Chapter 2Key issues
2.1Most submissions were broadly supportive of the provisions of the Migration Amendment (Strengthening Sponsorship and Nomination Processes) Bill 2024 (the bill).
2.2For example, in articulating its support, AMES Australia indicated that migrant jobseekers are currently 'not afforded the same opportunity in secure employment and career progression' as Australian workers. In its view, the bill would address these shortcomings and reduce 'migrant worker exploitation and misuse of the visa system'.
2.3The Chamber of Commerce and Industry WA (CCIWA) agreed that the existing migration system is not achieving its purpose, particularly in regional parts of Western Australia:
It has become much harder and more cumbersome for businesses to navigate Australia's migration system, to the detriment of economic growth and productivity. This is a particularly acute issue for Western Australian businesses operating in regional WA, which have experienced sustained local workforce challenges over the past decade.
2.4It argued that those challenges could be better addressed by 'building local capability, as well as temporary skilled migration, with clearer pathways to permanency'. It recommended amendments to the bill as some provisions would 'only make it harder for businesses to address their skills shortages'.
2.5While submitters were generally supportive of the bill, they raised some issues with its four key amendments. Those amendments are the:
Skills in Demand visa;
new income thresholds;
changes to labour market testing (LMT) requirements; and
public register of approved sponsors.
Skills in Demand visa
2.6The submissions that discussed the Skills in Demand visa welcomed its introduction and some advocated for particular occupations to be included on the Core Skills Occupation List (CSOL).
2.7For example, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) supported the replacement of the Temporary Skill Shortage (TSS) visa with the Skills in Demand visa. The new visa would help to reduce the exploitation of migrant workers by increasing their:
…mobility in the labour market and end[ing] the bonded nature of the TSS visa which ties workers to a single employer, rendering them heavily dependent on that employer not only for their livelihood but for their ability to stay in the country.
2.8The ACTU reminded the committee that holders of the Skills in Demand visa would be able to cease employment with their sponsor and continue to work elsewhere for up to 180 days while they find another sponsor.
2.9The Multicultural Professional Network (MPN) highlighted the results of a survey of its members that identified some of the general challenges associated with the current skilled migration system. Most of the respondents were based in Queensland and 'employed in various sectors including retail, engineering, education, professional services, and healthcare'. Every respondent to the survey reported challenges during the visa sponsorship and nomination process, including:
long processing times;
complex paperwork and requirements; and
high costs.
2.10The MPN also reported that one-third of respondents had difficulty meeting the income thresholds 'during the sponsorship and nomination process'.
2.11It suggested that '[b]y addressing the challenges faced by skilled migrants and their sponsors, the Bill can better support workforce diversity, equity and inclusion in Australia'.
2.12In articulating their support for the introduction of the Skills in Demand visa, some industry bodies emphasised the difficulties that their members experience in finding skilled workers in the domestic labour market. They argued that skilled migrants play a vital role in filling gaps in their workforces.
2.13Clubs Australia highlighted the importance of the proposed Core Skills Pathway. More than 96 per cent of the clubs that responded to its survey reported that 'they had experienced a shortage of chefs and cooks over the last two years'. For that reason, the CSOL must include skilled chefs and cooks to address unmet demand in the labour market.
2.14The Early Learning and Care Council of Australia (ELACCA) similarly reported '[t]he early learning and care sector is facing chronic significant workplace shortages'.
2.15Goodstart Ealy Learning (Goodstart) provided further details about the severity of those shortages. Current estimates indicated that there is a 'shortfall of approximately 12,000 educators'. According to other estimates—which Goodstart suggested downplayed the problem—the early childhood education and care 'sector will need 21,900 net additional educators by 2026'.
2.16ELACCA argued '[t]argeted, skilled migration can play a strong role in supporting the needs for this sector for a qualified and quality workforce'.To help address chronic labour shortages in the industry, ELACCA strongly advocated for the inclusion of early childhood educators on the CSOL.
2.17The Australian Trade and Investment Commission (Austrade) discussed the broad labour supply challenges experienced by the visitor economy:
The visitor economy continues to face persistent skills and labour challenges post-pandemic. As at 31 March 2024, there were 644,600 tourism filled jobs. The number of tourism jobs filled remains 103,300 (13.8 per cent) lower than the pre-pandemic peak of 747,900 in December 2019. The visitor economy represents 1 in 24 filled jobs in the economy, down from the pre-pandemic level of 1 in 19 in the December quarter 2019.
2.18Austrade submitted that the Core Skills Pathway 'is of significant interest to visitor economy employers to help fill skills shortages'. For that reason, those employers would like to see visitor economy occupations on the CSOL:
During the consultation on the draft [CSOL], tourism and state and territory stakeholders raised concerns that a range of occupations identified by industry as being in high demand and low availability, such as Cook and Chef, may not be eligible for the Core Skills Pathway although they had previously been on the Skills Priority List.
2.19Master Builders Australia (Master Builders) emphasised the importance of skilled migration to the building and construction industry, which is unable to meet its labour force requirements with Australian workers alone. It reflected on the future pressures that the industry is expected to experience:
Just to maintain business as usual levels of building activity, Master Builders anticipates that at least half a million people must enter the industry over the years to 2029. No fewer than two thirds of those will need to be skilled tradespeople. To achieve the Housing Accord goal of 1.2 million new homes by 2029, and net zero transformation by 2050, the number is even higher.
2.20Master Builders reported that the building and construction industry is failing to keep up with demand for skilled trades workers. The number of apprentices entering the industry is also insufficient to meet current and future requirements.
2.21In its view, the migration system is 'not kind to migrants who are skilled in building and construction trades'. Under the current system:
Visas are difficult to secure, costly and come with long processing times. The skills recognition process is cumbersome, costly, slow and in some cases completely unnecessary. Government wants migrants in Australia to experience positive outcomes and add value to the economy, but they cannot do this if the mechanisms in place to bring them, and keep them here, are working against them.
2.22Master Builders disagreed with the exclusion of tradespeople from the Specialist Skills pathway as 'many highly skilled tradespeople command salaries well above' the Specialist Skills Income Threshold (SSIT).
2.23Austrade highlighted the significant role that temporary skilled migration plays in the Australian economy:
Targeted temporary skilled migration can address skills needs (both short term and seasonal needs), build workforce capability and bolster Australia's value proposition as an investment destination. It can also help maintain a stable supply of appropriately skilled workers to deliver high-quality visitor experiences. Conversely, domestic skill shortages and barriers to global workforce mobility impact on businesses' ability to deliver projects, which can result in reconsideration of investment decisions, relocation of jobs offshore and loss of R&D opportunities.
2.24To address skills shortages that are constantly changing, Austrade encouraged the government to regularly consult 'with industry on the composition of the CSOL'. That consultation 'is vital to ensuring that the right skills are being supported through migration'.
2.25Austrade argued that the Skills in Demand visa would support the Australian economy. Australian businesses require access to the global skills market as they increase in size and access new international markets:
Australian businesses tell us that to maintain competitiveness and grow domestically and internationally, they need access to the global skills market. This means access to the right composition of skills at the right time. Without this, Australia's competitive advantage as an export trading partner will erode over time.
2.26Jobs and Skills Australia is actively working on the CSOL:
JSA has been actively engaging with a broad range of stakeholders on the process for developing its advice on a new CSOL that, along with background context and a set of frequently asked questions, was released for consultation on its website on 20 March 2024.
New income thresholds
2.27The bill would legislate three minimum income thresholds for the Skills in Demand visa. Those income thresholds are the SSIT and the Core Skills Income Threshold (CSIT). The third income threshold, associated with the Essential Skills Pathway, is continuing to be developed by government.
Specialist Skills Income Threshold
2.28Deloitte explained that the SSIT of $135 000 may be below the average salary of some occupations and industries. For that reason, it is possible that the SSIT would be set too low to attract the talent that it is seeking to bring to Australia.
2.29Some of Deloitte's clients indicated that 'they are encouraged to consider more junior foreign talent' who do not always have the experience of more senior foreign skilled migrants. They were concerned that the increased income thresholds might make some employers less likely to consider junior foreign skilled migrants.
2.30While the MPN recognised the benefits associated with the introduction of the SSIT, it suggested that 'it may be prohibitive for some sectors'. To help 'support a broader range of industries in attracting the talent they need', it proposed that the SSIT take 'industry‑specific economic conditions' into consideration.
2.31Austrade submitted that the Specialist Skills Pathway would 'help to ensure Australia can quickly recruit highly skilled migrants and meet labour needs to provide specialist knowledge, niche technologies or research expertise unavailable in Australia's current skills market'. In terms of the visitor economy, it suggested that the pathway could enable employers to hire skilled migrant workers who have highly specialised skills. If the pathway includes the means to transition to permanency, a larger number of migrants are likely to be attracted to this option.
2.32The Department of Home Affairs (Home Affairs) submitted that the SSIT would 'ensure Australia can quickly recruit top talent'.
Core Skills Income Threshold
2.33Several submitters raised concerns about the CSIT being set too high and that the formula used to calculate its annual indexation could lead to wage discrepancies between migrants and Australian workers.
2.34The CCIWA argued that the CSIT would be unlikely to address the high vacancy rates in 'lower-wage sectors, like hospitality, retail, and health care & social assistance'. It suggested that without migration pathways that 'secure workers at various skill levels, labour shortages will persist in areas of critical need'.
2.35The CCIWA gave the example of the Motor Vehicle Parts and Accessories Fitters (General) as one occupation that is currently experiencing high vacancy rates. As that occupation's:
…median weekly earnings are below the [temporary skilled migration income threshold (TSMIT)] at $1,294, this occupation would not be eligible for the temporary skilled migration program, unless they receive written approval by the Minister.
That solution would introduce 'an unnecessary layer of complexity, especially for small and family-run businesses, who would have to write to the Minister and hope their pleas are heard'.
2.36Clubs Australia reported that under its industry award, there is only one position that has a minimum annual salary above the CSIT. That means 'there will be Australian chefs and cooks who are being paid less' than the minimum income threshold for employees on the Skills in Demand visa. There are clubs, particularly those that are small or located in regional areas, that have questioned if they would be able to afford to employ migrant workers.
2.37ELACCA and Goodstart were aware of similar conditions in the early childhood education industry. They submitted that '[t]he annual salary of most early childhood educators, can range from approximately $51,000 to $76,000, depending on level of experience, location, qualification and employer'. ELACCA is aware of anecdotal evidence from some of its members that the increase in the TSMIT to $70 000 on 1 July 2023 has affected 'the employment of migrant educators in our workforce'.
2.38Goodstart provided further information about the effect that the increase in the TSMIT had on its 'workforce, particularly in rural and remote areas'. Some of its rural and remote centres are operating with reduced staff numbers and long‑running vacancies. It argued that situation arose due to visa sponsorship limitations introduced by the increase in the TSMIT.
2.39Conversely, the MPN recognised that the CSIT would help 'employers to hire qualified migrants in critical areas' and ensure that they are paid fairly. It suggested that the bill be amended to enable both the SSIT and CSIT to be adjusted according to the needs of specific industries. Such an amendment would 'ensure that skilled migrants are fairly compensated while addressing the unique challenges of each sector'.
2.40The CCIWA recommended the bill be amended to exempt occupations that have high vacancy rates and are remunerated below the CSIT. Without that exemption:
There is a risk that this arbitrary income level could force businesses to either lower output and productivity, or push wages higher, well above market rates, to secure temporary migrants. This would be a concerning outcome as cost pressures currently weigh heavily on businesses, particularly wage costs…We consider small and medium businesses to be especially vulnerable to these cost challenges and will likely have no other choice, but to pass these costs on to the consumer, adding to inflationary pressures.
Essential Skills Pathway
2.41Some submitters highlighted that there is limited information about the Essential Skills Pathway.
2.42For example, the Law Council of Australia (Law Council) indicated that the bill does not define essential skills or indicate how those skills relate to the CSOL. It suggested that the Explanatory Memorandum should clarify '[t]he relationship between skilled occupation lists and the Bill'.
2.43The MPN argued that 'the income threshold for Essential Skills workers should be clearly defined and consistently applied'. That would 'avoid ambiguity and ensure fair treatment of all workers'.
2.44The Immigration Advice and Rights Centre (IARC) 'recommend[ed] that the visa conditions for migrants in the Essential Skills Pathway be less stringent than those for the other two pathways'. Migrants on lower pay rates, which would include those in the Essential Skills Pathway, 'are more vulnerable and liable to workplace exploitation'. Those migrants should be permitted 'to undertake secondary employment to increase their income and improve their subsequent employment prospects'.
2.45Home Affairs explained that the proposed Essential Skills Pathway would provide an 'income threshold for occupations that are essential to Australia's workforce'. That income threshold would 'be worked out in accordance with the Migration Regulations made for this purpose, or be agreed to by the Minister in writing'.
2.46The Essential Skills Pathway is deliberately designed to provide 'flexibility to recognise the unique wages and conditions of various sectors, where the relevant industry award may be less than the TSMIT'.
Indexation of minimum income thresholds
2.47Of the submitters that commented on the indexation of the income thresholds, most welcomed it.
2.48In voicing its support for the measure, the ACTU discussed the outcome of failing to increase the TSMIT for a decade. As it was not required to be indexed, and had not increased since 2013, by 2022 the TSMIT was set at a rate that was lower than the wages earned by 80 per cent of the full-time workforce. Introducing legislation that would require annual indexation of the minimum wages paid to skilled migrant workers 'is critical to ensure that income thresholds cannot be frozen in the future, undermining the skilled migration system, undercutting wages, and contributing to the exploitation of migrant workers'.
2.49The IARC similarly submitted that annual minimum wage indexation would give migrant workers 'greater certainty about their future'. After the bill is passed, they can 'be confident that their wages will rise in line with inflation, and that future Governments cannot freeze the minimum income threshold'.
2.50Deloitte was concerned about the timing of publication of new income thresholds each year. It suggested that it might be 'difficult for businesses to manage their workforce strategy leading up to 1 July as they would not be aware if the nominated salaries will satisfy the updated thresholds'.
2.51The Law Council recommended that the bill be amended to require Home Affairs to communicate changes in the income thresholds:
…well in advance to legal practitioners (and the broader public), not just migration agents as stated in the Explanatory Memorandum. This is necessary to ensure lawyers can accurately advise their clients.
2.52The Law Council opined that setting the SSIT and the CSIT at $135 000 and $73150 respectively would 'make this aspect of the visa scheme unduly rigid'. If an amendment to these thresholds is required, it would need to be 'drafted and passed through Parliament before coming into force'. For that reason, the Law Council argued that it would be better if the income thresholds for the SSIT and CSIT were included in a legislative instrument.
2.53Home Affairs advised that migrants and their employers would be better served by having the annual income indexation contained in legislation rather than a legislative instrument:
Legislating the annual indexation of income thresholds in the Act, rather than by legislative instrument, provides greater clarity and predictability for migrants and employers, as recommended in the Review of the Migration System Final Report 2023.
2.54Migrants and their employers would become aware of the annual wage increase several months before it comes into force:
The increase to these thresholds through indexation will be known in February of each year (when the figures are published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics), more than three months before the increase occurs on 1 July each year. This provides advance notice for employers to consider their options. The Department will provide information on the increase on its website to ensure it is easily accessible for employers, visa holders and prospective migrants.
2.55The indexation of the Essential Skills Pathway would 'be determined as part of amendments to the Migration Regulations, or specified in writing in each agreement between the Minister and the employer'.
Possibility of wage disparity
2.56Some of Deloitte's clients reported that they were concerned about the possible implications of wages growing at different rates across industries. In their view, the annual indexation of income thresholds 'is likely to impact certain industries less favourably'.
2.57The Restaurant & Catering Industry Association (R&CA) raised concerns about how the annual rate of indexation would be calculated and the implications it could have for the wages of other workers.
2.58In its Annual Wage Review 2023–24, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) decided that the minimum wage be increased by 3.75%. That increase 'is substantially different to a 4.5% rise in the TSMIT based on AWOTE provided in a legislative instrument made by the Minister'.
2.59Mapien Pty Ltd (Mapien) suggested this discrepancy could result in temporary skilled migrants being treated more favourably than Australian workers:
…annual increases in line with the AWOTE…may result in the unintended consequence of benefiting temporary visa holders over Australian permanent residents and citizens, and that continued indexation connected to the Wage Price Index used for AWOTE will widen the gap between Fair Work Australia's minimums, and the Department of Immigration's expectations.
2.60The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) was concerned that this disparity in annual wage increases could force employers 'to increase the wages of local employees to match the TSMIT for migrant workers, without any correlated increase in productivity'. Delinking wage increases from productivity has the potential to put inflationary pressures on the economy.
2.61Its concern was shared by the R&CA, which listed the following reasons for its apprehension with the proposed method of indexation:
The monetary benefits for an equivalent Australian worker are at least the amount of the TSMIT;
The skilled migrant worker will be paid at least the same as an equivalent Australian worker; and
The skilled migrant worker's guaranteed annual earnings, excluding non-monetary benefits, will not be less than the TSMIT.
2.62Following that argument, there is a possibility that the discrepancy between the indexation of the minimum wage under the Skilled Migration visa and the minimum wage set by the FWC could disincentivise or penalise employers that sponsor skilled migrants. For example:
…if an Australian worker is earning less than $73, 150, and an employer facing a skills shortage, seeks to sponsor an employee, they will be required to pay the TSMIT rate for both the Australian equivalent worker and the sponsored employee.
Consequently, businesses who have been crippled by skills shortages for some years are likely to continue to experience difficulties due to ongoing skills shortages, further enhanced by the disproportionate increase in wages for skilled employees.
2.63Mapien was similarly worried about the implications that discrepancy could have on small- and medium-sized businesses:
Over time, indexation based on the AWOTE will restrict access to the sponsored programs for small to medium size businesses, which may not be able to offer salaries that satisfy an immigration related threshold that outpaces the actual Australian median wage.
2.64The ACCI shared those concerns and referred to the broader economic effects that wage discrepancies could cause. That 'impact could be significant, potentially leading to reduced hiring, increased prices for goods and services, and a slower economic recovery'.
2.65To avoid these unintended consequences:
R&CA recommend[ed] that any increase in the minimum wage for a Skills in Demand visa with a CSIT be the same as the decision made by the Fair Work Commission for the Annual Wage Review.
2.66The ACCI argued that the method of indexation should be more flexible. Using the AWOTE to determine the annual indexation is appropriate 'as it focuses only on full time wages and most migrants accessing the CSIT or SSIT will be employed full time'. However, there may be circumstances when the AWOTE is not the most appropriate measure to base wage indexation on. For that reason, the ACCI recommended the bill be amended to allow for the annual indexation formula to be based on the lower of the AWOTE or the consumer price index.
2.67Home Affairs advised that by legislating minimum income thresholds and the annual indexation of those thresholds:
…persons nominated to work in Australia are less likely to be displacing an Australian worker, and will be less vulnerable to exploitation by ensuring they receive fair remuneration. Legislating indexation of the income thresholds ensures parity between skilled migrant workers and Australian workers, and that over time, skilled migrants are not paid less than Australian workers where they are performing the same role.
Changes to labour market testing requirements
2.68Several submitters supported the increase in the completion of LMT from four months to six months prior to the sponsor of a skilled migrant worker lodging a nomination.
2.69Mapien argued the extension to six months would 'help to avoid unnecessary duplication of advertising by sponsors' and reduce their administrative burden.
2.70The MPN supported extending LMT to six months 'as it allows for more comprehensive testing of the local labour market before employing visa holders'. That change would support 'fair competition and gives local job seekers more opportunities to secure employment'. It suggested that streamlining the process would 'reduce administrative burdens and ensure timely hiring'. By introducing efficiencies, employers would avoid 'unnecessary delays, ultimately benefiting both local and migrant workers'.
2.71Deloitte submitted that some of its clients 'would like to see the labour market testing requirements amended further with an increased validity period of up to 12 months, and a shorter duration that LMT should be posted'.
2.72The Law Council viewed the bill as an opportunity to increase the flexibility of LMT. It suggested the LMT should not be required when:
the nominee is already employed by the sponsor on a different visa, or the same visa and the visa holder is renewing their existing visa;
redundancies are a different role classified under the same [Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations] code when the sponsor can demonstrate the redundancy is not relevant to the particular nominated position;
JSA has identified that the occupation to which the position relates has been identified as subject to skills and workforce shortages; or
the position will be paid over $100,000, or is offered by an accredited sponsor.
2.73Other submitters recommended that the LMT requirements be abolished as they are no longer fit for purpose.
2.74The ACTU argued 'the current system of employer-conducted LMT is not fit for purpose, suffering from a lack of enforcement and too many exemptions'. In its view, 'LMT has also been undermined through trade agreements that provide businesses with blanket exemptions to LMT'.
2.75The Electrical Trades Union of Australia (ETU) argued that 'employer‑conducted LMT is not fit for purpose'. It does not require employers to provide evidence of the measures they have taken to attract local workers.
2.76The ETU and the ACTU suggested that the LMT would be weakened by increasing its validity to six months. They welcomed the JSA becoming more involved in the verification of labour market needs.
2.77Clubs Australia supported 'moving away from employer-conducted [LMT] as articulated in the Migration Strategy'. The current requirement to conduct such testing 'causes unnecessary delays in recruitment in genuine areas of a skills shortage that have already been identified by [JSA] and is not fit for purpose'.
2.78Master Builders shared that view, 'particularly in regard to building and construction occupations'. In its view, LMT 'is a redundant and inefficient tool'.
2.79The CCIWA considered an alternative approach. Instead of abolishing LMT, it suggested that 'when the unemployment rate is below the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment, [LMT] should be suspended'.
2.80The ACCI put forward a similar amendment to the bill to address persistent skills shortages in some sectors of the economy. As numerous industries are experiencing skills shortages, the LMT 'is only making it harder for employers to get the workers they need to keep the economy turning'. The skills shortages may not be experienced uniformly across the country and might only affect particular regions. The bill should allow for greater flexibility around the requirement to undertake LMT so that it does not apply to occupations that are experiencing skills shortages, even if only in certain parts of Australia.
2.81Home Affairs advised that the amendments to the LMT requirements would provide:
…employers with more flexibility in recognition of current recruitment practices and complements the removal of the requirement for employers to advertise positions through Workforce Australia, which occurred on 8December 2023.
Public register of approved sponsors
2.82Several stakeholders supported the proposal to establish a public register of approved sponsors.
2.83The IARC commended the proposed introduction of a public register of approved sponsors. Its establishment 'should reduce exploitation by encouraging greater employer compliance with Australian workplace laws'.
2.84The ACTU appreciated the provisions of the bill that would establish a public register of approved sponsors and encouraged its expansion to include more data about employers:
Unions have long called for a public register of employer sponsors to enable transparency and oversight of the temporary migration system. The register proposed in this bill is an important step, but must be expanded to require approved employer sponsors to also disclose how many other temporary migrant workers they engage by visa type, and in which occupations and postcodes, to enable improved oversight. The public register must also be expanded to cover employers that engage other temporary migrant workers, requiring them to disclose the same information required of approved employer sponsors, by visa type, as a measure to improve transparency and address worker exploitation.
2.85Deloitte understood the purpose of the proposed public register of approved sponsors 'to promote transparency and worker mobility'. Some of its clients had reservations about some of the information that would be made publicly available on that register. They were particularly concerned about information related to 'the occupations and number of sponsored visa holders within the business which may be regarded as commercially sensitive'.
2.86The Migration Institute of Australia (MIA) was 'strongly opposed' to the publication of the names and business details of approved sponsors. Approved sponsors provide their information with the understanding that it will remain confidential. Many sponsors are small businesses that only sponsor one or two migrant workers and having their details published could expose them 'to identification and harassment by both offshore and onshore individuals contacting them wanting to be sponsored'.
2.87Independent Schools Australia (ISA) shared that concern. It indicated that there are schools that may only want 'to sponsor one or two employees in very specialist areas'. By having their information published in a public register, those schools may receive 'a large number of unsolicited enquiries'. For many smaller schools that administrative burden may not be manageable.
2.88The MIA warned that the publication of information about approved sponsors could lead to an increased administrative burden on those businesses. It suggested that commercial entities could use 'the published list as a source of business leads and spam these business sponsors'. Registered Migration Agents, who have their details recorded on a similar public register, 'constantly receive unsolicited emails and marketing materials…Much of this traffic comes from overseas and does not fall within the jurisdiction of Australia's spam laws'.
2.89To avoid an increase in the administrative burden that the public register would place on sponsors, and Home Affairs (which would need to regularly update it), the MIA recommended that the bill be amended so that the details of approved sponsors are not published. If it is not possible to amend the bill in that way, it suggested that 'only the name, location and expiry date [of the sponsorship approval] be included in any list'.
2.90ISA suggested that instead of requiring the publication of information associated with all approved sponsors, the bill could be amended so that those details only become publicly available once 'a threshold number of employment opportunities [become] available' with that employer.
2.91Mapien shared the concerns about a potential increase in the amount of unsolicited correspondence that the public register could create for approved sponsors. In its view, this increase could not only increase the administrative burden on businesses but also expose them to more scams and phishing attempts. It broadly agreed with the proposal suggested by ISA that the register:
…should not include quantity and occupations of sponsored individuals or should have a required minimum company size before these details are included, to help protect the privacy of sponsored individuals and organisations.
2.92Mapien did not 'see how this register will help abuses of the [migration] system'. A better way to address those abuses would involve Home Affairs increasing its investment 'in compliance and direct sponsor monitoring activities'. In Mapien's view, the register would serve little purpose for skilled migrants as it would 'not confirm the legitimacy of a sponsoring employer beyond confirming that the sponsor has been approved to nominate workers on previous occasions'.
2.93The Law Council shared that observation as 'the requirements for becoming a Standard Business Sponsor (SBS) are minimal, and it is straightforward for employers to become SBSs when they decide to sponsor someone'. The register would merely reflect that a business is an SBS and therefore would provide sponsored workers with 'very little information…about whether a business is actually likely to sponsor them, or be a trustworthy employer'.
2.94Not only would the register provide limited useful information to sponsored workers, 'it could deter some employers from sponsoring individuals' due to the information they would be required to share publicly. Sole traders or entities that have incorporated a personal name into their business name are at particular risk of being deterred. Sharing personally identifiable information in this way:
…raises the potential for abuse (including pursuit of anti-immigration sentiments) by a range of actors who might wish to use it against the employers involved, regardless of the good intentions behind the register.
2.95The Law Council did not support the register of approved sponsors. It argued that the bill would unnecessarily intrude on the privacy of businesses to such an extent 'that employers may hesitate to become sponsors due to the risk of abuse'.
2.96The Law Council recommended that the bill be amended to remove the provisions that would create the public register. If those provisions are retained, it suggested that 'access to the list should be by request to the Department only, to ensure that the information is only accessible to those who are not likely to abuse it'.
2.97If the provisions of the bill that would establish the public register are retained, the Law Council recommended that it not require sponsors to divulge 'the kinds of occupations covered by nominations' they have made. Removing this requirement would reduce some of the risks to privacy that the Law Council identified.
2.98Home Affairs indicated that the public register of approved sponsors is designed to 'help temporary skilled migrant workers find a new sponsor and provide a resource to check that a sponsoring employer is legitimate'. That would support 'a commitment in the Migration Strategy, as an action to enhance worker mobility and tackle worker exploitation.
2.99Home Affairs submitted that '[t]he use and disclosure of the information is reasonable and proportionate having regard to the purpose and intention of the provision and the register'. It also assured the committee that the information contained in the public register would 'adhere to requirements of the PrivacyAct1988 and the Australian Privacy Principles'.
Committee view
2.100The provisions of the Migration Amendment (Strengthening Sponsorship and Nomination Processes) Bill 2024 would amend the Migration Act 1958 to:
introduce the Skills in Demand visa;
set minimum income thresholds for the Skills in Demand visa that are indexed annually;
increase the period during which labour market testing must be completed from four to six months; and
establish a public register of approved sponsors.
2.101The committee recognises the importance of skilled migrants to the Australian economy. Skilled migrants play an essential role in addressing labour shortages that cannot be met with Australian workers.
2.102The committee is aware that Australia will require more highly specialised skilled migrants to assist in the development of future industries. There is growing international competition for migrant workers with highly specialised training, knowledge, and experience. Australia is at risk of missing out on the economic benefits that these individuals bring.
2.103The Skills in Demand visa is designed to encourage these highly skilled migrants to come to Australia. It is also designed to ensure that Australia can continue to attract the migrants it needs to address unmet demand in the labour market and ensure that essential services continue to be properly delivered to all Australians.
2.104The new income thresholds would ensure that skilled migrants are paid a fair wage. A legislated requirement to annually index the minimum wage paid to skilled migrants will ensure that skilled migrants will continue to be paid a fair wage into the future.
2.105The increase in the period of time to conduct labour market testing from four to six months will reduce administrative burdens on sponsors, increase transparency, and improve the flexibility of the labour market.
2.106The creation of a public register of approved sponsors would reduce the risk of skilled migrant workers being exploited by their employer. It would also increase the mobility of skilled migrant workers by giving them the opportunity to find alternative employment without being penalised.
2.107The committee appreciates that the public register would require sponsors to disclose a greater amount of information about their business and its operations. The committee is of the view that the disclosure of that information would increase migrant worker mobility, improve the operation of the skilled migration program, and reduce the chance of migrant workers being exploited.
2.108The committee recommends that the Senate pass the bill.
Senator Nita Green
Chair