John Forrest (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is fascinating to be part of the discussions that occur in this chamber. I have a different point of view from that of the member for Gorton. I presume that he is speaking of industries other than the one which I am most concerned about, and that is horticulture. I am not the least bit fazed by the fact that the government has hastened steadily with the introduction of the Migration Amendment (Employer Sanctions) Bill 2006.

The pre-preparation and discussion of this bill has caused me enormous angst, over the five or six years during which it has been considered, on behalf of my employer growers in horticulture. The bill has been the subject of formal discussions and consultation over that period, since the review of illegal workers was conducted in 1999. This was a study to assess the problems associated with illegal workers in Australia, and its purpose was to investigate ways to curb the abuse of Australia’s visa system by not-work-entitled visitors.

A report was prepared by a committee which was chaired by the former member for Riverina, Mr Noel Hicks. I expressed a little disappointment at the time, because one of the recommendations was to introduce a system of sanctions against employers to act as a disincentive. My horticulturalists were horrified. It was hard enough for them to attract and find the labour they needed to extract their precious crops, and it was a nightmare for them to try to establish who was lawfully entitled to work and who was not. It was beyond them. I was one of many members who were urging the then minister, now the Attorney-General, to hasten steadily with the introduction of a bill which would include significant sanctions against those employers who were not able to work their way through establishing who was legal and who was not. The prospect of finding that they might face penalties and sanctions for mistakenly employing an illegal worker did not appeal to them at all.

I opposed the introduction of this bill for many years. I felt that much more needed to be done to assist employers with the task of confidently identifying who was entitled to work before this very significant step was taken. After all, at that time, unlawful noncitizens who worked in Australia did commit an offence under section 235 of the Migration Act. Although it was difficult, it was possible to prosecute employers using ancillary provisions of the legislation. So I argued that we needed to proceed with caution and not undo some of the valuable work that was being done to break through the problems that horticulture, in particular, has in identifying illegal workers.

I also felt that there needed to be a greater emphasis on education of employers, and I am grateful that this has been done. In fact, a great deal has been done. So whilst I have been very reluctant to support the need for this bill, and I have actually resisted it through the course of two former ministers—one I have already mentioned and latterly the former Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Vanstone—and now a new minister, I am grateful that they did listen. They consulted widely and have produced a bill which seems to meet the expectations of a broad section of the Australian community.

In November 2000, the then Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs introduced initiatives to stop illegal workers. These included a new work rights telephone information line with a faxback facility which provides advice on whether an individual is eligible to work. My growers inform me that this is an excellent service and it gives them a great deal of comfort. There is also an employer awareness program including information kits for employers. These are the sorts of things that I said needed to be done before the introduction of a tough bill like this one.

There was an announcement foreshadowed in 2001 that a graded system of sanctions would be introduced, and this has driven the discussion and process ever since. My growers and their farming associations have taken a keen interest in it. As the member for Gorton mentioned, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs have been issuing warning notices. It is sad that over the years, particularly last year, a number of these notices came to growers in my constituency. Over the same period, DIMA have also been conducting an intensified and systematic program of raids on properties suspected of employing illegal workers. This has created an acute awareness of the issue in my electorate along the Murray Valley.

Over the years I have expressed considerable anxiety over the method of these raids and the systematic arrogance which has been very much a characteristic of DIMA in the past. In fact, at one stage, I publicly lamented that DIMA was a department that was completely out of control. Most departmental people listening to my contribution here will be aware of my past views. Things have changed for the better of late, but I still believe that this comment was justified then, given the subsequent findings of the Palmer report on the behaviour of DIMA. Thankfully, many of Palmer’s recommendations have now been put in place and this level of arrogance has abated.

I mention this because it has been a very significant factor in my reluctance to agree to legislation like that which we are discussing today. I simply did not have the faith that DIMA would use such a powerful tool sensitively when it came to dealing with my horticultural growers. I realise, and so do they, that the use of non-legal labour is as much an issue in other industries and that it is not just contained in horticulture. I suspect the member for Gorton was referring to other sectors. I realise it is very much an issue in tourism, in the restaurant trade and in other industries that I do not care to mention. But my interests have always been with my horticulturalists, the ones who charge me to represent their interests in this place—the vegetable growers and the grape, citrus and stone fruit industries that contribute so much to the economy and to the region I represent.

For years it has been a desperate struggle for them to attract the labour they need to harvest, pack, prune and irrigate their crops. Let us face it: come harvest time when they have a whole year’s income of sensitive product hanging on a vine or a tree, it is arms and legs they need to get their crop off to market as quickly and as expeditiously as possible. The lack of labour and impending bad weather can often cause them to take enormous risks. With few measures to help them to accurately identify legal workers, the risk is high—or was high—and they could inadvertently have made mistakes. A too-early introduction of this legislation would have seen them disadvantaged substantially. In the early days of discussion of this bill, there did not seem to be a great deal of sympathy for this fact. I am pleased to recognise that some of this has changed, and a great number of programs have been introduced to assist horticulture to meet the demands for labour, particularly during the harvest season. Much has been done on the harvest supply issue. The coordination of a national harvest labour trail, funded substantially by this government, the increased source of approved backpacker visas and a greater sensitivity to the needs of growers all cause me to now be more relaxed about the introduction of this bill. I say to my growers that we have had ample time to educate ourselves and we have had ample time to have our input, but it is now time to have certainty put in place so that we can ensure that all the valuable work that has been done will continue.

It is still very much an issue, of course, in my electorate and very much one of the influencing factors as to why I have taken a different position from others on immigration matters. The ready labour market available in the Murray Valley means that we are a natural magnet, attracting people of the nature we are discussing today. That is evident simply by walking down the main streets of some of my communities of Robinvale, Mildura or Swan Hill and observing the multicultural nature of the people who are assisting with our crops. Whilst there was no way that I would have supported the bill in its original form—and I did say so—I was not trying to be deliberately difficult. I had genuine problems with it, but I am comfortable enough to say that I support it.

I would like to commend the former Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs minister, Senator Vanstone, who has been very responsible and consulted widely, particularly with the National Farmers Federation and its Victorian subsidiary, the Victorian Farmers Federation, as well as government members who represent these industries in this place. I commend her willingness to do this consultation and I recommend to the new minister that he continue that trend. I am now satisfied that there are enough safeguards in the bill to prevent growers being charged or unintentionally using illegal workers in the harvest season. It is beholden on the government to continue to do more, though. The demand continues, because there is just so much development occurring in the Murray Valley that demand continues to grow and grow. It is measured in the thousands, particularly around Sunraysia, Robinvale and Swan Hill.

To be quite frank, this issue has caused me to be a great supporter of the introduction of a form of identitification facility. It would overcome a lot of the challenges. Many of our competitor countries have a formal identity process in place. In fact, towards the end of last year on a visit to Malaysia, I was briefed on the health smartcard and identity card utilised in that country. I just do not understand the resistance of Australians to the introduction of such a facility. However, that is a debate for another occasion, and I hope that one day soon it will be an issue that we might have the courage to discuss in this place. It would certainly make life a lot easier for my growers. ‘No ID, no work’ would make their decision simple.

There is also a very significant change that has occurred with regard to the supply of labour in horticulture which now reinforces the need for this legislation. Many growers have become tired of the anxiety of determining who is eligible to work—as well as all the other associated challenges to do with finding labour—and they have resorted to the use of contractors to supply their labour. They need make only one phone call to a contractor to engage, say, 50 or 100 workers, be they pickers or pruners, which saves them the worry of determining eligibility on an individual basis. At the completion of the work, the contractor is paid by the grower and it is the contractor’s responsibility for payment of individuals. The contractor also has all the other responsibilities associated with compliance, superannuation and the like. It could be that these are the style of people the member for Gorton was referring to. This has become an ever-increasing trend and provides my horticultural growers with a great deal of peace of mind. Sadly, however, I hear many reports that some of these contractors do not do the right thing by the individuals they have engaged with regard to payment of their proper wages and meeting some of their other responsibilities. It is a very sad reflection on them. I urge the department to pay particular attention to this, because I most vigorously and vociferously refute the allegations that this reflects on my growers. They grow stone fruit, grapes and vegetables. That is their speciality, and they produce excellent crops. To suggest that all they are after is cheap labour is completely unfair and I refute it intensely. They just want labour and they are prepared to pay the correct rates—in fact, even more—for it. In order to keep them, some growers go further in the payment of their rates when they see good people.

I think this is a message that DIMA has finally understood, as it has been a lot less judgemental of my growers latterly. So I am asking the department to be mindful of this when it gets to the stage of implementing the provisions this bill offers, and to keep its eye on the activities of contracted labour suppliers. Also, those contractors need to get the message loud and clear. After all, these sanctions are significant—and I fail to understand the nature of the amendment moved by the opposition alleging that they are not. They are substantial: up to five years imprisonment and the right to impose both financial and imprisonment terms. These are substantial fines, and my growers find this appalling. The message to those contractors is: be warned. To the department, I continue to say: be mindful of the needs of growers and continue to do more to assist those who do not use labour contractors to identify legal workers. Be aware that I will continue to take a dim view if any of the habits of the past are revisited in my electorate.

There has been a huge amount of discussion on this bill. As a result, I believe we have incorporated enough balance to ensure inadvertent mistakes are not cause for penalties to apply. In fact, I note there have been some suggestions that the bill has been so watered down as to be of little use—that I refute. I think it will be useful. To this I simply say: let us get it in place and see how it operates. If in the future it can be demonstrated that stronger measures are still needed then let us consider them then. In the meantime, I congratulate the former ministers on their willingness to consult and their recognition of the need for balance and of the needs of my horticultural growers. I also congratulate them for their willingness to listen to the growers and to the members in this place who represent them. I believe that balance has been achieved, and I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context