Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Worker Protection) Bill 2008. I will start by asking: where are the regulations that should be part of this legislation? Is the government planning to introduce such onerous or costly regulations that Australian employers will not seek to employ 457 visa holders, compromising productivity and growth? I want to speak on the impacts and issues affecting my electorate of Forrest in the south-west of Western Australia. The south-west is one of the fastest growing and most diverse and dynamic regions in Australia, with a gross regional product in excess of $6.9 billion. The south-west also has one of the most diverse regional economies in Western Australia, with abundant mineral deposits, processing and export, excellent agricultural soils, access to some of the best-quality water in Australia, hardwood forests, and substantial manufacturing, construction, commercial, retail, fishing and tourism industries. As with other key regions of Western Australia, the south-west has been a driver of the booming state economy.

It is a matter of record that the coalition government’s policies assisted an additional two million Australians into employment, with well over 10.6 million Australians in work—a record high. The unemployment rate in Australia was 4.3 per cent in October 2007—a 33-year low. Over 7.6 million Australians are in full-time employment, and three million in part-time work. And in spite of the impact of the global financial crisis, the impact of decisions by this government that have made the financial situation worse—the proposed emissions trading scheme, the mandatory renewable energy targets—the impact of Alcoa shelving their $2.2 billion expansion plans at Wagerup, the impact of the Varanus gas explosion in the south-west and the challenges facing the LNG industry and investment potential, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Western Australia maintains that the Western Australian economy will grow by 5.5 per cent this financial year. That is a phenomenal growth projection considering the current circumstances, and it is a practical indication of the continuing need for workers.

In WA Business News on 13 November, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry WA Chief Executive, James Pearson, said:

… let’s remember that right now we still need workers in WA. We’ll get them from other states if we can, but we need them both permanently and temporarily from overseas.

In spite of falling demand and slowing growth, there is still a demand for skilled and unskilled workers. In my electorate of Forrest, overseas workers have proven to be a lifeline for many businesses of all sizes where local skilled labour could not be sourced to fill the significant vacancies. Unemployment fell from six per cent in 1999 to three per cent in 2007, and parts of my electorate had just over two per cent unemployment during the same period. In this tight employment environment, 457 visa holders have played a key role in regional businesses, particularly in recent years when the historic workforce has taken up highly paid, fly-in fly-out positions in the mining sector in the north-west of the state. In my region, overseas workers were the last resort for many businesses trying to maintain or increase capacity.

There were 360 457 visas granted in the 2007-08 financial year in the south-west. They were across all areas of business. There were 90 in construction, 50 in health care and social assistance, 50 in manufacturing and 40 in accommodation and food services—just to mention the major categories. One local business in my electorate has had no option but to use 457 visa holders. I visited the business in 2007 and it employs 800 people across Australia—heavy-duty mechanics, heavy equipment operators, truck drivers, welders and administration staff. The proprietor said to me: ‘I’d really like to employ local workers, but where are they? They have all gone off to the mines. They sure aren’t queuing up to work here.’ He offered me the keys to the workers’ bus and said, ‘You go and round up anyone you can find to work here and I’ll employ them.’

That company had no choice but to use 457 visa holders. It put in place a specific process to manage and integrate the workers into the workforce and the local community. A consultant was used in the process. The interviews of tradespeople were taped in the workers’ country of origin. After being assessed for English language and comprehension, the company arranged and provided remuneration and support infrastructure. The 457 visa holder and their family were also encouraged to become involved in their local community through schools and other organisations. Basic support is provided at nominal cost to not create problems with local employees; however, weekly English lessons were provided free of charge. Language, health and safety are vital to the company and the employees. The company has had a comprehensive review without any problems.

I am concerned for this company and other companies having to employ 457 visa holders because as yet we have not seen the regulations on the obligations of sponsorship—something we will need to scrutinise when they are finally tabled. The April discussion paper refers to regulation considerations of potential new payment obligations for the employer. It will be interesting to see whether these obligations will discourage potential sponsor employers from sourcing 457 workers. One option contained in the discussion paper is that sponsors will pay all medical costs, either through insurance or direct payment, including medical costs where the insurance company refuses to pay. The obligation for employers to pay the medical costs of their sponsored visa holder and all family members even when the insurance company refuses to pay will preclude employers from sourcing 457 workers. I have a very current and practical demonstration of this.

An abattoir in my electorate had a very hard time finding employees. This is the same company whose labour agreement with the government has taken over seven months to approve. This company continues to need skilled workers. The company representatives were travelling overseas to appraise workers to ensure they qualified as claimed. One meatworker was sponsored to work in the abattoir. He brought his family with him. The abattoir carried the required insurance; however, a family member of the sponsored worker was out of Australia when he was involved in a serious motor vehicle accident. Tragically, he became a paraplegic and now requires around-the-clock care. The worker approached his sponsor and indicated that he needed to claim the medical expenses on his insurance. As the accident occurred out of the country, the insurance company denied all liability. The department of immigration has said that the company is liable, regardless of whether the insurance company is liable.

The cost of having the patient stay in permanent care is, according to the company, amounting to approximately $50,000 per month. The sponsor could not have done any more to ensure the security of his worker and his family. The fact that a business can be liable when the insurance company does not accept the claim will be too great a risk for employers. There may well be other instances where insurance companies refuse to pay claims—for example, a drink driver involved in an incident that causes injury may well be outside the conditions of the insurance contract.

This further exposes a very serious problem with the bill itself—the fact that there are no regulations accompanying it, no details, no certainty or clarity for employers or 457 workers. What will the regulation on such insurance and liability issues be? When the regulations are eventually provided they will be retrospective. Given the experience of the business in my electorate I have no doubt the lack of regulations poses an unacceptable serious risk for them and other employers from a government clearly unable to provide the required regulations at the time of introducing the bill. What additional compliance and monitoring will be included in the regulations when they are finally provided? What additional impediment to productivity and growth will these impose on businesses? I do not want to see this program made any more difficult for my local businesses. There are other aspects of the 457 program that I am waiting to see in the regulations.

Truck drivers have recently been removed from the 457 visa list. They are no longer considered sufficiently or adequately skilled to meet the criteria. I tell you what: I seriously dispute this—and in fact I dispute it vigorously. Truck drivers are extremely skilled workers. Just look at the demand in the mining sector for experienced heavy vehicle operators. Excluding truck drivers as skilled workers indicates the government clearly does not value, respect or understand the transport industry. How many unskilled workers could safely and efficiently operate a three-trailer, 130-tonne road train or a 42-tonne semi or a 65-tonne B-double combination? Truck drivers are highly skilled operators. They have to know how to handle weight safely. If you speak to the good truck drivers they will tell you it is an enormous skill to be able to load in a safe manner and manage the weight. People’s lives and the driver’s own life are at risk.

The driver also has to know the road rules and rules governing heavy vehicles and to have a working mechanical knowledge of the vehicle. Usually he or she needs to be a combination of a heavy-duty mechanic—a bush mechanic at least—an auto electrician, a manager with organisational skills and a person who has knowledge of duty of care and fatigue management. Overall, I would say broad knowledge and skills are needed—all of this, yet the government have removed truck drivers from the skilled worker list on the 457 program.

The 457 program has been a success in my electorate as it has in many different employment sectors. However, the failure of the government to provide confidence and clarity through well structured regulations clearly defining the obligations for those currently using or needing to use the 457 scheme is the weakness of this bill and I will be scrutinising the regulations closely when they are finally tabled in the House.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak in support of the Migration Legislation Amendment (Worker Protection) Bill 2008. ‘Worker protection’ is not a phrase that was heard much in this place in the 11 years prior to the election of the Rudd Labor government—or to be more specific, not heard from the previous occupants of the government benches. That, thankfully, has changed. Already this week we have seen the Fair Work Bill being debated in the House, a bill which will nail closed once and for all the coffin of the previous Liberal government’s Work Choices. It will erase, it will cleanse, it will put a stake in the heart of those very poor laws that we are seeking to replace—with the support, I might add, of those in the opposition who were Work Choices cheerleaders just a scant year ago. The Fair Work Bill delivers the government’s election promises set out in the policy, Forward with Fairness. In fact, the reason this is relevant to the legislation which I am supporting today is that the new laws will swing the workplace pendulum back to the middle where it belongs and where Australians want it to be. The government’s new fair and balanced workplace relations system has enterprise bargaining at its heart to drive productivity. The laws are about bargaining in good faith at the enterprise level, underpinned by a fair and decent safety net of employment conditions. This is good for employers, good for employees and good for the economy.

The importance of resolving fair work laws in Australia is that no scheme involving the use of temporary skilled workers can ever be well founded if the safety net for Australian workers is in fact not working—and therefore the Fair Work Bill is inextricably linked to the proper operation of the use of people on temporary visas working here. Indeed, the bill in question today, the Migration Legislation Amendment (Worker Protection) Bill 2008, is another significant step towards ensuring that all workers in Australia, whether local or overseas workers, have the protection that is their right in an Australian workplace.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be aware that the former government introduced the temporary business long-stay subclass 457 visa in 1996 in order to—to quote the excellent Bills Digest on the subject:

… rationalise arrangements for the “temporary entry of business people and highly qualified specialists, to simplify procedures, and to introduce a degree of self-regulation for certain employers of holders of Subclass 457 visas.”

But did it live up to this high-minded purpose? I am sad to report that the outcome was the contrary. My former colleagues in the union movement, as well as my current colleagues in the government, and I grew increasingly concerned about the former government’s 457 visa system as instances of abuse and exploitation mounted up. We heard story after story of a worker being brought to Australia on a 457 visa to do one job only to find another, lesser job waiting. Frequently the guest workers would be charged premium rent to share poor accommodation with any number of others in the same position. In fact, many of our temporary guests, far from being paid what they were promised, were sometimes not even paid at all.

Instances of human rights abuses like these were, sadly, not rare. I refer to the cases cited in April 2007 by the then Labor spokesman for immigration, the member for Watson. He made it clear a Labor government would act on these egregious abuses. He said:

I want to stop … the situation where we saw a printing employee in Melbourne having to purchase a $42,000 job at a fee of $20,000 that came out of his pay over the course of twelve months in weekly deductions. Once he fully repaid the debt, at that moment his job was terminated under the new WorkChoices laws—

or the then Work Choices laws. The member for Watson continued:

I want to see the end of the situation of 40 Filipino welders in Goodna, in Queensland, where they were in a situation where they were being paid the legal rate. The legal rate was $20,000 less than the market rate in that part of Queensland—

thus effectively destroying the local labour market. He went on:

And they were in an accommodation deal for $175 a week rent.

As the member for Watson said, ‘It might sound like a reasonable rent,’ $175, except there were eight of them to a house and they were paying $175 per week each—not such a good deal for these people whom Australia needed and invited in as our skills shortage grew to crisis levels.

I have said before in the parliament that one of the major failures of the Howard government was its cavalier, ‘leave it alone’, ‘it’s not our problem’, ‘bother me later’ attitude towards our future prosperity, evidenced by its neglect of skills formation in Australia. The Skills Australia legislation introduced by the government earlier in the year will go a long way towards creating and boosting the education and Skills Australia needs to confront the productivity and workforce challenges facing us as a nation. Similarly, the raft of packages associated with our education revolution underlines our commitment to getting Australia back on the right track after years of neglect in this crucial area.

Australia, under the previous government, simply did not train enough new or existing workers to keep up with the demands on our economy and our workforce, leading to the very skills shortage which the temporary workers visa program was designed to address. And, indeed, there was a ghost army of domestic workers who were ignored, time and time and time again, in the 11½ years of the Howard government. On this International Day of People with Disability, I clearly am referring to people with disability, who experienced, under the Howard government, far greater unemployment and far lower levels of participation in the workforce than any other sector of the workforce. Indeed, in the 12 years of the Howard government, the number of those receiving the disability support pension exploded from 499,000 in March 1996 to over 700,000 by the time of the departure of the Howard government. And what was being done to employ these very capable people? Nothing. Instead, we saw the reach-for-the-trigger solution, which would see the push for a class of 457 workers, who were simply being exploited, rather than us simply investing in people with disabilities in Australia.

As I have put forward, and as we have heard previously, the old program allowed a minority—and, I stress, only a minority, but still, a minority who exist—of unscrupulous employers to abuse their workers and the system itself. ‘How was this allowed to happen?’ you might ask, Mr Deputy Speaker. ‘Where was the oversight?’ you might ask. ‘Where was the integrity of the program?’ For too many, too much was missing in action. Eventually, after rolling revelations, after being flooded with complaints, after constant lobbying and exposes by the trade unions and federal Labor, even the former member for Bennelong knew that something had to be done. There was even some legislation drafted. But the government had left it so late to offer these overseas workers some protection that they ran out of time and, in a short time, were run out of office.

The bill we are speaking to today will put teeth, integrity and grunt into the 457 visa process. It expands the powers to monitor and investigate possible noncompliance by sponsors. New inspectorial powers have been based on the Workplace Relations Act, and provide the power to enter workplaces if they believe there is a need to. Trained investigators will be allowed to inspect premises, interview anyone they feel is relevant, and to request and copy any pertinent documents. The bill introduces penalties, big penalties, for employers found to be in breach of their obligations. Breaches of sponsorship obligations can still lead to barring and cancelling, but will now be backed up by infringement notices and civil penalties of up to $33,000. The bill puts in place greater information-sharing amongst government agencies. For example, it will allow the Australian tax office to disclose to the department information relating to a visa holder, former visa holder, approved sponsor or former approved sponsor, in order to confirm what taxable salary is being paid to visa holders and ensure that they are being paid correctly, and it lays out defined sponsorship obligations for employers and other sponsors. Under this bill, the regulations may prescribe obligations that an approved sponsor must satisfy. These obligations will set out the time and the manner in which an obligation must be satisfied and, for the first time, obligations will be enforceable by law.

I know that most employers, the overwhelming majority, do the right thing by their employees—but there are scallywags out there, aren’t there? So this bill will allow an approved sponsor not to have to go through the whole sponsorship approval process again when they are seeking a variation to their sponsorship—less red tape, and more efficiency.

These are valuable and necessary changes to a system that is important to Australia. As our immigration minister has said, the temporary working visa scheme is only sustainable if the community is confident that overseas workers are not being exploited or used to undermine local wages and conditions. The Rudd government is committed to ensuring that the subclass 457 visa scheme operates as efficiently as possible in contributing to the supply of skilled labour while protecting the employment and training opportunities of Australians and the rights of overseas workers.

The changes outlined in the bill are not the end of the matter, either. The minister is currently considering longer-term reforms to the 457 visa program, considerations informed by Barbara Deegan’s excellent Visa Subclass 457 Integrity Review, handed down earlier this month. Barbara Deegan, a commissioner in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, consulted widely for her review and has made a number of recommendations aimed at strengthening the integrity of the temporary visa system. Those opposite, who sometimes scoff and jeer at consultation, should perhaps again watch the reruns from the ABC documentary The Howard Years. What a remarkable revelation some of the speakers in that are. We certainly have learnt from some of the former ministers of the Howard government of their disdain for consultation—and that disdain is nothing new. In fact, it would appear that the former Prime Minister often failed to consult his own cabinet before making important decisions. That may explain a great deal.

By contrast, we believe that by involving people on the ground—those within the system and without—we can get a much better understanding of what is required. One of Ms Deegan’s many recommendations is to abolish the minimum salary level in favour of market rates of pay for all temporary visa holders on salaries less than $100,000. From personal experience travelling throughout Australia and to many rural and remote work sites, looking at the market rate rather than the minimum salary level will at least protect the local labour market and conditions. After all, when CEOs from around the world receive salaries in Australia they do not quote the award rate—they quote the market rates in New York and London.

Ms Deegan has also recommended the development of an accreditation system, or a risk matrix, to ensure the rapid processing of low-risk visa applications so employers can meet skills needs quickly. She has recommended developing new lists setting out the skilled occupations for which temporary work visas can be granted. In addition, it is recommended that visa holders be limited to a stay of no longer than eight years in Australia while providing, most importantly, a pathway to permanent residency for those who have the required language skills.

These and Ms Deegan’s other recommendations are being considered by the Skilled Migration Consultative Panel made up of business and industry groups, state governments and unions. I for one look forward to seeing the minister’s proposals for further reforms next year. In the meantime, I am proud that this government has once more stepped in, stepped up, to protect the rights of workers to ensure they are free from abuse and neglect. All workers in Australia, wherever they come from and no matter what they do, deserve no less and I commend this bill to the House.

Maxine McKew (Bennelong, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Early Childhood Education and Child Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Migration Legislation Amendment (Worker Protection) Bill 2008. The Rudd government has committed to this $19.6 million package of migration measures over four years to improve and strengthen the integrity of Australia’s temporary worker visa program, the largest component of which is the 457 visa category. The worker protection bill is part of this package and addresses and corrects the problems with the program which were identified by the Rudd Labor government when in opposition.

The most recognisable of these problems was the well-publicised exploitation of overseas workers. The changes to the program implemented by the previous government attempted to manage the damage but failed to do so. This bill is part of the long-term reforms which will be developed in the 2009-10 budget process. These reforms promise to overhaul the temporary workers visa program, which has not been working effectively for overseas workers, for the Australian labour market or for employers.

Australia’s temporary worker visa program is an uncapped, demand-driven program dependent on employer sponsorship. Overseas skilled workers receive temporary employment for a period of up to four years in areas where there are skills shortages. It is important to note that the temporary worker visa program does not take jobs from Australian citizens. The Rudd government has addressed the longer-term issue of training and educating Australians by funding an ambitious initiative on workforce participation and productivity. This will provide for 630,000 new training places for Australians over a period of five years. However, the workforce participation and productivity initiative does not solve the immediate problem of skills shortages. The worker protection bill addresses this problem and assists employers to gain the skilled workers that they need now.

Australia is a nation built on immigration. Over 50,000 years ago Australia’s Indigenous people travelled across land and sea to these shores. Years later they were followed by the modern world and those whose actions against property and industry landed them a passage across the seas, transported as convicts. They were followed by the free, whose skills were welcomed as the supply and demand grew. The wool industry flourished during the 1820s and so too did the need for labour. Opportunities to make a fortune brought many throughout the gold rush era from 1851 through to 1860. During this period the first non-Anglo-Celtic migrants were the Chinese. These labourers and their need for supplies of all kinds drew other entrepreneurs and business people, filling the landscape with differences and diversity not dissimilar to those Australia experiences today.

The 1860s bought Melanesian labourers to work on the plantations in Queensland. A perceived imbalance in population resulted in deliberate attempts to attract women to Australia at the turn of the century. The mid-1900s brought Afghani, Pakistani and Turkish camel handlers, whose skills were essential to exploring Australia’s dry, flat interior. In the late 19th century we again turned seaward and the skills of Japanese pearl fishers were used to establish the pearling industry. After the two world wars, we saw Western and Eastern Europeans grace our shores—ex-servicemen, assisted passage recipients, labourers, farmers and refugees, the displaced and homeless and Australia’s first humanitarian entrants. They came then as they come now: to escape persecution, to rebuild their lives and to meet the demands of our industry for labour.

My electorate of Bennelong has many generations of migrants, both old and new. They are found working in hospitals and medical centres; in the industries of science, information technology and business; in restaurants and shops; and in factories and mines. They enhance our community and keep the Australian economy moving forwards. The ethnic diversity in Bennelong ensures that most regional cuisines are represented. Local community groups and community centres, such as the North Ryde community centre, keep a great number of wonderful traditions and cultures active and accessible to Bennelong constituents.

In 2007 the temporary worker visa program represented 66 per cent of Australia’s total migration program. The top source countries are the United Kingdom, India, the Philippines and the USA. The most commonly nominated occupations are computing professionals, registered nurses, GPs, and business and information professionals. However, in response to labour market needs over the last three years the demand for trade-level occupations has increased. This change has caused essential amendments to be made to Australia’s temporary worker visa programs. An extensive amount of research and investigation has been undertaken in developing the Rudd government’s package of migration measures.

In April this year the minister appointed Commissioner Barbara Deegan, a senior industrial commissioner, to review the industrial issues relating to the temporary worker visa program. Her report takes into consideration consultation with stakeholders. It is complemented by the work of an external reference group, which examined the temporary worker visa program from an industry perspective. Ms Deegan’s report is currently being reviewed by the Skilled Migration Consultative Panel, which comprises business and industry groups, unions and state governments. Based on the depth of these investigations, the panel is due to report its recommendations to the government early next year.

The Migration Legislation Amendment (Worker Protection) Bill 2008 is an important part of these reforms and is designed to improve protection of overseas workers, meet the genuine needs of the Australian labour market and protect its integrity, and restore public confidence in the temporary worker visa program. The Rudd government is committed to ensuring the effectiveness of this program. The key improvements offered by this bill include expanded powers to monitor and investigate possible non-compliance by sponsors. Inspectors of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship will be specially trained to monitor compliance. This will include the ability to conduct site visits and inspections, interview sponsor employers and employees, inspect and copy documentation as required and request the further production of documentation. Sponsors who fail to cooperate and provide requested information within the time period face imprisonment for up to six months. Alternatively, failures can incur a bar on or cancellation of sponsorship. Under the amendment, self-reporting is also required. Inspectors will have the power to investigate all matters relating to migration and workplace relations to ensure compliance by sponsors, and to protect workers rights and the integrity of the visa program.

The bill also introduces penalties for employers found in breach of their obligations. The amendments will include new civil penalty proceedings and infringement notices, which are designed to discourage non-compliance. Employers who fail to satisfy their obligations will have civil legal action taken against them through the Federal Court. The maximum penalties faced will be $6,600 for individuals and $33,000 for corporate bodies.

The bill also offers an improved sponsorship framework and better-defined obligations for employers and other sponsors. A significant aspect of this bill is that it provides a consistent approach to all temporary worker visas. Sponsors are compelled by law to comply but the introduction of a standardised sponsorship framework will simplify the process and create more flexible provisions for employers. This in turn also protects workers by obliging sponsors to take responsibility for them in a fair and reasonable way.

The bill addresses the issue of, and improves, information sharing for the first time. Immigration officials will now be able to check the tax records of employers and employees to ensure that correct wages are paid. This amendment facilitates a full exchange of information between overseas workers, sponsors and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. It also allows information sharing between other relevant state and territory government agencies. This model of interactive information sharing recognises the importance of communication between all parties.

In conclusion, as part of the Rudd government’s package of migration measures, the Migration Legislation Amendment (Worker Protection) Bill 2008 is an important part of the long-term reforms which are being developed. Essentially, this bill guarantees the effectiveness and integrity of the temporary worker visa program. It provides for greater protection for overseas workers, meets the needs of the labour market and restores public confidence in the program. It accomplishes this by: expanding powers to monitor and investigate; introducing new penalties for employers found to be in breach of their obligations; improving the sponsorship framework and creating standardised obligations; and facilitating a full exchange of information between workers, sponsors and the relevant government departments. I commend the bill to the House.

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with considerable pleasure that I rise to support the Migration Legislation Amendment (Worker Protection) Bill 2008. This bill, as the member for Bennelong has just said, represents a desperately needed response to some unacceptable behaviour by a small minority of employers in this country. It is a bill that unashamedly seeks to bring to account those in our community who have sought to exploit fellow human beings for profit. It is a bill that also seeks to preserve the integrity of Australian workers’ wages and conditions by ensuring that they are not undercut.

The bill’s objects are clear and concise. It puts in place a structure to clearly define sponsorship obligations. It allows for improved information sharing across all levels of government. It provides for improved powers for relevant authorities to monitor and investigate breaches by sponsors, and it provides penalties with teeth against those who seek to exploit the system. In short, this bill provides long-overdue protections for vulnerable migrant workers and, just as importantly, preserves the integrity of hard-fought workers’ wages and conditions here in Australia.

It is hard to fathom that any group or individual could or would raise an objection to this bill and the measures contained within. Unfortunately, there are some in our community who have voiced opposition to these measures. Some employer groups and associations, or employer unions, have described the bill as a ‘disproportionate response’ to some well-established scandals and rorts in this area. ‘Using a sledgehammer to crack a nut’ is an expression I have heard from some of these bodies.

For years our print and electronic media have been properly highlighting some of the more atrocious cases of abuse in the 457 visa program, more often than not having had the matters brought to their attention by trade unions. There have been numerous successful prosecutions that have been well documented and recorded. These, of course, occurred after the offending behaviour had been endured, quite often for considerable periods of time.

There has been considerable community disquiet regarding the whole 457 visa process, and this government is responding to that disquiet. As the member for Bennelong just said, we instigated a thorough review of the entire system—the 457 subclass integrity review by Ms Barbara Deegan, a very experienced industrial commissioner—the report of which has recently been received by the minister.

The previous government was well aware of the community disquiet in this area and, in an election year, actually prepared a bill not too dissimilar to the one before the House today. They announced it with some fanfare, I remember, but the bill was never debated and has never passed into law. This government has, in essence, adopted the measures from the previous government’s bill and made some necessary improvements.

There has been some debate regarding the level of abuse carried out under the scheme. Some parties allege it as widespread and rampant while others argue that the rorts have been few and isolated and that the system is working well. I see that as a sterile argument. One case of abuse and exploitation is one too many if a system can be put in place to prevent it. The examples in the evidence have been clear: the current 457 system is broken. This government is taking the necessary steps to fix it—something those on the other side failed to do.

I have been made aware of a situation where upwards of ten 457 visa holders were housed in a modest three-bedroom home. They were all working on various rostered shifts. Each of them was being charged $200 per week rent for a dwelling that had a market rental value of a maximum of $350 per week. The agent responsible for these visa holders was therefore receiving around $2,000 per week for overcrowded, substandard accommodation. The workers would basically swap beds as they swapped shifts. There is nothing illegal in that—I accept that—but there is outrageous exploitation of vulnerable workers going on right here in 21st century Australia.

There is a clear need to strengthen and tighten obligations on sponsors who seek to bring these workers into Australia. The obligations on sponsors are to be set out in regulations to the act. This will occur after consideration of the extensive Deegan review that I spoke about earlier. Stakeholders such as employers, unions and state governments will also have a further opportunity to provide input into the scope and tenor of the regulations. Some parties have expressed unease that this bill is to be passed prior to the detail of the regulations being known. I see those concerns as misplaced. Regulations that are overly onerous or that fail to achieve the stated and intended objectives of the act are subject to disallowance by the Senate. The regulations must provide true protection to migrant workers, and I believe all fair-minded parties—especially this government—have that as their key goal.

The bill provides for civil penalties and infringement notices. Some have called for criminal sanctions. It is clear that the current administrative sanctions have not been sufficient to ensure that the spirit of the scheme is adhered to. I am pleased to note that the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has recommended a review of the legislation within the first three years of its operation. It will be important to monitor this bill’s effectiveness and ensure that the new penalty and enforcement regime is having the desired effect.

I mentioned the Barbara Deegan report—a long-overdue examination of the practical operation of the 457 visa scheme. That report will provide the Skilled Migration Consultative Panel with much food for thought as it provides the government with advice and feedback concerning the type of skilled migration program that will benefit this nation going forward. The report contains over 60 recommendations. Many of those recommendations regard the pay rates of those working under these temporary visas. One that I find very persuasive is the suggestion that these workers must have the same terms and conditions of employment as all other employees in the relevant workplace. Adoption of such a principle would put to bed fears in the community at large that this scheme is simply a fancy cover for cheap labour. It will send a clear message to employers that they must first look to the local job market.

I suppose I should not be surprised that the current scheme is in need of urgent remedial action by the new Rudd Labor government. The opposition made unfairness and inequity in the workplace a hallmark of their almost 12 years in government. Their ambush on the working men and women of Australia following the 2004 election is now an infamous chapter in Australia’s history. Work Choices was a blunt and unsophisticated attack on the pay and conditions of ordinary Australian workers. It should come as no surprise then that they held equal disdain for the pay and conditions of guest workers in this country. In contrast, the Rudd government approaches these important issues with openness and integrity. We invite input from all stakeholders, with balance and fairness our touchstone. This is what the Australian people want from their government. This is a bill about basic decency. I urge all members of the House to support the bill and I commend it to the House.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Migration Legislation Amendment (Worker Protection) Bill 2008 today, 3 December—an appropriate day, as it is the anniversary of the Eureka Stockade in 1854. It was a day when migrants from all around the world came together to pursue a particular cause. It was obviously a little bit illegal, but they still came together to pursue a particular cause. I am particularly pleased to support this bill, as my electorate of Moreton is home to many 457 visa holders who have come to Australia to help alleviate the skills crisis. In recent years, demand for the 457 visa has experienced extraordinary growth in response to labour market demands. It is well known that many industries in Australia face chronic skills shortages. Businesses in my electorate—and businesses far and wide—are crying out for more construction tradespeople, workers in the meat industry, IT professionals, doctors, nurses, allied health staff and even hairdressers, to name but a few.

In fact, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship lists more than 100 occupations for which workers are in demand throughout Australia. Back in 2003-04, a total of 39,500 section 457 visas were issued. By 2007-08, the total had more than doubled to 87,310. The 2008-09 migration and humanitarian program is expected to total 203 visa grants, with the majority of visas, 133,500, to be allocated for skilled migrants. There are 13,500 places set aside for refugee and humanitarian entrants, while a further 56,500 places will be made available in the family stream.

By 2006, stories began to emerge of overseas workers being exploited and used as a cheap source of labour, particularly in the meat industry but across other sectors as well. It would come as no surprise to members on this side of the House that the Howard-Costello government did very little to ensure the integrity of the economically important temporary skilled visa program in response to these claims. And they did even less to address the skills shortage, which is probably one of the reasons why the Howard-Costello government handed over a productivity level with a big fat zero in front of it, a big fat zero in the middle of it and a big fat zero at the end of it—productivity of zero. That is quite embarrassing for the Howard-Costello government.

By contrast, the Rudd government is investing around $20 billion in education and training measures to boost skills, including up to 630,000 new training places. This is good policy and will ensure that more Australians are trained, but it is simply not enough to meet the immediate demand for skilled workers. As those people working in the restaurant industry or industries like it would know, skilled workers are a valuable economic commodity. They are great for economic growth and great for productivity. I know they are human beings, but I wanted to briefly talk in pure economic terms. Skilled migrants to Australia have a huge part to play in alleviating the skills crisis, and it is critical for the public to have confidence in our overseas skilled visas program.

Some changes are already underway. For example, employers seeking a labour agreement under the 457 visa program are now required to consult with relevant industry stakeholders, including peak bodies, professional associations and unions. The consultation process is about providing greater transparency to the labour agreement process. As some of the former speakers have mentioned, it can on occasion be an uneven bargaining arrangement when you have someone coming from an overseas country, particularly when English is not their first language. They turn up here and they can be threatened with dismissal and therefore return to their country. So it is not an equal bargaining process. For an effective work contract you must have equal bargaining between the employer and the employee.

The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Chris Evans, also appointed industrial relations commissioner Barbara Deegan to carry out a review into the program and look at ways to prevent exploitation, to prevent the undercutting of Australian wages and to ensure that the program continues to help meet our skill needs well into the future. Commissioner Deegan’s recommendations will be used to help strengthen and reinstate public confidence in the 457 visa program. We do not need any more situations such as that when those poor metalworkers in Ipswich arrived and were told to make their beds—not with their sheets and blankets but with bits of steel. They were then charged astronomical rents from their quite measly wages.

This bill amends the Migration Act 1958 to better protect temporary overseas workers in Australia. How does it do so? It does so by (1) beefing up monitoring powers, (2) introducing civil penalties for sponsors who breach their obligations, (3) clarifying sponsor obligations and (4) encouraging greater information sharing between government agencies.

The new monitoring provisions give the Department of Immigration and Citizenship inspectors powers to monitor compliance with sponsorship obligations. These powers are not anything extraordinary; they are very similar to the workplace inspectorial powers contained in the Workplace Relations Act 1996. They give inspectors the power to enter without force any place where the inspector has reasonable cause to believe there is anything relevant.

The bill also gives power to the tax commissioner to disclose tax information that relates to a visa holder, a former visa holder, an approved sponsor or a former approved sponsor, if so requested by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. These measures send a strong signal to sponsors that, if you intend underpaying, overworking or exploiting your 457 workers, you will be caught and you will face tough penalties. The inspectors will have the power to inspect the premises, to interview any person and to seek and copy relevant documents.

The bill also includes tough new penalties for noncompliance, including fines of up to $33,000. These new measures will send a much stronger message to the employer community that wish to access 457 visas. It should be remembered that the principal reason that we have 457 visas is that there are not Australian workers available to do particular jobs. So we want to make sure that all Australians are looked after by having a strong noncompliance message. The department can also impose sanctions when it is clear that a sponsor has failed to satisfy their obligations. For example, if a sponsor were to take advantage of an employee and pay them below an award, this bill gives the department the power to cancel the sponsor’s approval, to bar them from future applications and, more importantly, to initiate proceedings against them in the Federal Court.

It is shameful that employers would exploit their most vulnerable employees, such as 457 migrants, who have less understanding about their rights at work. Often they speak English as a second language and face the day-to-day pressures of starting work and living in a new country—often with their children going to new schools and having some language difficulties. You would have seen in your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, when people turn up at a meatworks in Charleville and then have to adjust to a new community, coming from Brazil or something like that, that it can be quite traumatic. So we are trying to make sure that these 457 migrants are looked after. I am confident that these penalties will serve as a strong deterrent and protect overseas workers from exploitation.

I also welcome the measures in this bill to establish migration regulations regarding the obligations of sponsors. These regulations will be developed in consultation with stakeholders and will include matters such as the time frame in which an obligation must be certified and the manner in which the obligation is to be satisfied. The regulations may also be used to simplify the sponsorship approval process. Developing these obligations through regulation rather than legislation will ensure that there is greater flexibility and adaptability over time, because obviously the necessity for 457 visas changes reasonably quickly depending on the economic circumstances.

I represent an electorate where one in three voters was born overseas—and it is probably more than that if you include the family reunification group. We are an open, vibrant, multicultural community and, for the most part, we are very tolerant and understanding of one another. However, not a day goes by that I am not contacted by someone seeking help and support with an immigration matter for themselves or a family member. The decisions that we make relating to the legislation and policies that govern immigration should not be taken lightly, as these decisions have the power to drastically impact on vulnerable individuals and their families. That is why I support this bill so enthusiastically—not only because it makes good economic sense to look after these workers but also because it is the right thing to do.

The bill before the chamber also has the strong support of unions, who have been calling for changes to the 457 visa program for some time—a lone voice for too long in the Howard-Costello years. I particularly want to mention the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, which have been advocating for change for some time in the meat industry. I would particularly like to thank Queensland Branch Secretary Russell Carr for his input, advice and endeavours in this important visa program. The AMIEU have some great initiatives in terms of looking after their workers, especially those from Brazil and from China, and they make sure that their newsletters are written in appropriate languages so that these workers from overseas have a chance to know the benefits that come with union protection.

Russell Carr and the AMIEU have also been working with employers, employees, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations and the Queensland government to overcome workforce shortages and ensure that there are good outcomes for all in the meat industry in Queensland. And, if there is a good outcome for the meat industry in Queensland, often there is a good outcome for graziers that provide the meat for these abattoirs. In fact, the meat industry, especially in Queensland, is a role model for other industries. I commend the AMIEU for their good work and their commitment to fair work for all.

It will be particularly important in the months ahead because, already in this parliament, we have unfortunately seen the willingness of those opposite to blow that dog whistle when it comes to border protection. Whenever someone who is a little bit different comes from overseas, it is easy to turn the spotlight on them and say that it is about fear. The Labor Party have a completely different approach. We believe in hope and the value of workers. In closing, I thank the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship for introducing the bill and commend it to the House.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Worker Protection) Bill 2008. I begin by proudly reflecting on the coalition’s migration record. It is a record that covers both the introduction of new visa classes, discussed extensively in this bill, and determining indeed who comes to this country and the manner in which they arrive. The arrival of people illegally into this country is one area where the coalition is very proud of its record. In 1999-2000 75 boats arrived. In 2000-01 54 boats arrived. We then saw a dramatic decrease. In the financial year ending 2002, six boats arrived. In 2003 zero boats arrived. In 2004 one boat arrived. In 2005 zero boats arrived. In 2006 four boats arrived. In 2007 five boats arrived. In 2008 three boats arrived. In 2008-09 we have already seen seven boats—four picked up by Australian forces in Australian waters and three by Indonesia. This year has seen the highest number of illegal boat arrivals in seven or eight years, and the parliament quite rightly, as we have asked in question time, wants to know why.

In mid-August Minister Evans announced he was abolishing the temporary protection visas and closing offshore processing centres. The Australian on 3 October reported:

… one senior government official intimately familiar with people-smuggling networks … who spoke on background, said while it was too early to say if this boat had sailed on the back of Labor’s changes, a perception may have developed among people smugglers that Australia had softened its approach.

“I think there’s a perception that we may have (softened), they’re not quite sure,” the official said. “They’ve certainly read statements, particularly by minister Evans, and I think they’re interested in testing it.”

The official said people smugglers had carefully tracked changes in Australian policy.

“The main change that they would have picked up is that we now don’t have this temporary visa, we’re moving straight into permanent protection,” the official said. “That would be seen by them, I’m sure, as a softening, or as indicating a relaxation.”

On 1 December the Australian reported the International Organisation for Migration chief of mission in Indonesia, Steven Cook, saying that:

… smugglers had tracked the policy changes and there had been a dramatic surge in smuggling in the past 12 months.

“People smugglers have clearly noted that there has been a change in policy and they’re testing the envelope,” he said.

“Up until about a year ago there was very little people-smuggling activity. Over the last year there’s been a considerable up-kick. There have been boat arrivals in Australia, there’s been interceptions here. There are rumours of a lot of organising going on.”

Even Senator Faulkner in response to a question regarding Australia’s border protection last Wednesday, 26 November, in the other place said that there would be reduced activity for Navy over the Christmas-New Year period. He said:

Over the Christmas period, half the patrol boat fleet will remain on duty protecting our borders …

So the question is: why have we have seen an upsurge in the illegal boats coming into Australian waters we have not seen since the end of 2000-01? Could it be that the official recorded in the Australian on 3 October was correct and that there is a softening in Labor’s policy on border security?

The smuggling of people is an abhorrence. It is something abhorred by all parliamentarians. The destruction, the death and everything else it brings with it are things that we should repudiate in the strongest possible terms. And we must do everything to ensure that boat people are not encouraged to come here and that operators of these dreadfully small, unsafe boats are not encouraged to smuggle people here. As a nation, we take in more refugees per head of population than any other country on the planet. We are incredibly generous with our refugee intake. There is no requirement for us to be, and we should not be, softening our border protection in any way, shape or form that may in any way send a signal that our borders are easier targets now because of a Labor government.

The coalition’s record on 457 visas is also very strong. In 1996, the coalition introduced new visa categories to allow employers to sponsor skilled workers on a temporary basis for between three months and four years to help ease chronic labour shortages. The temporary business (long stay) visa 457 is a commonly used category. After a specified time, workers and their families can apply for permanent skilled migration if they so wish. The annual intake for the 457 visa program has steadily increased: in 1997-98 it was 15,000; in 2003-04 it was 22,370; in 2006-07 it was 46,680; and in February 2008 there were 125,390 457 visa holders in Australia, including 67,410 skilled workers and 57,980 family members. There are currently almost 19,000 employers using 457 visas. Nearly 30 per cent of 457 visa holders are employed in the state of New South Wales. Permanency can usually be applied for after four or so years. On average, 457 visa holders stay in this country for two years. Some 50 per cent move to permanent residence via the Employer Nomination Scheme or the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme. The coalition’s policy on this was incredibly strong and its record on this is incredibly strong. Unless the coalition had moved in these ways, there would have been no capacity to deal with the capacity constraints that had previously been experienced.

The objective of this bill is to amend the Migration Act 1958. Visa holders are currently sponsored by employers who must meet a series of undertakings. These undertakings are now to be specified in the new, yet-unseen regulations. This government is putting up, once more, a form of hollow-shell bill, saying: ‘Those sponsored by employers must meet a range of undertakings—but we’re not going to tell you what those undertakings are. We’ll let you know at a later date—perhaps six months—through regulation. So we want the Australian people to take on trust that the regulations will be fair.’ Well, having recently spoken on the Fair Work Bill, I know that, while Minister Gillard—indeed, the Prime Minister—stood in front of the Australian people and said that there would be no compulsory arbitration, no return to pattern bargaining and no change to the union right of entry, the Fair Work Bill changes all three. Duplicitous is what it is; to stand there and look the Australian people in the eye and say one thing and then to pass legislation that does something else is duplicitous. It is an act of gross hypocrisy—that is what it is.

This bill outlines a framework for a new system of statutory regulations. It widens the sanctions that can be applied if a breach of these occurs. It details a new system of monitoring, compliance and information sharing, and it sets out the transitional arrangements between the current scheme and the new scheme. With respect to sanctions, in addition to the current options of barring or suspending a sponsor for breaching an agreement, there will be new civil penalties, to a maximum of $6,600 for an individual and $33,000 for an incorporated body. The minister may also issue an infringement notice, with a fine of up to one-fifth of the maximum penalty. In terms of monitoring and compliance, the power of inspectors to investigate and monitor will be modelled on the Workplace Relations Act, with similar powers. With respect to information sharing, the minister will be able to reveal information about the sponsor to the visa holder and vice versa.

The bill also contains an amendment to the Tax Administration Act so that the commissioner can provide information to DIAC to find out if a company is indeed a good corporate citizen. There are also a range of transitional provisions. When the new regime comes into effect, all 457 visa sponsors will be moved to the new regime. The expected start date is somewhere in mid-2010.

While the broad framework for the bill has support from the coalition, a serious problem with the delay in the production of the regulations must be stated. For the regulations to take a further six months and for a bill to be passed—in some form of a hollow-shell of a bill—with regulations yet unseen, is simply extraordinary. Is the government simply not up to the task of producing the regulations, or is there something to hide? I guess we could look at the track record. When the government stands up and says, ‘There will be no union right of entry; there’ll be no compulsory arbitration; there’ll be no return to pattern bargaining,’ and we find those three are explicitly stated, I think we know the status of this government. It is duplicitous.

The April 2008 discussion paper of regulation options, released by DIAC, may give some idea of the potential new payment obligations that this Labor government will impose on employers. Some of these new options may include meeting all education costs of minors accompanying the worker; covering all medical costs, either through insurance or direct payment, including medical costs where the insurance company refuses to pay; paying any migration agent fees or other costs; paying all travel costs to the country; and paying any license or registration fees—and I can only assume that would include union fees, looking across the table at government members. As well, it is proposed that sponsors not be allowed to use ‘temporary overseas labour during periods of lawful industrial action or to influence enterprise bargaining negotiations’. Why would you put that clause into a bit of legislation—sponsors may not be able to use ‘temporary overseas labour during periods of lawful industrial action or to influence enterprise bargaining negotiations’?

This is a typical Labor amendment. Is there anything this government will not do to repay their union mates for getting elected? I can only assume that the Labor Party is indeed the political wing of the union movement, having seen the Fair Work Bill and some of the outrageous propositions being put in here—and, indeed, regulations that are not even being put forward. We can only surmise from the DIAC paper what they are, but they will certainly provide impositions against employers, because that is what Labor does.

The new framework refers to a new system of compliance and monitoring. We are concerned that employers not be frustrated by greater red tape. Prime Minister Rudd said that if there were any new red tape implemented, he would remove another piece of red tape. Well, he is on notice. If any red tape is added, we will be looking for what the offsets are. It would be disappointing if, again, he was to show that he is being duplicitous. There is also a proposal that 400-series temporary work visas, which have not required sponsors in the past—that is, for those staying fewer than three months—may require sponsors in the future, which will need processing and monitoring. This will put even greater pressure on an already strained DIAC system and introduce further red tape.

Whilst we provide tacit support for the broad framework, we are extremely concerned about the absence of the regulations. It would be detrimental to Australian employers—not that this union-dominated government has given much thought to Australian employers—if the costs of bringing in skilled labour, and the time it takes, leave us less competitive in a global market for the highly mobile skilled worker. The member for Eden-Monaro and the member for Bass, sitting opposite, are on notice: if employers in your electorates face greater red tape because of what you are doing here, they will vote with their feet. We condemn this government for its failure to produce regulations at this stage. We want to assure the government that the regulations will be given incredibly close scrutiny when they finally get around to tabling them in the House and indeed the Senate.

Jodie Campbell (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to add my voice to those in support of the government’s Migration Legislation Amendment (Worker Protection) Bill 2008. I am proud of the new era of compassion towards refugees and migrants ushered in with the election of the Rudd government. The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has introduced this legislation in a bid to protect from exploitation our temporary skilled foreign workers while at the same time ensuring the wages and conditions of Australian workers are not undercut.

The Rudd government’s first budget provided $19.6 million to improve the processing and compliance of the temporary skilled migration program. This legislation introduces a range of measures to achieve that. These include: expanded powers to monitor and investigate employer noncompliance with the 457 visa scheme, a framework for punitive penalties for employers found to be in breach of their obligations, improved information sharing between government agencies to improve compliance, and a redefined sponsorship obligations framework for employers of 457 visa workers.

These are constructive changes which aim to increase not only departmental cooperation but also clarity when it comes to issues surrounding migrant workers. These will be welcome changes. I know from my close relationship with Launceston’s Liberian community that there have been concerns surrounding barriers to employment, migration issues and discrimination. I know this because at the time when I was the Acting Deputy Mayor of the Launceston City Council I was asked to attend Refugee Awareness Week in 2005. I remember at that time meeting the now president of the Liberian community, Adolphus Hill. He came up to me and said, ‘I attend TAFE during the day and I work really hard of a night.’ When Adolphus said that to me it filled me with quite a lot of sadness, because Adolphus could not come up to me at that time and say, ‘Hi, I’m Adolphus.’ I think he had to explain his plot in society and why he was there. I was at that time, and have continued to be, very close to the African community, whether it be with Adolphus, Susannah or many of the other African people who live in Launceston, and so are my family. I have worked closely with the African community in northern Tasmania to address these issues and I will continue to work to achieve outcomes.

What I can say is that since the election of the Rudd government, as I mentioned earlier, there is a different approach to refugee and humanitarian issues. Under the previous government refugee protection was the subject of a debate which proved deeply divisive and damaging to our international reputation. Those opposite sought throughout their time in power to demonise refugees, for their own political gain. It was unfortunate, as it often overshadowed much of the wonderful and constructive work done through migrant communities across the country. In northern Tasmania I see every day part of the migrant story we as a country have every right to be proud of. Since 1945 around 700,000 people in need of humanitarian help have found refuge in Australia. They have added an extraordinary amount to our rich culture. I am proud that this country offers one of the three largest humanitarian programs in the world and as a government we are committed to its continuation and to its growth.

The budget provided for an increase in the number of places offered to 13½ thousand. This included 6½ thousand places for refugees, with a one-off increase of 500 places to assist those affected by the continuing conflict in Iraq. This, I am proud to say, represents the largest refugee component of the program since 1986. As a country, we have every right to feel proud that we enjoy international recognition for our role in responding to the needs with regard to protection of refugees. Across northern Tasmania there are groups which have resettled from war-torn Sudan, Sierra Leone and Liberia. How we support these amazing people as they cope with the traumas in their homeland and as they struggle to make new lives is a true test of our compassion as a nation.

They are, as I am certain anyone with any empathy can understand, challenged by not only the events in refugee camps but also the added barriers of limited work opportunities in their new home in Tasmania. I have heard—as have, I am sure, many members not only in this place but in the other house as well—those stories from refugee camps. I have heard them through my close association with the African community, who are from refugee camps such as in Ghana. Many speak with angst of a feeling of losing the control offered by the strength of their families. Many of these issues are a consequence of relocation and the ensuing dislocation. I know that this government is one of enormous compassion, and that gives me hope. The policies of Labor are designed to assist rather than hinder the settling in of refugees to whom we open our borders, our minds and our hearts. I commend the Migration Legislation Amendment (Worker Protection) Bill 2008 to the House, confident that it addresses many of the complexities and potential traps within previous legislation.

Mike Kelly (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am grateful for the comments of the member for Fadden, who reminded us of how important it is to consult with employers and unions in relation to any measure that affects our economy and the rights of workers. Certainly I think consultation has become a hallmark of the Rudd Labor government.

I am very happy to speak on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Worker Protection) Bill 2008. The bill serves to strengthen the integrity of the subclass 457, temporary skilled migration visa program by creating a new sponsorship framework, with heightened enforcement mechanisms.

The subclass 457 visa was originally established to meet the demand for a small number of highly skilled, professional, temporary migrants. In recent years, due to changes in local labour demands and the ensuing Australian skills crisis, the demand driven subclass 457 visa has experienced dramatic growth in application numbers and subsequent visa grants. With increased numbers of non-citizen entrants into Australia through this scheme comes an increased responsibility for the government to ensure that regulations exist that adequately protect these guest workers.

The Migration Legislation Amendment (Worker Protection) Bill allows for a more holistic approach to the protection of guest workers by instituting measures to allow the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, DIAC, to monitor sponsors of 457 visa holders to ensure they provide a safe workplace, with the same pay and conditions as Australian citizen workers. I am therefore proud to give this bill my full support. As I mentioned in my opening, the subclass 457 visa was not implemented as a stopgap or solution to the skills crisis that has gripped our nation over the past five years. The visa was intended to provide an avenue for Australian business owners and companies to take advantage of the specialised skills of a small number of highly skilled, professional, temporary migrants.

The visa scheme was used, for the most part, by large companies whose intent was to import skilled workers trained in specialised roles, catering specifically to their company’s needs. Being an uncapped, demand driven visa means that as demand for skilled workers grows so too does the demand for 457 visas. In 2003 to 2004, a total of only 39,500 visas were granted. By 2007 to 2008, demand had almost tripled with the granting of 110,570 visas. During this period of growth, the Howard government did little work to ensure that the policies governing the worker protection element of the visa conditions remained suitable. The 457 visa scheme was attracting a higher number of small business sponsors, which presented a new set of risk factors in terms of employment conditions. Workers were often employed in non-professional occupations and were from non-English speaking backgrounds. Such workers are now recognised to be at a much higher risk of exploitation.

These new elements of risk should have prompted a change in the legislation governing the visa to ensure that the conditions of the visa evolved at the same time as demand increased. However, the Howard government continued to aggressively promote the 457 visa scheme as a stopgap for employers attempting to source skilled workers but did nothing to ensure the integrity of the scheme. This bill aims to make the changes that the Howard Government neglected to make and, to this end, in the 2008-09 budget, the government announced it would be allocating $19.6 million to improve the processing and compliance of the temporary skilled migration program.

The 457 visa scheme is different to any other visa administered by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship in that it is the only visa whereby Australian citizens have an ongoing obligation to both the department and, subsequently, to the government and to a noncitizen entrant. The relationship between the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and the Australian citizen or permanent resident employer is often where problems with monitoring and, therefore, maintaining the protection of the worker and the integrity of the visa, occur.

The process for granting a subclass 457 visa happens in three stages with the granting of the actual 457 visa to the applicant being the final stage of the process. The first two stages are the primary responsibility of the Australian citizen or permanent resident employer. First an employer applies for their company to become a sponsor. Secondly, and often assessed concurrently with the sponsorship, the employer identifies a position that needs filling by a skilled worker, known as a nomination. At these stages the employer, now known as the sponsor, agrees to a list of undertakings, including ensuring that a minimum salary level, or MSL, is paid to the worker, that the employer abides by Australian workplace laws and that the employer cooperate with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship regarding any monitoring activity.

Monitoring units within the Department of Immigration and Citizenship were established concurrently with the establishment of the visa to ensure the integrity of the scheme; however, very little legislative support existed to allow such units to follow through with sanctioning actions where breaches were identified. Imposing sanctions on visa holders where visa breaches were identified had the support of relevant visa compliance legislation. Sanctioning sponsors where breaches of the undertakings occurred was nevertheless quite difficult.

In 2007 significant breaches involving criminal negligence, police investigation and prosecution attracted media attention. Where smaller breaches occurred, one of the few options available was the cancelling of an employer’s sponsorship. This, however, negatively impacted on the visa holder, who would need to find a new employer within 28 days or leave the country. Whilst the employer was inconvenienced, the main punishment fell on the visa holder, thereby providing no protection to the visa holder, and undermining the integrity of the scheme.

The Howard government’s reckless treatment of workers, it seems, affected not only Australian workers but also those who we invited to our country to assist with our skills crisis, to boost our economy. When questioned by Senator Evans in 2006 about the integrity of the scheme, after a raft of negative media coverage and horror stories were brought to public attention, Senator Vanstone, then Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, denied that there were problems with the system, and even went so far as to defend the fact that her department did not have the power to properly monitor visa holders and sponsors. Instead of moving to improve the system, Senator Vanstone ordered that the department no longer release information about the program to the public. In 2007 the then Minister for Immigration, Kevin Andrews, made some changes to the program, including tightening the English language requirements and restricting access to industries with the most problems with compliance. However a major overhaul of the monitoring process was needed. This bill proposes to fix these ongoing problems that were ignored by the Howard government, and thereby to improve the integrity of the program.

Most of the changes made to the monitoring and sanctioning powers in 2007 were quite heavy handed and served to undermine the integrity of the subclass 457 visa program by increasing red tape, making a scheme which aimed to allow employers to obtain skilled workers quickly and easily one which was encumbered by bureaucracy, often having the effect of penalizing employers who had been doing the right thing by elevating key sponsorship obligations.

This bill expands the powers to monitor and creates punitive powers for noncompliance, thereby providing increased protections for visa holders and strengthening the integrity of the program. The bill will achieve this without placing increased pressure on sponsors who are doing the right thing by their workers. This bill strikes the necessary balance between stringent sanctions where breaches are identified and flexibility within the sponsorship framework, which is necessary for efficient and effective program operation. Ensuring the flexibility of the 457 program is essential in the current employment market climate. Notwithstanding the global financial crisis Australian industry is still facing skills shortages, which will be accentuated when economic activity picks up again. The dual pressures of an ageing work force and a reduction in the number of apprentices in training have led to a strain on companies and businesses that rely on skilled workers.

Country and regional towns, such as those in my electorate, are particularly feeling the pinch of the skills shortage. One industry in my electorate that is feeling the sting of low skilled employee availability most acutely, and subsequently relies on the 457 temporary skilled worker programs, is the Australian snow sport industry. The Australian snow sport industry, concentrated in the Snowy Mountains in my electorate, experiences an annual struggle to employ appropriately skilled workers for the Australian ski season. The Australian snow sports industry is in the middle of a severe labour shortage. The short duration of the season, approximately fifteen to sixteen weeks from June to October, variable winter weather conditions and competition with other tourism and leisure sectors for skilled employees, makes finding appropriately skilled employees exceptionally difficult.

The industry, like a lot of industries in Australia in the present climate, is stuck in a perpetual catch 22 situation. Skilled staff are not available in the local Australian market, and local staff cannot be trained in the required numbers without employing suitably qualified and experienced temporary migrants. Although resorts have increased focused advertising—particularly in youth sectors—for positions during the ski season, in the past three years there has been a steady decline in domestic applicants for all positions. In Thredbo alone, applications have declined from 1,123 in 2004 to almost half that—582—in 2007.

Another pressure comes with the impractical conditions set by the seasonal nature of the work in these resorts. Retention of skilled staff is almost impossible, as the staff need to find work after the seventeen weeks of employment offered by most resorts. The seasonal factor also leads to significant numbers of new, inexperienced staff being hired each year. This comes at a very high cost to the industry, as the new staff must be trained at the beginning of each season. Attracting appropriately skilled workers for such a short period becomes difficult when competing with employers who offer full-time work in the cities. The positions required are not limited to ski patrolling and instruction but also include hospitality staff, IT professionals, business managers, public relations managers, and health services. It is almost impossible for the snow sport industry to compete with other employers requiring these skills when conditions, including the remote location of the snowfields and the short duration of employment offered, are taken into consideration.

This is of great concern because this industry is of particular economic importance to the Snowy Mountains region. A study prepared for the Alpine Resorts Co-ordinating Council in 2006 showed that 57 per cent of gross regional product for the Snowy River shire was generated by snow sport resorts, with 3,264 total annual equivalent employment opportunities generated. A total of 7.7 per cent of gross regional product was generated by Selwyn Snowfields in the Tumut shire, and 557 total annual equivalent employment opportunities were generated. It is therefore vitally important that the industry be assisted by the government. As a consequence of its labour problems, the snow sports industry relies heavily on employing temporary migrant workers for the season, with 5.9 per cent of NSW alpine resort employees being from a country of origin other than Australia. The resorts utilise workers with both working holiday and 457 visas: two per cent are currently employed on 457 visas, the rest being working holiday visa holders.

The Perisher Blue ski resort in the Snowy Mountains relies on labour agreements, developed in negotiation with the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, to sponsor skilled workers for the snow season. The labour agreements are formal arrangements to recruit a number of overseas skilled workers, mostly used in conjunction with the subclass 457 visa. Whenever their labour agreements come up for renewal, the resort has, to date, faced ongoing struggles with the issue of restrictions on the categories of employees that can be sponsored—restrictions that are placed on the 457 program. Other problems have been that the levels of minimum payment are required to be above the award rates paid to local staff for the same categories of work, and the minimum number of hours is well above those supplied to local staff. Although these abnormalities have presented ongoing difficulties for the resort, it must continue to use the 457 program in order to be able to source appropriately skilled and experienced labour. In a submission sent to the relevant ministers, and copied to my office in late 2007, the resort identified a number of positions it would seek to source from outside Australia, including groomer mechanics, chefs, lift operators, snow groomers, snow sports instructors, ski patrollers and ski technicians. Subsequently, a labour agreement was developed for the resort for the 2008-09 snow season.

As part of the series of long overdue reforms of the 457 program, in February 2008 Minister Evans made changes to the labour agreement process. Employers are now required to consult with relevant industry stakeholders about the proposed agreement, and this has led to a more transparent, coordinated and streamlined process for the approval of labour agreements. These changes provide protections for the industry, the employer and the sponsored workers, without compromising on efficiencies for the employer. Such changes allow for flexibility in the development of labour agreements, which assists employers such as the snow sports industry—whose unusual employment conditions prompt the need for a flexible and tailored agreement—to employ 457 visa holders. Changes such as those made to the labour agreement process, and the changes proposed by this bill, are responsive to industry whilst ensuring that 457 visa holders are protected.

These reforms all go towards regaining public confidence in the scheme and reclaiming the integrity of the subclass 457 visa program. If the program is to be used to help tackle the Australian skills crisis, both the Australian public and international observers need to have confidence in the scheme. In the current global climate there is still competition for skilled workers. Where skilled employment positions far outnumber skilled workers, these workers have the option of being very selective in the international market for the most attractive positions and visa conditions.

As such, it is increasingly important that the subclass 457 visa program is viewed as an option that allows us to be internationally competitive for skilled workers. Once the visa holders are in the country, it is imperative that these workers have the same terms and conditions of employment as Australian employees in the workplace. The Australian government, through the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, has the same obligation to international workers that it has to domestic workers to ensure workplaces are safe, conditions are acceptable and the workers are aware of their rights.

Two significant factors separate workers coming into Australia on the 457 visa from most citizen or permanent resident workers. Firstly, entrants are often either non-English speakers or from a non-English-speaking background. Secondly, the majority of workers who enter Australia on these visas are intent on moving through the entire migration process, from a temporary visa to permanent residency to Australian citizenship. It is these two factors which lead to some 457 visa holders being at risk of exploitation. Language barriers have been addressed in part by the English language requirement. However, entrants who are on visas granted prior to this requirement being introduced remain at risk.

The risk of workplace accidents occurring due to a failure to comprehend instructions or signage is high, as is the risk of being exploited by an employer who will not provide contracts or a record of workers’ rights in the employee’s language. Exploitation of workers is a serious issue that needs to be monitored by the department. Sponsored workers, who are relying on their employer to support their application for permanent residency or even to maintain their sponsorship so that they may remain onshore, are particularly vulnerable. A sponsored worker may be forced to work under conditions contrary to their contract or visa conditions for fear of their sponsorship being cancelled by their employer. There exists the small minority of employers, and subsequently sponsors, who would take advantage of such vulnerability to further their aims.

This bill provides the Department of Immigration and Citizenship with powers to prevent such exploitation. These include investigative powers to request information from employers and access to employees for interviews and to workplaces for site visits to check on workplace conditions. Changes to the information-sharing provisions will allow the department to ensure that employees are well informed of their rights and the department is aware of their conditions. Transparency amongst the three parties—the department, the employer and the sponsored worker—will go a long way towards ensuring the integrity of the program.

Current provisions, including administrative penalties, have done little to deter exploitation. This bill introduces new civil penalties for sponsors who are not complying with sponsorship obligations, provisions which were not available under the current system of 457 sponsor monitoring. This legislation is an important step towards maintaining the integrity of the subclass 457 visa program. The government has an obligation to sponsored workers, as it has to Australian citizens and permanent resident workers, to ensure that work conditions are adequate and that exploitation does not occur. This bill ensures the integrity of the program without compromising on efficiency and effectiveness for sponsors wishing to employ overseas skilled workers. I commend the bill to the House.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak in support of the Migration Legislation Amendment (Worker Protection) Bill 2008, and note that the bill is, in principle, similar to the Migration Amendment (Sponsorship Obligations) Bill 2007 introduced into the parliament by the previous government on 21 June 2007. That bill was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which subsequently tabled its report on 7 August 2007. But the bill was never debated and subsequently lapsed when the parliament was prorogued.

I also note that the original bill, the Migration Amendment (Sponsorship Obligations) Bill 2007, arose at a time when the Joint Standing Committee on Migration was inquiring into issues relating to temporary business section 457 visas. This Migration Legislation Amendment (Worker Protection) Bill includes important extra measures to the previous bill and has also been considered by two Senate committees—the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

This bill is fundamentally about the protection of workers in Australia, with specific reference in this case to temporary workers who are brought into Australia under temporary visas. I listened earlier to the contribution from the member for Wills, and I thought he made an excellent contribution in summing up the issues that have arisen in years gone by and that, in effect, caused both the previous government and the current government to look at temporary visas and how they were being applied to people who were being brought into this country for work purposes.

Regrettably, many of these workers, once in Australia, were exploited by unscrupulous employers, with many examples of underpayment, poor living conditions and unsatisfactory workplace conditions. For many of these workers, once they were here there was little choice but to work under whatever conditions they were exposed to. It was worker exploitation at its worst. They could not get work elsewhere, they needed whatever income they earned to survive and there was no-one they could turn to for assistance without risking having their work visa cancelled.

This is still occurring today because the laws we have in place relating to this issue are totally inadequate, having been made more inadequate by the previous government’s Work Choices laws. Only two weeks ago, two separate matters in respect to workers being exploited in this country were raised with me. One related to workers who were unskilled, the other related to workers who were very skilled. It still goes on today, and so the sooner this legislation is adopted by parliament, the better.

Under existing laws, department of immigration officers have neither the powers nor the resources to monitor and enforce the workplace practices of those who sponsor 457 visa entrants. Nor does the Australian Taxation Office have powers or authority with respect to those same issues. Regrettably, the coalition Work Choices legislation not only provided employers with incredible scope for exploitation of the most vulnerable workers but also ensured that workers’ unions, which in the past would have protected such workers, were shut out. Many of these workers were from developing countries. It is true that any money that they earned while in Australia was more than what they might have earned in their own country, but after paying for their living expenses here, sometimes including exorbitant accommodation costs, employment agency costs and migration agency costs, they were left with nothing.

While on the subject of migration, I take this opportunity to refer to another matter. On Monday in question time, we had the member for Murray make the outrageous assertion that the Rudd government’s detention policy was causing a surge of boat people into Australia. On the same night, Monday, 1 December, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration presented its first report on detention policy in Australia, having spent the past 12 months inquiring into detention centres and the appalling treatment of refugees in Australia. All members of the committee agreed that Australia’s appalling detention policies in recent years had been unjust and were cause for much criticism of the Australian government. The committee made 18 recommendations in that report, all recommending a much more humane treatment of refugees. In fact, two of the coalition members submitted a dissenting report arguing that the committee’s recommendations did not go far enough, and nor did the Rudd government’s new detention—

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I have allowed some remarks which are drifting away from the subject of this bill, but I invite the member for Makin to come back to the subject matter of the bill.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The remarks I am making are relevant to this bill because this bill is about human rights. If I am allowed to continue my remarks, I will demonstrate how the remarks I am making are in fact very relevant to the bill we are debating.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, what I have heard so far is, I believe, not relevant to the bill, and I say that in the context that the matter which you have been referring to is a parliamentary committee report and there are other opportunities to raise matters in relation to a parliamentary committee report. So I once again invite you to come back to the subject matter of the bill.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, again I thank you for your guidance. Earlier on in the same debate the member for Fadden referred to the very matter that I am responding to now and—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All I can say to the member for Makin—and he may feel this is a little unfair—is that I was not here when those alleged remarks were made by the member for Fadden, and I will not repeat myself. Please proceed on the subject matter of the bill.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, as I said a moment ago, this matter and the issue we are discussing are all about human rights and people’s rights. I simply point out that those rights were the subject of considerable work by a committee of this parliament and it was the committee’s view that the rights of people who come into this country ought to be protected and that the policies of the past did not go far enough in protecting them. The point I am clearly making is that the committee’s view was supported by all members of the committee—including members of the coalition, who now seek to suggest that the views expressed by the committee, which in turn support government policy, are the cause of, supposedly, a surge of people wanting to come to this country. I simply say this, Mr Deputy Speaker: this is, in my view, another example of coalition members saying one thing but doing another. They come into this House and take a particular position on a matter and then, at the first possible opportunity, take the opposite position on the same matter. And if one member takes one position, then another takes an entirely different position. This matter—you have asked me to reflect on whether it is relevant to this debate—was further raised not just by one speaker from the coalition but by a number of speakers from the coalition when they were speaking on this very bill. And it seems to me that if we are going to debate the rights and wrongs of any legislation in this place and how it applies to human rights then the alternative argument ought to be allowed to be put. But, Mr Deputy Speaker, I take your guidance and I will move on.

In respect of the very issue that I was speaking to and the purported comments made by other members—which I must say were disputed by the very person who some of those comments were attributed to, and which were reported in one of the newspapers—on the same day that some of those comments were made, yesterday, the Prime Minister came into the chamber and moved a motion on Australia’s support for human rights in this country, recognising the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That motion was immediately followed by a bipartisan supporting statement by the Leader of the Opposition, who seconded the Prime Minister’s motion. This is about human rights—a motion to do with human rights and how we should treat people once they come into this country. A number of speakers from the coalition spoke in support of the human rights motion that the Prime Minister moved. Yet I heard them, on the same day, come out and again state a position which was clearly in contradiction of the very principles which the Leader of the Opposition says we should be supporting and upholding. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask again: does the opposition leader in fact speak on behalf of all members of the coalition, or is this a case where opposition members, both frontbenchers and backbenchers, are clearly undermining the opposition leader?

More importantly, I think that the Australian public have a right to know just what the real position of the coalition is on all of these matters. It is not reasonable to have one position coming from one member, another position coming from a member on the front bench, and yet another position coming from the Leader of the Opposition. I believe that the Australian people are entitled to know, when it comes to all of these matters, just what the position of the coalition is. And it is no different from what we are seeing right now in another bill that is being debated in this place, and that is the Fair Work Bill, where again we are constantly being told that the opposition does not oppose this bill, yet speaker after speaker comes into the chamber and condemns it.

Let us go back one step in respect of how this bill arose. The reason these workers are coming into Australia is to fulfil shortages of skilled and professional workers needed by Australian industries. And why is there a shortage of skilled workers? Because the previous coalition government failed to invest adequately in education and skills training, that is why; it is as clear and simple as that. Had the previous government put the effort and money into supporting the training, education and skilling-up of people in this country over the last decade, there would not be the need to bring in skilled workers from overseas.

Yet yesterday, we had the absurd proposition of the opposition raising as a matter of public importance the issue relating to the state of Australia’s health services. One of the key problems facing Australia’s delivery of good health services in this country is the shortage of nurses and doctors. That shortage has occurred because over the last decade there were not enough places in our universities to train doctors and nurses. It is as simple as that. So for the opposition members to come in here and criticise this government for problems which have resulted from their own negligence is, I must say, hypocritical in the least.

We do face serious skills shortages across most employment sectors in Australia. Those shortages are causing serious productivity constraints. In the interim, we are forced to rely on skilled people from overseas. We see it prevalent in the health sector, in the information and technology sector and in the science sectors. Global recruiting has become standard practice of many Australian employers. I want to relay another example of a matter that I raised in the House probably three or four months ago when I was talking about immigration. In the region that I represent there is the group of industry leaders that we refer to as the Northern Economic Leaders Group. These are senior industry leaders in South Australia. It is a good group that is working in collaboration with the government to try and address a whole range of problems including the skills shortage problems. In a meeting some six months ago, every single person that came to that meeting and sat around the table said that their single biggest crisis was their inability to find skilled workers to fill the positions that they had available in their industries. It was a major issue for every single one of them, so we accept that there will be a need to bring people in from overseas to fill those jobs.

But if they are to be brought in then we also accept that they ought to be brought in and be treated as we would like to be treated ourselves if we were to be employed in the position that we offer them. They ought to be given the same level of protection as every other worker who comes into this country and who works in this country. And they ought to be given the same level of protection that they would be given if they went to other countries. Sadly, one of the problems was that, under the previous government’s Work Choices legislation, it was not just the skilled workers brought in from overseas that were given no protection; all workers were given little protection. It makes it pretty hard to say, ‘You are not treating the skilled workers coming from overseas right,’ when they say, ‘It is no different to the way we have been treating other workers in this country for the last few years.’

We have to do two things, and thank God that this government is doing them. One is repealing the Work Choices legislation and introducing the Fair Work legislation of the Rudd government, and the other is fixing up the issues associated with workers who come in under 457 visas. That is exactly what this bill is going to do.

Finally, I just want to make this point. Many of the workers who are most exploited when they come into this country are those who are employed in what you would refer to as low-skilled areas of occupation. Over the last three or four years I have spoken with a whole range of people in industry sectors who have had various levels of experience with people working in low-skilled areas, and I have to say that the stories that have got back to me are absolutely appalling. I have heard stories where people who come to this country are perhaps brought here by a member of their own community who then in a sense organises them but equally exploits them; and stories of other people who come into this country, again brought in by maybe a migration agency or another person from their own community, who then have to pay a fair share of their income to that person. If they object, information is immediately passed on to the authorities and their visa is cancelled for one reason or another. Some of these people are the very people who ended up in detention centres—and the committee ended up having to investigate how they got there and whether they were held there in appropriate conditions. So my comments about the detention centre are also relevant in respect of this matter.

This is a bill which hopefully will address all of these issues. It is a bill that is long overdue and it is a bill that will go a long way towards ensuring that Australia has fair work conditions not only because of our new fair works laws but also because we are upholding the very principles that are espoused in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition spoke in support of yesterday. I commend the bill to the House.

Laurie Ferguson (Reid, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in reply—I thank members for their contributions. They are obviously a very diverse group and come from different perspectives in this debate on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Worker Protection) Bill 2008. A number of them are former trade union officials who have put an emphasis on the interface of Australia’s industrial relations system, the way in which workers rights were undermined under the previous government and the question of section 457 visas. Some, such as the member for Forrest, come from areas of high demand for labour at the moment. It is particularly pronounced in some areas. Others, such as the member for Bennelong, represent electorates characterised by very high permanent and section 457 skilled migration. Other members, such as the member for Moreton, have been particularly active on the question of multiculturalism. He has high refugee migration to his electorate and has been active on the question of their acceptance in the community. I also want to mention the member for Bass. I was in the electorate of Bass recently, and it is interesting to note the work being done by the TAFE and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship in regard to giving skills to humanitarian refugee entrants to this country. The member for Eden-Monaro spoke particularly of localised skill shortages in a specified industry.

I want to especially comment on the contribution of the member for Makin. He heavily emphasised the connection between industrial relations rights, the exploitation of people and their inability to struggle for themselves inside a hostile industrial relations environment and the way in which they can be exploited by sponsors. I want to put on the record my appreciation that he comes to this debate with particular strengths, having been heavily involved in a migrant resource centre in Adelaide. That gives me an opportunity to put on the record another aspect of Frank Crean, who was commemorated in the parliament today. Frank, having retired from this parliament, did not seek a career as a consultant or adviser selling himself around the parliament but rather chose to devote himself to public life. One of the ways in which he did that, as with the member for Makin, was to devote energy, time and a lot of effort to a Melbourne migrant resource centre. The legacy that he has in that migrant resource centre is still fairly evident.

So I thank all members for the contributions they made. Obviously, as I said, they are coming at this from different localised perspectives, different historical backgrounds, and different work and life experiences. The provisions of the bill continue this government’s work towards facilitating the entry of overseas workers to meet genuine skill shortages while preserving the integrity of the Australian labour market and protecting overseas workers from exploitation. Sponsors who may have done the wrong thing will be more easily identified. Those who are proven to have done the wrong thing in regard to the treatment of visa holders—this undermines Australian work conditions in general; not only the rights of those individuals but the rights of the wider society—will have more appropriate sanctions applied.

Meanwhile sponsors who do the right thing will be rewarded for their compliance with a program that better facilitates the entry of skilled workers and retains much needed access to the international labour market. These changes reflect the government’s commitment to improving the integrity of Australia’s skilled migration arrangements without sacrificing the contribution they make to Australia’s economic prosperity. Additionally, the flexibility established by the bill allows the program to adapt to changing economic needs and respond over time to any concerns raised by industry, government or union representatives.

The Rudd government is acutely aware of the need to strike an appropriate balance between the cost of compliance for sponsors and the integrity of the temporary skilled migration program. As other speakers have detailed, we are spending $19 billion plus because of the critical skills shortage in this country created by inaction and lack of interest over a long period of time—and if anyone wants to argue that that is not the reality they really are kidding themselves. To this end, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has engaged the Skilled Migration Consultative Panel, on an ongoing basis, to provide advice on the content of the regulations, particularly the obligations. The government is confident that the broad based representation on the panel means it can strike the required balance. Furthermore, the minister has undertaken to provide a draft of the regulations to the panel and the major parties for consideration early next year.

Finally, I want to make it clear that the government does not anticipate that the sponsor obligations will involve any significant additional costs for business. It would not be in anyone’s interests for that to be the case. In fact, the recent visa integrity review conducted by industrial relations expert Ms Barbara Deegan is clear on the need to minimise upfront and prospective costs associated with subclass 457 visa holders to aid mobility and decrease the potential for exploitation.

I note that earlier in the debate there was a brief reference to inaction by the minister. Let us look at the reality. We have seen major changes to detention policy in this country. We have witnessed a citizenship review which sought to go back to this country’s previous policy of bringing people in, being inclusive and not segregating people, not alienating people, not keeping people out of the system. We have seen a minimum salary level come into this particular sector of policy. We have witnessed a visit to Indonesia by the minister to speak to authorities over there about the issue of illegal migrants, and I had the opportunity recently with the minister to meet the relevant Indonesian minister while he was here for the intergovernmental discussions. We have had Barbara Deegan carry out these reviews. And, of course, as early as 17 February last, we made moves to try to tackle this question of skilled migration and exploitation. So for references to be made to inaction really is, I think, the pot calling the kettle black, given that we have had to overcome so many problems in this area, as illustrated by this legislation.

I also note that my experience is similar to that of the member for Makin with regard to people constantly coming to her about industrial relations exploitation. I had Liberal aldermen in my area this morning coming to me for help basically to overcome the exploitation of workers—and I went of course to the LHMU to get some advice on those matters.

So I do very much commend this bill to the House. It is dealing with realities that have to be overcome. It is unfortunate that things have reached this stage: it is unfortunate that we witness, daily, exploitation by people and that we have had a system where visa cancellation was the only option in some cases, which did not really solve the problem. So I do very strongly commend this legislation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.