Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

Unfortunately, Senator Bartlett, you have provoked me again to stand up and deal with some of the issues that you have raised. I will deal with the latter issues first. It is, as you well know, permissible in speeches in second reading debates to look at topics more broadly. It is one of those areas in which I am sure everybody offends at some point by going just one step too far. It is also permissible at this stage to deal with second reading amendments, which also go more broadly to the substance of the wide range of issues under the bill or related to the bill. In principle, Labor have also maintained in this place that, when you get to the committee stage of bills, you stay relatively on topic.

You made the argument, Senator Bartlett, that section 235 of the Migration Act is on topic. Section 235 currently provides for employee sanctions under the migration legislation. This amendment bill is about employer sanctions, not sanctions on employees. Sanctions on employees have existed for some time. That is, if a person does not have a visa that allows them to work then they are in breach of the legislation as it currently stands—and this legislation does not cavil with that. What this amendment bill does specifically is introduce employer sanctions which are, as I have stated in this place, long overdue. Employer sanctions are a matter that was raised back in 1999 with the then immigration minister, Mr Ruddock, with regard to dealing with illegal workers. It is about time this government acted in that area—and, although belatedly, they are acting, and we do support them on that issue.

We do note that the government will have a review of the bill’s provisions. At the risk of upsetting the minister, I do not know when the review will be finalised, what it will contain or whether it will in fact provide recommendations that will go towards remedying the issues that were raised by Senator Nettle. If my comments suggest that I do lack a little bit of confidence in the review getting to that stage, I suspect the minister understands why I might have that lack of confidence. But the government has indicated it will review the effects of the bill, and it should. It should then bring forward a more comprehensive position. Without seeing that, I cannot comment on it, but I would expect that the government would then act on any recommendations it made to fix the problems that Senator Nettle raised.

On the matter of a more comprehensive review by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, or the references committee, certainly Labor would support that in principle. We would reiterate to the Democrats, as well as to the Greens, that if they also wanted to support a broader inquiry into this area, Labor would support them coming onboard. I would have more confidence in our getting to the bottom of some of the issues and putting forward more proactive recommendations than I would have in any alternative position that the government might put up. But the numbers in this place probably dictate that, without the government’s support for a reference to the committee, that inquiry will not get up, similar to the 457 visa inquiry.

That was one of the other substantive matters that you raised, Senator Bartlett—that this bill was not dealt with by the legislation committee. This matter was not referred to them and therefore they made no recommendations about bringing forward a bridging visa E type work permit. Senator Nettle has pointed to a range of quite concerning circumstances where people do not have work rights—and I suspect the government could also point to a few. There are situations that come to mind where bridging visa Es are provided and where, it would seem to me, they are not the appropriate thing to provide. For example, a holiday visa overstayer, who is therefore in breach of their visa conditions, finds work, and the government, in one of their rare compliance audits—perhaps I should not say that; I should say in one of their compliance audits—discovers them and gives them a bridging visa E before they then send them on their way. In that case, the penalty is in fact repeating the offence. In other words, they were discovered working unlawfully and they are going to be sent back, but they are given a bridging visa E which allows them to work until such time as they do go back. It would seem an illogical result to me. It may not come to pass; the government may change its position and not provide them with a bridging visa E in those circumstances.

Granted, those people are at the other end of the substantive problem that Senator Nettle raised, but we do not know without a proper review or inquiry to look at it more broadly. That is why Labor find ourselves in the position where we do not know all the unintended consequences that might arise. We also know the reality, unfortunately, is that this government will not support such an inquiry and it will not get up, more’s the pity. But I hope Senator Vanstone heard some of the issues raised by Senator Nettle and will provide a more holistic answer than was provided by Senator Kemp, although he did his best. Perhaps Senator Vanstone can add some more helpful information for Senator Nettle.