Page 431 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 8 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
difficulty for businesses, not just those wanting to expand but those just surviving in terms of having suitable personnel.
One of my colleagues opposite, Mr Gentleman, probably would argue that people have just got to pay more, but the fact of the matter is that pay is not what it is just all about. It is actually getting people here and it is getting the reservoir of talent. When an 18-year-old in this town can go out into the construction industry and undertake unskilled labouring and earn $1,000 a week, I remain to be convinced that it is all about income levels. I think that the problem is complex and that a concerted effort is needed to try to ensure that the interests of the ACT community are well protected.
Indeed, we have to recognise that this is not only a competitive issue for Australia but also clearly a competitive issue between ourselves and the other states and territories. We have to have unique advantages, which I believe we do in Canberra, but somehow we have to get that message out not only to people interstate who might consider a change of lifestyle, particularly young people, but also to those in other countries that might see appeal in coming to Australia and joining this community and lending us the benefit of their skills.
The government has supported an increase in the scope of its immigration programs to bring in skilled migrants under the commonwealth’s state-territory nominated independent and skill matching schemes, but one would have liked to have seen these things embraced earlier in the original program, especially when one looks at the advantages that that program, the STNI program, offers over those elements of the ACT’s skilled and business migration program. These features include faster processing due to no migration paperwork and access to skilled migrants registered on the skill matching database maintained by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.
It is certainly important that the programs of the territory government be promoted to the business community and overseas migrants. It is something of an area of scepticism on my behalf as to how enthusiastic the territory often is in these matters. Whilst Mr Gentleman’s motion does not declare hostility to the skilled migrants coming in, there always is an underlying sentiment in most of his pronouncements in the Assembly that the first port of call is to protect the interests of unions in the territory and they see that inextricably as part of the immigration process.
Over the years, I have seen examples of that getting out of hand. There was the situation some years ago when the Australian American Association put on their annual dinner while there was a visiting warship in Tasmania with a marine band on board. The union down there would not let them perform at the dinner at Wrest Point Hotel unless they joined the union, which completely cut across the requirements of serving military personnel. An entertainer who came out from the UK and asked for some help in lining up a television interview was immediately told that he would have to be in actors equity. There was the ludicrous situation, which has reduced somewhat, that existed under the Fraser government where the union movement had a disproportionate say over the granting of visas for people coming into Australia.
Mr Speaker, the opposition welcomes the influx of skilled workers into Australia. I want to make it very clear and put it on the record that the opposition will have no part in any
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .