International Migration and Agricultural Labour in Australia -- Graeme Hugo
Professor of Geography and
Director of the National Key Centre
for Social Applications of GIS
Adelaide SA 5005
Paper prepared for Changing Face Workshop, Imperial Valley, California, January 16-18, 2001
HISTORICAL INVOLVEMENT OF IMMIGRANTS IN RURAL LABOUR................................................. 1
CONTEMPORARY HARVEST LABOUR SHORTAGES............................................................................... 6
IMMIGRATION AND HARVEST LABOUR.................................................................................................... 14
THE WORKING HOLIDAY MAKER (WHM) PROGRAM........................................................................... 18
OTHER INVOLVEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL MIGRANTS IN HARVEST LABOUR IN AUSTRALIA 27
THE FUTURE.......................................................................................................................................................... 33
The paper begins with a brief historical account of the involvement of immigrants in rural labour in Australia. It then moves to a consideration of the paradox of the existence of a shortage of labour in some Australian rural industries in a context of high national unemployment. We then move to a consideration of the current and likely future of the involvement of temporary immigrants entering Australia under the Working Holiday Maker (WHM) Program in harvest labour. This is followed by a consideration of other migrants involved in the industry. Finally some policy issues relating to harvest labour and immigration are discussed and some comments are made about the future outlook.
HISTORICAL INVOLVEMENT OF IMMIGRANTS IN RURAL LABOUR
Table 1: Australia: Industry of the Population by Birthplace and Period of Residence, Percentage Distribution, 1996
Source: ABS 1996 Census One Percent Sample File
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing
Electricity, Gas, Water
Accommodation, Cafes, Restaurants
Government Administration, Defence
Health, Community Service
Cultural, Recreation Service
Personal, Other Service
Table 2: Distribution of Southern Europeans in Australia, 1947
Source: Price 1979, p. 158
Source: Price 1979, p. 145
Sugar, fruit, market-gardens, other intensive
Restaurants, fruit-shops, etc.
Assistants (waiters, cooks, etc.)
Professions and Business
Labourers and Operatives
with the greatly increased Southern European immigration of the 1950s and 1960s. This map is important because the intensive agricultural production areas depicted as areas of initial Southern European settlement are precisely the areas which are currently experiencing significant harvest labour shortages. Unlike other types of agricultural areas in Australia, they have a long history of multiculturalism and of involvement of immigrants of non-Anglo-Saxon origins. This fact has been used by proponents of bringing in temporary harvest labour to Australia from Asia and the Pacific. An example is the Shepparton region of Victoria where 45 percent of the population are of non-English speaking background while in the Shepparton East fruit growing area it is 80 percent (Pullar et al. 1995, p. 15). The other major non-English speaking European group in pre-war Australia were the Germans and the majority of these also settled in non-metropolitan areas (Borrie 1954). In the last three decades of the nineteenth century there was significant immigration of Chinese men predominantly to the gold fields but many moved into market gardening (Choi 1975). The introduction of the White Australia policy in the early years of the twentieth century saw this migration flow stopped.
Figure 1: Settlement of Southern Europeans
CONTEMPORARY HARVEST LABOUR SHORTAGES
Source: ABS 2000
It is difficult, however, to estimate the size of the seasonal labour demand in harvesting in Australian agriculture. An approximation has been made by the federal Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business (DEWRSB 1999, p. 14) that there were the equivalent of between 55,000 and 65,000 full time jobs available in harvest areas across Australia. However, the numbers of workers needed to fill these jobs will be several times this depending on the mobility of harvest labour. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Labour Force estimates indicate that 140,000 agricultural and horticultural workers are employed in Australia throughout the year. However, this excludes a number of important groups of workers (National Harvest Trail Working Group 2000, p. 4)…
· WHMs and overseas students;
· immigrants who do not have working rights in Australia;
· those working in the black economy;
· people receiving income support who do not wish to declare their earnings; and
· itinerant workers providing fictitious identities.
The reasons for the labour shortage in harvesting have recently been canvassed by a Working Group set up by the national government (National Harvest Trail Working Group 2000). They include…
· the temporary nature of the work;
· the hard physical work involved;
· low wages;
· poor accommodation for harvest workers;
· the remoteness of many of the locations of the work;
· lack of transport for pickers; and
· poor conditions of working.
The report (p. 5) also indicates that the demand for harvest labour in the horticultural industry will not only remain high but increase as a result of…
· farmers moving from less labour intensive activities (e.g. sugar cane and beef) into more labour intensive crops such as fruit, vegetables and cotton;
· increasing areas are being put under cultivation of labour intensive crops e.g. large companies are putting extensive areas under stone fruit trees in the Goulburn Valley;
· export markets for fresh fruit and vegetables are expanding e.g. in the fresh stone fruit industry 14 percent of production in 2000 was exported and this is expected to increase up to between 20 and 25 percent in the next five years. The growth of the rapidly expanding Asian market is of particular significance;
· there is increasing emphasis on quality (especially for export markets) which requires more careful and consequently slower picking;
· new horticultural crops have been introduced (e.g. olives, rambutans, Chinese cabbage and walnuts); and
· new varieties of traditional crops have been introduced (e.g. nashi pears, stella cherries, white flesh peaches, amber jewel plums, pink lady apples).
There has been difficulty experienced in the industry to access local labour for the harvest industry. In particular, there have been attempts to attract existing unemployed persons into harvest labour. This is due to the remoteness of many horticultural areas from Australia’s major cities. In Australia there is a national unemployment benefits scheme so that unemployed city based people do not seem to be attracted by temporary, low paid manual jobs in areas distant from home and where accommodation is a problem. Moreover, many growers have indicated that many unemployed people complain that the work is too hard and that they often are not able to cope with the hard physical nature of the work. A survey of unemployment benefit recipients found that only 14 percent of respondents ‘said that they would not consider picking, pruning or packing because it was too physically difficult. This did not differ significantly between men and women, or between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas’. The survey, however, also found that negative perceptions of the harvest work existed among unemployment benefit recipients because of the lack of a career path, negative attitudes to pickers in harvest communities, variable pay rates, family commitments in metropolitan areas and high levels of illegal processes associated with harvest work (National Harvest Trail Working Group 2000, p. 51). There is some resentment among growers that they should be used in a ‘social security’ role to mop up unemployment but there is some evidence of a lack of information among the unemployed regarding the opportunities available in harvest work. At one stage the national government required unemployment benefit recipients to take any work available so that growers were inundated with people who would work for half a day then quit and requalify for unemployment benefits.
The mid 1990s saw a particular shortage of labour for the harvest in the Goulburn Valley fruit-growing region of Victoria (Figure 3) and this led to the production of a study of harvest labour strategies for the region (Pullar et al. 1995). At that time the region produced 200-220,000 tonnes of deciduous fruit requiring harvesting in January-March each year and a total workforce of around 8,000 persons. Figure 4 shows the growth in use of the Harvest Labour Office (HLO) operated by the federal government over the 1992-1995 period. However, it also shows the inability to fill all of the positions notified.
Figure 3: Location of Main Harvest Areas
Source: National Harvest Trail Working Group 2000
Figure 4: Harvest Labour Office, Vacancies and Positions Filled
Source: Pullar et al. 1995
In some cases (e.g. vines) the peak labour demand coincides with the university summer break so pickers have been recruited from universities, especially to areas close to the major cities. The Report of the National Harvest Trail Working Group (2000) has identified four sample harvest trails depicted in Figures 5, 6, 7 and 8 which people can take over 12 months to access regular harvesting work and in the process see large parts of the nation. This trail was to be advertised widely and details made available in book form and on the internet. This would provide information on…
· areas where seasonal work is available;
· the time of year and types of crop;
· description of what the work entails, employment conditions, training requirements and pay rates;
· accommodation in harvest areas;
· transport to and in harvest areas; and
· details of a range of harvest trails.
The target groups to be given this information about the Harvest Trail concept were – schools, universities, Centrelink (the national government agency charged with assisting people in gaining employment and with payment of unemployment and a range of other benefits), employment agencies, retirees magazines, four wheel drive magazines, backpacker magazines and in locations where unemployed people and students, particularly young people, meet.
Figure 5: Trail 1: Chasing the Sun Around Australia – Up and Over – From SA to Queensland, NT and WA and Back
Source: National Harvest Trail Working Group 2000
Figure 6: Trail 2: Chasing the Sun – From Tasmania to Queensland and Back
Source: National Harvest Trail Working Group 2000
Several regions growing fruit and vegetables have agents to recruit labour and some regional associations have developed their own training videos and programs. Until recently, however, the actions taken about labour shortage have not been national but by regional associations and groupings. Nevertheless, despite initiatives to recruit local labour and while sufficient harvest labour is being recruited for some areas, especially areas close to large cities, shortages of harvest labour remain in many fruit and vegetable growing areas. This has focussed attention on the possible role of immigrant labour in the harvest.
Figure 7: Trail 3: Adelaide to Cairns by Bus
Source: National Harvest Trail Working Group 2000
Figure 8: Trail 4: Standing Straight – Harvesting for People Who Don’t Like to Bend
Source: National Harvest Trail Working Group 2000
Figure 9: Australia: Trends in Intake of Different Types of Settlers, 1977-2000
Source: DIMA Immigration Update and Australian Immigration Consolidated Statistics, various issues
Figure 10: Non-Permanent Migration to Australia of Persons with the Right to Work by Category, 1986-2000
Source: DIMA Population Flows: Immigration Aspects, various issues
A second category of non-permanent visa in which arrivals can work is the case of students from overseas wishing to study in Australia. Overseas students can work up to 20 hours during teaching periods and full time during breaks. The third category are Working Holiday Makers who are discussed in detail in the next section. From the perspective of harvest labour the Temporary Business Visa category does not provide workers since the emphasis is on highly skilled and managerial groups, many who come to a specific job in Australia. Table 4 shows the occupations of this visa category and indicates that they come from the high income and high level sectors. Students do supply some harvest labour but they are restricted by being located mainly in major cities and being available to work for restricted weeks. Nevertheless, they are a small element in harvest labour. It is the third category of Working Holiday Makers (WHM) which have been the main contributor of harvest workers.
Table 4: Australia: Temporary Entrants to Australia with the Right to Work by Occupation, 1999-2000
Source: Unpublished data supplied by DIMA
Advanced Clerical & Service
Intermediate Clerical & Service
Intermediate Product & Transport
Elementary Clerical, Sales, Service
Not in Workforce
THE WORKING HOLIDAY MAKER (WHM) PROGRAM
The criteria which must be fulfilled in order to obtain a WHM visa are as follows. The applicant must (DIMA 2000a and b)…
· be a national of one of the arrangement countries;
· be aged between 18 and 25 (and in special circumstances from arrangement countries, 26 to 30), single or married without children;
· their main reason for coming to Australia is to holiday, and that any work that they do is to support themselves while they holiday;
· they have a good chance of finding temporary work to supplement their holiday funds;
· they will not undertake any studies in Australia than an English language course (after July they are permitted to study or train for up to three months);
· they have a return ticket or sufficient funds for a return fare and the first part of their stay;
· they intend to leave Australia at the end of their authorised stay; and
· they can stay in Australia for up to one year.
The WHM visa holders are allowed to do any kind of work of a temporary or casual nature. They may not work for longer than three months full-time with any one employer and they are to be paid according to Australian award rates and wages.
The trend in the growth of the numbers of WHM coming to Australia is depicted in Table 5. In 1983-84 the number of WHM visas was 5,817. This more than doubled to 12,303 two years later, more than doubled again in the following two years to 30,476 in 1987-88 and peaked at 45,136 in 1988-89. Thereafter it fell to 25,557 in 1992-93 but each subsequent year has continued to grow almost trebling in the 1990s to reach 74,454 in 1999-2000. Moreover, the first five months of 2000-2001 saw an increase to 36,706 compared with 36,046 a year earlier. There have
Table 5: Australia: Numbers of Working Holiday Visas Granted, 1983-2000
Source: DIMA unpublished data
Table 6: Origin Countries of Working Holiday Makers Coming to Australia
Table 7: Working Holiday Maker Scheme Reciprocal Arrangements, 1998-99
Table 8: Survey of Working Holiday Makers: All Jobs Held While in Australia and Last Job Before Leaving, 1986 (N=309)
Source: Working Holiday Maker Study, Australian Sales Research Bureau Pty Ltd, Melbourne, 1986
Semi skilled work
Business and commerce
Other skilled trader
Engineering and science
Skilled building and construction
Skilled metal/electrical trades
Did not work
The 1991 report on WHMs and their labour market impact made scant reference to WHM involvement in harvest labour but by the time of the 1997 report it is clear that the WHMs were more involved in these activities. Many of the submissions received by the Joint Standing Committee on Migration of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia underlined the increasing significance of WHMs being a flexible and reliable workforce doing the jobs that Australians are not interested in, especially in areas suffering seasonal labour shortages, especially in the horticultural and hospitality industries. The submission from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI)…
WHMs … are less averse to work in difficult physical conditions (such as fruit picking) than many Australian workers. More importantly they are not discouraged from seeking work for short engagements (a function of the seasonal nature of harvesting and much hospitality work) as they are continually moving and not seeking permanence in any job. As a result WHMs have long played an important and positive role in Australian industries, especially those in the agricultural and hospitality sector, by undertaking work that Australian workers have long been unwilling to do (Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Joint Standing Committee on Migration 1997, p. 40).
The government commission received several substantial submissions from horticultural industry representatives, a selection of which are presented below…
WHM visa holders are an increasingly important component of the horticultural industries national harvest labour strategy. Horticultural harvest periods typically involve relatively short periods of intense activity during which demand for labour outstrips local supply. In this regard there is no competition between local labour (Riverland Horticultural Council of South Australia).
Approximately 8,000 seasonal positions are available for short periods of time in the fruit industry in Victoria’s Goulburn Valley…At no time in the peak season are there enough Australians to fill the positions available. The WHMs are an important backup supply of labour and are critical to our industry being able to harvest the crop in a manner timely enough to ensure the optimum quality of the fruit (Northern Victoria Fruit Grower’s Association).
As a means to obtain labour many horticulturalists are increasingly relying on overseas labour with a working holiday visa. One large scale horticulturalist packing fresh fruit for export markets has over 60 percent of its packing staff on a working holiday visa – mostly female English travellers. The use of such workers in packing sheds throughout the region is common for both large scale and smaller horticulturalists. Horticulturalists find the staff on working holiday visas to be reliable and hard working. The above mentioned horticulturalist has found working holiday staff to be so successful that they are considering providing additional accommodation and reimbursing some travel costs, including airfares, to secure further staff of this type. Without this staff the business would not operate (Swan Hill Rural City Council).
Similar evidence was given by a specialist recruitment agency for agricultural labour in Western Australia, the Queensland Fruit and Vegetable Growers and the Riverina Area Consultative Committee. Among the points they raised included the following…
· It was noted that in the 1990s the number of Australians engaged in itinerant work following the harvest around the country began to decline and growers had turned to WHMs to fill the gap (p. 42).
· WHMs provide an enthusiastic pool of workers in remote areas… ‘Being young, unburdened by family responsibilities and often keen to see as much of Australia as possible, they are willing to travel to isolated areas of Australia for work’ (p. 42).
· Despite strategies to increase Australian involvement in harvesting through intensive advertising, recruitment campaigns and the establishment of harvest offices there remains a reliance on WHMs (p. 43).
Some of the negative effects of the WHMs in rural industry were also raised in the 1997 Report (p. 45-46)…
· Employers often pay less than award wages to WHMs putting pressure on locals to accept the same conditions.
· Some WHMs held jobs longer than they should and tie up long-term positions that could have gone to a local resident.
· WHMs tie up a lot of time at counters at the Commonwealth Employment Service.
· Where there is a ready supply of WHMs employers will not make a sufficient commitment to base level training for local residents.
· Some suggested information about harvest jobs was more readily available to WHMs than Australians.
· WHMs give growers an excuse not to improve the conditions for Australian workers.
· WHMs are less likely to complain about inferior wages and conditions than Australians.
· Non-eligible aliens can parade themselves as WHMs to get work.
The 1997 government enquiry was followed up by a further enquiry into Harvest Labour in Australia (National Harvest Trail Working Group 2000). This enquiry revewaled a considerable dependence of the horticultural industry on WHMs for harvest labour and much of the report’s thrust was to come up with alternative means of attracting labour from within Australia. However, several of the submissions pointed to how to better employ WHMs in the harvest industry. For example, the National Farmers Federation (NFF) recommended ‘coordination of legitimate WHM labour so that greater efficiencies are achieved for both growers and overseas visitors on working holidays’ (National Harvest Trail Working Group 2000, p. 81). The Australian Chamber of Fruit and Vegetable Industries recommended (p. 84)…
· an extension of the WHM scheme with age restrictions removed; and
· active promotion of the Scheme in target countries.
Several submissions stressed the need for growers to link efficiently with WHMs. From several quarters the information given was that the WHMs make up a preferred harvest work force. This relates to their youth and ability to work hard and long hours and respond to payment by the amount of fruit picked. They are more able to put up with poor residential conditions in the short-term and are perceived to work effectively with a minimum of fuss.
One major issue regarding the WHM scheme relates to whether the scheme should be capped. An annual cap on WHM was introduced in 1995 in response to increasing numbers arriving in Australia and concerns about impact on the labour market. The initial cap of 33,000 visas in 1995-96 was increased to 42,000 under pressure for tourism and horticultural lobby groups. In 1996-97 it was set at 50,000 and 55,000 in 1997-98. The cap attracted a great deal of criticism from the horticultural industry (and others) in the 1997 government inquiry. It was argued that there was no need for a cap because the numbers were self regulating with declines occurring at times of economic downturn as is evidenced by the fall in numbers in the depression of the early 1990s. The committee recommended that DIMA continue to set planning levels but not cap the inflow with the decision to be reviewed in three years time.
The committee made a number of recommendations (41) most of which were formally accepted by the government. One recommendation (No. 37) was… ‘A coordinated national strategy for harvest labour recruitment be developed by representative organisations of the horticultural industry in order to reduce the industry’s dependence on working holiday makers and to provide unemployed Australians with year-long either in a particular region or across a variety of regions’. This was accepted by the government and the Harvesting Australia Report of the National Harvest Trail Working Group (2000) was the result of this.
What is clear is that the last decade has seen a growing dependence of many horticulturalists on the labours of WHMs for harvesting fruit and, to a lesser extent, grapes and vegetables.
OTHER INVOLVEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL MIGRANTS IN HARVEST LABOUR IN AUSTRALIA
· people with specialist skills, such as management executives, academics and medical practitioners;
· business personnel;
· people who make a social or cultural contribution such as entertainers, visiting academics, etc; and
· people who contribute to the development of international relations such as diplomatic personnel, participants in exchange programs and working holiday makers.
Clearly there is no room in these categories for the direct importation of temporary harvest labour and from time to time in Australia there are representations from growers groups and politicians to allow harvest labourers from Asia to be granted visas under the temporary residence program. Thus far these representations have not been successful.
One of the most controversial areas in the relationship between immigration and harvest labour involves undocumented migrants. The nature of harvest work in that it is often in remote areas, involves temporary work, etc. opens it to the possibility of involvement of undocumented migrants. As Harvesting Australia (2000, p. 42) points out ‘The harvest industry, more so than any other industry, relies on temporary and itinerant workers. Those growers who require a large number of workers for a short period of time would find it time consuming and costly to sight and verify each worker’s identification’. A report on Review of Illegal Workers: Employing Workers from Overseas (DIMA 1999) found that illegal workers in Australia were found predominantly in the hospitality sector followed by brothels, factories and then the rural sector.
In Australia the undocumented migrants that are involved in the harvest industry tend to be of two types. The first are visitors who break the conditions of their visas by seeking and obtaining work. In 1998-99 of the over 5,000 visas cancelled by DIMA around one-fifth were cancelled for breach of working conditions (National Harvest Trail Working Group 2000, p. 42). Part of the massive expansion of overseas tourism to Australia in recent years has been a large growth of so-called ‘backpacker tourism’ i.e. groups of mostly young people who travel to Australia to gain experience and stay in low cost accommodation, travel widely around the country and tend to stay in the country for several months. Evidence presented to the 1997 Inquiry into Working Holiday Makers (1997, p. 36), however, indicated that…
WHMs accounted for only 15 percent of backpacker numbers and 1 percent of total visitor numbers but their length of stay of up to 300 nights…meant that they accounted for about 64 percent of backpacker visitor nights and 14 percent of overall visitor nights.
Hence in many cases the illegal workers in rural areas are young people seeking to help fund their holiday but who are not WHMs (DIMA 1999, p. 66). The 1999 inquiry noted that there is frequently confusion in the media between the terms ‘working holiday maker’ and ‘backpacker’ and indeed the terms are used interchangeably. The Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs has suggested that the labour market impact of backpackers who work without an entitlement could be considerable (Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Joint Standing Committee on Migration 1997, p. 97).
The other major group of undocumented workers involved in the harvest industry are people who have overstayed their visas and more than other countries Australia can quantify the number of overstayers because of the fact that all people entering and leaving Australia are required to complete an arrival or departure card. This is put into a highly computerised system which allows visa expiry information to be run against departure information thus identifying overstayers. Table 9 shows that in recent years there have been over 50,000 overstayers in Australia and it is known
Table 9: Australia: Number of Overstayers, 1990-2000
Source: DIMA 2000c and d
Note: The introduction of the bridging visa scheme on 1 September 1994 influences the figures since prior to this time persons who do not have a valid visa but had come to the Department’s attention and were waiting for a visa determination or to leave the country were regarded as ‘overstayers’. Subsequently these people were not considered overstayers.
that around half of these are working. Of the overstayers over 27 percent have been in Australia for nine years or longer. The main countries of origin of overstayers are shown in Table 10. It will be noted, however, that it is the countries with the largest numbers of visitors who have the largest numbers of overstayers. A different pattern is evident in Table 11 which shows the rate of overstaying. In Table 10 the countries are predominantly More Developed nations while those in Table 11 are predominantly less developed countries.
Table 10: Australia: Number of Overstayers by Country of Origin – Top 10
Source: DIMA 2000d, p. 107
30 June 2000
30 June 2000
Jan 1995-June 2000
Peoples Republic of China
Republic of Korea
Source: DIMA 2000d, p. 107
30 June 2000
Jan 1995-June 2000
Source: DIMA 1999, p. 25
A smaller group of undocumented workers involved in the rural industry are those who have entered the country clandestinely or with forged documentation. The island continent nature of Australia has insulated it to some extent from this type of movement. However, Figure 11 shows that there has been a substantial increase in the number of unlawful arrivals detected in Australia in recent years. This has been largely due to the influx of boat people to the north of Australia in the last two years. It is apparent that people traffickers have become increasingly active in bringing people into Australia illegally by air and by sea. The numbers shown in Figure 11 indicate those who have been detected. Upon detection these people are placed in
Figure 11: Australia: Unauthorised Arrivals, 1989-90 to 1999-2000
Source: DIMA 2000e
Table 13: Detention: Numbers Detained and Costs
Source: DIMA 1999, p. 24
· Harvest workers often work a distance away from their belongings so they are not keen to bring passports, birth certificates, etc. to work for safety reasons;
· Australians do not generally carry identification so requiring them to do so would reduce the availability of even Australian harvest labour.
· Growers are not prepared to become a screening agent for DIMA.
· The sanctions are seen to be unfair.
There is considerable concern about the issue of ‘strict liability for those found to have employed illegal workers and the severe penalties proposed – considered enough to bankrupt the average horticulturalist. Strict liability in this context appears to mean that the onus of proving that all employees engaged had a right to work resides with the employer’ (Calver 2000, p. 4). DIMAs proposal to place the administrative burden of checking every employees right to work on fruit and vegetable growers is considered an unjustifiable cost burden. In the Goulburn Valley alone 10,000 casual workers would need to be checked (Calver 2000, p. 4). The grower would be required to complete the Work Rights Declaration Form and submit it to DIMA. The announcement of these proposals was greeted with hostility and there is strong lobbying against them by growers and representative groups (Calver 2000).
Following raids on farms which turned up illegal workers during the harvest period of early 1999 farmers requested a streamlined process under which tourists could do farm and other seasonal work. However, the Minister responded that rather than making it easier for migrants to enter to work the government was interested in tightening procedures (Sydney Morning Herald March 10 1999).
In 2001 the government plans to introduce legislation to introduce sanctions against employers of illegal workers. It is planned that they will be up to two years in jail or fines of up to A$66,000 and they will be introduced in 2002 following a new public information campaign. A compliance pamphlet will be mailed out to over one million employers. A toll free phone line for employers to make inquiries about workers’ rights, visa conditions and sanctions will be set up (The Australian December 22nd 2000).