELP, states and territories
met or exceeded all agreed outcomes.[8]
A number of key national reforms were implemented, including the introduction
of the national My Skills website and Unique Student Identifier (USI).[9]
However, consistent with the broader concerns identified in
the Review, progress against the higher level NASWD objectives is not on track,
with growth in attainment slower than expected, and employment outcomes
worsening over the term of the agreement.[10]
In particular:
- although
the proportion of 20 to 64 year old persons without a non-school qualification
at Certificate III or above has fallen substantially, from 47.1 per cent in
2009 (NASWD base year) to 38.4 per cent at May 2017, the trajectory has not
been sufficient to put jurisdictions on track to achieve the objective of
halving this figure by 2020[11]
- although
the number of higher level qualification completions (diploma and advanced
diploma) has increased from 53,974 in 2009 to 62,100 in 2015 (latest year in
COAG reporting), numbers have been declining in recent years from a peak of
88,783 in 2012[12]
- labour
market outcomes for VET graduates between 20 and 64 years worsened between 2008
and 2015, with improved graduate employment outcomes (being employed at a
higher skill level after training or receiving a job-related benefit) declining
8.1 percentage points, from 67.6 per cent to 59.5 per cent of graduates.[13]
National skill shortages and the decline in
apprenticeship numbers
At a national level, the effect of the uneven progress on skills
reform, along with the emphasis on expanding access to higher-level
qualifications under the NPASR has partly been felt in skill shortages in
trades. While there are few areas of major skill shortage in Australia, as can
be seen in Table 1 below, ‘widespread shortages [are] apparent for just 5
assessed Professions (one of the lowest levels recorded over the past decade),
but 22 Trades Worker occupations.’[14]
Table 1: major national skill shortages, Australia,
2016–17
Professions
|
Technicians
|
Trades Workers
|
Architect
|
Construction Estimator
|
Air Conditioning and refrigeration mechanic
|
Pastrycook
|
Butcher or smallgoods maker
|
Telecommunications trades worker
|
Audiologist
|
|
Arborist
|
Roof tiler
|
Cabinetmaker
|
Vehicle painter
|
Sonographer
|
|
Automotive electrician
|
Sheet Metal trades worker
|
Fibrous plasterer
|
Wall and floor tiler
|
Surveyor
|
|
Baker
|
Solid plasterer
|
Glazier
|
Motor mechanics
|
Veterinarian
|
|
Bricklayer
|
Stonemason
|
Hairdresser
|
Painting trades worker
|
|
|
Locksmith
|
Panel Beater
|
|
|
Source: Department of Employment, The
Skilled Labour Market: A pictorial overview of trends and shortages, 4
September 2017, slide 38. This list has no status for immigration—see below for
more information.
Recent years have seen a significant decline in the take
up of apprenticeships to supply these trades, from a top
of 376,800 in 2012, to 164,000 in 2017, with a corresponding decline in
apprenticeship completion rates (see Figure 1 below).[15]
Figure 1: total apprenticeship commencements and
completions 1963–2017
Source: Parliamentary Library based on National Centre for
Vocational Education Research (NCVER), ‘Historical
time series of apprenticeships and traineeships in Australia from 1963 to 2017’,
NCVER website, 7 December 2017, Table 4; Table 6.
However, as can be seen in Figure 2 below, decreases were
most dramatic in non-trade (sometimes known as traineeship) commencements,
where some policy analysts have argued that incentive payments may have been
more of a factor in employer decision-making than workforce investment or need.[16]
Figure 2: trade (apprenticeships) and non-trade (traineeship)
commencements 1995–2017
Source: Parliamentary Library based on National Centre for
Vocational Education Research (NCVER), ‘Historical
time series of apprenticeships and traineeships in Australia from 1963 to 2017’,
NCVER website, 7 December 2017, Table 11.
In part,
these decreases reflect judgments about employment prospects, with the
worsening outcomes for VET graduates cited above reflecting stronger employment
growth for professionals (35 per cent) than technicians and trade workers
(9 per cent) over the decade between May 2007 and May 2017.[17]
However, as apprentices are engaged by employers with funding and other support
from government, the number of apprentices and trainees is also influenced by
Commonwealth and state and territory funding decisions.
National
skill shortages and immigration policy
In addition to qualification funding, immigration policy
has been used by successive Australian governments in response to employer
concerns about skill shortages.
Ruhs and Anderson find ‘employer demand for migrant
workers has become a key feature of labour markets in high income countries.’[18]
However assessing the claims of employers in relation to the existing skills
(and labour) available from the domestic labour force is ‘highly contested’.[19]
The 457 visa, a temporary, sponsored skilled visa
category, was introduced in 1996 by the Howard Government following the Roach
Review:
A country of Australia’s size cannot be expected to be
completely self-sufficient at the leading edge of all skills in the area of key
business personnel... Thus there will be a need for Australia to import certain
skills, in much the same way as Australia is developing skills to export.[20]
According to the most recent review led by John Azarias, the
introduction of the 457 visa program in 1996 was to better ‘facilitate the
temporary entry of highly-skilled senior executives and specialists’.[21]
However in response to ‘skill shortages experienced in the Australian labour
market in the 2000s’ additional occupations were made eligible for employer
sponsorship.[22]
While there are 28 occupations on the Department of
Employment’s list of major skill shortages (Table 1 above), immigration policy
has used more extensive lists of occupations for employers to hire temporary
skilled migrants.[23]
The current occupation lists—the Medium and Long-term Strategic Skills List and
the Short-term Skilled Occupation List—include 461 occupations.[24]
In April 2017, these occupation lists replaced the Consolidated Sponsored Occupation
List which contained 651 occupations.[25]
This shows different approaches to skills policy across
government portfolios. The 457 visa program (to be replaced by the Temporary
Skills Shortage program from March 2018) allows an employer to sponsor a
temporary migrant where no Australian resident is available for a nominated
job. [26]
An occupation must be nominated by the employer, which the migrant must be
qualified to perform.
However while the occupational lists used for this visa
program are much more extensive than those constructed by the Department of
Employment, additional regulations within the 457 visa program are designed to
ensure employers seek to hire for genuine skill shortages. These include the
requirements for employers to pay temporary migrants the same salary and grant
them the same conditions as existing Australian workers and for employees to be
genuinely skilled applicants.[27]
Training
benchmarks
One program requirement for the current 457 visa program
is to meet the training benchmarks. This eligibility criteria for employers has
been in place since 2009 to promote training opportunities for existing
Australian residents.[28]
The training benchmarks require employers who hire temporary skilled migrants
to either pay two per cent of their payroll to a training fund or show one per
cent of their payroll is spent on training activities.[29]
These are known as training benchmarks A and B respectively and designed as
skills policy to ensure employers who use the 457 visa program also demonstrate
a commitment to training local labour.[30]
From March 2018, the training benchmarks are being
abolished and replaced by the levy proposed in these Bills. In his second
reading speech for this Bill, Minister Dutton said ‘the Skilling Australians
Fund levy will fully replace these training benchmark arrangements’.[31]
Successive reports have noted the inadequacy and difficulty of assessing the
training benchmarks. The Azarias review in 2014 ‘found that there was little
support by either sponsors or labour representatives for the current training
benchmarks’.[32]
The review recommended the training benchmarks be abolished and replaced by an
annual training contribution, with the latter being the purpose of these Bills.
The proposed levy is discussed in detail under ‘Key Provisions’.
The Skilling Australians Fund
According to Senator Simon Birmingham, Minister for
Education and Training, the SAF will target declining apprenticeship numbers
through industry funded support:
we’re funding this Skilling Australia Fund via a levy on any
foreign workers that are brought in under certain visa categories, because
that’s reinforcing to businesses that if you’re not going to play a role in
helping support the training system in providing apprenticeship opportunities,
well then, you’re going to be paying more for your labour because we will be
taking the cash off you to help those who are going to help train our future
apprentices.[33]
According to the Department of Education and Training, the SAF
will support:
projects
brought forward from states and territories which support apprenticeships,
traineeships, and pre- and higher-level apprenticeships and traineeships with
the following priorities:
- occupations in demand
- occupations with a reliance on skilled migration pathways
- industries and sectors of future growth
- trade apprenticeships
- rural and regional areas
-
respect of people from targeted cohorts.[34]
Priority industries ‘include but are not limited to key
industries right across Australia, like tourism and hospitality, health and
ageing, agriculture, engineering, manufacturing, building and construction, and
the digital technologies.’[35]
Projects funded through the SAF would be in addition to existing Commonwealth,
state and territory, and employer investment in Australian Apprenticeships.[36]
While the specifics of any new Partnership Agreement are
subject to negotiation with the states and territories through the COAG Industry and Skills Council (CISC), according to the
2007–18 Budget papers the SAF, ‘when matched with funding from the States, will
support up to 300,000 more apprentices, trainees and higher level skilled
Australians over the next four years’.[37] It is not clear if the 300,000 more apprentices will be in addition to
apprenticeship numbers according to current trends—75,000 apprenticeship
commencements on average each year above trend would represent substantial
growth from a base of 168,800 commencements in 2016.
Estimated state allocations from the SAF, subject to
project approval, are provided in 2007–18 Budget paper 3, as summarised in
Table 2 below.
Table 2: national Partnership on the Skilling Australians
Fund 2017–18 Budget State allocation
estimates, including average yearly funding comparison with National
Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform(a)
$ million |
NSW |
VIC |
QLD |
WA |
SA |
TAS |
ACT |
NT |
Total |
2017–18(b) |
112.2 |
88.7 |
70.1 |
37.9 |
24.5 |
7.4 |
5.7 |
3.5 |
350.0 |
2018–19 |
115.4 |
91.6 |
72.0 |
38.9 |
25.1 |
7.5 |
5.9 |
3.6 |
360.0 |
2019–20 |
125.0 |
99.7 |
77.9 |
42.1 |
27.0 |
8.1 |
6.4 |
3.8 |
390.0 |
2020–21 |
118.7 |
95.1 |
73.8 |
39.9 |
25.4 |
7.6 |
6.0 |
3.6 |
370.0 |
Total |
471.3 |
375.1 |
293.8 |
158.8 |
102.0 |
30.6 |
24.0 |
14.5 |
1470.0 |
Average total per year over four years (SAF) |
117.8 |
93.8 |
73.5 |
39.7 |
25.5 |
7.7 |
6.0 |
3.6 |
367.5 |
Average total per year over five years (NPASR)(c) |
112.3 |
87.0 |
71.4 |
36.5 |
25.4 |
7.8 |
5.6 |
3.6 |
349.6 |
Notes:
(a) In accordance with the IGA-FFR, allocations are based on
the population share of each jurisdiction.
(b) $261.2 million of the 2017–18 total is budgeted to be made
up from Commonwealth appropriations, in addition to projected Fund contribution
revenues.
(c) 2012 dollars.
Source: Parliamentary Library based on Australian Government, ‘Part
2: Payments for Specific Purposes’, op. cit., p. 35; CFFR, ‘National
partnerships - skills and workforce development’, op. cit., p. 27.
However, it is unclear if NPPs
will match these estimates:
From 2018‑19, amounts available to the States from the Skilling
Australians Fund will be determined by the revenue paid into the Fund.
States’ access to the Fund will be dependent on meeting eligibility criteria
defined by the Commonwealth, including matching Commonwealth funding, achieving
outcomes, and providing up to date data on performance and spending.[38]
Although
National Partnerships by definition typically involve shorter-term funding to
deliver a project or key reform, a lack of funding stability has played a role
in the uneven progress on skills reform to this point. The
NPASR Review identified funding stability to
support VET reform as an issue to be addressed in future agreements:
Any future reform of the VET sector should be
supported with public funding that is allocated across the system in a way that
provides market stability, with reasonable long term certainty in the quantum
of funding, and takes into account all related funding channels.[39]
Thus, the potential of the SAF will be subject to
implementation arrangements which are outside the Bills, and the stability of
the industry funding source.
Committee
consideration
Education
and Employment Committee
The Bills have been referred to the Senate Standing
Committee on Education and Employment for inquiry and report by 9 February 2018.
Details are available at the inquiry
homepage.
Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
reported on the Bills on 15 November 2017. The Committee had no comment on the
Charges Bill.[40]
In relation to the SAF Bill, the Committee raised concerns about the scope of proposed
section 140ZN of the Act (at item 12 of Schedule 1), which enables
the regulations to provide for the payment of a penalty in relation to an
underpayment of the nomination training contribution charge. The Committee
sought the Minister’s advice as to why the Bill delegates to regulations the
power to impose a penalty, without setting any upper limit on the level of the
penalty.[41]
The Minister responded to the Committee’s concerns on 4
December 2017, advising that he would consider moving an amendment to the Bill
to set an upper limit on the level of the penalty that may be prescribed in the
regulations.[42]
Policy
position of non-government parties/independents
Whilst substantive comment on the Skilling Australians Fund
Bills has been limited, Senator Doug Cameron, Labor’s Shadow Minister for
Skills, TAFE and Apprenticeships, has outlined a number of concerns about the
proposed funding mechanism and likely outcomes of the SAF:
The proposed agreement and funding mechanism, the Skilling
Australians Fund, has been widely derided as unworkable, inadequate and
insecure.
The Skilling Australians Fund relies entirely on fees paid by
skilled overseas workers. The contradiction of relying on fees paid by foreign
workers filling skills gaps for Australia’s skills development seems lost on
the Turnbull government.
The government’s claim that the Fund will create an
additional 300,000 apprenticeships and traineeships is unrealistic. The rate of
apprenticeships will have to rise from 2.2% of current jobs to 30% for all new
jobs to meet this target.[43]
Senator Cameron has further stated:
The Skilling Australians Fund will fail to fix the systemic
problems that exist—instead it will exacerbate them.
Labor has no argument with charging employers for skilled
worker visas - and ensuring that money goes to skill development.
However, the proposal that a skilled worker levy would be the
sole source of Commonwealth revenue for skills development is astounding.[44]
Position of
major interest groups
Skilling
Australians Fund
Many stakeholders from within the VET sector, including TAFE Directors Australia (TDA) and the Australian Council for Private
Education and Training (ACPET), welcomed the initial announcement of the SAF.[45] Executive
Officer of the National Apprentice Employment Network (NAEN), Lauren Tiltman,
stated ‘[t]his is a welcome focus on areas of genuine economic and social need
with real potential to rebuild apprentice and trainee numbers which have been
in decline.’[46]
However, following introduction of the Bills, VET stakeholders
have raised concerns about the SAF in submissions to the Senate Standing Committee
on Education and Employment inquiry into the Bills (the Inquiry). Although
outside the scope of the Bills, these submissions raise concerns about the project-based
approach to the SAF, with TDA observing:
While details of the proposed agreements are still being
negotiated, TDA is concerned that the model may result in a piecemeal approach
to reforms needed in the sector. The increased accountability and
administrative work envisaged in such projects, while primarily between levels
of government, will also flow through to TAFEs and other providers that will
likely be the delivery arm for the initiatives... TDA sees national employers as
playing a lead role in engaging apprentices and trainees, and supporting the
integrity of a national training system. However, the project model through
individual jurisdictions risks these employers needing to engage individually
with each jurisdiction. This creates a clear disincentive plus a real cost
premium, especially as each jurisdiction will pursue its priorities in
different ways. TDA recommends that governments consider a pool of funds to
support national employers.[47]
Similarly, NAEN proposes the SAF allow direct partnership
agreements with national or state organisations to address this issue:
In principle we support targeted programs that allow for
variations in regions and industries, however to limit this fund to small
projects would create a significant administrative burden. Alternatively, to
allow only larger project proposals due to administrative efficiencies, would
disadvantage those in thin markets, regional and remote employers and potential
apprentices, and small, emerging and innovative industries. NAEN calls for this
fund to allow for direct partnership agreements with national or state organisations
which have the capacity to deliver against the outcomes in the fund, at a
reduced administrative cost, while still servicing thin markets. [48]
Additionally, while stakeholders acknowledge the
importance of addressing issues in the apprenticeship system, the TAFE
submissions suggest a new Partnership Agreement should be wider in scope. TDA
states that the SAF ‘risks focusing effort
on apprenticeships and traineeships at the expense of responding to other
important priorities facing the Australian economy.’[49]
The Victorian TAFE Association ‘is supportive of the idea that the Skilling
Australians Fund help to underpin a new agreement, [but] it considers that
this must form but one ‘plank’ within a National Partnership Agreement that is
broader in scope and funding than the Skilling Australians Fund.’[50]
Skilling
Australians Fund—Charges
A number of industry stakeholders have commented on the
new levy. Peter Mares, an author on contemporary temporary migration policy,
noted in a pre-Budget article that a strengthened training obligation in the
457 visa program ‘is by far the most promising initiative to come out of the
changes to temporary migration.’[51]
However, industry stakeholders have since raised concerns about the charges. Ai
Group argued the levy is a ‘significant impost on businesses’ that will ‘add to
costs, prices and will put pressure on business margins.’[52]
The Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry said ‘we don’t want to see
small businesses burdened with upfront costs when there are continuing labour
issues in sectors such as hospitality, tourism and agriculture.’[53]
John Hart, of the Australian Chamber National Tourism Council said ‘this will
reduce local job numbers by limiting the ability of local businesses to grow.’[54]
The Migration Council Australia has suggested the fees
levied on permanent visas may discourage employers from sponsoring migrants for
permanent residency.[55]
In a submission to the Inquiry, the Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils
of Australia (FECCA) recommended that an alternative funding source for the SAF
be found, arguing:
The proposed levy presents further risks to migrant workers
including the increased possibility of salary deductions (wage theft) and a
rise in racism and discrimination. Migrant workers are already overwhelmingly
the victims of widespread, systematic and long term wage theft. FECCA is
particularly concerned that placing a levy on their employers will result in
greater levels of wage theft and other forms of exploitation as the employers
‘pass on’ the associated cost of hiring migrant workers.’[56]
In contrast to concerns about the cost of the levy,
concerns have also emerged about a mismatch between the revenue it is likely to
generate, and the level of funding required to adequately resource the SAF. The
Australian Council of Trade Unions ‘fully supports the concept of an
employer-paid levy for 457 visas’[57]
however voiced concern in the wake of the Budget that the levy may raise less
revenue than previous skills funding mechanisms.[58]
In submissions to the Inquiry, VET stakeholders echo these concerns, suggesting
SAF projects may be undermined by unstable funding. For example, the Victorian
TAFE Association states:
[I]f this need for this policy initiative is established,
then its future sustainability and funding should not hinge upon the ability to
raise revenues through new migration charges... The Victorian TAFE Association
considers that the levels of funding provided should first and foremost be
driven not by the amount of money raised by migration charges but by the level
required to train and educate Australians that maximises their contribution to
Australia’s economic success, future productivity and growth.[59]
To address this, NAEN suggests:
[T]he government should guarantee a minimum contribution to this
fund in the absence of funding provided through these bills. The VET sector
should never be in a position where the best it can do to ensure sustainable
funding for apprentices, going forward is to encourage increased skilled
migrant employment. That would counter the primary purpose of this fund.[60]
Additionally, Peter Noonan, professorial fellow at the
Mitchell Institute for Health and Education Policy, has argued that
uncertainties about revenue for the SAF pose a challenge for the development of
a partnership agreement with the states and territories to distribute the SAF:
revenue for the fund will be highest when skilled migration
is highest, and lowest when employment of locally skilled workers is highest.
That means the revenue stream for the fund will be counter-cyclical to the
purpose for which it was established: to increase the proportion of locally
trained workers and to lessen reliance on temporary skilled migration visas.
Unless the Commonwealth guarantees funding levels and continues to make up any
shortfall in the revenue, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the
Commonwealth to enter meaningful, bilateral agreements with the states through
the fund.[61]
In a joint post-budget press release in May, Victorian Skills
and Training Minister Gayle Tierney, Queensland Minister for Training and
Skills Yvette D’Ath, Western Australian Minister for Education and Training Sue
Ellery and South Australian Minister for Higher Education and Skills Susan
Close raised concerns about the timing of the SAF announcement, the funding
mechanism, level of Commonwealth expenditure, and the narrower focus of the
proposed agreement compared to the NPASR.[62]
However, the 2 June 2017 CISC Communiqué indicated that in
principle agreement to progress arrangements for the SAF had been reached and ‘Ministers
directed Skills Senior Officials to work on operational details and finalising
the principles to refer to Council, in order to facilitate the drafting of an
agreement as quickly as possible.’[63]
Yet, the Northern Territory Government, in a
submission to the Inquiry, has raised concerns in relation to the charge and
a requirement to co-contribute 50 per cent of
the funding to approved projects under the proposed national Partnership
Agreement on the SAF currently being considered by First Ministers. Based on
preliminary modeling this [along with the application of the levy to state
governments] would effectively mean the Northern Territory Government would
contribute 60 per cent to the total cost of approved projects.[64]
The application of the levy to employers with substantial
ongoing investments in employee training has also raised concerns among
tertiary education stakeholders. As outlined above, under current arrangements
employers are exempt from contributing to a training fund if they can show
training expenditure equal to at least one per cent of their payroll (referred
to as ‘training benchmark B’). A number of submissions contend that employers who
meet this criterion may struggle to continue to invest in employee training in
light of the cost of the new levy.[65]
Innovative Research Universities estimates cost increases totalling $1.7
million annually, from just under $1 million in 2017 to a projected $2.7
million in 2018 across member universities under the arrangements proposed in
the Bill.[66]
Submissions to the Inquiry, including the Law Council of Australia’s, suggest
retaining training benchmark B for employers in these circumstances.[67]
Universities Australia (UA) also suggests there is a
‘policy disconnect’ in sourcing SAF revenue from employers that rely on highly
skilled migrants in professional occupations, as they are not able to draw from
the SAF.[68]
UA makes the case that as universities already play a key role in skilling
Australia’s workforce, consideration should be given to exempting them from the
levy.[69]
A number of unions expressed support for the concept of a
levy on employers who sponsor temporary migrant workers. The Electoral Trades
Union (ETU) and Australian Manufacturing Workers Union (AMWU) both noted
in-principle support for a ‘user pays’ system.[70]
However the ETU claimed the Bill creates a ‘perverse incentive’ for the
Australian Government to increase the number of temporary migrant workers in
Australia while the AMWU recommended additional requirements supporting the
employment of apprentices and trainees directly by sponsors.[71]
Financial
implications
The Explanatory Memorandum’s Financial Impact Statement
says:
The training contribution charge is expected to generate
revenue of $1.2b over the forward estimates. Expected expenditure from the
Skilling Australian Fund over the forward estimates is $1.47b.[72]
Modelling by John Ross, a higher education reporter at The
Australian, suggests the new fees ‘will not raise enough money to
finance the scheme’.[73]
In response to a Senate Estimates question, Minister Birmingham said the
Australian Government is confident of the revenue projections, developed by:
Department of Immigration based on current immigration policy
settings, reflective of recent changes to temporary worker visa arrangements
and based on their expert understanding of historical visa flows and have all
been independently verified by the Treasury through usual budget processes.[74]
As the government has not released the underlying
assumptions used for the $1.2b revenue figure raised from the levy charges, it
is not possible to analyse the individual revenue contribution by visa
category. Concern about whether the SAF will raise the revenue projected in the
Budget was not addressed in any departmental submission to the Senate inquiry. However
using a set of assumptions based on visa trends for 2015–16 and 2016–17, it is
not clear if the Budget projections would be met in 2018–19 without a change in
visa trends. This may occur via an increase in the number of visas granted
and/or an extension in time spent on TSS visas in the future. This is discussed
in more detail under Key Issues–Skilling Australians Fund revenue and visa
trends.
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
As required under Part 3 of the Human Rights
(Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth), the Government has assessed the
Bills’ compatibility with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared
in the international instruments listed in section 3 of that Act. The
Government considers that both Bills are compatible.[75]
Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has stated
that the two Bills do not raise human rights concerns.[76]
Key issues
and provisions
Note
about contingent amendments
Schedule 2 of the SAF Bill contains two
alternative sets of amendments, the commencement of which depends on the
timing of the commencement of the Migration Amendment (Family Violence
and Other Measures) Act 2017 (Family Violence Act), the Bill for
which was before the Senate at the time of writing.[77]
In summary:
- Part
1 of Schedule 2 contains amendments which will apply if the Family Violence
Act commences after commencement of the provisions in the SAF
Bill and
- Part
2 of Schedule 2 contains amendments which will apply if the Family
Violence Act commences before commencement of the provisions in
the SAF Bill.
The differences between the amendments in the two Parts
are minor. The main distinction is that certain amendments in Part 2 use
the term ‘approved work sponsor’ rather than ‘approved sponsor’.[78]
This reflects the changes proposed by the Migration Amendment (Family
Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2016, which bring family sponsors within
the sponsorship framework under Division 3A of Part 2 of the Migration
Act.[79]
As it is not intended that family visa sponsors will be required to pay the
nomination training contribution charge (NTC charge), certain provisions
under Division 3A will need to clarify that they apply only to work
sponsors. The discussion below will state in the footnotes where
two alternative items may apply, and any difference between them.
|
Nomination approvals
Under the existing sponsorship framework in the Migration
Act, a person must be approved as a sponsor before they can apply for
approval of a nomination.[80]
Section 140GB provides that an approved sponsor may nominate either:
- an
applicant (or proposed applicant) for a visa of a prescribed kind, in relation
to either the applicant’s proposed occupation, the program to be undertaken or
activity to be carried out by the applicant or
- a
proposed occupation, program or activity.[81]
The SAF Bill proposes amending subsection 140GB(1) so that
a nomination can be made by an approved sponsor, a person who has applied to be
an approved sponsor, or a person who is a party to negotiations for a work
agreement.[82]
As stated in the Explanatory Memorandum, the amendment clarifies that a person
can lodge an application for a nomination at the same time as their application
for approval as a sponsor.[83]
However, the person must be approved as a sponsor before the nomination can be
approved.[84]
Reflecting this change, the majority of items in the SAF Bill
make consequential amendments to other provisions in Division 3A to replace the
term ‘sponsor’ with ‘person’.[85]
Nomination
training contribution charge
The SAF will be funded by a new levy—the Nomination
Training Contribution (NTC) charge—paid by employers who sponsor temporary and
permanent skilled migrants on the following visas:
- the
Temporary Skill Shortage (TSS) visa
- the
Employer Nomination Scheme (ENS) visa
- the
Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme (RSMS) visa.
While the purpose and eligibility criteria of these three
visa categories vary, each requires an employer to nominate a migrant for a
visa. As part of the proposed changes, existing training requirements for
employers sponsoring migrants will be abolished. In his second reading speech,
Minister Dutton outlined the purpose of the levy as to ‘require employers
seeking to access overseas skilled workers to contribute to the broader skills
development of Australians.’[86]
He argued the existing system is ‘overly complex and lacks transparency’.[87]
Minister Dutton drew on the 2014 Azarias review of the 457
visa program as evidence for the levy. The Azarias review included a
recommendation ‘that the current training benchmarks be replaced by an annual
training fund contribution based on each 457 visa holder sponsored, with the
contributions scaled according to size of business’.[88]
Others have proposed additional reasons for introducing a
fee on employers sponsoring migrants. A previously-announced Labor policy also
sought to introduce a fee, to ‘provide a genuine price signal to employers that
they should look local first’.[89]
This is not a new policy suggestion, with a number of researchers recommending
a higher fee charged to employers to better target the bipartisan goal of
ensuring Australian citizens and permanent residents are employed as a priority
over temporary migrants.[90]
Requirement
to pay the NTC charge
Item 12 of Schedule 1 of the SAF Bill inserts proposed
Division 3B into Part 2 of the Migration Act. This deals with the
payment of the NTC charge. Proposed section 140ZM provides that a person
is liable to pay the NTC charge to the Commonwealth in relation to either:
- a
nomination made under section 140GB, where the nomination is of a kind
prescribed by the regulations[91]
or
- an
application for approval of a nomination made under the regulations or in
accordance with the terms of a work agreement, where the visa and nomination
are of a kind prescribed by the regulations.[92]
Payment of the NTC charge, where the person is liable to do
so, is one of the criteria for approval of a nomination under section 140GB.[93]
Proposed section 140ZN states that the regulations
may provide for a range of matters associated with the NTC charge, including
when the charge is due and payable; the payment method; remission or refund;
penalties for underpayment and the giving of information and keeping of records
in relation to a person’s liability to pay the charge. The Explanatory
Memorandum notes that this will allow the regulations to permit refunds (or
partial refunds) of the charge where a nomination is refused, or where the
actual period of stay of a nominated visa applicant is significantly less than
anticipated.[94]
The Law Council raised concerns that the SAF Bill does not
provide sufficient clarity about the circumstances in which a refund will be
payable, particularly in cases where a nomination or sponsorship is refused,
where a portion of the visa period granted is unused, or where a new sponsor
takes over the sponsorship of a visa holder for part of the visa period.[95]
Additionally, it noted that the comparable Immigration Skill Charge in the
United Kingdom permits refunds in circumstances including where the applicant:
- is
successful, but does not come to work for the sponsor
- changes
to another sponsor or
- leaves
their job before the end date on their certificate of sponsorship.
The Law Council recommended that consideration be given to
whether these additional reasons for refunding the NTC charge should be
incorporated into the SAF scheme.[96]
It also suggested that the Explanatory Memorandum to the SAF Bill clarify
whether business sponsors will need to pay the charge for any of the worker’s
dependents, and whether there is anything to prevent sponsors from ‘passing on’
the charge to applicants.[97]
Charges Bill
The Charges Bill provides for the imposition of the NTC
charge. Clause 7 imposes the charge, payable under section 140ZM of the Migration
Act. The Charges Bill has extra-territorial effect, which means the charge
is payable in relation to a nomination,[98]
whether it is made in or outside Australia and whether the person who is liable
to pay the charge is in or outside Australia.[99]
Clause 8 provides that the amount payable by a person
in relation to the nomination is the amount:
- prescribed
in the regulations or
- worked
out in accordance with a method prescribed by the regulations.
Subclause 8(2) states that the regulations may
prescribe different charges or methods for different kinds of visas, or
different kinds of persons. The Explanatory Memorandum notes that the
regulations may, for example, prescribe different charges in relation to
temporary and permanent visas, or different charges depending on the annual
turnover of the employer to which the nomination relates.[100]
In his second reading speech, Minister Dutton stated that
it is intended that the charge will vary depending on whether a business has an
annual turnover of more or less than $10 million.[101]
Small businesses—those with a turnover of under $10 million—will be required to
pay $1,200 per year for each temporary overseas worker, and a one-off levy of
$3,000 for each permanent overseas worker. Businesses with an annual turnover
of $10 million or more will be required to pay $1,800 per year for each
temporary worker and a one-off payment of $5,000 for each permanent worker.[102]
The amount prescribed in the regulations cannot exceed the
NTC charge limit for the relevant financial year.[103]
This limit is set out in clause 9. For the financial year beginning 1
July 2017, the limit is:
- for
a nomination relating to a temporary visa—$8,000
- for
a nomination relating to a permanent visa—$5,500.[104]
For later financial years, the NTC charge limit is to be
calculated in accordance with subclauses 9(2) to (5). The limit is
determined by multiplying the limit for the previous financial year by the
greater of 1 or the indexation factor. The indexation factor is worked out by
dividing the sum of the index numbers[105]
for the CPI quarters of the 12 month period ending 31 December before the later
financial year, by the sum of the index numbers for the CPI quarters in the 12
months ending on the previous 31 December.[106]
The Explanatory
Memorandum to the Charges Bill notes that the NTC charge limits in subclause
9(1) are approximately ten per cent above the highest NTC charge proposed
to be prescribed in the Migration Regulations, being $7,200 for temporary visas
(that is, $1,800 for a large business for the maximum visa duration of four
years) and $5,000 for permanent visas. It states that the charge limits:
...provide flexibility for the Australian Government to make
increases to the nomination training contribution charge in the
future while providing certainty for business as to the limited scope of a
potential increase.[107]
Clause 10 of the Charges Bill enables the
Governor-General to make regulations prescribing matters as required or
permitted by the Migration (Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Act 2017,
or which are necessary or convenient for carrying out or giving effect to that
Act.
Penalties and Commonwealth liability
As noted above, proposed paragraph 140ZN(e) of the Migration
Act (inserted by item 12 of Schedule 1 of the SAF Bill) enables
regulations to prescribe the payment of a penalty in relation to underpayment
of the NTC charge. Proposed section 140ZO further specifies that where
the NTC charge or an underpayment penalty is due and payable to the
Commonwealth, the amount is a debt due to the Commonwealth and may be recovered
by action in a court of competent jurisdiction.
Proposed section 140ZP relates to the liability of
the Commonwealth to pay the NTC charge in relation to its own nominations under
section 140ZM. The Explanatory Memorandum notes that the Commonwealth cannot
make itself liable to pay Commonwealth taxes or fees.[108]
However, proposed subsection 140ZP(1) states that it is Parliament’s
intention that the Commonwealth should be notionally liable to pay the NTC
charge. The Finance Minister may make such written directions ‘as are necessary
or convenient’ for carrying out or giving effect to this intention.[109]
Such directions are not a legislative instrument, but are expressed to have
effect, and must be complied with, despite any other Commonwealth law.[110]
Proposed section 140ZQ provides that proposed
Division 3B of Part 2 of the Migration Act binds the Crown in right
of the Commonwealth and each of the states and territories. The provision
expressly states that this does not make the Crown liable to be prosecuted for
an offence; however, this does not prevent it from being liable to pay a
pecuniary penalty.[111]
Skilling
Australians Fund Revenue and visa trends
A number of immigration factors will determine future
revenue for the SAF, as revenue will be dependent on the number of visas
granted, and for Temporary Skills Shortage (TSS) visas, how long each visa is
valid.
Permanent
sponsored visas
Government policy has traditionally been the primary
factor determining the number of permanent visas granted each year. According
to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, the number and
allocation of permanent visas is set by the Australian Government following:
... broad public
consultations with stakeholders, including business and community groups from
all states and territories. Community views, economic and labour force forecasts,
international research, net overseas migration and economic and fiscal
modelling are all taken into account when planning the programme.[112]
SAF revenue raised by visa grants for both permanent
employer sponsored visa categories–the Employer Nomination Scheme (ENS) and the
Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme (RSMS)–will therefore depend on how many
visas are allocated by future governments.
Since 2014–15, there have been 48,250 visas available each
year in these visa categories.[113]
However this figure includes the sponsored employee and their spouse and/or
children. Using figures provided by the Department of Immigration and Border
Protection, approximately 45.8 per cent of permanent employer sponsored visas
were granted to the primary visa holder, the employee, in 2015–16, equal to
22,110.[114]
This is the relevant figure for revenue projections as only the employee is
subject to the proposed levy. The government does not control how many primary
visa holders will bring spouses and dependent children however it is likely
variations in the number of spouses and children will only marginally affect
the revenue raised.
While the allocation of ENS and RSMS visas has remained
constant for the past three financial years, the government may choose to
increase or decrease this figure in the future. In the past, demand for these
visas from employers and immigrants has outstripped the supply of places
allocated by the government, meaning the government allocation is the number of
visas granted.[115]
For example, as at 30 June 2017 there were 52,082 applications waiting to be
processed by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, more than the
allocation for 2017-18.[116]
However there is a possibility recent policy change may
see the supply of available places outstrip demand from immigrants, as fewer
migrants and employers are able to meet the eligibility criteria. In an August
2017 report discussing recent policy change, Dr Bob Birrell concluded:
It seems very likely that when the reset is in full operation
from March 2018, the number of permanent entry employer sponsorship visas will
drop to a third or less of the current annual number of around 48,000
(principal applicants and dependents).[117]
Birrell nominates the reduction in eligible occupations
for the ENS and RSMS visa, as well as the proposed work experience requirement.
A two-thirds reduction in the number of permanent employer sponsored visas
would substantially reduce incoming revenue for the SAF over the forward
estimates.
Temporary
sponsored visas
Compared to permanent sponsored visas, there are a larger
number of factors determining revenue for temporary sponsored visas. Government
policy can play a role, such as by limiting or expanding the number of eligible
occupations and the level of the salary threshold used. However in addition to
policy decisions, economic factors are important, such as the demand for labour
from employers. This can produce substantial variation in the number of visas
granted over time as demonstrated in Figure 3 below.
Figure 3: primary
457 visas granted each quarter 2005–2017
Source: Parliamentary Library based on Australian Government, Temporary Work
(Skilled) visa (subclass 457) Programme, data.gov.au, BP0014 Temporary Work
(skilled) visas granted 30 September 2017.
Demand for temporary migrant workers slowed in the
aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis, before rising with the post-GFC
mining boom. More recently, tighter policy settings and labour market slack
have reduced the number of visa grants. For example, the July–September 2017
quarter is down 37 per cent compared to the same quarter in 2016.
Unlike permanent sponsored visas, the price of the levy
for temporary sponsored visas will depend on the length of time the visa is
valid. Currently, 457 visas are valid for either up to two years or up to four
years, depending on what occupation is nominated. The Department of Immigration
and Border Protection does not provide information on how long visas are
granted for, noting four years is the maximum time period for one visa grant.
The Azarias review documented the length of time for 457 visas granted
between August 1996 and May 2010:
- 6
months or less: 15 per cent
- 6–12
months: 16 per cent
- 1–2
years: 27 per cent
- 2–3
years: 21 per cent
- 3–4
years: 16 per cent
- 4
years and longer: 5 per cent.[118]
Both the number of temporary sponsored skilled visas and
their validity length may change in response to both government policy and
economic conditions. Forecasting this change is difficult, as future demand
from employers and immigrants may not be reflected in historical trends.
Taken together, SAF revenue will shift over time in
response to both changes in permanent and temporary skilled sponsored visa
grants. These shifts will be difficult to forecast, particularly if the demand
for permanent sponsored visas fails to meet the allocated supply.
Labour Market Testing requirements
Background
Labour Market Testing (LMT) is the process of advertising
a job to recruit Australian citizens and permanent residents. Since the
introduction of the 457 visa program in 1996, LMT has been a prominent point of
contention. However, recent changes announced in April 2017 signal bipartisan
support for LMT as a precondition for any temporary sponsored visa, noting
there are a series of international treaties that give effect to exemptions.
LMT was required on the introduction of the 457 visa in
1996, with a waiver applying if sponsored migrants undertook ‘key activities’.[119]
In July 2001, LMT was abolished and replaced by a minimum skill threshold.[120]
In July 2013, LMT was re-introduced by the Migration Amendment (Temporary
Sponsored Visas) Act 2013.[121]
However in practice, a majority of occupations were exempted from LMT by the
skill level exemption legislative instrument.[122]
Minister Dutton has signalled these skill-based exemptions will be removed from
March 2018, leaving only international treaty obligation exemptions in place.[123]
Existing
provisions
The SAF Bill gives the Minister the power to determine
certain requirements for LMT. Currently, section 140GBA of the Migration Act
provides that certain nominations are subject to a requirement to provide
evidence of LMT unless international trade obligations apply. Where section
140GBA applies to a sponsor (and there is no applicable exemption), LMT must be
undertaken as a condition for approval of a nomination.[124]
Existing subsection 140GBA(5) sets out certain evidence of
LMT which ‘must’, and evidence which ‘may’ be provided in support of a
nomination under section 140GB. It provides that the nomination must be
accompanied by information about the approved sponsor’s attempts to recruit
suitably qualified and experienced Australian citizens or permanent residents
to the position.[125]
Further details of what should be included in this are set out in existing
subsection 140GBA(6).
Additional evidence may also be provided, including
recent research relating to labour market trends (generally and in relation to
the nominated occupation), expressions of support from Commonwealth, state and territory
government authorities with responsibility for employment matters, and any
other type of evidence determined by the Minister by legislative instrument.[126]
Proposed
amendments
The SAF Bill repeals subsections 140GBA(5),(6) and (6A), and
substitutes them with proposed subsections 140GBA(5) to (6C).[127]
The main effect of the amendments is to:
- remove
from the Migration Act all particulars of the evidence that must (and
may) be provided in relation to LMT and
- give
the Minister the power to determine both the manner in which LMT must be
undertaken and the kinds of evidence of LMT which should accompany a
nomination.
Proposed subsection 140GBA(5) states that the
Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine the manner in which LMT in
relation to a nominated position must be undertaken.[128]
Proposed subsection 140GBA(6) provides a non-exhaustive list of matters
which the Minister may determine as part of this, including the language,
method and duration of advertising of the position.
Under proposed subsection 140GBA(6A), the Minister
has the power to make a legislative instrument determining the kinds of
evidence which must accompany a nomination. This may include a copy of any
advertising which has been required in relation to the position.[129]
Proposed subsection 140GBA(6C) states that in
either of these legislative instruments, the Minister may prescribe different
manners of undertaking LMT, or different evidence to be provided, for different
nominated positions or classes of nominated positions. A legislative instrument
made under either proposed subsection 140GBA(5) or (6A) will not be
disallowable.[130]
In his second reading speech for the Bills, Minister
Dutton stated that the amendments will ensure a uniform approach to LMT from
employers, and that the quality of the LMT being conducted is properly
assessed.[131]
The Law Council expressed support for the proposed
amendments to the LMT requirements, noting that the types of evidence of LMT
which will be required to accompany the nomination are similar to those
required by other jurisdictions, including New Zealand, the UK and Canada.[132]
The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) raised concerns that the proposed
provisions give the Minister significant discretion to determine LMT
requirements, arguing:
the extent to which, if at all, such a system will establish
a rigorous LMT process will of course depend on the content of any legislative
instrument/s that the Minister chooses to issue or indeed whether the Minister
elects to issue such instruments at all.[133]
The ACTU suggested that the text of the SAF Bill be
amended to specify that the evidence of LMT required include the number of
Australian citizens and permanent residents who applied for the nominated
position and the reasons why they were considered not suitably qualified or
experienced.[134]
Application
provisions
The amendments in the SAF Bill which relate to the NTC charge
and to the changed LMT requirements will apply in relation to nominations made
on or after the commencement.[135]
The Explanatory Memorandum notes that this will prevent businesses from being
simultaneously required to comply with the existing training benchmarks and pay
the NTC charge. Sponsors will not be required to continue to meet the training
benchmark requirements after commencement.[136]
Amendments relating to who can lodge a nomination
application will apply to all nominations made on or after commencement, as
well as nominations made before commencement but not yet decided.[137]
Concluding comments
The SAF Bill and Charges Bill respond to both skills and
immigration policy trajectories to provide more sustainable and accountable
funding to address skill shortages, particularly those currently served by
Australian Apprenticeships. As Dr Craig Fowler and Dr John Stanwick of the
National Centre for Vocational Education Research have observed ‘[t]he
apprenticeship model is valuable and enduring—and it can be made much more bold
and ambitious.’[138]
However, while the Bills set the specifications for charges
to fund the SAF, outcomes will ultimately rely on implementation arrangements
well outside the scope of these Bills. The value of this more focused investment
in apprenticeships (compared with the former NPASR, which funded structural
change in the VET system overall) depends on a new Partnership Agreement with
state and territory governments, their matched funding and project
specifications, and the revenue from the levy, if projects are to genuinely add
value to existing apprenticeship investment.
As with any forecast, there is an inherent degree of
uncertainty in future immigration trends. This is particularly pertinent in
periods following substantive policy change, including the Turnbull
Government’s April 2017 announced replacement of the 457 visa program, and
changes to associated permanent sponsored visa categories. Revenue collection
for the Skilling Australians Fund generated from the proposed levy will need to
be followed closely over time if cross-jurisdictional agreements between the
Federal Government and the state and territory governments on skills policy
come to wholly rely on this funding source.
Members, Senators and Parliamentary staff can obtain
further information from the Parliamentary Library on (02) 6277 2500.
[1]. SAF
Bill, clause 2. The effect of the Family Violence Bill on the provisions in the
SAF Bill is discussed in more detail in the ‘Key Issues and Provisions’ section
below.
[2]. Charges
Bill, clause 2.
[3]. Australian
Government, ‘Part
2: Payments for Specific Purposes’, Budget measures: budget paper no. 3:
2017–18, p. 35. A copy of the National Partnership Agreement on Skills
Reform (NPASR) and state and territory implementation plans are available from
the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Council on Federal Financial
Relations (CFFR), ‘National
partnerships - skills and workforce development’, CFFR.
[4]. Australian
Government, ‘Part
2: Payments for Specific Purposes’, Budget measures: budget paper no. 3:
2017–18, p. 34.
[5]. Department
of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C), ‘Performance reporting
dashboard: skills’, PM&C website.
[6]. CFFR,
‘Agreements’,
CFFR website; COAG, National
Partnership Agreement on skills reform, op. cit., p. 10. This is in
addition to Commonwealth own purpose expenses, including VET programs and
funding to students, employers and industry such as Australian Apprenticeships,
VET Student Loans, and the Australian Apprenticeships Incentives Programme.
More information on major funding flows within the VET system is available from
the Productivity Commission, ‘Vocational
education and training’, Report on government services, 2017, pp.
5.4–5.6.
[7]. CFFR,
‘National
partnerships - skills and workforce development’, op. cit. A large volume
of research addresses the quality and financial sustainability concerns that
accompanied the expansion of VET FEE-HELP, which was associated with the
quality concerns raised in the ACIL Allen Consulting Review of the National Partnership Agreement on skills reform,
report to the Commonwealth and States and Territories, 21 December 2015.
Although many of these issues were outside the scope of the NPASR, they had a
significant impact on the higher-level objectives it was intended to contribute
to. The details of the VET FEE‑HELP controversy are discussed in more
detail on pages 10–15 of J Griffiths, VET
Student Loans Bill 2016 [and] VET Student Loans (Charges) Bill 2016 [and] VET
Student Loans (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2016,
Bills digest, 41, 2016–17, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2016.
[8]. ACIL
Allen Consulting, Review of the National Partnership Agreement on skills reform,
report to the Commonwealth and States and Territories, 21 December 2015; PM&C,
‘Performance reporting
dashboard: skills’, op. cit.
[9]. Ibid.
[10]. The
latest performance reports are for 2016, available from PM&C, ‘Performance reporting
dashboard: skills’, op. cit.
[11]. Australian
Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Education
and Work, Table 26, cat. No. 6227.0, ABS, Canberra. 2017.
[12]. Based
on preliminary data for 2015, PM&C, ‘Performance reporting
dashboard: skills’, op. cit.; Qualification levels under the Australian
Qualifications Framework (AQF) are outlined on the ‘AQF qualifications’
webpage.
[13]. PM&C,
‘Performance reporting
dashboard: skills’, op. cit.
[14]. Department
of Employment, The
Skilled Labour Market: A pictorial overview of trends and shortages, 4
September 2017, slide 4.
[15]. Parliamentary
Library based on National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER), ‘Historical
time series of apprenticeships and traineeships in Australia from 1963 to 2017’,
NCVER website, 7 December 2017, Table 4; Table 6.
[16]. A
full summary of changes is provided at Appendix 3 of the Australian National
Audit Office (ANAO), Administration
of the Australian Apprenticeships Incentives Program: Department of Education
and Training, Audit report, 31, 2014–15, ANAO, Barton, ACT, 2015, p.
91; P Noonan and S Pilcher, Finding
the truth in the apprenticeships debate, Mitchell
Institute report, 03/2017, Mitchell Institute, Melbourne, August 2017.
[17]. Department
of Employment, The
Skilled Labour Market: A pictorial overview of trends and shortages, op.
cit., slide 13.
[18]. M
Ruhs and B Anderson, Migrant Workers: Who Needs Them? A framework for the
analysis of staff shortages, immigration, and public policy, in M Ruhs and B
Anderson, edn, Who Needs Migrant Workers? Labour shortages, immigration and
public policy, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010, p. 15.
[19]. Ibid.
[20]. N
J Roach, Business
temporary entry: future directions, Report by the Committee of Inquiry
into the Temporary Entry of Business People and Highly Skilled Specialists,
Canberra, 1995, p. 84.
[21]. J
Azarias, J Lambert, P McDonald and K Malyon, Robust
new foundations: a streamlined, transparent and responsive system for the 457
programme : an independent review into the integrity in the Subclass 457
programme, Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP),
Canberra, September 2014, p. 20.
[22]. Ibid.
[23]. The
28 occupations listed by the Department of Employment as areas of major skill
shortage are based on assessment of around 80 large skilled occupations defined
in the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations
(ANZSCO), and assessed occupations are subject to change annually. For more
information see Department of Employment (Employment), ‘Skill
shortage research methodology’, Employment website, last modified 31 August
2017.
[24]. P
Dutton (Minister for Immigration and Border Protection), Migration (IMMI
18/004: Specification of Occupations—Subclass 457 Visa) Instrument 2018.
[25]. DIBP,
‘Fact sheet one:
reforms to Australia's temporary employer sponsored skilled migration programme
- abolition and replacement of the 457 visa’, April 2017 (updated May
2017). The requirement that employers nominating a worker for a Temporary
Skills Shortage visa pay a contribution to the SAF was also included in the
announced reforms.
[26]. M
Turnbull (Prime Minister) and P Dutton (Minister for Immigration and Border
Protection), Putting
Australian workers first, media release, 18 April 2017.
[27]. Migration Regulations
1994, section 2.79.
[28]. C
Evans (Minister for Immigration and Citizenship), Government
announces changes to 457 visa program, media release, 1 April 2009.
[29]. P
Dutton (Minister for Immigration and Border Protection), Migration (IMMI
17/045: Specification of Training Benchmarks and Training Requirements)
Instrument 2017.
[30]. J
Philips and H Spinks, Skilled
migration: temporary and permanent flows to Australia, Background note,
Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 6 December 2012, p. 12.
[31]. P
Dutton (Minister for Immigration and Border Protection), ‘Second
reading speech: Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017’,
House of Representatives, Debates, 18 October 2017, p. 11031.
[32]. J
Azarias, J Lambert, P McDonald and K Malyon, Robust
new foundations, op. cit., p. 12.
[33]. S
Birmingham, ‘Interview
with Simon Birmingham’,
Breakfast with Aaron Stevens, 4RO, 31 October 2017.
[34]. Department
of Education and Training (DET), ‘Skilling
Australians Fund’, DET website, pp. 1–2.
[35]. S
Birmingham, ‘Answer
to Question without notice: Employment’, [Questioner: D Fawcett], Senate, Debates,
10 May 2017, p. 3273.
[36]. Commonwealth
funding includes support through the Australian Apprenticeship Support Network,
the Australian Apprenticeships Incentives Program, and Trade Support Loans. The
full range of support is outlined on the Department of Education and Training, Australian Apprenticeships
website. See also: Australian Government, Portfolio
budget statements 2017–18: budget related paper no. 1.5: Education and Training
Portfolio, Program 2.8: Building Skills and Capability.
[37]. Australian
Government, Budget
measures: budget paper no. 2: 2017–18, p. 89.
[38]. Australian
Government, ‘Part
2: Payments for Specific Purposes’, op. cit., p. 5. While this wording appears
to suggest Fund revenue may be managed through a Special Account, the Bills do
not provide information on how the SAF will be created or administered. According
to the Department of Finance (DoF), ‘Special
appropriations: special accounts’, DoF website, ‘A special
account is a limited special appropriation that notionally sets aside an amount
that can be expended for listed purposes. The amount of appropriation that may
be drawn from the CRF by means of a special account is limited to the balance
of each special account at any given time.’ Under section 78 of the Public Governance,
Performance and Accountability Act 2013, Special Accounts may be
created by determination.
[39]. ACIL Allen Consulting, Review of the National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform: final
report, op. cit., p.
xiii.
[40]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny
digest, 13, 2017, The Senate, Canberra, 15 November 2017, p. 35.
[41]. Ibid.,
p. 34.
[42]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny
digest, 15, 2017, The Senate, Canberra, 6 December 2017, p. 75.
[43]. D
Cameron (Shadow Minister for Skills, TAFE and Apprenticeships), Turnbull
Government all at sea on skills and apprentices as funding remains in limbo,
media release, 27 September 2017.
[44]. D
Cameron (Shadow Minister for Skills, TAFE and Apprenticeships), National
Apprentice Employment Conference: Group training: apprenticeships for
prosperity Sydney, speech, 3
November 2017, p. 8.
[45]. TAFE
Directors Australia (TDA), ‘Federal budget
unveils a new model of skills funding’, TDA Newsletter, 15 May 2017;
Australian Council for Private Education and Training (ACPET), ACPET
welcomes new and stronger $1.5 billion skills fund, media release, 10
May 2017.
[46]. National
Apprentice Employment Network (NAEN), ‘Federal
budget gives a much needed lift to apprentices and trainees’, media
release, 10 May 2017.
[47]. TAFE
Directors Australia (TDA), Submission
to Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment, Inquiry into the
Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017, and the Migration
(Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017 [provisions], 15 December 2017,
pp. 1–2.
[48]. NEAN,
Submission
to Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment, Inquiry into the
Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017, and the Migration
(Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017 [provisions], 15 December
2017, p. 3.
[49]. TDA,
Submission
to Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment, op. cit., pp. 2–3.
[50]. Victorian
TAFE Association, Submission
to Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment, Inquiry into the
Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017, and the Migration
(Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017 [provisions], 15 December
2017, p. 5.
[51]. P
Mares, ‘The
457 visa is dead! Long live the TSS?’, Inside Story, 20 April 2017.
[52]. Ai
Group, Budget
2017: Clearing the decks for new tilt at growth, media release, 9 May
2017.
[53]. K
Whittle, in author unknown, ‘Foreign
worker levy to hurt state, leaders say’, The Courier Mail, 11 May
2017, p. 6.
[54]. J
Hart, in N Toscano, ‘Visa levies a “significant”
new impost’, The Canberra Times, 11 May 2017, p. 26.
[55]. J
Kelly, ‘Visa
fee hike a slug on business’, The Australian, 11 May 2017, p. 6.
[56]. Federation
of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia (FECCA), Submission
to Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment, Inquiry into the
Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017, and the Migration
(Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017 [provisions], 15 December
2017, p. 3.
[57]. Australian
Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), Submission
to Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment, Inquiry into the
Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017, and the Migration
(Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017 [provisions], 15 December 2017,
p. 1.
[58]. P
Karp, ‘Budget
skills scheme could lead to cut in funding, say unions’, The Guardian,
11 May 2017.
[59]. Victorian
TAFE Association, Submission
to Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment, Inquiry into the
Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017, and the Migration
(Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017 [provisions], 15 December
2017, p. 3.
[60]. NEAN,
Submission
to Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment, Inquiry into the
Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017, and the Migration
(Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017 [provisions], 15 December
2017, p. 3.
[61]. P
Noonan, ‘The
future of funding’, Campus Review, 1 May 2017, p. 2.
[62]. G
Tierney (Victorian Skills and Training), Y D’Ath (Queensland Minister for Training
and Skills), S Ellery (Western Australian Minister for Education and Training)
and S Close (South Australian Minister for Higher Education and Skills), Turnbull’s
Budget A Disappointment For Training And TAFE, media release, 11 May
2017.
[63]. COAG
Industry and Skills Council (CISC), Communiqué
for the COAG Industry and Skills Council Meeting Skills Ministers, 2
June 2017, p. 1. In response to a Senate Budget Estimates 2017–18 Question on
Notice about the progress of this work, the Department of Education and
Training indicated that senior officials have worked with state and territory
counterparts on skills reform at eight meetings between April 2016 and April
2017. Senate Education and Employment Committee, Answers to Questions on
Notice, Education and Training Portfolio, Budget Estimates 2017–18, Question
SQ17-000600.
[64]. Northern
Territory Government, Submission
to Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment, Inquiry into the
Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017, and the Migration
(Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017 [provisions], 22 December
2017, p. 2.
[65]. Cross
Cultural Communications Management, Submission
to Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment, Inquiry into the
Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017, and the Migration
(Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017 [provisions], 3 January
2018; Innovative Research Universities (IRU), Submission
to Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment, Inquiry into the
Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017, and the Migration
(Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017 [provisions], 15 December
2017.
[66]. Innovative
Research Universities (IRU), Submission
to Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment, Inquiry into the
Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017, and the Migration
(Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017 [provisions], 15 December
2017, p. 2. IRU member universities are Charles Darwin University, James Cook
University, Griffith University, La Trobe University, Flinders University,
Murdoch University and Western Sydney University.
[67]. Law
Council of Australia, Submission
to Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment, Inquiry into the
Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017, and the Migration
(Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017 [provisions], 22 December
2017, p. 7; Cross Cultural Communications Management, Submission
to Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment, Inquiry into the
Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017, and the Migration
(Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017 [provisions], 3 January 2018,
p. 10.
[68]. While
there are a range of education and training pathways into most skilled roles,
in 2016–17, 56.4 per cent of primary temporary work (skilled) visas
were granted for professional occupations, while the next largest occupation
groups were technicians and trade workers at 22.3 per cent, and managers at
16.1 per cent. Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Subclass
457 Quarterly Report 30 June 2017, 2017, p. 10, DHA website. See Figure
3: Primary 457 visas granted each quarter 2005–2017 below for historical trends
in this program.) The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Australian
and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (ANZCO) structure,
which the DHA statistics conform to, measures skill level according to the
amount of formal education and training, previous experience, and the level of
on-the-job training required for an occupation. The ABS classifies professional
occupations as normally at skill level 1, requiring a bachelor degree or higher
qualification, while technicians and trade workers are normally at skill level
2, requiring an Associate Degree, Advanced Diploma or Diploma, or skill level
3, requiring a Certificate IV, or III. Managers are normally skill level 1 or
2. While equivalent work experience of five years for skill level 1 and three
years for skill levels 2 and 3 can substitute for these qualifications, the
relevant point is the dominance of higher education qualifications at skill
level 1, which is the most prominent in these visa statistics. See ABS, Scope
of the classification, ABS website, 2013, for more information.
[69]. Universities
Australia, Submission
to Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment, Inquiry into the
Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017, and the Migration
(Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017 [provisions], 18 December
2017.
[70]. Electoral
Trades Union, Submission
to Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment, Inquiry into the
Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017, and the Migration
(Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017 [provisions], 22 December
2017, p. 3; Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, Submission
to Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment, Inquiry into the
Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017, and the Migration
(Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017 [provisions], 3 January
2018, p. 5.
[71]. Ibid.
[72]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017, p.
2.
[73]. J
Ross, ‘Levy
“short-changes” skills fund’, The Australian, 17 May 2017.
[74]. Senator
S Birmingham (Minister for Education), Senate Education and Employment
Legislation Committee, Official
committee Hansard, 31 May 2017, p. 104.
[75]. The
Statements of Compatibility with Human Rights can be found at pp. 19–23 of the Explanatory
Memorandum to the SAF Bill and pp. 7–8 of the Explanatory
Memorandum to the Charges Bill.
[76]. Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights, Human
rights scrutiny report, 12, 28 November 2017, p. 96.
[77]. Parliament
of Australia, ‘Migration
Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2016 homepage’,
Australian Parliament website.
[78]. SAF
Bill, Schedule 2, items 19, 21 and 24.
[79]. E
Karlsen and M Coombs, Migration
Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2016, Bills digest,
21, 2016–17, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2016.
[80]. Sections
140E to 140GA of the Migration Act provide for the approval of sponsors.
[81]. Migration
Act, subsection 140GB.
[82]. SAF
Bill, Schedule 2, item 1 or item 19. Item 19 will
commence if the Family Violence Act commences prior to the provisions in
the present Bill. Unlike item 1, it specifies that a person must be or
have applied to be an approved work sponsor. A work agreement is an
alternative form of sponsorship, established in the Migration Act at
section 140GC, and with its requirements set out in Division 2.18 of Part 2A of
the Migration Regulations.
[83]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017, p.
12.
[84]. SAF
Bill, proposed paragraph 140GB(2)(ab), inserted by item 3 OR item
21 of Schedule 2. Item 21 will commence if the Family
Violence Act commences prior to the provisions in the present Bill. Unlike item
3, it specifies that a person must be approved as a work sponsor.
[85]. Ibid.,
Schedule 1, items 2, 4, 5 to 10; as well as Schedule 2, Part
1, items 2, 4, 5, 7–18 OR Part 2, items 20, 22, 23, 25–36.
[86]. P
Dutton, ‘Second
reading speech: Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017’,
op. cit., p. 11031.
[87]. Ibid.
[88]. J
Azarias, J Lambert, P McDonald and K Malyon, Robust
new foundations, op. cit., p. 15.
[89]. B
Shorten (Opposition Leader), B O’Connor (Shadow Employment Minister) and S
Neumann (Shadow Immigration Minister), Labor’s
plan to replace temporary workers with skilled Australians, Policy
Factsheet, Australian Labor Party, 3 May 2017, p. 2.
[90]. See
for example: I Campbell and J Tham, Labour
market deregulation and temporary migrant labour schemes: An analysis of the
457 visa program, Australian Journal of Labour Law, 26, 2013, p.
251; Migration Council Australia, More
than temporary: Australia’s 457 visa program, Migration Council
Australia, 2013, p. 6; P Mares, ‘Calling
time on the 457 migration two-step’, the interpreter, Lowy
Institute, 14 June 2017.
[91]. SAF
Bill, proposed subsection 140ZM(1).
[92]. Ibid.,
proposed subsection 140ZM(2).
[93]. Ibid.,
proposed paragraph 140GB(2)(aa) inserted
by item 3 OR item 21 of Schedule 2.
[94]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017, op.
cit., p. 7.
[95]. Law
Council of Australia, Submission
to Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment, op. cit., p. 6.
[96]. Ibid.
[97]. Ibid.,
p. 7.
[98]. Clause
6 of the Charges Bill defines nomination to mean a nomination
of a kind mentioned in proposed subsection 140ZM(1) or (2) of the Migration
Act.
[99]. Charges
Bill, clause 5.
[100]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Migration (Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017, pp.
4–5.
[101]. P
Dutton, ‘Second
reading speech: Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017’,
op. cit., p. 11032.
[102]. Ibid.
[103]. Charges
Bill, subclause 8(3).
[104]. Ibid.,
subclause 9(1).
[105]. Subclause
9(2) of the Charges Bill specifies that the index number for
a CPI quarter means the All Groups Consumer Price Index number that is the
weighted average of the 8 capital cities and published by the Australian
Statistician in relation to the CPI quarter. Subclause 9(4) states that
in working out the indexation factor, only the index numbers published in terms
of the most recently published index reference period for the CPI should be
used.
[106]. Charges
Bill, subclause 9(2).
[107]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Migration (Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Bill 2017, p. 5.
[108]. Ibid.,
p. 8. This principle was recognised by the High Court in Queanbeyan City
Council v ACTEW Corporation Ltd [2011]
HCA 40; also see Australian Tax Office (ATO), ‘Miscellaneous
taxation ruling: MT 2011/1’, ATO Legal Database.
[109]. SAF
Bill, proposed subsection 140ZP(2).
[110]. Ibid.,
proposed subsections 140ZP(3) and (4). Proposed subsection 140ZP(5)
defines Commonwealth as including a ‘Commonwealth entity’ within
the meaning of the Public
Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act)
that cannot be made liable to taxation by a Commonwealth law. Section 10 of the
PGPA Act defines ‘Commonwealth entity’ to include a body corporate
established by a law of the Commonwealth, or prescribed by an Act or the rules
to be a Commonwealth entity.
[111]. Ibid.,
proposed subsections 140ZQ(2) and (3).
[112]. DIBP,
‘Fact
Sheet: 2017-18 Migration Programme planning levels’, DIBP website.
[113]. See
DIBP, ‘Fact
Sheet: 2017-18 Migration Programme planning levels’, op. cit; DIBP, Report
on Migration Programme 2014–15, p. 12; 2015–16
Report on Migration Programme, p. 12.
[114]. DIBP,
2015–16 Migration Programme visa information, data request provided to the
Parliamentary Library by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection,
30 October 2017.
[115]. See
DIBP, Report
on Migration Programme 2014–15; 2015–16; 2016–17, Australian Government,
Canberra.
[116]. DIBP,
Report
on Migration Programme 2016–17, Australian Government, Canberra, p. 7.
[117]. B
Birrell, The
Coalition's 457 visa reset : tougher than you think, Research report,
The Australian Population Research Institute, August 2017, p. 13.
[118]. J
Azarias, J Lambert, P McDonald and K Malyon, Robust
new foundations, op. cit., p. 23.
[119]. P
Ruddock (Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs), Streamlined
temporary business entry approved, media release, Canberra, 5 June
1996.
[120]. P
Ruddock, (Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs), New
visa processes to help business, overseas students and skilled migration from 1
July 2001, media release, Canberra, 1 July 2001.
[121]. Migration Amendment
(Temporary Sponsored Visas) Act 2013, Schedule 2.
[122]. M
Cash (Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection), Migration Act 1958 –
Specification of Occupations Exempt from Labour Market Testing – IMMI 13/137.
[123]. DIBP,
Fact
sheet one: reforms to Australia’s temporary employer sponsored skilled visa
program – abolition and replacement of the subclass 457 visa, DIBP, 19
April 2017, p. 3.
[124]. Migration
Act, paragraph 140GB(2)(a).
[125]. Ibid.,
paragraph 140GBA(5)(a).
[126]. Ibid.,
paragraph 140GBA(5)(b).
[127]. SAF
Bill, Schedule 1, item 15.
[128]. Additionally,
item 13 of Schedule 1 inserts proposed paragraph 140GBA(3)(aa)
which provides that in order to satisfy the LMT condition, the testing must be
undertaken in the manner determined under proposed subsection 140GBA(5).
[129]. SAF
Bill, Schedule 1, item 15, proposed subsection 140GBA(6B).
[130]. Section
10 of the Legislation
(Exemptions and Other Matters) Regulation 2015 (Cth) provides, relevantly,
that an instrument (other than a regulation) made under Part 2 of the Migration
Act is not disallowable (see item 20 in table).
[131]. P
Dutton, ‘Second
reading speech: Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017’,
op. cit., p. 11033.
[132]. Law
Council of Australia, Submission
to Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment, op. cit., p. 8.
[133]. ACTU,
Submission
to Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment, op. cit., pp. 9–10.
[134]. Ibid.,
p. 10.
[135]. SAF
Bill, Schedule 1, item 16(2) and (3).
[136]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2017, op.
cit., pp. 10–11.
[137]. SAF
Bill, Schedule 1, item 16(1) and Schedule 2, item 37.
[138]. C
Fowler and J Stanwick, A
Chance to be bold and ambitious: make apprenticeships the lynchpin to a better
integrated tertiary education sector, National Centre for Vocational
Education Research, 8 June 2017, p. 9.
For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.
© Commonwealth of Australia
Creative Commons
With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party, this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.
In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.
To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.
Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.
Disclaimer: Bills Digests are prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament. They are produced under time and resource constraints and aim to be available in time for debate in the Chambers. The views expressed in Bills Digests do not reflect an official position of the Australian Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion. Bills Digests reflect the relevant legislation as introduced and do not canvass subsequent amendments or developments. Other sources should be consulted to determine the official status of the Bill.
Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library‘s Central Enquiry Point for referral.