Carmen Lawrence (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to commend the recommendations of the committee to the government as sensible, moderate and affordable, and I hope that they do not meet the same fate as some previous inquiries’ recommendations. One of the things that comes out of the committee and demands further investigation is the abuse of 457 visas. I draw attention to this problem because of the government’s apparent refusal to refer the 457 visa scheme to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee for investigation and because of recent reports of further abuses of the 457 visa. I think it is vital that all aspects of the temporary skilled migration process come to light in way one or another.

The impact of 457s on the Australian community has been hotly debated, and rightly so, but the debate usually centres on the use of temporary labour to drive down wages—the gazetted pay rate for temporary skilled workers is often below the market rate, as we have heard—and on the existence of an experienced temporary workforce that could reduce the incentive to train Australians. These are very important issues and deserve the attention of this parliament.

But what has received little coverage or debate is the plight of the foreign workers themselves and the kind of behaviour that Australian employers are engaging in towards their non-Australian employees. The first thing that should be noted is that, while the Howard government has talked up the importance of migrants learning English for assimilation purposes, there is no requirement for workers coming into Australia under the 457 visa scheme to have any functional let alone vocational English—and that certainly came to light in the committee’s investigations. DIMA, indeed, was unable to tell our committee how the possession of adequate English language skills for 457 visa applicants and others was assessed. As a consequence, the committee recommended that a minimum standard of vocational English should be required and that DIMA be required to specify precisely how language proficiency is to be assessed and subject such processes to independent evaluation.

I think all of us in this parliament are aware of recent reports of a construction site where none of the Chinese workers could speak English, read safety signs or follow emergency procedures. This is surely alarming, particularly for the workers themselves. The fact that many temporary workers have no English raises the issue of whether they understand their rights and their employer’s obligations—and, indeed, whether they are open to being exploited.

A case has come to my attention of a Korean family living in my electorate who were induced into coming to Australia by their prospective employer promising them permanent residency—as many of them are. On arrival, the husband was paid much less than originally promised and was frightened into silent compliance by a fellow countryman being sacked by the same employer after he complained about his working conditions. This family have no English and my office needs to use a translator to communicate with them. They have four children, one of whom is an epileptic and requires constant medical care. Whilst this family understood that it was their responsibility to take out private medical insurance to cover their stay, no-one explained to them that there is a one-year waiting period before they can make a claim. They are now experiencing great difficulty in paying for medication, as the husband’s wages are fixed for the contract period. Neither do they understand how the school system works, at what ages their children can enrol and how to go about enrolling them. They were not eligible for any government sponsored English lessons, and the only way they were getting by was with the assistance of a concerned neighbour. These are serious problems.

The husband, the breadwinner, did not know how to approach his employer to ask about his conditions of employment. He had seen many colleagues scared into submission and was not about to jeopardise the future of his family in order to question his wages and work conditions. The family had sold everything in Korea for the promise of a life in Australia. They live in the hope that they can secure a new sponsor, which is why I am not naming the family at this stage—I do not want to jeopardise their future.

The family were told that if they had to return to Korea they would have to fund their own expenses. While it is the employer’s obligation to ensure that the cost of travel for an employee to return to their home country is met, DIMA has advised my office that there is no way it can actually enforce this obligation. Furthermore, it said that, if the government were forced to pay for these airfares, the employee and not the employer would have a debt to the Commonwealth, which the employee would have to pay if they ever wanted to return to Australia. It is a catch-22 situation.

This raises the issue of whether the government is serious in treating employer noncompliance with visa conditions, including the question of whether the employee can speak English in the first place. All that can happen is that, if a business does not comply with its visa obligations, the department may—and I underline ‘may’—prevent the employer from sponsoring or nominating any other employees, cancel the business sponsorship agreement, cancel the visas of employees and consider any previous noncompliance. But it is my understanding that they can do little to enforce these provisions.

In Western Australia, allegations of breaches of workplace relations laws are referred to the state Department of Consumer and Employment Protection. According to the department, in 2004-05 it investigated 36 allegations that employers failed to pay temporary skilled migrants their full entitlements and found that nearly 78 per cent of the investigated employers were in breach of their obligations to the tune of nearly a quarter of a million dollars. These breaches included employers not having paid appropriate superannuation and giving misleading information on living and working conditions. If these employees had been able to speak or understand English— (Time expired)

See this speech in context