Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share 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.