Migration Amendment (Combatting Migrant Exploitation) Bill 2025; Second Reading

Campbell supported the bill, framing it as a continuation of Australia's commitment to fair treatment of migrants, contrasting it with historical exploitation. Campbell detailed how the register would provide transparency, allowing workers to check sponsor legitimacy and find alternative employers, thereby reducing vulnerability. Campbell noted that the bill implemented key commitments from the 2023 Migration Strategy and would not compromise privacy, as it would only publish publicly available sponsor information.

Ambihaipahar drew on her background in employment law to describe the power imbalances faced by temporary visa holders who fear losing their status if they report exploitation. Ambihaipahar argued the register would disrupt this dynamic by giving workers clear visibility of their rights and options, including the ability to change sponsors. Ambihaipahar stated the bill created a level playing field for ethical employers and was a pragmatic step toward a fairer migration system.

Joyce criticised the bill for assuming all employers were potential criminals and infringing on the right to anonymity for those doing nothing wrong. Joyce argued that the government should focus on targeting actual criminals, such as those involved in human trafficking, rather than imposing broad surveillance measures. Joyce also challenged the notion that multiculturalism was inherently virtuous, arguing for discernment in cultural integration and emphasising the economic contributions of migrant workers in regional areas.

Jordan-Baird supported the bill, citing evidence of widespread wage theft and exploitation, including cases involving major franchises and gig economy workers. Jordan-Baird argued that the register would help address the power imbalance by enabling workers to verify employers and find new opportunities, thus protecting wages for all Australians. Jordan-Baird contrasted the government's proactive reforms with the previous administration's failure to implement taskforce recommendations and protect worker rights.

McCormack rejected allegations of racism against the coalition and defended the previous government's record on worker protection. McCormack argued that the bill failed to achieve its integrity objectives while exposing regional employers to unjustified risks and potential union harassment. McCormack highlighted concerns raised by business groups about the inclusion of headcount data and noted that promised reforms like criminal sanctions and whistleblower visas had not been delivered.

minister

Hill argued that the bill addresses serious exploitation by creating a public register of approved sponsors, complementing existing enforcement tools. Hill contended that previous government policies suppressed wages by failing to index the Temporary Skilled Migration Income Threshold, which harmed Australian workers. Hill stated that the legislation implements commitments from the Migration Strategy and strengthens the Department of Home Affairs' compliance capabilities. Hill emphasised that protecting temporary visa holders from coercion and underpayment is essential for maintaining fair labour standards.

Birrell argued that existing measures, such as the prohibited employer register and the PALM scheme, were sufficient to combat exploitation without publishing details of all sponsors. Birrell expressed concern that the bill would subject compliant regional businesses to harassment by unions and create division. Birrell criticised the government's migration strategy for pricing employers out of the labour market through high income thresholds and delayed visa reforms. Birrell concluded that the bill was a half-baked solution that did not address the root causes of workforce shortages.