You have got to love the Migration Institute of Australia (MIA) – the lobby group for Australia’s migration agents.
For months the MIA has been lobbying the federal government to lower the disgracefully low salary floor on temporary ‘skilled’ migrants from the current $53,900 to between $30,000 and $45,000, on the grounds that the current “high” salary threshold is creating exploitation:
“Many of the regionally based jobs these migrants will fill will be in the retail, tourism, hospitality and agricultural sectors, which are also predominantly part-time, casual and seasonal. To reach this $53,900 salary level, visa holders may be forced to work excessive hours or more than one job”.
“Many of these visa holders may never be able to meet this threshold requirement to progress to permanent residency, creating an underclass of migrant workers in regional areas,” Mr Hourigan said…
“While the Government is telling regional Australia it is listening to concerns about skills shortages, they are going to make it as hard as possible to fill them, [Mr Hourigan said]. “They are also sending a clear message to skilled migrants that Australia does not want them”…
“The imposition of this artificial wage floor can have a considerable impact on regional employers’ ability to access labour”.
Now, the MIA has told a South Australian Parliamentary Inquiry that the federal government’s regional visa requirements are too harsh and would create further migrant exploitation:
Two new visa classes will make it harder to attract migrants to regional South Australia, a parliamentary inquiry touring the state has heard.
The visas, launched this week, require migrants to work in a regional area for three years before they can apply for permanent residency.
Organisations have raised concerns about that time frame, the need for applicants to have at least three years of relevant work experience and the inability for migrants to change occupations.
Migration Institute of Australia SA state president Christopher Johnston told a hearing in Adelaide the 494 and 491 visas, which are separate to the visa used for the Designated Area Migration Agreements, did “not match the expectation”.
“It’s uncompetitive, unattractive and is not going to bring people to regional Australia or South Australia,” Mr Johnston told a hearing.
“At worst, the restrictions on changing occupation provides fertile ground for exploitation of these often vulnerable provisional visa holders,” the Migration Institute of Australia submission states.
This is hilarious stuff from the MIA.
The existing $53,900 Temporary Skilled Migration Income Threshold (TSMIT) has been frozen since 2013-14, and has fallen $23,000 below the median full-time Australian salary of $76,900, which comprises both skilled and unskilled workers.
Joanna Howe, Senior Lecturer in Law at University of Adelaide, explains that this absurdly low TSMIT has created a low-skilled migrant underclass and has helped crush Australian wages:
This crisis has been precipitated by the federal government’s decision to freeze the salary floor for temporary skilled migrant workers since 2013.
…the government has chosen to put downward pressure on real wages for temporary skilled migrants, thereby surreptitiously allowing the TSS [temporary skilled shortage] visa to be used in lower-paid jobs…
TSMIT is intended to act as a proxy for the skill level of a particular occupation… TSMIT’s protective ability is only as strong as the level at which it is set…
But since 1 July 2013, TSMIT has been frozen at a level of A$53 900… This means that the TSS visa can increasingly be used to employ temporary migrant workers in occupations that attract a far lower salary than that earned by the average Australian worker.
Therefore, the MIA’s plan to lower the TSMIT to between $30,000 and $45,000 would de-skill Australia’s visa system even further, create an even bigger migrant underclass, undercut Australian workers, and crush overall wage growth.
Instead of further debasing Australia’s ‘skilled’ migration program, the wage floor for all skilled migrants (both permanent and temporary) should be raised to at least $100,000.
This would ensure that the scheme is used sparingly by employers on only highly skilled migrants, not as a general low-skilled labour market tool for undercutting local workers and eliminating the need for training.
