Additional Comments from Ms Allegra Spender MP
Migration is central to the story of Australia. It has profoundly shaped our society, economy, and culture in the past – and it will play an important role as we continue to build our nation in the future.
Australia is one of the most successful multicultural countries in the world and our ability to integrate successive waves of migrants into a diverse and cohesive society is unique. As the daughter of a migrant and the representative of an electorate where nearly two-thirds of constituents have at least one parent born overseas,[1] the success of our migration system is an issue that is close to my heart.
The Committee’s majority report provides a detailed assessment of the state of Australia’s migration system and makes a large number of useful and practical recommendations. I commend the members of the Committee and the secretariat for their work. The majority report also builds on the excellent work of Dr Martin Parkinson AC PSM, Professor Joanna Howe, and Mr John Azarias and their final report of the Review of the Migration System in March 2023.
However, the Committee’s majority report does not address important changes that are needed to our migration system and fails to call-out deficiencies in recent Government policy.
My additional comments address these areas, including:
Each of these areas is addressed in more detail below.
1.1: The Australian Government should allow all migrants who meet the earnings threshold to access the Specialist Skills Pathway of the Skills In Demand visa, regardless of their occupation.
1.2: The Australian Government should provide an alternative pathway to the Aged Care Industry Labour Agreement to address workforce shortages in aged care, which does not mandate providers enter into an MOU with a union, but which provides appropriate safeguards against exploitation.
2.1: Enrolment limits for overseas students imposed by the Australia Government should not extend beyond the calendar year 2027.
2.2: During the period which the Australian Government imposes enrolment limits for overseas students, such limits should not be imposed at the level of individual courses.
2.3: The Australian Government should retain the maximum age threshold of 30-years for Working Holiday visas, except for countries that have a specific agreement with Australia which provides extended reciprocal work and/or travel rights for Australian citizens.
3.1: The Australian Government should create an expedited re-application process to assess the protection claims of people rejected under the ‘Fast Track’ refugee status determination process, but who still reside in Australia. This should include the opportunity to present new information, if relevant, such as the current circumstances of their home country.
3.2: The Australian Government should allow those rejected under ‘Fast Track’ – but who still reside in Australia and do not have a protection claim – to apply for other types of permanent visa, if they are eligible. For example, this could include partner visas or skilled visas.
3.3: The Australian Government should provide access to Ministerial Intervention to create a permanent pathway for those rejected under ‘Fast Track’ who have compelling and compassionate reasons to stay in Australia – but who do not have a current protection claim and are not eligible for another type of permanent visa.
4.1: The Australian Government should give further consideration to ensuring the migration system is fair to those living with a disability or with family members living with a disability.
5.1: The Australian Government should establish a framework for reporting to Parliament on visa processing times and performance against service level agreements – and report on a consistent set of performance statistics on a regular basis.
Skilled migration is one of the most significant economic levers available to our country. As set out in the Migration Strategy, a well-targeted skilled migration system can play a key role in building a more productive workforce and a stronger economy, supporting “rising living standards, business growth and better wages” [2].
The reforms to skilled migration proposed in the Migration Strategy are a welcome step forward. They will help shift our skilled migration intake towards higher-skilled and higher-earning cohorts, who will be provided with clearer pathways to permanent residency and more opportunity to move employers.
One aspect of these reforms is the creation of a new temporary visa called the Skills in Demand visa. This has three pathways:[3]
I strongly support the introduction of the Specialist Skills Pathway in particular, which will help fast track the arrival of the highest skilled and highest earning migrants to Australia. However, for this pathway to be successful, it is critical that no particular occupations are specified as eligible or ineligible, in order to give businesses maximum flexibility to quickly respond to changing workforce needs.
Whilst the Committee has endorsed the development and implementation of the Skills in Demand visa and the Specialist Skills Pathway, no comment has been made on the decision to exclude trades workers, machine operators, drivers and labourers from this stream. No clear rationale has been provided for this carve-out, and there is no obvious reason why a sector-agnostic visa pathway based on a high salary threshold is appropriate for every occupation in Australia – except for those related to construction.
The decision to exclude these workers comes at a time when the building industry is experiencing significant labour shortages and Australia is desperately trying to build more houses.[4]Shortages are particularly acute for higher-skilled and higher-earning parts of the sector[5] – where workers are in short supply, are difficult and expensive to recruit, and cannot be trained domestically in a short timeframe. Skilled migration – alongside domestic workforce development – is therefore an important tool to make sure that Australia has the construction workforce we need.
There is no rationale for these workers to be excluded from the Specialist Skills Pathway and the Government’s proposed carve out should be removed.
Recommendation 1
The Australian Government should allow all migrants who meet the earnings threshold to access the Specialist Skills Pathway of the Skills In Demand visa, regardless of their occupation.
In addition to the specific challenges of the construction sector, the Committee also heard evidence of workforce shortages in aged care. For example, the Aged and Community Care Providers Association (ACCPA) informed the Committee that the industry was likely to “have a shortfall over the next decade of something like 110,000 workers”.[6]
To help address this shortfall through the migration program, the Government announced the introduction of the Aged Care Industry Labour Agreement (ACILA) in May 2023. The ACILA requires employers who want to employ migrants through this pathway to enter into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the relevant industry union.
The introduction of the ACILA was criticised during the inquiry process. It has been perceived as an attempt to increase union involvement in the aged care sector – irrespective of the wishes of employees and irrespective of whether this delivers better outcomes for those accessing aged care services. Whilst there are valid concerns about migrant worker exploitation in lower-waged industries, it is not clear that mandatory union involvement is the solution.
Examples of evidence submitted to the inquiry on this issue included:
It is not clear why union involvement in the migration system should be a necessary pre-condition to employing people in aged care. An alternative pathway should therefore be provided.
Recommendation 2
The Australian Government should provide an alternative pathway to the Aged Care Industry Labour Agreement to address workforce shortages in aged care, which does not mandate providers enter into an MOU with a union, but which provides appropriate safeguards against exploitation.
There is currently significant discussion in the community around the level of temporary migration. This is a hard debate, because people are hurting, housing is a huge problem, and temporary migration has been high. In response, the Government has taken unprecedented action to reduce the number of overseas students coming to Australia through the introduction of enrolment caps.
However, migrants are not the main driver of the current unacceptable levels of housing and rental stress. Instead, it is primarily the failed housing policies of successive local, state and federal governments, as well as Australia’s shift in recent years to fewer people living in each dwelling.[9]
When looking at migration that could take pressure off the housing market, many have looked at higher education. There are valid questions around why so-called “ghost colleges” have been able to operate unchecked, why universities don’t provide more student accommodation, and whether the balance of international and local students is right. These are all legitimate concerns that need to be addressed.
But while migration can be a short-term lever, pulling it hard has significant costs and can distract from the laser focus we need on increasing housing supply and restoring intergenerational equity. Dramatic swings in policy – such as the introduction of enrolment caps for overseas students – can be dangerous and short-termist.
Education is Australia’s fourth-largest export earner[10] and is particularly valuable as fossil fuel exports decline over time. The soft diplomacy impact of Australian-educated people in our region is significant, and it is also not clear that the kind of unprecedented action proposed by the Government will have a meaningful impact on the rental crisis.
The Committee report does not recommend the introduction of enrolment caps, but neither does it recommend that the Government change course. It does not propose any constraints on the unprecedented power given to the Minister under this policy, or the over-reach in allowing Government to set caps at the individual course level.
At a minimum, education providers should be allowed to determine how caps apply, and caps should be time-limited to avoid long-lasting damage to our international education sector.
Recommendation 3
Enrolment limits for overseas students imposed by the Australia Government should not extend beyond the calendar year 2027.
Recommendation 4
During the period which the Australian Government imposes enrolment limits for overseas students, such limits should not be imposed at the level of individual courses.
The primary justification provided for introducing overseas student caps is that high levels of temporary migration are putting pressure on housing. Despite this, the Committee has recommended enabling an increase in low-skilled temporary migration as part of Recommendation 63, by increasing the age threshold for people to access Working Holiday visas from 30 to 35.
This recommendation is contradictory to the imposition of overseas student caps and inconsistent with the objectives of the Migration Strategy. The strategy emphasises the importance of shifting our migration system towards higher-skilled, higher-earning migrants, with clearer pathways to permanency. Opening up Working Holiday visas to older migrants – who do not have to meet any skill requirements – and who have more limited prospects of ever qualifying to become permanent residents – is not aligned with this objective.
The combined impact of the Committee’s recommendation and the imposition of student caps is that Australia will essentially replace a cohort of overseas students – who pay significant course fees, make a large economic contribution to Australia, and have more viable routes to permanent residence – with a cohort of low skilled temporary migrants.
This recommendation also creates additional worker exploitation risks, given employers’ ability to control whether migrants’ meet work requirements to qualify for second or third visas.
Instead of undercutting the migration system by a blanket increase in the age limit, the age limit should only be raised for countries where Australia has agreements that provide extended reciprocal work and travel rights (e.g. as part of the Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement).
Recommendation 5
The Australian Government should retain the maximum age threshold of 30-years for Working Holiday visas, except for countries that have a specific agreement with Australia which provides extended reciprocal work and travel rights for Australian citizens.
Whilst the Committee’s terms of reference did not explicitly cover humanitarian entrants, “the role of permanent migration in national building” and “the economic and social contribution of migrants, including family and humanitarian migrants” were included.[11] As such, the Committee received evidence in relation to those failed by the ‘Fast Track’ refugee status determination process.[12]
The ‘Fast Track’ process was introduced by the Abbott Government in 2014 and applies retrospectively to people who:
The ‘Fast Track’ process also applies to children born to parents within this group.
The ‘Fast Track’ process has failed refugees and people seeking asylum on many levels. It has produced unfair and legally incorrect decisions, caused extended delays, re-traumatised people, and resulted in refugees being deported to countries where they face persecution and harm.[14]
The Government has admitted that ‘Fast Track’ was fundamentally flawed, abolishing the process and the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) which administered it. In 2023, the Government made the welcome decision to grant permanent protection to those in the ‘Fast Track’ cohort who were living on Temporary Protection Visas (TPVs) and Safe Haven Enterprise Visas (SHEVs).
However, there are currently more than 8,000 people in Australia who were subjected to the ‘Fast Track’ process and were not provided permanent protection as part of this announcement.[15] People in this cohort include those whose TPV/SHEV application has yet to be decided by the Department; those who were refused a TPV/SHEV and are seeking merits or judicial review, or have pending requests for ministerial intervention; and some who were refused a TPV/SHEV and are no longer engaged in a process, but remain in Australia. They are typically unable to re-apply for protection (regardless of the current circumstances in the country they are seeking protection from) and unable to apply for other types of visa (for example, even if they have married an Australia citizen).
Over the past two years I have met several people in this cohort – including talented, ambitious, and hard-working young people – who have been completely failed by ‘Fast Track’. They have been living in Australia for more than a decade, forced into destitution and poverty for years as they attempt to rebuild their lives – while facing an unknown future and fear of deportation. For all intents and purposes, they are Australian. All they want is to live, work, study, and contribute to our society.
The below recommendations therefore seek to provide pathways to permanent protection and lasting status determination for this group, and to put an end to the traumatic limbo they have lived in for the past decade.
Recommendation 6
The Australian Government should create an expedited re-application process to assess the protection claims of people rejected under the ‘Fast Track’ refugee status determination process, but who still reside in Australia. This should include the opportunity to present new information, if relevant, such as the current circumstances of their home country.
Recommendation 7
The Australian Government should allow those rejected under ‘Fast Track’ – but who still reside in Australia and do not have a protection claim – to apply for other types of permanent visa, if they are eligible. For example, this could include partner visas or skilled visas.
Recommendation 8
The Australian Government should provide access to Ministerial Intervention to create a permanent pathway for those rejected under ‘Fast Track’ who have compelling and compassionate reasons to stay in Australia – but who do not have a current protection claim and are not eligible for another type of permanent visa.
During the inquiry, the Committee considered in detail the nature of minimum health standards for migrants, and how these affect those seeking to access visas. As acknowledged in Chapter 6 of the Committee’s report, health criteria are applied in a blunt manner and current requirements do “not allow for consideration to be given to the contribution the visa applicant would make to social, cultural and economic life in Australia or the contribution the person would make to meeting the costs associated with their disability (or whether they would actually access any services).”[16]
In particular, existing health requirements can discriminate against temporary migrations who:
For example, Welcoming Disability submitted that the costs associated with the special education of a child with disabilities mean that, if that child is school age and their parents are applying for a visa with a term of more than two years, the application is “almost guaranteed to fail the health requirement”, irrespective of whether the child would require special education.[17]
Recommendation 8 in the Committee report seeks to address these challenges. However, it could be further strengthened by explicitly acknowledging the need for the migration system to treat people with a disability – and their families – fairly.
Recommendation 9
The Australian Government should give further consideration to ensuring the migration system is fair to those living with a disability or with family members with a disability.
The Committee heard evidence from a broad range of business stakeholders that slow processing of visas was having a detrimental impact on “their ability to attract and secure migrant workers across an array of industries”.[18] As a local MP, the extensive time taken to process visa applications is one of the most common issues that constituents contact me about.
This is acknowledged by the Committee report, which characterises our visa system as “overly complex, costly, and comparatively slow” and therefore failing to “serve the needs and interests of Australian businesses, the Australian community, and prospective migrants”.[19]
However, despite an acknowledgement of the problem, there is limited willingness from either of the major parties to be accountable for improving things. Opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny over visa processing times is scant – particularly for members of the House of Representations – who are frequently the parliamentarians chasing-up applications on behalf of their constituents.
As is expected of the private sector, the Government should be accountable for the level of services that it delivers.
Recommendation 10
The Australian Government should establish a framework for reporting to parliament on visa processing times – and performance against service level agreements – and report on a consistent set of performance statistics on a regular basis.
Ms Allegra Spender MP
Independent Member for Wentworth
Footnotes
[1]ABS (2021). Census – Wentworth Electorate (61.7%) (link)
[2]Australian Government (2023). Migration Strategy – Getting migration working for the nation, pages 22-2
[3]Australian Government (2023). Migration Strategy – Getting migration working for the nation, pages 49-51
[4]Housing Industry Association, Submission 43, page 2; Master Builders Australia, Submission 38, page 5.
[5]Committee Majority Report, pages 228-229
[6]Mr Tom Symondson, Chief Executive Officer, Aged and Community Care Providers Association, Committee
Hansard, 27 September 2023, Canberra, page 35.
[7]Committee Majority Report, page 224
[8]Committee Majority Report, page 224
[9]Reserve Bank of Australia (2023). A new measure of average household size (link)
[10]Department of Education (2024). Education export income – 2019-20 to 2022-23 (link)
[11]Committee Majority Report, pages xxiii
[12]For example: Human Rights Law Centre, Migrant Workers Centre, and Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, Submission 120
[13]See the definition of ‘fast track applicant’ in s 5(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
[14]For example, see: Human Rights Law Centre, Migrant Workers Centre, and Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, Submission 120, pages 14-16; Asylum Seeker Resource Centre (2024). Briefing paper – People failed by fast track (link); Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law (2022). Fast Track Refugee Status Determination Research Brief; Mary Anne Kenny (2022). Temporary Protection Visas in Australia: A reform proposal, Kaldor Centre Policy Brief 13
[15]Asylum Seeker Resource Centre (2024). Briefing paper – People failed by fast track, page 1 (link)
[16]Immigration Advice and Rights Centre and Unions NSW, Submission 32, pages 27-28.
[17]Committee Majority Report, page 119
[18]Committee Majority Report, page 148
[19]Committee Majority Report, page 16
Senate
House of Representatives
Get informed
Bills
Committees
Get involved
Visit Parliament
Website features
Parliamentary Departments