Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Hansard source

I note the point made by the member for Throsby. He clearly does not understand that increased regulation, which is the subject of this bill, is what is at issue. I do not know what talking points he is going to be speaking from when he next speaks; maybe he has got them mixed up again! He happens to get mixed up on many issues most of the time, but if he wants to listen a little more than he speaks he might understand a few things about the impact of regulation on business, which I am sure that he as a former union official may have had some exposure to—if he spoke to employers rather than trying to extort them.

The Migration Amendment (Reform of Employer Sanctions) Bill 2012 before us today will only add further strain and will further stain this government's record when it comes to economic management. As thanks for having law-abiding businesses, honest employers will now have to cop a ridiculous regulatory burden to verify that their employees are, in fact, legal. The government have taken an unrealistic approach to managing risk within our immigration program and have failed to implement systems to help businesses manage that risk effectively. Because the government could not be bothered, they are going to contract this out and put the burden on business. This legislation is a case in point.

This is a government that does not understand business, big or small, and this is a government that cannot be trusted not to move the goalposts midway through an agreement or investment. There is mounting evidence that this government and this minister, held captive by the unions, are actively destroying Australia's skilled migration program, particularly in the area of temporary migration and, in that process, they are destroying Australian businesses.

Labor has undermined the confidence of foreign investors by changing the rules of engagement without warning. The government's botched handling of skilled migration has been on display for the last six months—hopefully it will come to a resolution this week—through the enterprise migration agreements farce, which continues to this day. Six months ago, the minister went to the National Press Club and announced this grand new arrangement for the Roy Hill mine project in Western Australia. But announcements by this government mean very little. They think that once you have announced something—whether it is the Asian century or the National Disability Insurance Scheme—the job has been done. It does not matter what they announce; people want to see the program delivered. Having announced an enterprise migration agreement back in May for skilled migration, particularly temporary skilled migration, opportunities to ensure the viability of a project of that significance—which is bigger in today's dollars than the Snowy Mountains project—instead of following through and being able to confirm it in a matter of days or weeks, we saw the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations dingo on that announcement on the same day, after their meetings with unions.

Six months later, the Roy Hill mine EMA is still not signed. There is still no deed. And this is happening when the coalition have supported the government; even when we support them, they still cannot get it right. I hope that the minister will be able to come to an agreement on the Roy Hill mine project. I hope that the government will come to that agreement this week. They have already failed to this point, through their delay, but if they fail to come to an agreement this week then they have failed absolutely.

It is against this track record of failure after comprehensive failure that the government have come into this place and sought permission from the parliament to impose upon businesses another regulatory burden. They are not asking for more money, as they were earlier in the week; they are asking for more regulation. Is it any wonder businesses do not trust this minister when he tells them that these sanctions 'should only be of concern to those employers who seek to circumvent the law'? These sanctions should be of concern to every employer whose business relies on being able to access overseas workers where Australians are not available to fill the jobs.

In their submission to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, when the exposure draft of this bill was first released, the Australian Mines and Metals Association noted that these measures would 'impose disproportionate cost and inconvenience on resource industry employers, even though work by noncitizens has not been identified as a significant occurrence within the resource industry'. They went on to say:

Overall, it is imperative that the cost of doing business is balanced appropriately against the cost of ensuring compliance with migration laws.

These bills do not strike that balance.

The Australian Hotels Association said in their response to the exposure draft that their concerns centred around what they saw as 'significant additional obligations on all businesses and all workers as an inefficient way of addressing a relatively small-scale and isolated problem'. AiG, the Australian Industry Group, described the proposal as 'heavy-handed and unnecessary'. They said that imposing strict liability offences on employers and labour suppliers will not deter the small minority of employers or labour suppliers who already knowingly abuse the law to engage cheap labour. They said:

Rather the proposed changes will impact the unintended targets, i.e. good employers and labour suppliers. It is unfair that these persons be subject to high regulatory burdens because of the illegal practices of a very small few.

The Labor government has already imposed a significant burden on employers who hire overseas workers, including but not limited to the Migration Legislation Amendment (Worker Protection) Act 2008, which gave the Department of Immigration and Citizenship expanded powers to monitor, investigate and penalise employers for noncompliance as a sponsor. The department has existing laws to do the job that is needed to ensure compliance in relation to migration. Under that legislation, DIAC officers were given the investigative authority to conduct site visits, monitor workplaces and impose fines of up to $33,000. Furthermore, that legislation imposed a mandatory training requirement for 457 visa holders that effectively amounted to a two per cent payroll tax on those who engaged overseas workers in a temporary capacity.

This bill creates new, and broadens old, applications of criminal offences and civil penalty provisions on those who permit or refer an unlawful noncitizen to work in breach of their visa conditions.

And it extends that liability to include executive officers of corporate bodies, partners or members of management committees of unincorporated associations. The current employer sanctions regime, introduced by the Howard government in 2007, already includes criminal offences for allowing or referring an unlawful citizen to work, or to work in breach of a visa condition restricting their work. When it comes to this government, and when it comes to Labor more generally, too much regulation is never enough when it comes to imposing a regulatory burden on small and large business alike.

In a report commissioned by the government, Mr Stephen Howells concluded that the provisions are:

wholly ineffective as a deterrent against the small number of employers and labour suppliers who engage or refer non-citizens who do not have lawful permission to work or who work in breach of their visa conditions.

He went on to say:

The Employer Sanctions provisions are also ineffective as an educational tool for recalcitrant employers and labour suppliers.

Those two statements are inherently contradictory. Based upon those assessments, it is difficult to see how this legislation will exert any more of an impact upon the very small group of offenders who knowingly flout existing laws in the face of existing penalties—but I bet you it will keep the unions happy. I suspect there will be a few cheers from the union movement in the lead-up to an election as this bill parades itself around the union boards and as they decide the level of donations that they will be applying to the Labor Party as they go into the next election. It will not be keeping business happy, but it will keep their union funders happy, that is for sure.

The number of breaches is acknowledged to be few; there have been even fewer convictions. So Labor's answer to cracking down on a very small minority is to force a greater regulatory burden on the majority of businesses who already do the right thing. Howells' report estimates that around 100,000 people might be working illegally in the country at any one time. These figures are speculative. But, in any case, even if we were to accept them, the nation's total workforce is over 11 million. We are talking about less than 0.9 per cent of the workforce.

Applying these new penalties and provisions to current as well as future employees will create a significant headache and impose an enormous regulatory burden on employers. The statutory defence provisions of this new bill would require any employer establish when any work is performed, they were shown a valid Australian passport, a valid birth certificate, a valid certificate of permanent residency or a valid visa permitting work. The combined effect of these recommendations would mean that any employer could be taking a risk if they do not check a passport, birth certificate or visa status of a person who presents themselves for work. The administrative impact of this measure alone is excessive. Furthermore, the processes involved in seeking that documentation are not only lengthy; they are inherently discriminatory. Employees will be required to share information about their age and place of birth, which could lead to discrimination against people who may be legitimate Australian citizens because of their racial identity or background.

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry have flagged grave concerns about the draft legislation with the Australian Human Rights Commission and informed the government that if the bill were to be passed in its current form then they would be seeking exemptions under the federal and state discrimination acts to protect their ability to make requests for the evidence required under the Migration Act.

The existing regulatory regime and costs of compliance that the government has systematically built around the employment of foreign nationals is already onerous and the proposed changes will significantly increase the regulatory burden and increase the compliance cost on employers.

The explanatory memorandum alone is 105 pages long. More importantly, there has not been a compelling case put forward by the government to change these laws.

Frankly, Australians do not have confidence in this government to run and administer policy. The episodes of failure are many to back up their lack of confidence. In sharp contrast, the coalition has proven economic credentials and a sterling record. The coalition has a six-point plan to improve productivity. We will strengthen the economy by lowering taxes and slashing red tape through more efficient government and more productive businesses, delivering more jobs, higher wages and better services for Australians. We have a proven policy and record of restoring order and integrity to Australia's immigration program and, importantly, in reinstating public confidence in both the humanitarian and refugee program and skilled migration stream. Remember it was a coalition government that increased the percentage of our permanent intake from less than 30 per cent under Paul Keating to almost 70 per cent when we left office in 2007. That is our record of which we are duly proud. We were able to do that while doubling the permanent immigration intake and halving the level of concerns Australians had about immigration levels being too high. That is evidence of the confidence of the Australian people in an immigration program being run well. That confidence is no longer in existence today.

Those businesses which currently employ illegal workers are already breaking the law. They are obviously not dissuaded by the sanctions or fines already in place, so what is the point of creating more regulations for them to continue to flout? Drowning legitimate businesses under mountains of unnecessary paperwork is not going to help the department weed out dishonest operators. The coalition has always believed that immigration is a nation-building initiative. We maintain it will play a key role in the urgent productivity challenges Australia now faces. And the way to introduce integrity into both processes is not through heavy-handed regulation but by better management under existing law. In immigration we can boost productivity by reducing the level of compliance and regulation that is strangling business. The coalition would do this through a genuine commitment to proper risk management and systems and policies to support such an approach. The coalition has the proven policy and the resolve to back it up. We mean what we say and we deliver on our word. We stick to our principles, which is why we refuse to support this bill today. It has been brought into this place, once again, to seek more regulation on top of the more taxes Labor continues to ask from the Australian community and to further increase the regulatory burden Labor is seeking to impose on employers. It is simply unreasonable and does not have our support.

See this speech in context