Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the Migration Amendment (Reform of Employer Sanctions) Bill 2012, because this bill seeks to impose an additional regulatory regime on employers who employ foreign nationals who are illegal or do not have work rights. We agree with that. That is common sense, and no-one in their right mind would disagree with that. In our opinion this bill goes too far and I will explain this as I go. The bill amends the Migration Act to alter criminal offence provisions and to create a new civil penalties regime with maximum fines of $49,500 for corporate entities and $9,900 for individuals in an infringement notice scheme. There is a whole lot of detail to the bill; I will not trawl over every bit, but the new requirements proposed by the bill are onerous, unnecessary and are in direct opposition to the coalition's commitment to reducing the regulatory burden and compliance costs on business. That is the crux of the matter. On this side of the parliament, we understand that business want government to get out of their way, make it easier for them and create a climate to operate in where they can actually turn a dollar and make a profit, because business are not going to employ anyone if they do not make a profit; they will go out of business and the worker will not have a job.

This bill adds to the already substantial regulatory burden imposed by this Labor government on employers who hire overseas workers; for example, those contained in the Migration Legislation Amendment (Worker Protection) Act 2008. This act provided DIAC with expanded powers to monitor and investigate possible non-compliance by sponsors and introduced new penalties et cetera. This was working quite well—and I will not go through the whole gamut of it because it is quite detailed. What the Labor party said was: 'Look, we don't think it goes far enough; we're going to engage Stephen Howells to conduct a review of this part of the Migration Act.'

In 2007 this act was brought in, and in 2010 they asked Stephen Howells to do an investigation; he reported in 2011. But the problem with Mr Howells's recommendations is that instead of having a common-sense approach to the numbers of people that have been found to be employed illegally or working without proper rights, he actually found that there were very few. In fact, in the whole of the work done beforehand—in 2008-09 the department located 11,428 unlawful non-citizens in Australia, and out of those only 990 were confirmed as working illegally. Mr Howells's report says, 'Yes, but it could be up to 100,000 people.' That is only anecdotal, and they do not have any figures to substantiate that. Even if it was, out of Australia's 11 million workers, on Mr Howells's own figures it is less than one per cent of workers. They would be far better off trying to do what they could to identify those working illegally than to put the onus on the poor old business. We know that, because of the language problems, there are a number of ethnic businesses, in particular, that employ people illegally. They say there could be 100,000 people here illegally who are being exploited by a restaurant or construction company that can get them cheaply because they do not have work rights. That is wrong and they should be prosecuted. But, on his own figures the numbers are so small. As a matter of principle, we in the coalition do not support government policy that shifts the administrative burden on to the employers. Where is the government's role in this? Where is the beefing up of the migration department?

Just to demonstrate how sad this is; Labor Party policy has increased red tape out of proportion since Labor has been in government. In fact, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry's national red-tape survey indicates that the extra compliance through red tape since the Labor Party has been in government is costing Australia an extra $1 billion a year. The ACCI survey states almost three quarters of businesses are spending more time on regulation than they were just two years ago. The financial costs of compliance are also rising. The survey of 870 businesses shows that 72 per cent spent more time on regulation, as I said, than they did two years ago, with 44 per cent spending between one to five hours a week, and 37 per cent spending more than five hours a week on this compliance activity.

The cost of compliance is also increasing, with 60 per cent of businesses saying they spend over $5,000 on compliance. According to parliamentary research, since late 2007—you know what happened after 2007, you got Kevin 07 and the fascinating election of Kevin Rudd and this Labor government—when Labor came to power, it has introduced more than 20,000 new items of regulation. This is the ACCI survey, not mine, not the Liberal Party's. Today, the survey no doubt reflects some of its impact. Just a month ago the World Economic Forum—to my learned friend across the chamber: if you do not like the ACCI, how about the World Economic Forum—revealed that Australia now ranked 96th in terms of burden of government regulation, compared with 68th when Labor came to power.

On independent figures, wherever you want to go, the multiplying factor of this compliance has affected productivity, which has fallen by 4.2 per cent since July 2007. Again, this coincides well with the election of a certain government. The government's so-called deregulation agenda is not addressing the underlying economic challenge of relative productivity. The government report not only failed to address the underlying economic challenges, but surprisingly indicated areas where they have introduced additional regulations. We know many of these recent regulatory examples such as the carbon tax and the mining tax. The mining tax has cost companies millions of dollars to regulate and implement and it did not raise one dollar for the government. It did not raise them any money but they are spending millions of dollars while mid-caps, juniors and everyone else are trying to comply. The government—

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is certainly about the bill because it is about the compliance regime that this government has put on industry right across Australia. This is where we are going. As the learned member across the chamber asked about the bill, I will go further to the bill.

One of the compliance factors is the imposition of a mandatory training requirement for 457 visa holders. The government also introduced legislation which effectively meant that two per cent of an employer's payroll tax had to be spent on training if they had overseas or temporary overseas workers. This is a new thing. The 457 visas worked. We as the coalition do not say that everyone should have a 457 visa worker. I have been vocal in the party room—as my colleague from Brisbane will tell you—and I have got up there and said: Australian workers first—train our young kids. We should be training our young kids in Australia and upskilling them first. At the end of the day, every now and then you are going to find a situation where you need a specific set of skills, and these people are sourced quite often on temporary visas called 457s. Combined with the introduction of the temporary skills migration income threshold, the cost to Australian business of employing temporary overseas workers has become prohibitive.

I wish to bring to the attention of this House—and I alluded to this last year—one of the crazy things in my own electorate that this compliance did. Borrello Cheese in my electorate sought to bring in a specialised cheese maker. Borrello is very good at their specialty cheeses. It is a family-run and owned business by Vince and Teresa Borrello. They are a couple of people of Italian origin who came here and set up this marvellous boutique industry. They are famous for their bocconcini cheeses, which I am sure, you would know, Deputy Speaker Scott. They are beautiful with tomato and a bit of basil and a bit of drizzled balsamic vinegar. It is some of the nicest cheese you will come across. Because they have got the whole range of cheese there, they decided to mentor and upskill their workers. As none of them had been to any courses, they would get a specialist Italian cheese maker from Italy.

They had a lot of help in this because they were blocked all the way along. Even Nick Catania, former state Labor MP, was helping Vince and Teresa eventually find a Mr Pelati, an Italian cheese maker, whose qualifications were right. His English was correct, not to mention the fact that he was enthusiastic and keen to get on with the job to help the local people employed in that cheese factory grow the business.

Vince and Teresa did the right thing: complied with the visa, paid for his transport, medical costs, set-up costs et cetera. All of a sudden he got a letter from DIAC saying that he was going to have to leave the country. It was rather strange, because they could not understand why a junior officer from DIAC in Perth had said that Mr Pelati was going to have to leave the country.

It was not until I went to a senior case officer who was very good and explained the difficulties in this area. A Mr Robert Bailey explained what the difficulty was. We know that this is a roadblock that has been put in the way of people employing people, because of the infiltration and interference of unions who do not want to see any outside workers, particularly if they do not belong to one of their unions.

Mr Bailey from DIAC said, 'They've got to pay this levy.' He initially said it was a one per cent levy, which was going to cost $8,890—nearly $9,000—a year to have this cheese maker stay in Australia, but it had to go to a registered training organisation. There are no registered training organisations in Australia that have cheese makers—not one. So they had to find someone to give this money to. Lo and behold, they ran into another roadblock. It was not one per cent at all; it was two per cent of your payroll tax that had to be spent on training—not on the training of the workers in Mr Borrello's cheese factory; he had to find a registered training organisation in Australia that he could give this $18,000 to.

He eventually thought he had found somebody in Melbourne that might put his $18,000 towards training but, at the end of the day—

A government member: Couldn't they find anyone else?

No, they could not find anyone suitable. Eventually, after the anger and the angst, Mr Pelati said, 'What's going on with this silly country of yours? I've come here to make cheese and you're in my way. You won't let me work.'

They eventually found a place at New Norcia near Gingin north of Perth and they got this windfall gain. When the training authority got the $18,000, they said, 'What's that for?' They said, 'We don't know. We just have to give it to someone, so we're going to give it to you.'

So they gave them $18,000. Mr Pelati got to stay, but here is the rub: Mr Pelati wanted to be paid well for his specific skills and he wanted a good salary, so they negotiated an above-award salary. Sorry, you cannot work unless you are on the industry award so he said, 'I'm not taking less. I'm leaving,' and he went back to Italy.

After all that, mess, thank you very much for your compliance and your interference, DIAC and everyone else, the Borrellos went back to making their own cheese and not having to pay more than the one-off $18,000. So the compliance and the interference that is involved in these sorts of regulations is unnecessary.

If you are chasing illegal workers, yes, fund DIAC to go and investigate and hunt them down properly but do not get in the way of business from doing a proper job of making a profit and employing people who want to grow the business and further culturally enhance something like the Borrellos were trying to do in this country. I rest my case.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak in support of the Migration Amendment (Reform of Employer Sanctions) Bill 2012, and I will actually deal with the bill. I support this particular legislation; it has long history. Back in 1999 the former Howard government commissioned a review of illegal workers but sat on that review year after year. In fact, former Liberal minister Philip Ruddock introduced the Migration Amendment (Employer Sanctions) Act 2007, which came to affect on the eve of the federal election period on 19 August 2007—the federal election was in November 2007.

Having had a government review into illegal workers, they did nothing—year after year. At the time of its introduction, a review after two years of operation was planned. When the Liberals lost office and, fortunately, the Australian people entrusted a Labor government to serve in the Treasury benches, we said we would announce a review of the effectiveness of a particular legislation. We did that on 21 May 2010, and we appointed a very senior commercial barrister, Stephen Howells, to undertake the review.

The prevalence of illegal workers affects employers and employees. The major concerns with illegal work practices are that it means that people who are employed illegally are more susceptible to exploitation by venal employers. It means that concerns for workplace health and safety are less likely to be complied with. Employing those workers illegally has the effect of driving down wages and conditions, lowering safety standards and taking away the opportunities for Australian workers to get jobs. At its most egregious we have seen labour trafficking, forced labour and, effectively, economic slavery. This is a serious problem.

The former legislation put in place an alleged deterrent: companies could be exposed to fines of up to $66,000 per illegal worker. But, having investigated about 100 allegations against employers, it was found that only four were referred by DIAC to the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions. There were significant difficulties in developing prima facie cases against employers, and the only conviction we saw was in December 2010. This was a case where an employer was convicted and sentenced after a plea of guilty acknowledging a previous criminal record—a pretty straightforward case. A deterrent it was not.

The principal reason given in relation to this was the trouble gathering evidence. The best person to get the evidence is the employee who was working illegally, who may also find themselves in a position of legal sanction. It is possible that that illegal worker could find themselves in a detention facility awaiting trial, and the whole thing is extraordinarily expensive. So it is the case that employers with the worst motives could employ workers illegally, sourcing cheap labour, driving down wages and conditions, denying Australians the opportunities for those jobs and making sure that safety is not a high priority in the workplace. We do know that the vast majority of people who come to this country illegally, if I can put it like that, are people who arrive in Australia by aeroplane on valid visas and who stay here after the visa has expired. We see that quite regularly after major events are held in this country. They are not people who are the victims of effectively criminal cartels or people smugglers and who come to this country by boat and claim asylum.

The reality is that we could either resource DIAC even more and continue the current arrangements, which are not working and which the Howells review showed are not working—the evidence was clearly that they were not working—or we could take up the recommendations that were made by Stephen Howells. On 21 July 2011, the Minister of Immigration and Citizenship, Mr Bowen, announced that we would overhaul the penalties, make substantial changes in this area and make sure that those employers employing employees without the appropriate visa and appropriate rights to work could be sanctioned to a tiered system and were subject and liable to that. We have engaged extensively in relation to this. In fact, stakeholders have had about 13 years, in effect, of opportunities to put their case to government in relation to this issue, and have done so.

Employers, employees and trade unions—including the ACTU—have made submissions to the Howells review. The Howells review made a number of recommendations. It recommended the retention of the current criminal sanctions and penalties. It recommended legislation of a tiered system, as I said. And it recommended the idea of new civil penalties, with strict liability provisions and with statutory defences that employers could avail themselves of in circumstances where they had done the right thing. Also, there would be judicial discretion and maximum penalties of about $10,000. Stephen Howells recommended a system of infringement notices, with sanctions of about $1,000 and legislation, as I said, to protect those employers who do the right thing. He also talked about the need for better education concerning obligations and awareness for employers in those circumstances.

Many employers are very much aware of 457 visas—certainly, in the meat industry which is aware of them. In my electorate, Kilcoy Pastoral Company up in Kilcoy and JBS meatworks in Dinmore employ many people who come in on 457 visas in circumstances where there are workforce shortages in IT. In the health sector 457 visas are used as well, such as for doctors. Many medical practices in my regional and rural electorate are full of doctors who are here on visas and who become important parts of the local economy and community. In many cases, they are beloved for the work they do.

The federal government called for further information and submissions from interested parties. We have effectively decided to take a tougher stance by bringing in the civil system. We have decided to extend liabilities to third parties in order to address sham contracting arrangements as well, where people are engaged in circumventing the law. We made sure that the integrity of our migration system in this regard was protected. We wanted to make sure that there would be no reduction in working opportunities for Australians. The critical thing in all of this, and I have seen this personally in my electorate, is that foreign workers—those workers who come to this place and who do contribute to our local economy—are not subject to exploitation. It was estimated that up to 100,000 people were working illegally in this country, and that had grown from about 50,000 in 1998. The Howard government's response was inadequate. It acted as no deterrent, it was ineffective and, in effect, it impugned the integrity of our migration system, and it provided further opportunity for the exploitation of vulnerable people. We put the exposure draft of this bill into the public domain in August 2012 and we have had many submissions in relation to it. We put forward this legislation which brings in and acts on the recommendations of the Howells review. I am particularly interested in, and I am particularly in support of, the tiered enforcement strategy that is there—the creation of the no-fault base civil penalties—which has a lower standard than a criminal standard. Establishing a new civil penalty framework is important. This legislation also introduces new monitoring and investigation powers authorising officers to gather evidence of suspected breaches. As I mentioned before, the gathering of evidence was always a problem.

This legislation is an example of this federal Labor government fixing up a problem that the previous Howard coalition government had failed to address year after year, and on the eve of an election they decided they would seek to do something to make out they were protecting Australian jobs and protecting those people who were vulnerable. Once again, like their Work Choices legislation, it was inadequate, wrong, fallacious in terms of the law and did not result in good workplace practices in this country. In the circumstances, this legislation does seek to address that. It acts on best practice and brings us into line very much with what is happening in New Zealand, the UK and the US. I commend the legislation to the House.

Teresa Gambaro (Brisbane, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship and Settlement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The bill should be seen for exactly what it is. It is an example, again, of this government's war on employers. The stated objective of the bill is to impose an additional regulatory regime on employers who employ foreign nationals who are illegal or who do not have work rights. The bill amends the Migration Act to alter criminal offence provisions and create a new civil penalties with a regime of maximum fines of $49,500 for corporate entitles and $9,900 for individuals, as well as creating an infringement notice scheme. It looks also at broadening the application of criminal offences and civil penalty provisions to people who allow or refer an unlawful non-citizen to work or to work in breach of visa conditions, and it creates statutory defences where reasonable steps are taken to verify a foreign national worker's entitlement to work. It creates an infringement notice tier setting under the civil penalties provision allowing a person or corporate entity to pay a fine as an alternative to court proceedings. It also amends the current aggravated offences provision so that a person commits an aggravated offence when a worker is or will be exploited doing the work and the person who allowed the work or referred the worker knows this or is reckless about it. It also extends criminal and civil liability, in certain circumstances, to executive officers of bodies corporate, partners in a partnership and members of an unincorporated association's committee of management, and it creates search warrants and notice to produce powers specifically to facilitate the investigation of suspected breaches of these offences and civil penalties.

What a joy it is to be an employer under the Labor government. I have been an employer and I have employed students who were 20 hours a week, and I knew that was all they were entitled to work. I have also employed people under the working holiday makers program. But this Labor government puts all employers under the same blanket and treats them all the same, and decides that it is just going to put more complexity into the system. This bill is another myriad of onerous regime that it seeks to introduce, and it is testament to Labor's increasing obsession with making life difficult for as many employers as it can with more and more layers of red tape. You only have to look at the explanatory memorandum, which is 105 pages long. It is amazing. This would make the flow chart of Labor's red-tape obsession. It leaves the knowledge flow chart we saw some years back in the shade—and we know what a testament to clear and logical thinking that was, requiring navigation via a crystal ball and a ouija board. That is what this government does. It punishes the business sector.

In October of this year the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry released its National Red Tape Survey. The member for Canning highlighted some of the results of that survey. The chamber surveyed 870 businesses across all states and territories. The survey had some very interesting results and part of the member for Canning's speech highlighted that. But 73 per cent of businesses believe the overall compliance burden has increased in the last two years—what a surprise that is. Sixty per cent of businesses spent more than $5,000 per annum directly on costs related to regulatory requirements, with 16.1 per cent of businesses spending more than $50,000 per annum. Over 54 per cent of businesses spent more than five hours on their last tax return while 30 per cent outsourced it. Over 54 per cent of businesses perceive that regulatory compliance prevents businesses from growing.

What is difficult to understand is that the additional red tape the government seeks to introduce with this bill flies in the face of its own 2007 red-tape reduction election commitment. This government went to the election under the glib sound bite 'one-in one-out'. I remember that very well. Let us have a look at this government's report card against that election promise. When they said one-in one-out, on 29 October this year, the government had introduced 20,884 regulations and had repealed the wonderful number of—only—104. That is not one-in one-out, that is 200 in for every one out. An incredible tragedy, at the end of the spectrum, is the contrast with their 2007 red-tape election promise.

With numbers like that Labor should have called it their red-tape elevation election commitment, because at least then the government would have been able to lay claim to having had an election promise that they had delivered against. Regrettably, the numbers really do tell the story: 200 in for every one out. There is no conclusion to make other than that this government is anti-employers, anti-jobs and anti-productivity. Don't just take my word for it: according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, multifactor productivity has fallen by 6.6 per cent in Australia, from July 2004 to June 2011, with 4.2 per cent of this fall occurring from July 2007.

A study undertaken in August 2012 by the Economist Intelligence Unit ranked Australia as the second worst of 51 countries for productivity growth, ahead only of—and we should be very proud of this—Botswana. That is something we should truly be proud of as a nation. This less than stellar performance is also confirmed by the 2012 McKinsey study, called Beyond the boom: Australia's productivity imperative. This indicates that Australia's experience of income growth between 2005 and 2011 was driven by rising terms of trade and an upsurge in capital investment, not by labour productivity growth, which was weak, or by capital productivity, which actually fell quite significantly.

Against this backdrop we have, today, another bill that is introducing red tape. It is the very last thing Australian employers need, but it is just what this Labor government wants to slug them with through this bill. One of the primary reasons legislation is proposed and introduced into the parliament is to address unresolved needs or problems, or to correct a perceived mischief. What is the unresolved need or mischief this government is seeking to address here?

The best starting point in search for a meaningful answer to his question is the government's engagement of Mr Stephen Howells to conduct a review of the Migration Amendment (Employers Sanction) Act 2007 in 2010. In December 2011 the government announced that it would legislate to implement the recommendations contained in that review.

The current employer sanctions regime, introduced by the Howard government in 2007, set out criminal offences for allowing an unlawful noncitizen to work; allowing a non-citizen to work in breach of a visa condition restricting work; allowing the referring an unlawful noncitizen to work, and allowed for referring a noncitizen to work in breach of a visa condition restricting work. Therefore, under the existing legislation, for a person to be successfully prosecuted for committing one of these offences, it must have been shown that these offences were committed either with knowledge or due to recklessness. The current sanctions regime also provides for an aggravated offence where the worker is subject to exploitation. In considering the question of what mischief does this bill supposedly address, it is instructive to examine how many times these existing provisions have actually been used since the commencement of the existing legislation in 2007.

According to Mr Howells' report, of the approximately 100 instances of possible breaches of these existing provisions considered by the DIAC offices, only four of them were suitable to be referred to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions—that is right, there were only four cases since 2007—hardly what you would describe as a 'burning bridge' necessitating further regulatory overreach by a red-tape-happy Labor government that is never happier than when it is slugging the business sector as hard as it can. It was very interesting to hear the member for Blair analysing all of this. I cannot understand this, and the member for Blair is a former lawyer as well. I cannot understand why, on the basis of this very low prosecution rate, Mr Howells' report makes the following astounding conclusions about the existing sanction provisions contained in the Migration Amendment (Employer Sanctions) Act 2007, that they are supposedly:

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

This bizarre—and it is absolutely bizarre—contradiction fundamentally undermines Mr Howell report's recommendation. On one hand the report acknowledges that there have been very few breaches and even fewer convictions, while on the other hand such sparse behaviour apparently warrants the imposition of an even greater regulatory burden on employers. On this basis, the Howells report utterly fails in making a case that the extent of illegal workers warrant the heavy handedness of the response. Once again I return to the question: where is the mischief?

Mr Howells' report states that in 2008-09, DIAC located 11,428 unlawful noncitizens in Australia and, of those, only 990 were confirmed to be working illegally. The report estimates that up to 100,000 people were working illegally in Australia at any one time. However, the figures are purely speculative as they assume that all overstayers are working illegally. The total labour force in Australia is some 11 million, so even if the estimates in the Howells report are accurate, that is less than 0.9 per cent of 1 per cent of the workforce. The flames on the so-called 'burning bridge' just got higher. This is a great calamity requiring legislative solutions and posing more unnecessary burdens on Australian businesses. We are talking about a number that is equivalent to 0.9 per cent of the workforce that maybe working illegally, and I emphasise that there is no other way to view this bill than to say that it is a regulatory overreach which has gone mad. Why are we taking up the resources of the parliament in addressing a problem that scarcely exists, and more importantly, that is more than adequately dealt with by the existing law? We have heard about the onus on employers, but where is the onus on people who are working illegally under this legislation? I note that recently, the department changed some of its proof of records. Previously, people who were working in this country just had to quote an ABN, but I understand now that they are asking for proof of bank records and payslips; that is a very welcome move. But why does a Labor government have a pathological obsession with slugging employers in any way that it can? Speaking of employer groups, the government should not have been wasting everyone's time in drafting this bill. There have been various groups—according to the submissions received from, for example, the Australian Industry Group and various chambers—who believe the proposed changes in this bill to be:

... heavy handed and unnecessary. 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. 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 just a very small few.

In this context, the coalition opposes this bill, and I call on the government members to remember their own 2007 red-tape reduction election commitment. One in and one out; throw this one out even before it gets in. It is, again, an overreach imposing greater regulatory burdens on businesses out there who already have to contend with a huge regulatory burden that has just increased under this Labor government.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The bill implements the government's response to the independent report of the 2010 review of the Migration Amendment (Employer Sanctions) Act 2007, conducted by Mr Stephen Howells. In 1999, the Howard government was presented with the results of a review into illegal work in Australia which concluded that the extent of illegal work in Australia was a significant problem and that measures in place at the time were insufficient to address the problem. The 1999 report recommended the adoption of a range of employer sanctions. Critically, the report recommended sanctions which encompassed both fault based offences with criminal penalties and strict liability offences with civil penalties as well as infringement notices. Unfortunately, the Howard government failed to act on these recommendations. It was not until 2007 that it belatedly introduced legislation which provided for criminal sanctions.

The 2010 review of these measures, conducted by the barrister Stephen Howells, found that the existing Howard government sanctions were wholly ineffective. These measure have not provided a practical mechanism to instil in businesses the need to comply, nor acted as a deterrent to illegal work hire practices. Illegal work hire practices undermine the integrity of Australia's migration program and can result in the exploitation of vulnerable workers. Such conduct may also put at a disadvantage those businesses that only engage workers who are entitled to work and it reduces work opportunities for Australian citizens.

The Howells review recommended implementation of the 1999 scheme, with a little modification, including graduated tiers of education, warnings, infringement notices, non-fault civil penalties and criminal offences. This is intended to encourage voluntary compliance by businesses, and when this does not occur, provide effective sanctions. The amendment in this bill will amend the criminal offences and create new non-fault civil penalty provisions for persons who: firstly, allow an unlawful non-citizen to work; secondly, refer an unlawful non-citizen to a third person for work; thirdly, allow a lawful non-citizen to work in breach of a work related visa condition; and finally, or refer a lawful non-citizen to a third person for work in breach of a work related visa condition. The Howells report provided a compelling analysis and critique of the effectiveness of the current framework for dealing with the problem of illegal work. It concluded that the prevalence of illegal work had increased markedly since the 1999 review, with potentially more than 100,000 workers currently being employed without valid work rights. This bill allows the government to crack down on employers who hire illegal workers by setting out a range of civil and criminal penalties. The graduated system of sanctions will operate as a last resort and should only be of concern to those employers who seeks to circumvent the law. The legislation's key amendments include: amending the criminal offences and creating new, non-fault civil penalty provisions and an infringement notice scheme for people who allow or refer an unlawful noncitizen to work, or allow or refer a lawful noncitizen to work in breach of a work related condition; creating statutory defences where reasonable steps are taken at reasonable times to verify a foreign national worker's entitlement to work; broadening the application of criminal offences and civil penalty provisions to hold a person liable for participating in an arrangement or series of arrangements that result in a foreign national working without lawful entitlement; extending both criminal and civil liability, in certain circumstances, to executive officers of bodies corporate, partners in a partnership and members of an unincorporated association's committee of management; and creating search warrant and notice to produce powers specifically to facilitate the investigation of suspected breaches of these offences and civil penalties.

In order to address the illegal practices of sham contracting, informal labour hire and use of illegal workers by various entities within a conglomerate, the application of the criminal offences and civil penalty provisions will be broadened so that a person who participates in the chain of events that results in a noncitizen being allowed or referred to work without the required permission can be held liable for contravening work related offences and work related provisions. In addition, the bill will extend both criminal and civil liability to executive officers of bodies corporate, partners in a partnership and members of an unincorporated association's committee of management in appropriate circumstances. It also introduces investigative powers to allow authorised officers to gather evidence of suspected breaches of the work related offences and work related provisions.

To the extent that the government's legislative response may be resisted by some employers, those arguments are likely to have the underlying theme that the introduction of strict liability offences will impose requirements that are too onerous or burdensome on employers, that it is not the responsibility of employers, that more education is the answer, that more time is needed, or that there will be an impost on business. Similar arguments were run throughout the Howard government years to resist and delay the changes which were recommended by the 1999 review. The case for change has been clearly articulated by the ACTU as follows:

It is not seriously contested that illegal work is a problem for a whole of variety of reasons, both for the illegal workers themselves, as well as all those working legally, whether they be Australian citizens and residents, or overseas workers with valid work rights. The prevalence of illegal work … affects … those employers who are doing the right thing, and the broader community. Major concerns with illegal work include:

The real issue then becomes what practical measures are required to address the problem to reduce and remove the impact and incidence of illegal work. This means measures to deter employers who might be tempted to employ overseas workers without valid work rights and to ensure that those who do the wrong thing can be dealt with effectively.

One of the more disturbing aspects of illegal work is the use of student visas to bring people to Australia for exploitation in the sex industry. Anecdotal evidence given to the Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee of the parliament of Victoria for its inquiry into people-trafficking for sex work, and its subsequent report in June 2010, suggests that the number of trafficked women on student visas is quite large and growing. Certainly, Commonwealth prosecutors working on trafficking cases have seen evidence of trafficked women entering Australia on student visas. Indeed, being on a student visa did not exclude them from working legitimately in the sex industry. The prosecutors told the committee the problem was that in such cases it was very difficult to prove these women were working more than the 20 hours permitted on such a visa or that they had been brought to Australia to be exploited as trafficking victims.

The report of the committee indicated that trafficking can occur whether women arrive through legal means with valid visas and documentation, or through illegal means. It is not unusual for traffickers to arrange documentation such as student, visitor, tourist or working holiday visas on the basis of incorrect, forged or otherwise fraudulent applications in the source country. At this stage of the recruitment process money may also be deposited in an account opened in the victim's name to give veracity to her application for a visa. This may be particularly the case if the woman has made an application for a tourist visa. She will then be able to show she has sufficient means to support herself in Australia even though it is highly unlikely she will have access to, or control over, those monies once she has reached her destination. There is also some evidence that traffickers may arrange for sham marriages to a 'mule' or other person in order to strengthen their visa applications.

Concern has also been expressed to the committee about the role played by some colleges that accept overseas students particularly in Sydney and Melbourne. There have been strong suggestions that this under regulated sector is being used to provide a cover for traffickers and their operations. In particular, it has been observed that some colleges have been less than vigilant in monitoring attendance rates of people on student visas when they are obliged to do so. Evidence given to the inquiry by trafficking victims support workers also indicated that, in some instances, women are even paid to attend college, or at least make an appearance, as substitutes for the enrolled victim. Nina Vallins, the Executive Director of Project Respect, stated:

We are aware of cases where women have come in on student visas and they never set foot in the school. The school is in on it. The school is paid off or whatever it is to tick the women off on their roll, or there have been cases where someone else would go to the school on behalf of that woman and pretend to be her. But clearly there are these very dodgy schools which are assisting traffickers in their operations. It is a frustration for us that there does not appear to be monitoring of the schools.

The Salvation Army also told the committee how bona fide students may get caught up in trafficking once in Australia. Captain Danielle Stricklandsaid that in her view many young women who are legitimately here as students and are finding it hard to make ends meet are susceptible to being recruited for sex work whilst in Melbourne. That is, they are subjected to a form of domestic trafficking.

There are also many documented examples of exploitation of workers on 457 visas, the temporary migrant workers. I was recently made aware by the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers of the dismissal of the Danish engineer, Tonny Lind, who was on a 457 visa sponsored by Maersk Australia. According to the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers, Mr Lind questioned the company regarding whether his rate of pay was less than what he was entitled to. When the company did not address his concerns he sought advice from the union and then went to the Fair Work Ombudsman. The company subsequently dismissed Mr Lind,making reference in their letter of dismissal to the fact that he was seeking redress through Australian authorities over his pay and, as a result, instant dismissal was warranted pursuant to Danish law. This seems extraordinary to me and tends to confirm the concerns I have expressed for a number of years that 457 visas are open to abuse as a vehicle to pay reduced wages and conditions.

There was also the recent decision by Fair Work Australia in reference to the Giovenco Industries and Rio Tinto Alcanmaintenance agreement of 2012. The Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers has also expressed concerns to me about this agreement. The Institute of Marine and Power Engineers believes that in this case 13 senior employees were made redundant, and the company then employed five workers of Filipino background just prior to the vote on the agreement, and that the latter were not allowed enough time nor had the ability to meaningfully understand the enterprise bargaining agreement that they were to vote on. The nominated bargaining agent for the agreement at the time, Mr Michael Huddy, asserted that the five workers were employed on 15 February just prior to the vote on 20 February and therefore did not receive a notice of representation rights at least 21 days prior to the employer requesting that they approve the proposed enterprise agreement under section 173 of the Fair Work Act of 2009. Mr Huddy noted that the vote on 20 February was 46 votes yes and 43 votes no and that this followed a previously unsuccessful vote a couple of months earlier in December 2011. Fair Work Australia determined that no breach of notice of representation rights had occurred as the requirement to notify in section 173 arises at notification time and applies only to employees employed at notification time, and was subsequently not applicable to the Filipino workers.

I believe this agreement raises serious concerns about the potential for abuse of subclass 457 visas. The case highlights a loophole in the act that allows an employer to secure an agreement in circumstances where it could well be that the aforementioned five workers were not in a position to understand their rights and options.

Recent estimates put the number of unlawful noncitizens and lawful noncitizens working without permission in Australia at around 100,000. This is despite the fact that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship continues to have considerable success in locating illegal workers. We must tackle the continuing practice of allowing or referring unlawful noncitizens, or lawful noncitizens without the required permission, to work. It remains a serious issue as it undermines the integrity of Australia's migration program and has resulted in the exploitation of vulnerable people. It places Australian businesses engaging noncitizen workers without permission to work at a competitive advantage and penalises employers who do the right thing. Its effect is to reduce taxation revenue as well as work opportunities for Australians and those noncitizens with permission to work.

This bill addresses the government's long-held concern about the serious matter of illegal work in Australia and demonstrates the government's determination to tackle the difficult issues associated with this practice. I commend the bill to the House.

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

The Migration Amendment (Reform of Employer Sanctions) Bill 2012 seeks to impose an additional regulatory regime on employers employing foreign nationals who are illegal or who do not have work rights. The requirements this bill proposes are, I believe, onerous and unnecessary and are in direct opposition to the coalition's commitment to reduce the regulatory burden and compliance cost on business.

Employers who hire overseas workers are already weighed down by substantial regulations such as those contained in the Migration Legislation Amendment (Worker Protection) Act 2008, and this bill will be yet another imposition on these businesses.

Mr Champion interjecting —

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

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

Your government is responsible for allowing so many foreign workers in under various acts.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Riverina will ignore the interjections from the other side of the chamber.

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

It is just unbelievable, but I will take your wise advice, Mr Deputy Speaker, and ignore the interjections by the member for Wakefield.

This act provides the Department of Immigration and Citizenship with expanded powers to monitor and investigate possible noncompliance by sponsors and introduce new penalties for employers who are found to be in breach of their obligations. Officers from the department were given investigative powers to monitor workplaces and conduct site visits. Fines of up to $33,000 were introduced and employer obligations were prescribed which had to be satisfied when employing a temporary overseas worker. A mandatory training requirement for 457 visa holders was introduced in this legislation which effectively amounted to a two per cent payroll tax on employers who engaged temporary overseas workers.

My electorate of Riverina has many of these temporary overseas workers. They work in the abattoirs, they work picking fruit in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area and they do lots of other things as well. My Griffith electorate office handles many inquiries about these temporary overseas work arrangements. Combined with the introduction of the temporary skilled migration income threshold, the cost to Australian business of employing temporary overseas workers has become prohibitive. I and my staff member at Griffith hear that regularly. The Migration Act would be amended by this bill to alter criminal offence provisions and create a new civil penalties regime with a maximum fine of $49,500 for corporate entities and $9,900 for individuals, and an infringement notice scheme. It will also broaden the application of criminal offences and civil penalty provisions to people who allow or refer an unlawful noncitizen to work or to work in breach of visa conditions.

Statutory defences will be created where reasonable steps were taken to verify a foreign national worker's entitlement to work and an infringement notice tier will be created under the civil penalties provision, which will allow a person or corporate entity to pay a fine as an alternative to court proceedings. Additionally, the current aggravated offences provision will be amended so that a person commits an aggravated offence where the worker is or will be exploited doing the work and the person who allowed the work or referred the worker knows this or is reckless about it. This bill extends both the criminal and the civil liability in some instances to executive officers of corporate bodies, partners in a partnership and members of an unincorporated association's committee of management, and creates search warrants and notices to produce powers specifically to facilitate the investigation of suspected breaches of these offences and civil penalties.

In 2010, the government engaged Stephen Howell to conduct a review of the Migration Amendment (Employer Sanctions) Act 2007 and in December 2011 the government announced it would legislate to implement the recommendations contained in the review. Currently, the employer sanctions regime, which was introduced by the Howard government in 2007, comprises criminal offences for the following: allowing an unlawful noncitizen to work; allowing a noncitizen to work in breach of a visa condition restricting work; referring an unlawful noncitizen to work; and referring a noncitizen to work in breach of a visa condition restricting work. For a person to be prosecuted of committing one of these offences, it is also required to be shown that the offences were committed with either knowledge or due recklessness. If the worker has been subjected to exploitation, the offence is considered an aggravated offence, as it should be.

Since the implementation of the act in 2007, officers from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship have deliberated about 100 instances of possible breaches. Of these cases, only four were considered suitable to be referred to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. Due to the low prosecution rate, Howell concluded:

The provisions of the … Act—

as it stood—

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

The contradiction in this statement is a feature of the entire report. On one hand there are few breaches and even fewer convictions, yet on the other hand such exceptional behaviour warrants the imposition of an even greater evidentiary and regulatory burden on employers. Industry groups, including the Australian Industry Group, AiG, and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, ACCI, believe the proposed changes are 'heavy-handed and unnecessary'.

Under this bill the statutory defence provisions would require employers to establish, at the commencement of any work performed, that 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 this would mean any employer could be taking a risk of being fined before the court or receiving an infringement notice if they do not check this documentation. This administrative measure on its own is excessive. Furthermore, the process involved to view these documents is not only arduous but inherently discriminatory as it will require employees to reveal their age and place of birth. The need for this information has the potential to lead to discrimination against people who may be legitimate citizens or permanent residents of Australia but will be subject to questioning from their employer due to their race, accent and/or level of English. Due to these concerns, the ACCI has referred the draft legislation to the Australian Human Rights Commission and has informed the government that, if this bill is passed in its current form, the ACCI will seek exemptions under the federal and state discrimination acts to protect its ability to make requests for evidence required under the Migration Act.

The Master Builders Association of Australia made a submission to the Howell report, and, whilst they strongly support tough penalties being applied to those who deliberately exploit illegal workers, it was emphasised that the deliberate procurement of illegal workers for placement jobs in Australia was completely different to the inadvertent backpacker who has overstayed their visa. The law should specifically target those who deliberately seek out illegal workers. The Howell report was unsuccessful in making a case that the extent of illegal work warranted the heavy-handedness of the response. For example, the report stated in 2008-09 that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship located 11,428 unlawful non-citizens in Australia and, of those, only 990 were confirmed to be working illegally. The report also estimated that up to 100,000 people were working illegally in Australia at any one time. That is a staggering statistic. However, these figures are only speculative as it assumes all over-stayers are working illegally—and we know that is not correct. The total labour force in Australia is 11.057 million people. So, even if the estimates in the Howell report are accurate, this is less than 0.9 per cent of the total workforce.

The regime which is proposed shifts the cost of compliance and law enforcement directly onto the employer. I was contacted by my constituent Carmel La Rocca of Griffith, who wished to voice her concerns about this bill. Mrs La Rocca believes it is unfair to put the onus of ensuring workers are legal on farmers. As contractors, she believes it should be up to the contractor to ensure any subcontractors and employees they employ meet the necessary legal requirements to work in Australia. It is completely reasonable for Mrs La Rocca, or indeed any other farmer who uses a contractor, to place their trust in a contractor to employ legal staff. Farmers do not have the time to sit and check all the documentation from contractors of their employees' legal working status.

Whilst they have been advised by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship that there will be ways of doing this online, many farmers are not computer savvy. Many farmers do not want to have that onerous burden of having to go and check every single employee, when they have been told in good faith that that employee is able to work. The Howell report stated:

The cost of addressing this problem cannot be borne solely by Government or the taxpayer and it is impossible to impose the cost on the workers themselves. Australian employers must bear some of the cost and inconvenience by taking reasonable steps to identify the workers they engage or employ and by taking reasonable steps to establish whether those workers have permission to work. Australian citizens must be prepared to bear their share of the cost and inconvenience by obtaining and carrying adequate identification when they seek work.

It is unfathomable that this Labor government can think it is acceptable to place this burden on employers by shifting the cost of enforcing the law onto them.

The coalition has consistently made the point that Australia's migration program is intended as a supplement not a substitute to the Australian workforce—to fill the gaps which have opened up by the way Australia's population has naturally grown. This is at the centre of the coalition's approach to the issues of the 457 temporary work visas and skilled migration. In that context, we have said that we will look at liberalising the 457 visa criteria to create a genuinely temporary and regional solution to skills gaps and shortages without compromising compliance. We will remove the union-driven roadblocks, allowing businesses—they are the people who actually employ people and make money to pay taxes and keep this Labor government in place so it can make all sorts of stupid policies that send us all broke—to quickly access the critical information that they require while also maintaining important safeguards and sanctions against those businesses and individuals who seek to abuse the scheme.

The existing regime and compliance costs the government has systematically built around the employment of foreign nationals are already onerous, and the proposed changes are going to significantly increase the compliance costs for employers as well as leave them to struggle through the complex tangle of red tape.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly agree with the comments that have been made by my colleague, the member for Riverina. I rise today to also speak on the Migration Amendment (Reform of Employer Sanctions) Bill 2012. The government states that the purpose of this bill is to reduce the use and exploitation of illegal foreign workers. This is indeed a noble purpose. Any business found to be exploiting workers should be punished accordingly.

The Howard government brought in some very strict rules in 2007 to deal with just this issue. However, it is clear when you look at the detail of this bill that, far from achieving the purpose of the bill, the new regulations and sanctions proposed by the bill are so onerous that they will impose excessive regulatory and compliance costs on all businesses, the vast majority of which do the right thing. The minister himself acknowledged that the vast majority of businesses do indeed do the right thing.

Why is it significant that this will be so onerous for businesses? Let us examine this question in more detail. The government, in coming into government, claimed that for every regulation it brought in it would get rid of a regulation—a one-in, one-out approach. It also claimed that it would fix the problem of deregulation by simply appointing a minister for deregulation. But these issues are not fixed; the facts do not support its claims.

Since coming to power the Labor government has introduced over 20,000 new regulations. It introduced over 1,000 pages of new regulations with the carbon tax alone. In that same period it removed fewer than 100 regulations. How can businesses be expected to plan, with any sense of certainty, when the goalposts are changed so frequently by this government? And what is the point of having a minister whose main function is to deregulate the economy, when all we see from this government is more red tape, more regulation and more burden?

Like all things this government does and says one must look past the spin and at the reality. This brings me back to the bill before the House—another piece of regulation, another level of bureaucracy and another impost on hardworking Australian businesses. What is it that this government has against Australian businesses? Why does it consistently try to make it harder to do business in this country, not easier? We understand that creating the right regulatory environment is critically important to our nation's future. We understand that removing red tape will increase productivity and, in turn, allow business—the wealth creators of this nation—to thrive and grow.

According to the Productivity Commission red tape represents four per cent of all business costs and red-tape reduction can contribute up to $12 billion to our economy. Don't take my word for it; it was, after all, the current Treasurer who said 'Lifting productivity is essential to the nation's prosperity.' If only this government's actions were consistent with its words. To say this government's record on regulation is atrocious is an understatement. In a recent Global Competitiveness Report of the World Economic Forum Australia received a massive wake-up call on how we are doing. It showed that we are now ranked 96th in the burden of government regulation compared to 68th in 2007-08, noting that the lower the ranking the worse the burden of government regulation, in this instance. It also showed that we have slumped from 40th to 80th in pay and productivity for the same period. But it is little wonder, when the same report showed that Australia had slipped from 12th to 29th in transparency of government policy and, most alarmingly, from a relatively strong position of 10th in wastefulness of government spending to 48th.

When you consider these trends it comes as no surprise to learn that productivity in this country is on the slide. A recent Grattan Institute report reinforced these claims. It showed that since 2007 Australia has experienced a drop in multifactor productivity of 4.2 per cent, while the OECD average remains in positive territory. This may not have an immediate effect on our economy but it does not bode well for our long-term economic outlook. The government should be doing everything it can within its power to introduce policies that address this emerging and alarming trend, not to introduce legislation that will further increase the regulatory burden and ultimately reduce productivity. Why is punishing all business with more red tape so detrimental?

The Business Council of Australia has reported that, compared to the United States, it costs 40 per cent more to operate resource projects in Australia, it is 92 per cent more expensive to build an airport and it costs 62 per cent more for hospitals. Perhaps this would not be such a problem if we lived 100 or 200 years ago, but in today's global economy, where capital is liquid and mobile, business competitiveness is more important than ever. It is essential that government create the regulatory environment that fosters business activity and growth. This legislation, however, is a step in the wrong direction. This legislation is an extra regulatory burden placed on all business, not just on those that are doing the wrong thing. It will further erode competitiveness.

The government may well say: what is one more regulation going to do? What effect will one more piece of legislation have? Let us make it abundantly clear: as previously stated, it is but one of a multitude of regulations introduced since 2007. Increased regulation, as well as having an economic impact, has a human impact.

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, ACCI, recently conducted their national red-tape survey, and the results were distressing. Almost three-quarters of the 870 businesses that responded said they were spending more time on regulation today than they were just two years ago. Forty-four per cent of businesses are having to spend between one and five hours a week complying with government regulations—filling out forms, applying for permits, reporting business activity at a local, state or federal level. One in three businesses is spending more than five hours a week on regulation, and 11 per cent of those surveyed spent more than 20 hours a week on regulation. That is half the working week on regulation. This is time that could be better spent on growing businesses, which would be productivity enhancing or, as I said before, it could be time better spent with families, which would be emotionally enhancing.

We know that each piece of regulation comes at a cost. Seventy-three per cent of businesses reported to ACCI that their overall cost of compliance had gone up in the last two years; 42 per cent of businesses estimated they spent more than $10,000 on compliance with regulation. Eighty businesses spent between $50,000 and $100,000. A resounding 60 businesses spent in excess of $100,000 on regulation. About 60 per cent of businesses said red tape had a moderate to major impact on their business; while 54 per cent flagged that the effort taken to comply with regulations had prevented them from making changes to expand or grow their business.

With the extra regulatory burden this legislation places on all businesses, one would hope that the intended beneficiaries would be wide-ranging and vast. But it is not so. According to the Howe report there are approximately 100,000 illegal workers in Australia at any time. When you consider Australia has a workforce of over 11 million people, it means this legislation is relevant to only 0.09 per cent of the workforce. What kind of cost-benefit is that? What is this government saying? It is saying: 'Let's unload another level of administrative burden on all Australian businesses so we can target 0.09 per cent of the workforce.' Once again, the government is using the heavy sledgehammer of regulation when there are better, more targeted ways to achieve its objectives.

But of course this is not the first change the government has made to the temporary migration and skilled migration program. These changes come on top of the regulatory burden already imposed through the introduction of the Migration Legislation Amendment (Worker Protection) Act 2008, which gave the department of immigration expanded powers to monitor, investigate and penalise employers for non-compliance as a sponsor. That legislation allowed DIAC officers the investigative authority to conduct site visits, monitor workplaces and impose fines of up to $33,000. In addition to this, the legislation imposed compulsory training requirements for 457 visa holders that effectively amounted to a two per cent payroll tax. It is little wonder that business in Australia is becoming so very expensive.

The recent bungled approach to skilled migration at the Roy Hill project highlighted the deep divisions within the government on this issue and just how beholden they are to the union movement. This piece of legislation is yet another example of the confused and contradictory nature of the way the government goes about making regulation. It is difficult for business to adhere to this regulation, given that it will be in conflict with much of the state based antidiscrimination legislation and federal antidiscrimination legislation.

Under this bill, employers need to demand proof of birthplace, gender and age documentation. Under existing state legislation, this could be used down the track as a basis for accusations of discrimination. As a result, ACCI has already referred to draft legislation to the Human Rights Commission and, should the legislation pass, they will be seeking exemptions under both state and federal antidiscrimination acts. It is, again, another example of the incompetence of this government.

The coalition understands the importance that skilled migration plays in our economy. We understand that it is an important component in the labour force to fill in the gaps that we have with certain projects in getting them off the ground. We also understand that it is not a replacement for full-time Australian workers. The coalition cannot support this legislation. It will only increase the regulatory burden to further stifle business and to further stifle productivity, and will certainly not achieve the outcomes and objectives that the government has indeed set for itself.

Debate adjourned.