Page 428 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 8 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Theirs was a story of hope, a new country, a good wage and an opportunity perhaps to broaden their skills for future opportunity. Instead, their story turned into one of the biggest employment scandals in Canberra since Endoxus. A number of these workers have made several serious allegations of underpayments and human rights violations. Their union, the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union, is currently representing these members in several proceedings, including complaints with the Human Rights Commissioner.
Why has this happened? I do not wish to pre-empt the outcomes of these proceedings, but the fact remains that such allegations were made. These are very serious allegations. For most of us the allegation of human rights violations concerns us deeply; that is, of course, unless you are the chief executive officer of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, ACT and Region. And here lies the problem: the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the department charged with overseeing the compliance with skilled migrant working visas, is nowhere to be seen.
The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the department charged with issuing visas to permit employment contracts, does not oversee the specific working arrangements that underpin these visa arrangements. But I am not shocked. This is a department that has spent a good part of the last five years and beyond like a deer in headlights. “What,” they say, “we are supposed to look after these people! No, surely not. Really?”
Our system of government relies on accountability. The buck has to stop somewhere. But when the buck stops with Amanda Vanstone, what chance has anyone got? The scary thing is that she is apparently as wet as you get. What was the minister’s response to allegations as serious as those made by these restaurant workers? On the day the story broke, Ms Vanstone was voicing her support for the deportation of residents who are charged with a crime. “Send ’em home,” she says. Or maybe we should just send them to Christmas Island.
It is clear that the minister, who has in recent years sought to abdicate responsibility for her portfolio on the basis of its being too big, needs some assistance in understanding just what the relationship between employers and skilled migrant workers should resemble. To assist, though, I thought I would spell it out for the benefit of members of the opposition, who no doubt all attended the Vanstone school of dealing with vulnerable people.
One, working entitlements: if an employer engages a skilled migrant worker to perform a task, he or she should be paid at the correct rate. He or she should expect to work no more or no less than is required by the award. All other entitlements—meal breaks, overtime, et cetera—are a legal right, not a gift, and as such should be provided.
Two, safety: because a worker from overseas is employed to fill a vacancy, it is likely that he or she will not be familiar with Australia’s occupational health and safety legislation. This means that there is greater importance to provide a safe workplace, as an overseas worker may not be able to articulate OH&S concerns.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .