The Claim
“Proposed the loosening of 457 work visas, allowing foreigners to work in Australia for 12 months, without passing English tests, without the need to look for local workers first.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The claim conflates two separate policy proposals from 2014-2015, creating a misleading impression of what was actually proposed and implemented.
The 457 Visa Changes (Implemented March 2015):
The Coalition government did propose and implement changes to the 457 visa program following an independent review conducted by a panel led by John Azarias [1]. The changes announced on 18 March 2015 included:
English language requirements: Changed from requiring a score of at least 5 in each of the four IELTS components to requiring an average score of 5 across all four components, with no component below 4.5 [2]. This was a modest relaxation providing "flexibility" rather than eliminating the test entirely.
Labour market testing: The independent review recommended abolishing labour market testing, but the government explicitly did NOT adopt this recommendation. Assistant Immigration Minister Michaelia Cash stated: "We're not going to rush to remove labour market testing in an unconsidered manner" [2].
The Short-Term Mobility Visa Proposal (Separate Discussion Paper):
The claim appears to reference a separate proposal for a "short-term mobility visa" that was discussed in a Department of Immigration discussion paper in early 2015 [3]. This was a distinct visa category (not a 457 visa) that would:
- Allow specialized workers to stay for up to 12 months
- Not require 457 visa entry requirements
- Be designed for short-term specialized work
However, this was a discussion paper proposal, not an implemented policy, and it was a separate visa stream - not a "loosening" of the 457 visa itself [3].
Missing Context
The claim omits several critical pieces of context:
The changes followed an independent review: The 457 visa reforms were based on recommendations from an independent four-person panel that conducted a four-month review with 189 submissions from stakeholders [1]. This was not a unilateral government decision.
The review found no widespread rorting: The independent review found no evidence to support Labor's claims of widespread rorting of the scheme [1].
English requirements were not abolished: The changes modified how English competency was assessed (averaging method) but maintained minimum standards. The government explicitly stated this provided "flexibility" not a "consequential lowering" of standards [2].
Labour market testing was retained: Despite the review recommending its abolition, the government kept labour market testing for 457 visas, referring it to a ministerial advisory council for further consideration [2].
Gillard government had previously cracked down on 457s: The 457 visa program had been introduced by the Howard government in 1996 [4]. In 2013, the Gillard Labor government had implemented its own crackdown on the program, claiming temporary visa numbers had outstripped employment growth [1].
Source Credibility Assessment
The original source (Sydney Morning Herald) is a mainstream, reputable Australian news outlet. However, the article from January 2015 appears to have conflated the separate discussion paper proposal about short-term visas with the actual 457 visa reforms. The SMH article's headline and framing created confusion between:
- A proposal for a new short-term visa category (12 months, without 457 requirements)
- Actual changes to the existing 457 visa program
This conflation appears to have been seized upon by the claim's source (mdavis.xyz) to suggest the Coalition was dramatically loosening 457 visa requirements when the actual implemented changes were more modest and retained key safeguards.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
The 457 visa program itself was introduced by the Howard Coalition government in 1996 [4], not by Labor. However, both major parties have modified the program significantly:
Labor's approach to 457 visas:
In 2013, the Gillard Labor government implemented a significant crackdown on the 457 program, tightening rather than loosening requirements. The Coalition's 2015 changes were partly framed as a response to what they characterized as Labor's "unnecessary regulation" that attempted to "suffocate the program" [1].
Labor governments (both federally and in states) have historically used temporary skilled migration programs similar to 457 visas, and Labor state governments have also supported skilled migration when it suited their economic needs. The 457 visa program saw record-high numbers during the 2012-13 financial year under the Gillard government, with 126,350 visas issued [4].
Comparative analysis:
The Coalition's changes to English requirements in 2015 were relatively modest (averaging 5 vs. minimum 5 in each component). Labor had similarly adjusted requirements during their time in office. Both parties have adjusted skilled migration settings based on economic conditions and political pressures from unions and business groups.
The key difference is that Labor positioned itself as tougher on 457 visas for political reasons (particularly with union support), while the Coalition positioned itself as more business-friendly. However, both governments maintained the fundamental structure of the program.
Balanced Perspective
The claim presents a misleading picture of the Coalition's 2015 457 visa reforms by conflating a discussion paper proposal (short-term mobility visa) with actual implemented changes to the 457 program.
What actually happened:
- The government commissioned an independent review of the 457 program
- The review found no widespread rorting (contradicting Labor's claims)
- The government adopted most recommendations but explicitly retained labour market testing
- English requirements were modestly relaxed (averaging method) but not abolished
- A separate discussion paper proposed a short-term visa category (unrelated to 457s)
The government's stated rationale:
The Coalition argued the changes would "reduce regulation at the same time as it strengthens the integrity" of the program [2]. Business groups like the Australian Industry Group endorsed the response as "balanced" [2]. The government maintained that an "effectively managed temporary labour-migration program will not threaten Australian jobs" [3].
Union concerns:
The ACTU (Australian Council of Trade Unions) strongly opposed the proposals, arguing they would "erode working conditions and allow employers to bypass labour market testing" [3]. They linked the proposals to youth unemployment concerns.
Key context: The claim inaccurately suggests the Coalition abolished English tests and labour market testing for 457 visas. In reality, English tests were modified (not abolished) and labour market testing was explicitly retained despite recommendations to remove it.
MISLEADING
4.0
out of 10
The claim conflates two distinct policy items: (1) a discussion paper proposal for a short-term mobility visa with different requirements, and (2) actual implemented changes to 457 visas. The claim inaccurately states that the Coalition proposed allowing 457 visa holders to work without English tests or labour market testing. In fact, the 457 visa program retained both requirements - English testing was modified (averaging 5 rather than minimum 5 in each component) but not abolished, and labour market testing was explicitly retained despite a review recommendation to remove it. The "12 months without 457 visa requirements" element refers to a separate proposed visa category, not a "loosening" of the 457 program itself. The framing creates a misleading impression of dramatic deregulation that did not occur.
Final Score
4.0
OUT OF 10
MISLEADING
The claim conflates two distinct policy items: (1) a discussion paper proposal for a short-term mobility visa with different requirements, and (2) actual implemented changes to 457 visas. The claim inaccurately states that the Coalition proposed allowing 457 visa holders to work without English tests or labour market testing. In fact, the 457 visa program retained both requirements - English testing was modified (averaging 5 rather than minimum 5 in each component) but not abolished, and labour market testing was explicitly retained despite a review recommendation to remove it. The "12 months without 457 visa requirements" element refers to a separate proposed visa category, not a "loosening" of the 457 program itself. The framing creates a misleading impression of dramatic deregulation that did not occur.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (5)
-
1
sbs.com.au
Immigration Minister Scott Morrison has highlighted proposed changes to the 457 visa scheme, citing recommendations for abolishing labour market testing and relaxing English requirements.
SBS News -
2
abc.net.au
The Federal Government says it will reduce regulation at the same time as it strengthens the integrity of Australia's 457 skilled visa program.
Abc Net -
3
migrationalliance.com.au
With the Coalition government on the ropes with its leadership crisis, the ACTU has started flexing its muscle with a ‘scathing response’ to the government’s proposal to introduce the short-term mobility visa and relax 457 visa requirements, according to reports in The Guardian and The Sydney Morning Herald.Australian workers will lose out from a p...
Migrationalliance Com -
4
abc.net.au
After two decades and tens of thousands of visas, the 457 visa category has been abolished. But what was it and why does this matter?
Abc Net -
5
peakmigration.com.au
A raft of reforms were implemented to Subclass 457 - Temporary Work (Skilled) visas on 18 April 2015, including a reduction of English language ability required for other visa subclasses.
Peak Migration - Australian visas | citizenship
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.