Page 432 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 8 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
way in supporting, condoning or tolerating the exploitation of overseas workers. All employees, whether they are local or overseas, must be employed under Australian standards and conditions of employment. Mr Gentleman will have no argument with me and I will not defend businesses, whether they are interstate or in the ACT environment, that have sought to exploit workers. I am aware, because I sought information this morning and confirmed it, that the commonwealth government has committed an additional $140 million in funding over the next four years to more than double the number of workplace inspectors and provide additional advisory and education services to the public.
In terms of the Filipino workers working in Canberra restaurants, I am advised that the investigation of the Office of Workplace Services into their underpayment claims is at an advanced stage. I am further advised that breach notices have been issued to a number of restaurants and that litigation action is also being considered. Moreover, the OWS is undertaking targeted education and compliance activities in ACT restaurants to ensure that both overseas and local-based workers are receiving their lawful entitlements.
I can hear in his response Mr Gentleman saying, “This has all come too late. Why isn’t there a mechanism in place?” I would suggest that there is a very good mechanism in place and that is why we are seeing action undertaken. The OWS does liaise with DIMIA in relation to any of these matters of concern. It has procedures in place to ensure that those who would seek to violate the award conditions that prevail here will be dealt with. I am pleased to confirm that a number of breach notices have been issued in relation to Canberra businesses that have been found, on the basis of preliminary evidence, not to be operating in accordance with awards and I am pleased to say that those matters will be pursued.
Mr Gentleman’s motion proposes a new role for DIMIA in becoming the policeman in relation to employment conditions. I do not believe that that is a sensible situation, given that there is already a federal government agency that has that responsibility. It is appropriate that DIMIA refer matters of concern to that agency and I believe that utilising the current employment agency to observe, monitor and prosecute, if necessary, breaches of the award makes sense rather than having two agencies falling over one another. I do not think that his solution makes an enormous amount of sense. Whilst I will not oppose this motion, I think that it misses the mark in a number of areas. In addition, he should be aware that there is a range of situations in the ACT where industrial organisations and government agencies have the capacity to inspect wages records.
I find it curious that Mr Gentleman’s motion seeks to congratulate the ACT government on its skilled and business migration program, yet my office is yet to obtain any advice, and members of it have spoken with the Treasurer’s office today, which shows some measure of the success. As I indicated, if it is not working, if we are not getting the numbers in, so be it; but I think we need to put it on the table, rather than just issuing press releases when we announce these initiatives.
When I look at the selected arrivals in Australia for a range of visa categories, I see that the ACT is very much the poor cousin in terms of immigration. There was a report recently issued on these statistics for DIMIA, which I suspect all members received, and it certainly shows Canberra not doing anything particularly exceptional in terms of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .