House debates
Wednesday, 7 February 2007
Migration Amendment (Employer Sanctions) Bill 2006
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 6 February, on motion by Mr Robb:
That this bill be now read a second time.
upon which Mr Burke moved by way of amendment:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that:
- (1)
- the Government has failed for more than six years to introduce sanctions for employers who employ unlawful non-citizens and individuals with work restrictions, despite a 1999 Government commissioned inquiry recommending it do so;
- (2)
- the bill fails to address the need for higher penalties for employers who are repeat offenders under the legislation; and
- (3)
- the legislation’s bar on employer culpability may be too low, the reference to ‘the person knows that, or is reckless as to whether, the worker is an unlawful non-citizen’ is sufficiently reserved that it may prove difficult to successfully bring sanctions against an employer”.
9:32 am
Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
In summing up this debate, I thank the members who have contributed to the second reading discussion on the Migration Amendment (Employer Sanctions) Bill 2006. This bill addresses the government’s long-held concerns about those who seek to work illegally in Australia. Illegal work causes a number of problems for the Australian community. It takes job opportunities away from Australian citizens and from lawful migrants. The cost of protecting illegal workers is an unwelcome burden on the Australian taxpayer. Very importantly, some illegal work is linked to organised crime, particularly within the sex industry. The trafficking of people, particularly women and children, is a despicable crime. The government is determined to deal with anyone who knowingly participates in this kind of criminal activity, including employers who seek to exploit the victims of trafficking.
Despite the continued success of our immigration compliance activities, the government believes that additional statutory reforms are required. Experience has shown that there must be some method of imposing sanctions on the small number—and it is a small number—of employers and labour suppliers who deliberately engage or refer illegal workers. The bill introduces fault based criminal offences. Proposed offences will only be committed where the employer or labour supplier knew the person was an illegal worker or was reckless as to that fact. This ensures that the focus is on the employers and labour suppliers who are of concern to the government, without imposing any additional burden on businesses generally.
This bill also introduces higher penalties for offences where aggravating circumstances are present. These circumstances arise where the illegal worker is being exploited through forced labour, slavery or sexual servitude.
A number of members have suggested that not enough is being done to prevent 457 visa holders from being exploited. The offences in this bill will help, in fact, to reinforce existing sanction arrangements. For example, where an employer moves a 457 visa holder into a low-skilled or semiskilled position, the offence in clause 245AC of allowing a noncitizen to work in breach of their visa conditions may be committed. I also recently announced the government’s intention to introduce a sanction regime for employers who breach their sponsorship undertakings for subclass 457 and related visas.
In summary, this bill addresses some very serious issues in Australia. However, it strikes the right balance by ensuring that only those employers and labour suppliers who are of genuine concern to the Australian people will be caught by these offences. I commend the bill to the House.
Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Watson has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.