Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

The coalition supports stronger integrity in the skilled visa program, but what this bill does is it fails to achieve that objective without exposing employers to unjustified risk. I'm not saying that every labour hire company, every employer, is going to do the right thing. And I agree with the member for Gorton: those people who exploit workers should be exposed. Absolutely, 100 per cent, they should.

Certainly, I know the raids that were conducted by the immigration department when we were in government. I know the sort of work that those public servants, for and on behalf of the Commonwealth, do now, with Labor in power. They should be doing it. They should be exposing people who do the wrong thing by some of the most vulnerable people who come to Australia to work hard, to do the jobs that sometimes won't or can't be done by Australians themselves. We thank those workers, and we should be protecting those workers—absolutely, we should.

The publication of basic sponsor information could be seen as a proportionate step, but the bill, unfortunately, gives rise to too many potential problems and also leaves the scope of data of any exemptions to regulations. That's what the coalition is concerned about. That's why the coalition is not supporting this bill. We need to establish clear criteria and review mechanisms to prevent what would be arbitrary use of power—we should.

But there are so many potential risks to businesses which rely on migrant workers, particularly in regional areas—and it's regional areas where many of these workers are being engaged. It's regional areas, as I said earlier in my remarks, which welcome these people, which need these people and which by and large—the honest employers, those good farmers, those well-meaning communities—do the right thing by these workers.

More substantial antiexploitation reforms promised by the government as part of its Migration Strategy, including criminal sanctions, a whistleblower visa and repeat-offender bans against those recidivists have yet to materialise. Labor and the city based members get so uptight about these things; the city based members often want to tell us—I appreciate there are some city based coalition members sitting here with me!—how to live our lives, how to run our businesses, how everything should happen in regional Australia, they who've barely ever set foot in the place. I'm not saying that about the coalition city members in the chamber at the moment. You know who I'm talking about—they just need to learn a thing or three about regional Australia. And the government should be held to account for those unnecessary delays.

But don't just take my word for it; maybe find a farmer who does employ these workers and ask them. Maybe find a local government mayor—and I know the member for Parkes has many of them—and see how vital these workers are to the operations of our local communities in country Australia. As I say, by and large, people in regional, rural and, in particular, remote Australia do the right thing.

A concern raised directly with Senator Paul Scarr from Queensland, the immigration shadow minister, by the Business Council of Australia relates to the inclusion of nomination headcount data. I don't always agree with the BCA, but, certainly, in this instance, they argue that the information is not necessary for the stated transparency purpose and could expose employers to—wait for it, Member for Parkes—union harassment. We all know what happens when the unions start to harass. I say this—and Labor members can smile about this all they like—I was a union member for 21 years. I've been a member of a union. I understand that unions have a part to play, a role and a responsibility in this nation, but what we don't want is to give a green light to unions to harass employers unnecessarily.

Master Builders Australia also advised the good senator that migration agents—the key contacts for migrant workers, rightly or wrongly—would already have the information proposed to be included in the register. And, in cases where a migrant worker needs to find a new sponsor, these agents are already well placed to assist with that search. Alternatively, the information that the government is seeking to include in the new register could simply be shared with the migration agents rather than be made far more widely available.

So there are clauses and pieces of this legislation which are concerning, and Labor, in typical Labor fashion, has not properly explained this. Labor, in typical Labor fashion, did not do, I and my colleagues believe, the proper stakeholder engagement before it brought this legislation to the chamber. But what the 'Labor dirt unit' does is give the notes to the members, and they come in here and just assiduously read them and think that that's all true and all right. They've always got that 'decade of neglect and dysfunction' et cetera; we all know it because we hear it parroted all the time, and if you say it that often eventually you'll believe it. But this side of the parliament did some very good work in the migrant worker space. I hope that the Labor side also does some work in that space to benefit our migrant workers because regional Australia needs them and regional Australia needs legislation that is the best it can be.

See this speech in context