Changes to visa caps could hurt all workers



This was published 7 years ago

Changes to visa caps could hurt all workers

One month ago, with no fanfare, the Abbott government scrapped the limits on the number of foreign workers that employers could bring into this country on subclass 457 visas. The move is being hailed by some in the business community as offering more flexibility to employers, especially those operating in sectors that have endured volatile labour conditions in recent years. Unions, though, suggest that removing the caps may lead to exploitation of foreign workers. And Opposition Leader Bill Shorten suggests Australian workers should have priority for jobs.

The debate over 457 visas - how they are awarded, which employers rely on them and why - has traditionally been panicky and fractious, often fuelled by half-truths and tinged at times with xenophobia, if not downright racism. Yet there are legitimate concerns that winding back some of the restrictions on 457 visas, including scrapping the limits on the number of foreign workers any single employer can sponsor, will affect job opportunities for Australian workers.

With tens of thousands of jobs due to be lost in the next few years, the Abbott government should be doing all it can for those seeking new jobs. Yet removing the limits on 457 visas does the opposite, because employers are no longer required to prove at every instance that the jobs they are filling with foreign workers are not able to be done by Australians.

There are some interesting trends in 457 visas. Immigration Department figures show the number granted in the six months to December was 24 per cent below the same period a year earlier, and the figures generally have been trending down since mid-2012. And who are we importing? Cooks, cafe and restaurant managers, and IT programmers - mostly from India, Britain and Ireland - and in the main they have ended up in NSW, Victoria and Western Australia.

The rule change, which took effect on February 14, reverses regulations introduced by the Gillard government on July 1 that required employers to specify exactly how many job positions they were likely to fill with 457 visa workers over a three-year period. Employers must still demonstrate that they have tested the labour market for local workers - by advertising the jobs, for example, and providing labour data statistics - but they need do so only once in a 12-month period.

The removal of the caps means that if an employer applies to bring in, say, 20 foreign workers and subsequently brings in 50 or 100, then the employer will not be penalised. The government's argument is that removing such regulations help ease the compliance burden on employers, which (so the argument goes) ultimately leads to a more productive workplace and more job opportunities.

It is a theoretical proposition, however. In practice and in the absence of rigorous monitoring, rogue employers may sense an easy opportunity to abuse the system. The law requires employers to ensure workers on 457 visas are paid no less than an Australian would receive for the same work in the same location. But if the government also cuts back on visa or workplace inspections, or fails to enforce regulations governing foreign workers' pay and conditions, then working conditions for all Australians may be jeopardised and this country would not be better off.

The Age is not opposed to foreigners working here, and can appreciate that some complex projects may require a sudden increase in staff. An employer faced with such a circumstance should be able to bring in additional 457 employees without going through the same regulatory process. But there should be a limit; in a previous case, before the Gillard government tightened the rules, one employer brought in 800 workers after being granted approval for 100 visas. That raises legitimate concerns. To that end, the panel convened to examine the role of 457 visas should consider a range in keeping with the original request. It would be dangerous to adopt an open-ended system.

Click here to submit a letter to the editor.

Most Viewed in National