<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>House of Assembly</name>
  <date date="2008-05-07" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>51</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>2</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>House of Assembly</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="3367" />
  <endPage num="3442" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Question Time</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Industrial Relations</name>
      <text id="20080507b9998ed18d0643ed90000493">
        <heading>INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS</heading>
      </text>
      <talker role="member" id="1807" kind="question">
        <name>Dr McFETRIDGE</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Morphett</electorate>
        <questions>
          <question date="2008-05-07">
            <name>INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2008-05-07T15:04:00" />
        <text id="20080507b9998ed18d0643ed90000494">
          <timeStamp time="2008-05-07T15:04:00" />
          <by role="member" id="1807">Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (15:04): </by> My question is to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Why is Immigration SA insisting that some employers pay above award wages before they will recommend 457 visa holders for permanent residency? The opposition has been told of at least one case where Immigration SA has insisted that an employer pay above award wages to 457 visa holders before Immigration SA will recommend their permanent residency.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="532" kind="answer">
        <name>The Hon. K.O. FOLEY</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Port Adelaide</electorate>
        <portfolios>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Deputy Premier</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Industry and Trade</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Federal/State Relations</name>
          </portfolio>
        </portfolios>
        <questions>
          <question date="2008-05-07">
            <name>INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2008-05-07T15:05:00" />
        <text id="20080507b9998ed18d0643ed90000495">
          <timeStamp time="2008-05-07T15:05:00" />
          <by role="member" id="532">The Hon. K.O. FOLEY (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Treasurer, Minister for Industry and Trade, Minister for Federal/State Relations) (15:05): </by> I would be very surprised if the member's allegation is correct. I will take the question on notice. Immigration SA does an outstanding job in assisting a large multitude of companies throughout South Australia to attract skilled immigrants under visas such as 457—</text>
        <text id="20080507b9998ed18d0643ed90000496">
          <event kind="interjection" role="member" id="65">Mr Williams interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="532" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. K.O. FOLEY</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <page num="3403" />
        <text id="20080507b9998ed18d0643ed90000497">
          <by role="member" id="532">The Hon. K.O. FOLEY:</by>  What are you shaking your head for?</text>
        <text id="20080507b9998ed18d0643ed90000498">
          <event kind="interjection" role="member" id="65">Mr Williams interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="532" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. K.O. FOLEY</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20080507b9998ed18d0643ed90000499">
          <by role="member" id="532">The Hon. K.O. FOLEY:</by>  You don't think they do a good job?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="546" kind="interjection">
        <name>Mr Williams</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20080507b9998ed18d0643ed90000500">
          <by role="member" id="546">Mr Williams: </by> No, they don't.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="532" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. K.O. FOLEY</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20080507b9998ed18d0643ed90000501">
          <by role="member" id="532">The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: </by> They don't?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="546" kind="interjection">
        <name>Mr Williams</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20080507b9998ed18d0643ed90000502">
          <by role="member" id="546">Mr Williams: </by> No, I have seen cases where they have taken many months.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="532" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. K.O. FOLEY</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20080507b9998ed18d0643ed90000503">
          <by role="member" id="532">The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: </by> What, for your property in the South-East?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="546" kind="interjection">
        <name>Mr Williams</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20080507b9998ed18d0643ed90000504">
          <by role="member" id="546">Mr Williams: </by> No, for a good South Australian business.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="532" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. K.O. FOLEY</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20080507b9998ed18d0643ed90000505">
          <by role="member" id="532">The Hon. K.O. FOLEY:</by>  Right. I accept that the member for MacKillop is not across everything—in fact, it appears to me he is across very little. I do not think the problem, with all due respect, is Immigration SA. The problem is at the federal level. The federal Minister for Immigration said only this week that he is putting a lot of pressure on the immigration department to fast track a significant backlog of some 6,000 457 applications that have not been processed.</text>
        <text id="20080507b9998ed18d0643ed90000506">There is no doubt that the incredible popularity of 457s at a time of significant skills shortage has put an enormous strain on the federal department of immigration. That happened under the Howard Liberal government and it is happening under the early days of a Rudd Labor government. What is happening, Mr Speaker, is that—</text>
        <text id="20080507b9998ed18d0643ed90000507">
          <event kind="interjection" role="member" id="7">Ms Chapman interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="532" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. K.O. FOLEY</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20080507b9998ed18d0643ed90000508">
          <by role="member" id="532">The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: </by> What?</text>
        <text id="20080507b9998ed18d0643ed90000509">
          <event kind="interjection" role="member" id="56">An honourable member interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="532" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. K.O. FOLEY</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20080507b9998ed18d0643ed90000510">
          <by role="member" id="532">The Hon. K.O. FOLEY:</by>  Well, just tell her to put a sock in it, will you? The 457 issue is one where we want to see a much speedier and quicker process at a federal level. However, as it relates to Immigration SA, I would be very surprised if that allegation is correct. I will get it checked out, but there are rules and requirements about wages. What we will not allow to happen in South Australia is to allow 457s to be abused, and that is to bring labour in at undercut awards, undercut wages and conditions. As a government, we need to be extremely vigilant to the extent that we can that that is not occurring.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1804" kind="interjection">
        <name>Ms Chapman</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20080507b9998ed18d0643ed90000511">
          <by role="member" id="1804">Ms Chapman: </by> That's a different point.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="532" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. K.O. FOLEY</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20080507b9998ed18d0643ed90000512">
          <by role="member" id="532">The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: </by> It may be a different point, but the point I am making is that we work in a situation where we employ all due diligence that we can to ensure that workforce wages and conditions are not being undercut and undermined. To suggest that we would impose a requirement that an employer pay above the award would be, if not illegal, very questionable, and I would be surprised that today would be the first time I would be hearing about it.</text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>