Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Before I come to my contribution on the Migration Amendment (Employer Sanctions) Bill 2006, I would like to take the opportunity to correct a comment made by the member for Canning. He is not alone in this; it is made quite regularly by members on the opposite side in purporting to put the argument that this side of the House opposes 457 visas. That is a complete misrepresentation of the position that Labor have pursued for a long time. What we do oppose is the abuse of the 457 visa system. The government obviously agrees with us, because they have brought this bill before the House.

It is interesting that the member for Canning says that this bill is timely. I would say that it is more than overdue that we had the opportunity to address this bill before the House. I am very happy to contribute to this debate and to support the bill. It has taken a long time to finally come to this debate. My speech has had to have a number of revisions, as this bill has been constantly put off the agenda of the House.

It is, however, important to note for the record that while the Howard government has been willing to introduce legislation in a heartbeat to tackle asylum seekers floating towards us on leaky boats, the government has been very slow, dragging the chain, to impose sanctions on employers, labour suppliers and others who knowingly or recklessly employ illegal workers. The government was quick off the mark in early 2006 to appease the government of Indonesia when it expressed its displeasure at Australian officials following Australian law to grant asylum to 42 Papuans, but it has taken an extraordinary period of years to introduce this bill.

I asked the former Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, in a question on notice in August 2005—following an answer he provided to my colleague the member for Reid—why no employers have been prosecuted in relation to, firstly, people detained for working illegally and, secondly, people detained for overstaying. In October 2005, the former minister was kind enough to respond to my question by saying:

... there are no specific offences contained in the Migration Act 1958 under which employers can be prosecuted in relation to people detained for working illegally and people detained for overstaying.

This rather casual attitude was despite a report in 1999, Review of illegal workers in Australia: improving immigration compliance in the workplace, which concluded that there were significant problems associated with the numbers of illegal workers in Australia denying Australians access to jobs. The report found further that there was a significant additional burden placed on taxpayers in terms of cost compliance, tax avoidance and social security fraud. That 1999 report recommended that sanctions should be introduced against employers and labour suppliers who employed illegal workers. Here we are now in 2007—after eight years of inaction—and the government, which campaigned so ruthlessly on border protection, has finally found the time to bring this bill before the parliament.

Illegal work in Australia is no small problem. It is estimated that, as of December 2005, there were 46,000 overstayers in Australia. Of these, 26,200 have been in Australia unlawfully for more than five years. The vast majority of the 46,000 overstayers—or illegals—did not arrive by some leaky boat floating listlessly in the northern or north-west oceans. The vast majority slipped into Australia by getting off a plane. As indicated, 26,200 never bothered to hop back onto a return flight after five years.

This government has talked the talk on tough border protection and national security but it shirks the real, tough action or has had to be dragged reluctantly to act, as in the case of this bill. The number of illegal workers swells when one also accounts for those on visas who are in breach of visa conditions. Visa subclass 456 and subclass 457 are also being misused to get foreign workers into Australia. We heard of some examples only last year. These examples occurred, of course, post the introduction of the bill in 2005. The exploitation goes far beyond individual employers and extends to organised rackets. As the government’s own commissioned report concluded, these abuses have denied jobs to Australians but they have also burdened the taxpayer.

During the October 2004 election Labor proposed a number of initiatives to halt illegal foreign workers. Labor would have issued photo ID cards to nonresidents who had a visa that entitled them to work. Each card would have been linked to the cardholder’s passport, DIMA file and tax file number. The card would have detailed the person’s name, nationality, passport number and visa status and would have expired on the same date as the expiry of the visa. Labor would have required employers to check the card and would have introduced a very similar bill to the one we are debating today. This bill would, however, have been in place two years ago.

Last year, Labor made a series of announcements of measures to ensure that foreign unskilled workers could not be abused or exploited or deny Australians the opportunity of jobs and training. This bill finally proposes new offences that will deter employers and labour suppliers from employing illegal workers or referring them for work. It will also finally oblige employers and labour suppliers to verify the work entitlements of potential workers. The bill proposes new offences carrying criminal penalties of imprisonment for five years for serious offences and two years for other cases.

It is time for all employers and labour suppliers to do their part in complying with Australia’s migration system. It is only sad that we have to go to the point of imposing sanctions to get them to do so. It is long before time that we stand up for the majority of employers in Australia who do the right thing by complying with the law. The previous speaker, the member for Canning, spoke of many of those who legitimately and properly utilise the 457 visas, including state governments. In defence of employers who do the right thing, we should not turn a blind eye to those who are doing the wrong thing.

It is time that we stand up to the organised rackets, in particular, that are set up specifically to abuse and exploit illegal workers. Australia, of course, is not alone in trying to address this problem. Europe also has enormous numbers of illegal workers in the labour force, and for the last 12 months in the US there has been quite a controversial debate about illegal workers and what to do about them. Indeed, the debate in the US has been very interesting. In the US Congress a variety of policy positions have been advanced by both Democrats and Republicans in the House, in the Senate and even by the White House. Those interested in the debate should read an article in the November-December 2006 edition of Foreign Affairs, Immigration Nation: the case for reform.

Recently in following that debate I came across a story published in CQ Weekly on 14 March 2005. That article was titled ‘An uneasy deal with illegal workforce’. Essentially the article made very similar points to the government’s own 1999 report, to which I have already referred. The article quotes a Colorado Republican as saying:

Cheap labour is cheap to the employer, not the taxpayer.

It quotes a study by an investment bank and securities firm, Bear, Stearns and Co., in January 2005 suggesting that:

The US is simply hooked on cheap, illegal workers and deferring the costs of providing public services to these quasi-Americans.

The article goes on to say:

The key to survival for illegal immigrants is remaining anonymous.

They are reluctant to complain about sub-standard housing, or to report stolen property, an assault or an abusive spouse.

There is an example of a Hispanic woman with five children who paid $2,000 a head to a people-smuggler to leave Mexico for life in a trailer park in North Carolina. This woman earned $16,000 a year—about $8 an hour—plucking and cutting up chicken carcasses. According to the article, this woman lost her illegal job and was also diagnosed with kidney disease and a tumour on her liver. Apart from the challenge of recovering from these illnesses, this woman must now purchase a new identity and social security number for $1,500 to find new, low-paid work.

In this place I am sure we can all relate stories of visits to our office by illegal overstayers, who have been found out by the department, in search of assistance and advice on how to remain in this country. Some are happy to reveal that they have a job—or indeed jobs—a tax file number, have purchased a house, a car, perhaps even an investment property. They argue that they have worked hard and paid taxes. Many even suggest, which I find incredible, that they are being discriminated against, treated differently, by the Australian migration system. They have no particular answer when asked the question: ‘Why didn’t you apply like many thousands do each year to come through one of the migration streams?’

Illegal workers are often found in the so-called ‘3-D’ jobs—that is, dirty, dangerous and degrading; if not all three, at least one of those. Many are in precarious and unprotected work. Many people may like to dismiss this by suggesting that these particular illegal immigrants have only themselves to blame. They are here illegally after all. That may be the case for illegal workers who have fairly good jobs, as I described just a moment ago, but I have some sympathy for illegal workers in the 3-D jobs—low-paid, exploited and abused—whose real chance of survival is to remain quietly anonymous.

Not so long ago, in early 2001 at Helensburgh at the northern end of my electorate, eight Indian stonemasons were virtually imprisoned on a building site and were living, as the local paper, the Illawarra Mercury, reported at the time, in Third World conditions. The stonemasons were not illegal workers but were sponsored by the building proponents. They were paid, as a subsequent investigation concluded, $45 a month and a further $100 a week in Indian currency. They were not here for a week, a month or a year; they were here for three years, sponsored by the building proponents. Their existence and plight was only brought to public attention by a tip-off from the community at Helensburgh to the CFMEU and then the media.

As I indicated, these eight stonemasons were not in Australia illegally or working illegally; they were sponsored, and the sponsors exploited and abused them. They imprisoned them on the site, made them live in Third World conditions and paid them in an appalling manner. How many others here illegally are facing the same circumstances?

The International Labour Organisation suggests that between 10 and 15 per cent of migration today involves men and women entering and working in a host country without authorisation. Not all are unskilled. Many are in fact highly skilled and professional. We are concerned in Australia about the effect of the so-called brain drain—that is, skilled and professional Australians leaving to live and work overseas. Developing countries lose, according to the ILO, between 10 and 30 per cent of skilled workers and professionals. I am not suggesting that in these estimates all workers are illegal, but even a small fraction has to be assumed.

I can appreciate why many people from around the world wish to live and work in Australia. Despite our daily debates in this place, in our electorates and in the media, Australia is an excellent country in which to live and work. This is confirmed every year by international surveys by the United Nations and other international organisations.

Addressing the problem of illegal workers is no small task. It is complex and has many related policy links, including ours and other countries’ foreign aid and development assistance policies. It is not just about border protection and national security. It is not just about economics and jobs. It is not just about tax avoidance and social security fraud. It is not just about how illegal workers and those breaching visa conditions undercut Australian wages and conditions. In the final analysis, it is about the exploitation and abuse of women, men and children by organised rackets, particularly from developing countries. It is about sticking these people, although they are illegal entrants, into the dirty, dangerous and degrading jobs and leaving them there. It is about these people being conditioned to exploitation, abuse and low-paying jobs.

Illegal workers should not be here or anywhere else in the world. Some will say I am being idealistic; I think it is practical. While I am critical of the government for introducing this bill after years of neglect, I support it. Some employers and labour suppliers in Australia have escaped their obligation to uphold the law. This bill finally seeks to do something about it.

I notice that the new minister has in recent days been talking about increasing the level of observance of section 457 visa abuses, and I welcome that. It is simply frustrating that so often on this side of the House when we raise issues which we think are serious and which require a legislative response that position is ridiculed. It has happened on many occasions when we have raised concerns about the abuse of the 457 visa program. I am hopeful that through the introduction of this bill and the new minister’s comments in recent days the government will see that this is not about scoring points, saying that those of us on this side of the House oppose 457 visas or trying to pit the state Labor governments against the federal Labor opposition—that is a simplistic and pointless exercise. It is about the abuse of that system and the reality that for many people this form of abuse is not the sort of thing that any of us support—I am quite convinced that those on the other side of House are also committed to this.

We do not support people who are living and working in this country being abused in their workplaces in the ways that we have seen come to light in the media. In particular, we do not support the disgraceful payments that are made to them, the disgraceful conditions that they are made to live under, the false dream that is sold to them by these racketeers and then having our country be the one where they learn that even in the supposed developed world and advanced nations, where we take pride in treating people with respect, their experience can be what it is. Unfortunately, the only way we will really address that is to apply sanctions, and not simply have a review which says that employer can no longer utilise section 457 visas. That has not been sufficient. The evidence shows that. It has sadly taken too long to get here. But it is here and it is time that we took action to ensure that those experiences no longer occur in our community. I commend the bill.

See this speech in context