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

In continuing my remarks on the Migration Amendment (Employer Sanctions) Bill 2006, in the short time I have left available I want to reiterate a point that is germane to this debate—that it should have been concluded sometime in 2000, not in 2006. The report on this bill certainly highlighted that this area needed effective government action. The government dragged its heels and it has taken quite a while for this matter to finally be put before this chamber. Labor supported and pushed for this matter during 2004 and continues to push for it. The government has finally acceded to the need for change.

That need for change was highlighted in the original report. Had the government been more diligent in reading that report in 1999, we would have had the ability to have employer sanctions against the company that got raided yesterday for breaches with regard to 457 visa holders—where the company was warned about immigration breaches. That company cannot find itself in the position of being prosecuted under this bill or legislation, because it will not come into force for another six months after enactment, after passing through this chamber.

In other words, whilst the Prime Minister might make much to-do about a company in that circumstance being brought to task, it is certainly not going to be brought to task by an employer sanctions regime under this legislation. That is because this bill, which should have been in place, was not in place, is still not in place and is not going to be in place until six months down the track. When the government says—or Mr Howard concurs—that there are failings in this area that obviously need correction, we find of course that under this legislation it is not going to be the department of immigration that will be able to fix it.

There might be significant other breaches to be found, but we are going to have to wait for this bill to pass and to come into operation before it can assist in stopping illegal workers being employed by businesses under such visas as the 457 visa and before it can prevent holders of those visas from being exploited or those visas being used to create situations which it seems from the reports could be quite dangerous, especially where visa holders do not speak English or fail to understand directions. There might be actions for breaches available under other legislation, but it is clear that the government’s attention to this area has been lacking. It has been lacking not only in this area of ensuring that there are effective sanctions for employers but also, by and large, in dealing adequately with the 457 visas.

The government has failed to address this whole area by looking at how it can adequately address skills shortages; 457 visas are not the solution. They are not going to create a position where the solution will be brought about by guest workers, which is the phrase I use. The government objects to that phrase but, when you look at their program, you see that it really does smack of nothing short of a guest worker program. The government has ensured that the test that normally would and should be applied to 457 visa holders is absent.

And, looking at the continuum, we must then ask, ‘What tests apply to the employers to make sure that they do not incorrectly or badly’—or any word that might come to mind—‘employ people under 457 visas?’ The answer is that there are not many sanctions available. Certainly, there are none current under this legislation because, of course, the bill has not been enacted. So, by and large, the government have failed miserably in this area, but it is pleasing to see that at least they are now starting to address it, although belatedly.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, the Democrats support—

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been demoted, have I?

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I beg your pardon, Mr President. I am sorry to inadvertently demote you! It is nice to see you sitting there listening to the debate. The Democrats support the Migration Amendment (Employer Sanctions) Bill 2006. As has been said, it is very unfortunate that it is the bill of 2006 and not the bill of 1999 or 2000.

You really have to look at the contrast in the levels of urgency that this government has given to different migration issues. When there are 43 people seeking protection from persecution, arriving in Australia seeking asylum, the government acts almost instantly to announce more draconian legislation to restrict those people’s rights, to further pervert our Migration Act, to further remove basic rights and justice and to give the government the power to take people completely outside the rule of law; and the government attempts to push it all through in a matter of days or weeks. Yet, when we have comprehensive evidence of tens of thousands of people working illegally in Australia year after year, the government takes seven years to act.

This legislation was tabled, we had the Senate committee inquiry and the report was tabled—I think, nearly four months ago—but it has been left to sit there for that whole period of time. Suddenly it became more urgent to try and push through legislation to persecute asylum seekers than it was to address the reality of thousands of people working illegally in Australia. That, more than anything, says all you need to say about this government’s priorities in the area of migration law.

Any time there is a chance to scapegoat an asylum seeker or use boat arrivals to tap into community fears and concerns, this government will act in a flash. There are major announcements and attempts to whip up community concern and moral panic, and there is a sense of massive urgency, that it is absolutely crucial, that this legislation is pushed through without delay for border protection reasons, even though asylum seekers are the group of people—amongst the literally millions of people who arrive in Australia each year—who are most thoroughly assessed and checked and whose background and details are most comprehensively examined. There is no border protection issue when it comes to asylum seekers. They do not threaten our borders.

People who do threaten our borders and aspects of the Australian economy and society are people who live here illegally for prolonged periods of time and work here illegally, under the radar. I am not saying that they are a threat in the way that the government likes to paint any of these people as threats, in the sense of being potential terrorists or anything like that, but they are people in the community, under the radar or in the black market, and we are not aware of where they are or who they are. That does not apply, I would have to say—and I have to emphasise this—to asylum seekers, whether they are in the community or elsewhere. There are, of course, many asylum seekers in the community. We know who all those people are, where they are and what they are doing. Some of them have work rights and some of them do not. That is a separate issue that I will get to in a moment.

The simple fact is that tens of thousands of people are working and living illegally in Australia for prolonged periods of time. Quite clearly, that is a much greater risk to any meaningful sense of the term ‘border protection’. It is certainly a much greater risk when we have people operating and living in the community and we do not keep track of them and we do not know who they are or what they are doing. Yet a very simple and essential measure to try and put more focus on people who deliberately employ illegal migrants has just languished for seven years. That is a clear example of how this government is not serious about genuine border protection or the integrity of our migration system. It is serious about looking for political opportunities to vilify and stereotype people for short-term political gain, regardless of the personal suffering or the social divisions that it causes, the perversion of our Migration Act and, I might say, the culture of the implementation and administration of our migration law.

Let us not forget that the period of complete inaction, more than seven years, was precisely the period that has been recognised and acknowledged by comprehensive inquiry reports—by the Ombudsman, amongst others—as the period when the culture of our migration department was perverted, distorted and clearly made very sick. This government cannot step away from the fact that it has to bear primary responsibility for that destructive and negative culture in the migration department. This is a clear example of why that culture was so perverted: all of the energy and focus was honed in on asylum seekers and people who might be perceived to be here for those sorts of reasons. When it came to people generally working illegally in the community, then simple legislative amendments—important legislative amendments anyway—were just not undertaken. That message cannot be made strongly enough with regard to this legislation.

The legislation itself is welcome. The committee inquiry into the legislation was constructive—once again a reminder of the value of Senate committee inquiries when they are given the opportunity to actually do their job. It provided information and guidance as to ways to make measures like this legislation more effective and make the goals that are part of this legislation more effective. Now there certainly can be no excuse for employers in Australia to deliberately and knowingly employ people who do not have work rights. I acknowledge that sometimes it is hard to determine exactly who has work rights and who does not, and that is another argument for broad-ranging and sweeping reform of our Migration Act. It is incredibly complex. There are 150 different visa subclasses, each of which has different work rights attached. Some of them have no work rights and some have only limited work rights for certain periods of time. For some student visas it is 20 hours a week, for some people on working holiday visas it is three or six months in one particular job with the same employer, and there are rollover provisions and renewal provisions. There are a range of different components and criteria that determine who has work rights and who does not. That makes life complex for employers, and I appreciate that.

We need to get as much information as possible out into the community and make it as easy as possible for employers to be confident that the person they are employing has work rights. The one potential negative of this legislation that I think we need to guard against—an unintended consequence, if you like—is employers becoming fearful of employing people because they may not have work rights and therefore not employing them at all. I use the obvious example, again, of refugees who are here on temporary protection visas or asylum seekers who are in the community on bridging visas. Some of them have work rights; some of them do not. I think all of them should have work rights after a period of time, but that is a separate matter. As the law stands, some of them do and some of them do not.

It is not surprising to hear reports—and I hear them regularly—of refugees who have been given only temporary protection visas, three-year or five-year visas, who have difficulty getting employment because an employer is not sure if they have the right to work. When it comes to refugees and people on protection visas, there is a subconscious undercurrent that there is something suss about them because these are the people that the government kept saying were bad in some way. It heightens that general sense of unease and uncertainty about whether these people are okay to employ.

That is a direct consequence of a calculated campaign of vilification by the government towards asylum seekers over quite a number of years now. All we can do is try and undo that slowly and make people recognise—as is now finally happening—that many of these refugees are amongst the hardest working people in the community and they are so desperate to get on with rebuilding their lives that they will take on jobs that other people will not do, and they will work hard at them. Of course, as has been mentioned by a number of people in this place, me included, many of those refugees on temporary protection visas have actually kept businesses operating, most notably abattoirs in some regional communities as well as other agricultural businesses that rely very heavily on that labour.

In bringing in this legislation which has stronger sanctions for employers who knowingly employ people without work rights, it is important that it does not create unnecessary apprehension on the part of employers who employ migrants or refugees, particularly if they are on various forms of temporary visas. We need to ensure that that does not happen, and the Senate committee inquiry report addresses some of those issues.

I would like to also emphasise that I think it is important—and I am again repeating things that I have said in this place before—that the government look at ways to do more with settlement assistance for migrants, not just brand new arrivals and people on permanent visas but also people who are here on long-term temporary residency visas. People can now get four-year temporary residency visas, temporary work visas, which can be renewed. Many people who are here for long periods of time without being a migrant, in the traditional sense of the word—that is, a person on a permanent residency visa—fall outside the traditional scope of settlement assistance because they are not seen as settlers. Without suggesting that there have to be myriad programs foisted upon these people, I think we need to put more effort into identifying them and providing that general support. Sometimes those small but important connections can mean the difference between someone remaining isolated or being exploited and someone integrating more effectively into the community.

We have heard some talk more widely from members of the government in recent days about the importance of people integrating when they migrate to Australia—a principle that nobody disagrees with. However, singling that out in a critical way only with regard to Muslims is a practice that I think is abhorrent. But the principle of encouraging people to be able to more effectively integrate is a key part of a practical and effective policy of multiculturalism. The fact is we are now bringing in around half a million people each year on residency visas—whether it is permanent residency or long-term residency; the majority with work rights—and with that larger number of people I think we need to look at investing extra amounts of money and resources and re-examine the way we do things to ensure those people are more able to effectively integrate.

Of course, a key mechanism for people integrating effectively into Australia is through employment. We do not want to put in place unnecessary barriers to employment, even if they are psychological barriers, either for the migrant or refugee or for the employer. I call on the government to monitor the operation of these provisions, not just in a legal sense but also in the sense of a broader monitoring of any impact they may have on the behaviour of employers and migrant and refugee employees. Hopefully, these provisions will have a positive impact.

As I said before, there really can be no excuse now for deliberately employing people without work rights. Whilst there are still labour shortages—and we know that—the fact is that a significant number of people are coming into this country each year specifically for the purpose of obtaining work. That number is quite enormous, and I would suggest it is as high as it has ever been in our country’s history once you include the people on temporary residency visas of various types. In that circumstance, there really should be no excuse for employers resorting to employing people who do not have work rights.

I do want to take the opportunity to make the point, though, that there are people in the community who should have work rights but do not. I particularly mention those on bridging visas, and bridging visa E is the one most widely referred to. Many asylum seekers have to wait in the community, sometimes for years, for their claims to be assessed or to go through the process, in many cases without any work entitlements at all—no entitlements to Medicare or to any form of income support. They have to live totally off charity for literally years in some cases. This can include families with children. That is simply unacceptable.

I recognise there are balances there. I recognise that there is a problem in that potentially people can get work rights and then string out an application for a visa for a prolonged period of time and just keep working in the meantime. That is a problem and I acknowledge that. But if you balance that problem against the problem of a family with children, particularly ones who clearly have grounds worth considering with regard to fleeing persecution, to leave them without any support whatsoever for years is a far greater social and ethical ill than someone who might be stringing out a visa application so that they can work for a bit longer, particularly in the context of the current labour market here in Australia. If we had extremely high unemployment at the moment it might be more understandable to be more hardline there, although I still doubt I would support it. But, when we do not have high unemployment, I think it is even less excusable to put people in compulsory penury, particularly children, for years at a time.

It is important in the employer arrangement, particularly when it comes to migrants, to ensure that there is not exploitation. We need to do better at coordinating and recognising the skills of people that come here and seek to come here. I do not want to go off too widely into other debates, although I am sure that other contributors will, but there is also a balance here. We have had other debates in this place already about the 457 visa, the business skills visas and the long-stay temporary skilled visas. As I have said previously, I support aspects of the concerns about those visas with regard to people being open to exploitation if the scheme is not administered properly, and I have concerns about inadequate recognition of skills and the sloppy administration of the program, allowing people to pour in who do not have the requisite skills or adequate English language levels for the tasks that they are going to do. Those are all valid concerns and it is appropriate to draw attention to these problems and to continue to pressure the government to act on them.

But that should not be used as an excuse to attack or gut the whole scheme or to rerun the old Hansonite antimigrant, protectionist argument, and that is what is being done in some quarters. I would not say it is being done by Senator Ludwig, for I think he puts his contribution in a reasonably measured way. But certainly in past debates—and Senator Carr is one who springs to mind—it is quite clear that some arguments are just a Hansonite, xenophobic dog whistle, trying to repeat the same old myths that migrants are taking Aussie workers’ jobs and we should be scrapping the skilled visa programs or winding them right back. Firstly, it is a myth that is inappropriate and unhelpful and divisive to propagate; and, secondly, it is quite economically destructive, given the current reality.

Of course, this government has failed to properly resource and invest in education and training; it has terribly underinvested in those areas. But that should not be used to punish and penalise and attack migrants who simply seek to come here to fill jobs that are available and contribute to our community. That is an important part of the whole purpose of this legislation and the whole broader issue. That is why I support this legislation. Migrant workers working within an effective system where people’s rights are protected and where people do have work rights contribute to the building of the Australian society. That is the migrant story of Australia and this is part of building it. (Time expired)

Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unlike the United States, the labour market in Australia has never relied on a large pool of migrant workers working in the so-called black market or unauthorised economy. Despite this, at various times the government, supported by the tabloid media, has sought to whip up fears of ‘illegals’ taking Australians’ jobs. There is a serious issue in Australia with the exploitation of migrant workers who do not have the correct visa—and, indeed, exploitation of people who do have the correct visa. Many of them are employed on substandard wages or, in some cases, held in what amounts to servitude because of the fear of discovery by immigration authorities, and we see unscrupulous employers employing such people in order to reduce the wages bill and to have a subservient workforce. The Greens support the Migration (Visa Application) Charge Amendment Bill 1998 because it seeks to shift some responsibility for this issue onto employers, rather than targeting workers. We do not want to see migrant workers criminalised. However, we do have some concerns about the possible implications of this bill and hope that the implementation of these changes will be closely monitored to ensure that there are not adverse impacts on employers who are not attempting to exploit their workers but rather are assisting people who deserve to be able to work.

The recent scandals that we have seen in the actions of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs around people such as Vivian Solon have resulted from the current government’s propensity to divide people into ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’ with a zealousness that has been very destructive to people’s lives and has seen frequent mistakes made. Labelling people as ‘illegal’ and treating them like criminals by putting them in detention centres has been a massive failure that continues to this day. We hope that this bill does not lead to an attitude where people who are found working without the correct visa are treated as hardcore criminals. We need to have some perspective about the kinds of offences we are talking about. We do see illegal workers who contribute to the economy. Their paperwork is not regular but they often do a regular day’s work for a regular day’s pay—or sometimes less—and they lead fairly regular lives.

Recently, in the United States of America, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of illegal workers took to the streets against harsh new immigration laws being brought in by the Bush administration. Many chose to withdraw their labour for a day, which forced the closure of many factories and services. Senator Hillary Clinton told a rally of thousands in New York:

Your faces are the faces of America.

Whilst the scale of illegal workers in America is very different from that in Australia, both countries have been built on immigration and we must be careful not to demonise new arrivals based on their visa status.

The Australian Greens are also concerned about the potential for increased discrimination against migrant workers as a result of this bill. We are concerned that employers may be more reluctant to employ people from certain backgrounds because of fears about their visa status and their work rights position. We do not want this bill to inadvertently lead to discrimination against already disadvantaged workers in our community. During the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill, these concerns were raised by the Australian Catholic Migrant and Refugee Office. They stated:

With the amendment stating that it is an offence to knowingly or recklessly allow those without work rights to work in Australia illegally people who might look or sound differently are likely to find themselves not only questioned but also suspected of breaking the law. This might further fuel prejudices, racism and xenophobia and result in further exclusion for a group that is already experiencing disadvantages and discrimination in the labour market.

The Greens urge the government and the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to educate employers and carefully monitor the implementation of this legislation to ensure that it does not lead to any increase in discrimination against migrant workers in Australia.

Unfortunately, the government’s policy in relation to refugees also contributes to the problem that this bill is seeking to address. Many asylum seekers who live in the community are barred from working by their visa status. Therefore, many of them may feel that they have no choice but to seek employment on the black market. I will move to these issues later in my comments.

First I want to deal with one other issue raised and dealt with in this legislation. Right now, in detention centres across the country, the government’s privatisation of immigration detention has allowed the prison corporation GSL, which runs these immigration detention centres, to exploit detainees who want to work while they are locked up behind the razor wire. Currently, detainees who perform work in immigration detention centres, whether it is gardening, cleaning or in the kitchens, receive the equivalent of $1 an hour. The equivalent of one measly dollar an hour is how much this private company, GSL, which has a background in running private prison facilities, pays some of its detainee employees. These workers are probably the lowest paid workers in Australia. They clean rooms, work in the kitchens, maintain the grounds and provide other work around immigration detention centres.

Earlier this year the detainees who were working in the kitchen at Villawood detention centre went on strike. They were being paid the equivalent of $70 a week for a seven- to eight-hour day. They were cooking and serving three meals a day and cleaning for over 300 people and receiving $70 a week. When they started their strike action they were asking for $175 a week, which is still way below the minimum wage. It is scandalous that, on top of everything else that detainees experience in immigration detention centres, they are slaving away for virtually nothing—$1 a day—just so that they can earn the right to buy cigarettes or phone cards. During this strike at Villawood detention centre, the management, of course, was trying to get other detainees to work at the old rate of $1 an hour. Meanwhile, the private company brought in casual contract workers, who were being paid $15 an hour to do the work that detainees in Villawood do for $1 an hour.

We have heard a lot in this place and in the community about the government’s industrial relations laws—how workers can be more easily sacked and wages and conditions are being be driven down. The Greens have been a part of this opposition in the community to these laws. But the situation in Villawood detention centre is perhaps even worse than many of the cases that we have heard talk of—where employers use the government’s new industrial relations laws to attack workers.

What we have in Villawood is a workforce that is locked behind razor wire, that is often subject to brutal treatment by private prison guards and that needs to work in order to get access to some basic entitlements such as the use of the telephone. This is a workforce that is being ruthlessly exploited by the private prison contractor with the assistance and support of this government. We see that in this legislation. This is not a new problem. It has been going on for some time. The minister, the department and the government are well aware of it. Last September, Unions NSW called for a full review of working conditions at Villawood Immigration Detention Centre following claims from detainees that the detention centre was profiting from using detainees as slave labour.

GSL, the private company running these detention facilities, and the government are in legal hot water over this situation. On the one hand, they may be breaching industrial relations laws by paying these workers so little. On the other hand, they may be breaching immigration law by employing the people who are held in these detention centres. This situation has meant that the department of immigration, the government and the private company running the detention centres have redefined what the detainees have been doing as an activity rather than as work in order to get out of this legal hot water. It is reflected in the Orwellian language that is issued on the time sheets in Villawood detention centre and also in the statements made by department of immigration officials and staff from GSL. But a mere name change does not change the fact that these workers are being exploited by the private company running this detention facility, and the company is being aided and abetted in this by the government.

The Federal Court is currently considering these issues in a case that has been brought by a detainee from Villawood detention centre against the department of immigration, the government and GSL, the private contractors who run the immigration facility. Of course, his claim is only one amongst potentially hundreds from detainees at Baxter detention centre and other detention centres around the country who are in similar situations.

Perhaps the current court case in the Federal Court explains the clause in this bill that seeks to exempt immigration detention centres from the sanctions to be used against employers who employ a person who does not have a work visa. Proposed section 245AF of the bill states in part that the penalties do not apply:

… where … a detainee in immigration detention voluntarily engages in an activity of a kind approved in writing by the Secretary for the purposes of this paragraph.

This clause will legally sanction the employment of detainees in detention centres. The Greens support the clarifying of the legal status of detainees, who we say should be able to work; however, they should not be exploited, and the government must ensure that these detainees are properly remunerated for the work that they do. It could be doing so in this piece of legislation we are debating but, instead, it is seeking to protect itself from the current Federal Court case.

While the government in this legislation and by its actions wants to allow work to be done by asylum seekers in detention centres, when they are released from detention centres and allowed to live in the community it is not allowing these people to work. It is fine for them to work in detention centres and be paid a dollar an hour; but, through the government’s bridging visa E system, people are released from detention and are told that they cannot work and they must rely on the services of charity organisations.

There is no provision in this bill to expand work rights for some of these visa categories when the people in these categories desperately need work rights. Bridging visa Es are issued to asylum seekers who are allowed to live in the community while their asylum claims are assessed. People on bridging visa E must get special permission from the department of immigration to be able to work and most of them do not have work rights. They have limited access to social services and Medicare and are forced to live off charity from friends, family or church and other community groups. Some may be on a bridging visa E for many months or even years at a time. These people often want to work but know they will be breaking the law if they do.

The Melbourne Catholic Migrant and Refugee Office, during the inquiry into this legislation, told the Senate committee:

Research has found that ineligible asylum seekers live in abject poverty with virtually no mainstream supports available to them. The impact of this coupled with prolonged passivity has caused high levels of anxiety, depression, mental health issues and a general reduction in overall health and nutrition. Though [Bridging Visa Category E was] originally intended to be of only three months duration, there are some asylum seekers who have been on a bridging visa E for over eight years. The burden to support these people has been left to underresourced community and church groups and is unsustainable, particularly for the needs of growing children. Most people seeking Australia’s protection in this situation are completely reliant on charity.

The Uniting Church recently commissioned independent research into people who are living on bridging visa E. They found that, of the 211 adult working-age asylum seekers interviewed living in Victoria and New South Wales, 71 per cent had skills Australia needs and almost half had skills that are in very high demand according to the government’s own migration occupations in demand list. The same study concluded that the ‘denial of work rights to asylum seekers in Australia equates to a potential loss of $188 million to the Australian GDP over a three-year period’. The solution is simple, according to Reverend Gormann from the Uniting Church, who says:

… providing work rights to asylum seekers whilst they await a decision on their protection or humanitarian visa, would enable individuals and families to live independently, save the community millions of dollars, and would contribute to the Australian economy.

During the recent Senate inquiry into the administration and operation of the Migration Act,the inquiry was told by Ms Turner, a volunteer who helps people on bridging visas:

These people in contemporary Australia are literally starving, dependent on charity for food and a roof over their heads, for an unlimited and uncertain period of time.

The Senate inquiry recommended that all holders of bridging visa E should be given work rights. The Australian Greens hope the current departmental review of these matters will make the same recommendation. However, given the record of this government in responding positively or even at all to Senate inquiries, we are not prepared to wait while people on bridging visa E continue to struggle in the community. For that reason, I will be moving in the committee stage of this bill an amendment to implement the recommendation from the Senate inquiry that people holding bridging visa E in the community should be able to work.

The effect of this amendment will be to relieve the burden on asylum seekers and others on bridging visa E, the burden on welfare agencies such as the Red Cross that are forced to look after the asylum seekers, the burden on Centrelink and other government welfare agencies, and to relieve in a small way some of the skills shortages that are a major problem for the Australian economy. It is a sensible amendment implementing the recommendations of the Senate inquiry into the Migration Act, and I hope the Senate will support it.

The Australian Greens will support this bill because we do not want to see shonky and unscrupulous employers and rapacious businesses exploiting vulnerable people who are criminalised by the immigration department. However, we do not accept the hypocrisy of this government that is allowing prison companies to exploit immigration detainees in detention centres but locking asylum seekers in the community out of the workforce. We intend to monitor the effects of this bill and, if it is used to further criminalise and discriminate against migrants, we will be holding the government to account.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate on the Migration Amendment (Employer Sanctions) Bill 2006 allows us to reflect on the generous, sensitive and very welcoming migration policy that Australia has adopted over many years. I suggest that the Menzies era of Australian government was the era when Australia opened up its doors and welcomed in migrants from all over the world. Mr Acting Deputy President, you may recall that, when Australia first became a Commonwealth, much to its shame this nation had in place what was loosely referred to as the ‘White Australia policy’, a policy that the Labor Party and no doubt the Greens—had they been around then—and certainly the communists, who were the forerunners to the Greens, would have supported. The White Australia policy was something that, in effect, the unions, the Labor Party, the communists—the forerunners to the Greens—would have supported. It was the enlightened Menzies government that opened up the doors to immigration. I have to say, though, that the recent debates on the 457 visas have shades of the White Australia policy coming back into those arguments. I am sometimes concerned that those opposing the 457 visas do so on the basic premise that certain classes of people should not be allowed into Australia because they might be working harder than some Australian workers.

The government’s generous, sensitive and welcoming migration arrangements are world-class. I congratulate the current Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Vanstone, and the previous minister, Mr Ruddock, on the work they have done in very difficult circumstances to encourage people to our shores. We have one of the most generous refugee schemes in the world. I think that, per capita, Australia is right up there amongst any other nation in terms of the generosity of our refugee schemes. What we do not encourage are those who queue jump, those who do not follow the processes, those who try to get an advantage by turning up on our doorstep and not waiting their turn as hundreds of thousands do around the world.

The bill before us will provide for sanctions against those employers, labour suppliers and others who knowingly and recklessly employ illegal workers or refer them for work. So I would imagine there could be no opposition whatsoever to this bill. The bill deals with some very serious issues in Australian society but it does so with an eye to ensuring that only those employers and labour suppliers who are of genuine concern will be affected by the offences for which this bill provides. The bill is the product of a long period of consultation and development and deserves the support of all senators in this chamber. The arrangements provided for in the bill prevent the majority of potential illegal workers from entering Australia in the first place. Australia has a very good system of dealing with issues before they become problems. This bill simply adds to the good work that the Australian government has done in recent years in all areas of the immigration debate.

Some speakers in this debate have made the sorts of wild claims that we have come to expect from the Labor Party, the Greens and the Democrats. Senator Bartlett said that education and training for immigrants was grossly underfunded. That is simply contrary to the facts. These are the sorts of words that fall out of the mouths of those trying to make a political point, but rarely do they look at the facts. Under this government, education and training has been substantially increased over many years. This is no better emphasised than by the technical colleges bill that was recently passed by the Senate.

Senator Nettle, in her usual emotive language, which usually lacks a bit of fact—you have to give her credit for her use of English language and the adjectives she uses—talked about ‘brutal treatment’ in detention centres, people being ‘ruthlessly exploited’ and used as ‘slave labour’. The use of such Orwellian language will engender the closed fist salute from some of the rallies that Senator Nettle attends but it is quite contrary to the basic arrangements for immigration detainees in Australia. If there had been brutal treatment of these workers in detention centres, one would think that that brutal treatment would have been investigated by the authorities and the police and something would have been done about it. Of course, the detention centres are very well run. They have been the subject of quite a deal of inspection and investigation over recent years. In nearly every case, with some very minor exceptions, they have come up with a clean bill of health.

Senator Nettle used an argument that these people are employed as slave labour and she quoted from the act, which says that they may ‘voluntarily engage in employment in a detention centre’. If they are being treated as slave labour, if they are being brutally treated or ruthlessly exploited, one wonders why these detainees would volunteer for work in the detention centres. So one wonders at the agenda of some of those who use this sort of inflammatory and emotive language to talk about an issue which has in fact been very well run, very sensitively run, by a succession of Australian government ministers since 1996.

I mentioned before that in the debate on the section 457 visas shades of the White Australia principle were coming through in some of the speeches opposing the section 457 visas. That arrangement is an exceptionally good one for Australia, and I raise as often as I can the situation of a couple of meat processing factories—a goat processing factory in Charleville and a wild pig and kangaroo processing factory next door to it—that have enormous export markets available. The goat processing factory can sell everything it produces to very good markets in the United States and there is no worry about tariffs; the free trade agreement looks after that. It is a great business and a huge fillip for that small town of Charleville in south-west Queensland, which is part of my electorate.

The factory currently employs 150 people, and 25 of those people are Vietnamese families who have been brought in on section 457 visas. They have been brought in simply because the owners of the factory could not get enough labour to continue to process the demand for their product. The organisation has applied for additional section 457 visas and, although the minister and the department have been slow in processing them, I certainly hope they will eventually get there and allow additional Vietnamese workers to enter Australia to help out the company and to help out and contribute to life in that small western town of Charleville in Queensland. Next door to the goat processing factory is a kangaroo and wild pig processing factory. Again, they have more export demand than they can cope with, but the only thing holding them back is the availability of labour. If there are people who are genuinely seeking work, I am sure they would be welcomed with open arms in just these two establishments in south-western Queensland.

I certainly urge the minister and the department to process the section 457 visas as quickly as possible. I understand that, because they have been under some unrelenting attacks from the opposition in all of its forms in recent times, the department hastens slowly to make sure they carefully assess all the applications, and that, of course, takes time.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don’t they normally carefully assess them?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course they would normally carefully assess them, but the minister then has to come here and put up with the sorts of attacks the Labor Party and their union mates continue to make. You could get some of your union mates to slip out to Charleville and look for a job, if you are so concerned about their welfare. Charleville is a great little town; you should go there some day. It is a western Queensland town. It is one of those towns that, because of the nature of things—dying is too strong a word—was not progressing as much as the people there might have liked. But then these two meat processing factories came along and, almost overnight, revolutionised the town, the employment opportunities and the community involvement. The Vietnamese families who are there, I am told, have become very much involved in the community. They are very much a part of the community and demonstrate how everyone can benefit from this scheme. I just wish the opposition would stop the nitpicking and the continuous attacks on the department, its officers and the minister—although the minister can put up with it. The continual nitpicking from the opposition is debilitating to the people who are doing their work and doing it in a very competent way with Australia’s interests in mind. Having said that, I again urge the minister and the department to deal with the visa applications as quickly as they can, and I urge the opposition to stop the baseless attacks on this proposal so that the department can get on with its work so that all Australians can benefit.

This bill is another step in ensuring that the right arrangements apply, that those who want to come to Australia to work are properly dealt with and that any offences and any breaches of the very strict regulations that the Australian government puts in place are very substantially penalised. This bill is a product of very long consultation and of development and, as I said earlier, deserves the support of all members of the parliament. I commend the bill to the chamber.

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Migration Amendment (Employer Sanctions) Bill 2006 provides, as has been outlined before, for sanctions against employers, labour suppliers and others who knowingly or recklessly employ illegal workers or refer them for work. As such, the main provisions of this bill are to be supported. We have a long tradition in this country of ensuring that people who are not entitled to work here due to their visa conditions do not work. The Commonwealth is well aware that each illegal worker in this country is at risk of exploitation. The Commonwealth revenues are at risk and our fellow Australians are denied the opportunity to work.

Although we hear a lot about how we are nearly at full employment in our economy, the reality is that about five per cent of people are unemployed and many more are vastly underemployed, considering the fact that, for government statistics these days, you have to work for only one hour a week to be considered to be employed. We must, therefore, have a system that prevents people who are not eligible to work from doing so.

There are a number of reasons why we must improve the system we currently have in place. And, as even Senator Ian Macdonald has said, this amendment bill is a step in the right direction. This bill contains eight new fault based criminal offences relating not only to employing illegal workers but also to referring noncitizens for work. This is a vital step in policing this problem as many people now are employed in a labour hire situation, and now the organisation that refers the applicant is also to be liable.

It is also true that now in the Australian labour market there are many non-traditional work relationships. Taxi driving is a case in point. Often the owner of the taxi leases the cab to the driver. In the past those engaging illegal noncitizens in such situations would not have been able to be prosecuted as this relationship was not defined under the law. Now, however, if you knowingly allow a noncitizen to work, you are liable. The new offences are to be: allowing an unlawful non-citizen to work—and this is to be considered an aggravated offence if the illegal worker is being exploited; allowing a noncitizen to work in breach of a visa condition—again, this is to be considered an aggravated offence if the illegal worker is being exploited; referring an unlawful noncitizen for work—again, an aggravated offence if the illegal worker being referred is exploited; and referring a noncitizen for work in breach of a visa condition. An aggravated offence will be committed if the prospective illegal worker will be exploited.

Unfortunately, those employers and referral agencies that employ noncitizens are likely to be the very same people who exploit the workers. There is no more specific example of this than in the sex industry. In the many cases that have been reported over the years it is obvious that the people engaged in the sex industry come into this country illegally, are treated in the most disgusting way by their employers, and are reluctant in any case to approach authorities, even if they have the language skills to do so.

It is clear that employing illegal noncitizens for any kind of work is just the starting point, however. By the very nature of these so-called employment relationships the door is always open to exploitation. Whether it is through underpayment, unsafe work practices or, in extreme cases, slavery, any person who is prepared to employ illegal noncitizens is exploiting those individuals. Tougher sanctions are required to ensure not only the integrity of the Australian labour market but also the basic human rights of individuals concerned.

However, like many others in this debate I would like to turn to another area of immigration practice in this country, its application and the ramifications for the integrity of our Australian labour market. I am glad Senator Ian Macdonald raised the issue of the Australian meat industry, because I recently investigated the situation of people working in abattoirs in Western Australia. I did this because I was informed by the Meat Workers Union in my home state that there were several hundred unemployed or underemployed members of their union.

When the situation was investigated I found that there were five abattoirs in Western Australia employing people who were classified as noncitizens but were holding 457 visas. On the surface, that did not seem too bad. However, when I found out that those five abattoirs were employing 356 people in total, I thought there was a serious problem. I was told that the union knew of hundreds of qualified skilled workers who were not able to secure employment. And at the same time the immigration department had granted 356 people 457 visas to work in Western Australia. Well, I for one fail to understand how a situation can arise where hundreds of qualified meat workers are unable to secure positions in the industry that they have worked in for some time, yet the immigration department can allow 356 people in from overseas to do that work.

My examination of the relevant immigration forms and policies did not find any reference to the need to determine whether suitable citizens or permanent residents are available in the Australian labour market before a 457 visa is granted. The only reference I could find was on form 1110—the business sponsorship monitoring form—that says:

Accept as good practice the desirability of creating appropriate career opportunities for Australian citizens and permanent residents ...

The next point reads:

Accept that the recruitment of labour ... must not counter Australian Government training policies and objectives of producing a highly skilled and flexible Australian workforce.

So there is no checking being undertaken to see whether there are suitable Australian citizens or permanent residents who are available to do the work, as is evidenced by the meatworkers having hundreds of unemployed or underemployed members. And the notion that employers accept that the recruitment of foreign labour does not counter government training policies is an absolute nonsense—after all, what government training policies? This is just a form of words on paper which do not mean a thing.

The objective of producing a highly skilled and flexible Australian workforce in this day and age of Work Choices simply means a race to the bottom in terms of pay and conditions. There is something very wrong with an immigration system and government policies that allow employers to source foreign labour on the basis of a skill shortage when there are hundreds of Australian meatworkers who cannot secure work in their industry. All their skills and experience count for nothing it seems. Instead, the government has created a system that allows employers to source foreign labour and do our fellow citizens out of work.

We need look no further than the cafe and restaurant businesses around the nation’s capital to see the excesses of the 457 visa system. And I am sure my colleague Senator Lundy will have plenty to say on that matter. Cooks and chefs are sourced from overseas—working for rates of pay and with conditions that no decent Australian employer would offer—and then when they have the temerity to complain they are treated as less than human. The 457 system is completely out of kilter with normal employment practices and the need to overcome short-term skill shortages in our labour market. Instead, it is being used by some employers, in conjunction with Work Choices, in a race to the bottom in pay and conditions.

I am also aware, thanks to my colleagues at the AMWU, of boilermakers being recruited in South Africa who were promised work on projects in the north-west of Western Australia. They were promised good Australian pay and conditions and were loaned money to get to Australia—paying interest rates of over 18 per cent on those loans in the expectation of being able to discharge the loan quickly because of the high wages they would receive and then being able to send money back to their families in South Africa—only to be cruelly misinformed. When they arrived they did not work on projects in the north-west at all. No, they were put to work in metal fabrication shops in the suburbs of Perth. There were no big wages and no decent conditions. After living expenses, usually provided and billed by the employer, and the cost of their loans were taken into account, they were not able to send any money at all back to their families in South Africa. Chalk up yet another failing of the 457 visa system.

The facts are simple: those employers who wish to exploit the 457 visa for the simple reason of reducing their labour costs are able to do so. If you want to act in this manner then the only conditions you have to meet are that you accept that it is ‘desirable’ to create career opportunities for Australian citizens. Of course, you can do that. If an Australian citizen wants to work for you, they can do so on the same basis as you employ foreign workers—after all, it is only required that the employer accepts that it is desirable, not that they actually have to do anything about it. And you must ensure you do not counter government training policies. That, as I have said before, is a joke. If there are no government training policies to counter then you do not have to do much of anything at all.

The system is condemning to unemployment Australian citizens who want to work in an industry but who are not prepared to do so at the reduced pay and conditions, while the Commonwealth government, through the policies and practices of its immigration department, accepts with open arms foreign workers to do work that could be done by Australians. It is time that the balance in this visa class changed. It is time to ensure that no further 457 visas are granted unless there is a demonstrated shortage of labour.

Whilst I hear from those opposite—and in fact we have heard very often from the minister—that the slightest thought of questioning the 457 visa category is deemed to have a hint of the White Australia policy about it, and whilst people therefore seek to cast anyone who questions this policy as racist, I challenge those opposite to name a country in the world where it is not the policy of their government that the local labour market gets first preference. The only country that I can find that has that policy at the moment is this country, through the 457 visa system.

From my attempts to research this issue, I cannot find any state based information on the numbers or classifications of those coming in on 457 visas. This issue has been pursued at estimates, and from answers to questions on notice we may get that information. However, as a general rule of thumb with things happening in Western Australia, whenever it comes to population based allocation of funding or the like, it is deemed that Western Australia gets about 10 per cent of the total. I therefore presume that in the last year in Western Australia some 8,000 or more 457 visas have been issued to people working in our state. However, we have no real idea of where they work, what amounts of money they are paid, what conditions they work under and the like. Whenever employers wanting to sponsor 457 visa holders in the country seek a variation to the employment conditions of workers employed under state conditions, they must consult the state government. So far, less than 400 of those applications have been made.

While considering employment conditions in the meat industry, I learnt of one particularly stark example of how 457 visas, and in fact immigrants to this country, can be exploited. There is an abattoir down near the town of Albany called Fletchers. It is an abattoir surrounded by razor wire and CCTV, an abattoir that employed a lot of Afghan TPV holders—people who had obviously gone through an enormous amount of trauma to settle in Australia and had chosen Australia as a place that they would be safe. These people were housed in sea container type accommodation and kept behind the razor wire with the CCTV on them the whole time they were employed. It is little wonder, then, that as soon as they were legally able to they all left the employer, and Fletchers are now seeking to bring in some Filipino workers.

This is at a time when we have some regional unemployment, when we have meat workers in Western Australia who are unemployed or underemployed. These people of Afghan origin did not say they did not want to live in regional Australia or Western Australia, but they sought to flee from that employer as soon as they were legally able to. Those are the kinds of conditions that employers are seeking to exploit at the moment. Hopefully this piece of legislation will seek to redress some of those issues, but we are a long way behind in the fight. As I say, the current 457 visa system is open at the moment to the worst kind of rorting. If you have a problem with your labour force, don’t worry about it: you can go to the immigration department, it would seem, source your labour from overseas countries—which always have their own labour as their first priority—and then engage in a race to the bottom with your competitors.

The skills shortage that is often alluded to by this government as the reason that we have to have this special visa category is actually one of the government’s very own making. This government has had 10 long years to do something about the impending skills shortage, and yet it did nothing. Australian industry failed to train enough apprentices to replace skilled workers leaving the workforce and yet they too did nothing. As has been discussed in this place often before, skills shortages do not spring fully formed from nowhere overnight. This is a skills shortage that has been 10 years in the making.

There are leading indicators—and, in fact, a whole department of the Commonwealth: the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations—to ensure that forward planning in skills training and skills development takes place. Unfortunately for Australians seeking long-term careers, it would seem that that department has been so busy implementing the Job Network in its various guises, new workplace agreements and now Work Choices that it obviously dropped the ball on identifying skills shortages.

This government, even in their latest budget in May this year, have failed to deliver any kind of measures to address the skills shortage crisis that the Australian economy faces. Instead, their only solution is that we have a 457 visa system to overcome the problem. There is no long-term solution or vision from this government. Instead, we have a 457 visa system that does not address the needs of Australians with the necessary skills or experience who could do the work but who are cut out of the system because an employer can source foreign labour instead. Employers can source foreign labour quickly and without effort thanks to the system of visas that clearly does not take into account unemployment or underemployment of Australians.

It is all well and good for the government to debate this bill today aimed at introducing sanctions against employers who employ illegal foreign workers. However, this government need to get serious about the five per cent of our workforce who are unemployed or underemployed and nowadays do not even get a chance at work because the 457 visa is operating at full speed. Prime Minister Howard was in fact correct when he said that he would determine who came to this country and the circumstances in which they came. Clearly, if you are coming to work for an employer under a 457 visa, there are no checks undertaken to see whether an Australian can actually do the work. This is a system that must be changed.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Sport and Recreation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor has long argued for sanctions for employers when non-visa holders are employed, but we are also pleased to see a focus on sanctions relating to the breaching of visa conditions in the Migration Amendment (Employer Sanctions) Bill 2006. I refer specifically in the bill to point 3 in the list of offences, allowing a non-citizen to work in breach of a visa condition, and also point 7, referring a noncitizen for work in breach of a visa condition. These are very important points and relate to what those visa conditions are. As we have seen with the experience in Canberra of migrant workers on 457 visas, those visa conditions include the payment of the award and meeting occupational health and safety requirements. Putting penalties in place to protect workers against a breach of visa conditions can in fact have the effect of protecting them against underpayment of the award wage.

Following the raising of these problems in this parliament, as I did earlier this year, I pursued the issue with the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs at Senate estimates. It became clear back then that there was no sanction of any substance under the Migration Act at all. The minister had the capacity to prevent employers found to be exploiting workers in this way from being host employers again, but there was nothing further than that. It was only after pressure from Labor, I believe for many years, that action has finally been taken, albeit now there is some waiting period as well.

At the time, the government appeared to have no choice but to pursue those breaches through the Workplace Relations Act and certainly the Office of Workplace Services was charged with the responsibility to conduct those investigations. In other words, the only way any penalty or disincentive could be pursued on behalf of migrant workers working under a 457 visa was through an investigation and prosecution mounted by the Office of Workplace Services. I am pleased to say that the Office of Workplace Services has followed through with its prosecutions and Federal Court decisions are now pending in two cases of two restaurants here. But, as we know, the only thing Senator Vanstone had to offer under the Migration Act was that these businesses would no longer be permitted as sponsoring businesses for the purposes of employment of 457 visa holders. That was clearly a gap and I think that that has been acknowledged by inclusion of the two points in this bill which I mentioned earlier.

In this bill, the sanctions relate specifically to employers who are in breach of a visa condition. The regulations provided for by the act that I mentioned before do include the payment of the appropriate minimum wage in the award. So, in the future, once this bill comes into effect, DIMA will be able to pursue the prosecutions of employers who employ workers under 457 visas in breach of the award and the standards applying. That is the theory anyway.

I want to reflect on what I presume was a very frustrated minister when it was discovered that visa conditions could effectively be ignored and workers exploited under the auspices of the Migration Act. The Howard government, while they could stop an employer from using the Migration Act, could not recover any payments nor could they sanction an employer in a meaningful way. I think it was quite ungracious of the minister for immigration to reflect poorly on Labor’s role in bringing these matters to her attention because it appears to have had a tangible effect, given these new penalties. I particularly note the aggravated offences where exploitation has occurred. I think that is a reflection and an acknowledgement that exploitation has occurred and that it will be viewed particularly harshly.

Going back to workplace relations, I would also hope that the immigration minister stays on the back of the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations to ensure that the Office of Workplace Services pursues these breaches in an ongoing fashion. I applaud what I perceive as being enthusiasm on the immigration minister’s part but note the motivation is probably to give the Howard government some political cover on a mismanaged 457 temporary migrant worker visa scheme that is currently, as we know, capable of being ruthlessly rorted at the expense of the rights and wellbeing of temporary migrant workers.

But I do not think that was enough for the minister. I presume that she kept pushing the investigations and they were expanded to cover many other restaurants here as well. It seems to me that the Howard government was seeking even more political cover for the crumbling credibility of the 457 visa scheme under her stewardship. What better way to do this than to demonstrate that it was not just 457 visa holders that were being ripped off but local workers as well? This was quite a brilliant own goal by Senator Vanstone, which I dutifully acknowledged at the time. Senator Vanstone came ripping in here full of personal vitriol against me, saying that heaps of workers have been ripped off and that that was proof that incorrect and illegal payment of wages was not peculiar to temporary migrant workers. As I did then, I thank Senator Vanstone for pushing the Office of Workplace Services to follow through with these investigations. What she has achieved appears to be quite comprehensive. She has demonstrated that, under the Howard government’s industrial relations laws, many workers—and many young workers in hospitality, in particular—have been underpaid over a long period of time. She has demonstrated that this is not peculiar to the plight facing many temporary migrant workers but is affecting local workers as well. This of course is a devastating outcome for those workers who now presumably will have their case followed through and that underpayment repaid.

I noted at the time, when the minister was hastily constructing some political cover for her failure to protect temporary migrant workers from exploitation, that a joint press release with DEWR was issued which sought to reassure the Australian people that the Office of Workplace Services would act on bad practice. I think she has demonstrated that unscrupulous employers are motivated to rip off both local and migrant workers. When bringing these revelations of widespread problems to the parliament through a question from a Liberal colleague in question time, the minister highlighted the absolute folly of the Howard government’s extreme IR changes. She said at the time that unions ought to have done more for these local workers, when it was the unions that brought forward the original complaints, unions that require access to workplaces to represent their members and unions that the Howard government has sought so comprehensively to smash.

I do not believe the Howard government can have it both ways. The fact is that, under this government, employers have felt emboldened to exploit vulnerable workers. The situation in Canberra shows that that does extend beyond vulnerable temporary migrant workers here to help us fill a skills shortage—and there is a genuine shortage of chefs in Canberra and the surrounding region. Employers have felt that they are able to further exploit workers because of the rhetoric and nature of the industrial relations laws that the Howard government has introduced. I think that is a very poor reflection on those changes and is testimony to the necessity of the ongoing campaign of the Labor opposition and the ACTU.

The real test of Senator Vanstone will be whether she now chases the Office of Workplace Services to undertake similar investigations in the hospitality sectors of other cities and whether, when this bill is implemented, she will pursue investigations, prosecutions and penalties for employers found to be breaching and breaking the law in the future. If this level of activity does not continue, that will reinforce the fact that it was mere political expediency to make a lot of noise now and to hope that it all goes away. I do not think it will, for this reason: many people do not realise that, although the government has been happy to publicise the restaurant prosecutions to date, those prosecutions have related to offences prior to the new extreme industrial relations Work Choices legislation being put in place. They in fact relate directly to the industry award in place at the time and, I might say, an industry award that continues.

Since that time, the opportunities for exploitation have worsened and the government has undermined its own ability to use the industry awards as a base to enforce a minimum standard. That ought to give Senator Vanstone something to think about. How on earth do you maintain those minimum standards under a 457 temporary migrant worker visa scheme when there are no minimum standards in place and individual contracts prevail? I do not think both schemes can operate in conjunction without undermining the very intent and capacity for us to successfully utilise the temporary migrant scheme and prevent it being exploited. That is the dilemma facing the Howard government and it is a dilemma that will accompany it until it is kicked out of office at the next federal election.

To recap what I said at the beginning, the most important thing about this bill is that it finally identifies sanctions and penalties for employers who are in breach of visa conditions. There are obviously penalties applying to other aspects as well, such as employers allowing noncitizens to work. None of those have ever been there before. That has, as I said, allowed exploitation to run rife amongst unscrupulous employers and they should have been brought to heel many years ago. It is ridiculous that it is now 2006, the cat is already out of the bag, exploitation is occurring and this government is playing catch-up after many years of chronic neglect. I condemn it for that because it has brought the genuinely needed temporary migrant worker scheme into disrepute and has caused a great deal of conflict and angst amongst many Australian workers and, indeed, for the employers out there who are trying to compete and do the right thing by paying their workers well. How do those employers compete fairly against employers who are undercutting wages and exploiting migrant workers? That is not good for business and it is particularly not good for small business in Australia if those employers doing the right thing are the ones to suffer and have their businesses damaged by the dodgy operators in the Australian market at the time. I commend the bill to the Senate and I look forward to hearing further discussion.

Debate interrupted.