House debates
Wednesday, 12 August 2015
Private Members' Business
Baiada Poultry's Employment Practices
11:20 am
Laurie Ferguson (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source
Earlier speakers have referred to the failure of the government to provide speakers to deplore the abuse of these people or, indeed, to defend the minister, who is operating the system of subclass 400 visas which is facilitating this abuse.
However, one government member has certainly gone on the record. One has to wonder whether it is because of local pressure and media coverage and whether she actually intends to do anything in regard to lobbying the minister, who seems more intent on protecting the big end of town in Shanghai than protecting Australian workers. The member for Gilmore recently commented—and I think she has belled the cat—that, 'I believe companies should advertise extensively in Australia before being allowed to employ anyone under a 457 visa.' She was responding to the exposure of a situation in Manildra, where $400,000 has been recovered by the CFMEU. The workers, after a full year, earned $14,000. They worked 10 or 11 hours a day, six to seven days a week, paid $13,800 for board and lodging and $8,000 for transport and food, and there were, of course, importantly, no safety instructions in Chinese. The contracts were not even located in Australia. Independent scrutiny by Australian investigators could not be undertaken because the contracts were not available. As I say, there were no instructions in Chinese. There is no investigating unit within the department of immigration to actually look into the way in which these various subclass 400 visas are being utilised, and there is, of course, a government which is on the verge of trying to further widen this through trade deals and to undermine the need to inspect, the need to have skills or the need to have English.
In the same manner that we see with Baiada, a family who enjoy a comfortable lifestyle in leafy Castle Hill, we see the same thing on a broader expanse in this country. There is Australia Post, whose manager earns a mere $4.8 million a year and, through taxpayers' money or operations money, can put 96 people on planes to the London Olympics at a cost of $2.5 million. He still runs an operation where we have seen, in the last few weeks, revelations that, despite the fact that Australia Post supposedly ensures that its contract prices cover paid superannuation, penalty rates and holiday pay, a variety of students were not receiving that from the contractors. This is the important point. These so-called labour market or labour hire companies are just a subterfuge by these large Australian corporations—whether it is Baiada, whether it is Australia Post, whether it is various building construction companies—to basically escape their responsibilities and say, 'Oh, it's nothing to do with us. We didn't know anything about this. We have basically relied on these companies. They are decent people' et cetera. At the end of the day, they are doing it to ensure a lower cost structure for themselves. It reached a stage with these contractors in Australia Post that one person had 30 bundles of mail at his house because he had to sort them out in his own time. There is another other thing that is happening—I am having it myself— and that is mail being undelivered by contractors because (a) they have limited English or (b) they have not got enough time to deliver. These students with Australia Post had reached a stage where, despite the restriction of working only 20 hours a week, they were basically compelled by the contractor-employer to work full time. That is another question that has really got to be asked of the minister for immigration: what is going on with these student visas?
To return to Baiada, another disturbing aspect of this issue was the role of the Mayor of Griffith who pronounced himself to be a 'friend of Baiada'. Mr John Dal Broi was very prompt to say that it was understandable that the Ombudsman was not allowed access to the factory because even he, as a friend, on occasion had been denied admission because of biosecurity, and said it was 'preposterous', because of the hours at which these people were working, to think that they might be able to facilitate inspection visits. Despite his friendship, his own council in Griffith had closed down a house where 20 people were living.
So it is not only the wages; it is not only the conditions; it is the sexual exploitation of people; it is the overcrowding; it is the cutting them off from contact with the wider society; it is the making sure that they have no rights of access or appeal. So I very much commend this resolution from the member.
Debate adjourned.
No comments