Australia’s temporary migration programme

Australia generally favoured permanent migration until the 1970s, but in order to address short-term deficiencies of highly skilled workers (mainly business and professionals), in the mid-1990s, the government introduced an employer-sponsored temporary migration scheme. In recent years, the scheme has been expanded to include a wide range of occupations and skill categories. The 457 visa allows employer sponsorship of workers (until 2010, without labour market testing) for periods between 4 weeks and 4 years. Unlike guest worker schemes elsewhere, the Australian scheme is markedly skewed towards professional, health- and trade-qualified workers, although there is also a large cohort of workers in less qualified occupations. A further differentiating factor is that all visa holders under this scheme (regardless of their occupational category) may bring their families and spouses have work entitlements. The programme is attractive to many from developing countries because they may apply for permanent residency after 2 years in employment here. It is, however, a visa that has attracted some controversy in recent years, and has been subject to a parliamentary inquiry because of accusations that it has led to lower wages for local workers (who cannot compete with the minimum wages for which employees on 457 visas are willing to work); safety breaches on worksites; exploitation in the form of salary non-payments, debt-bondage, excessive employer rental charges for cramped and inadequate accommodation; and in the case of the IT sector, suggestions of large-scale displacement of the local workforce ^{Footnote 1} (see, for instance, Reference Toh and QuinlanToh and Quinlan, 2009).

Since the mid-1990s, temporary skilled migration has overtaken permanent migration to Australia (Reference McDonald, Khoo and KippenMcDonald et al., 2003; Reference HugoHugo, 2004). The number of primary visa holders (excludes spouse and children) in Australia in February 2013 was 107,510. This reflected an increase of 21.5% compared with the same date in the previous programme year. The top three citizenship countries for primary visa grants in 2012–2013 to 28 February 2013 were India (20.3%), the United Kingdom (20.2%) and the Republic of Ireland (10.0%). The top three industries for primary visa grants in 2012–2013 were construction (12.0%), health care and social assistance (11.8%) and other services (11.5%). Cooks were the number one ranked occupation for primary visa grants, followed by programme or project administrators and developer/programmers (Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC), 2013).

In the 2011 Census, there were 295,362 Indian born people in Australia of a population of 21.5 million (ABS, 2013) and many on 457 visas. In 2012–2013, India become largest source country for the 457 visa category, representing 20.3% of new 457 visas granted, numbering 22,080 (DIAC, 2012, 2013). This was a 40% increase over the previous year and the highest level of 457 visa grants for Indian nationals (DIAC, 2012). Among the Indian workers sponsored under this programme, software and applications programmers, ICT business and systems analysts, registered nurses and cooks ranked highly (DIAC, 2012).

Among influential studies of the 457 visa in Australia, is research carried out by demographers (Reference HugoHugo, 2004; Reference Khoo, McDonald and HugoKhoo, Hugo and McDonald, 2006). In 2003, Khoo showed that 457 visa holders were largely professionals from English-speaking countries, although at that time India, China and the Philippines were beginning to appear among the top 10 source countries, with India largely featuring workers in the IT sector. At that time, those arriving on 457 visas were still much fewer than permanent arrivals, although by 2009 that trend had largely shifted and now temporary migration rivals (and outstrips in some years) permanent migration. In 2006, Khoo et al. presented data based upon a large survey of 1175 temporary visa holders and a follow-up survey a year later with 267 of them to see how their situation had changed in that period. They found that the overwhelming majority of 457 visa holders were either satisfied or very satisfied with their experience in Australia (98.5%) one year after they arrived (Reference Khoo, McDonald and HugoKhoo et al., 2006: 20). Further research findings (Reference Khoo, Voigt-Graf and McDonaldKhoo et al., 2007) examined motivations of temporary skilled migrants to seek employment in Australia. Not surprisingly, when broken down by source country, migrants from India were less interested in ‘lifestyle issues’ (which were significant for British, Irish and Japanese migrants) as a key motivating factor in their decision to come to Australia for work, instead nominating better employment opportunities and higher wages as key factors in their decision-making (p. 501). Australia is one of the few countries that offer a direct pathway from temporary work visa to permanent residency status after 2 years. This is one of the big drawcards for this visa scheme. Indeed, Reference Khoo, Hugo and McDonaldKhoo et al. (2008) published data which suggest that overall, 64% of 457 visa holders either had or intended to apply for permanent residency status (p. 205). Of those from India (and other South Asia), the figure was 89%. They also found that those with technical or no qualifications were more likely to apply than those with university qualifications (Reference Khoo, Hugo and McDonaldKhoo et al., 2008: 205).

Among the findings pertinent to our study are that migrants working in the service sector were more likely than others to have the view that foreign workers were not treated the same as locals on work conditions and pay (Reference Khoo, McDonald and HugoKhoo et al., 2006: 8). While the overall survey result was that 14% of migrants felt unequally treated, ‘more than half of migrants in personal services, and at least 30 per cent of migrants in education and the hotel and restaurant sectors’ were of the view that they were treated less favourably in terms of pay and conditions than local workers. Furthermore, some 20% of IT workers held similar sentiments. These are important findings for our study, as the most problematic cases of worker mistreatment we came across tended to cluster in the hospitality sector. Our qualitative research in the IT sector also more or less mirrors these statistics.

While quantitative research is important, good, in-depth qualitative research is required to get at the nuances that underpin some of these trends (see, for example, Reference OkeOke, 2012). Furthermore, at the sharp end of workplace exploitation, while statistically the numbers are very small, the difficulties encountered are such that serious attention is warranted. To give an example, while only 1% of those surveyed by Khoo et al. reported being unhappy with their experiences, this represents something close to 1,400 Indian 457 visa holders. In addition, the survey methodology they employed involved a survey posted to the worker either via the employer, or to the worker’s home address. However, when researching marginal populations, return rates for surveys are always low. For example, in the case of exploited Indian kitchen hands, an employer is very unlikely to pass a ‘satisfaction survey’ onto their workers. In many cases, workers are housed in employer accommodation – sometimes in the actual workplace. In other cases, workers in situations of vulnerability may be nervous about completing surveys in case information they have provided could somehow get back to authorities and this jeopardise their positions or even visas. Therefore, we suspect that if anything, difficulties such as underpayment, mistreatment, exploitation or discrimination at the extreme end of the spectrum are likely to be significantly under-reported.

Unfortunately, besides a few notable exceptions (Reference BiaoBiao, 2007; Reference CasperszCaspersz, 2008; Reference Connell and BurgessConnell and Burgess, 2009; Reference SegraveSegrave, 2009; Reference Toh and QuinlanToh and Quinlan, 2009) in-depth qualitative research into temporary work visas in Australia is rare. This is quite contrary to trends in scholarly research on labour migrants in other parts of the world, where anthropologists and sociologists have been extremely active in this field. Important influences on our study include Reference CohenCohen (2006) and Reference Osella and OsellaOsella and Osella (2000) and their work on masculinities and labour migrants from Kerala in the Middle East and Xiang Biao’s work on Indian IT workers in Australia, especially his reflections on gender and dowry and their role framing the experiences of male IT professionals (Reference BiaoBiao, 2005).

Much of what we know about exploited migrant labour in Australia has come from union sources and investigative journalism (see Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU), 2006). The Australian and Sydney Morning Herald both published in-depth reports at various times since 2005 on the conditions of exploited migrant labourers on 457 visas, concentrating in particular on industries such as the construction, agricultural and hospitality sector. In addition, recent Australian research in the fields of industrial relations and human resource management has also highlighted from the perspectives of government officials and union representatives the reasons why 457 workers are susceptible to poor and sometimes dangerous employment terms and conditions. For instance, Reference Toh and QuinlanToh and Quinlan (2009) suggest that ‘worker’s ignorance of legal entitlements, indebtedness, reliance on employer sponsorship to remain in the country and aspirations for permanent residence placed them in an acutely vulnerable position’ (p. 467). While our findings reaffirm these conditions, we further examine the socio-cultural dimensions of situations of exploitation from the perspectives of the 457 visa holders.

457 visa labour hire workers in the IT sector

The IT sector informants in the study were generally mobile and well networked with one another transnationally. For instance, participant Vijay came from Palakkad district in Kerala but grew up in New Delhi and had worked in Mumbai, Bangalore, Chennai, Japan and Singapore in the IT sector. Through a former work colleague in Chennai, he found out about the position in Sydney. He arrived with his wife and 8-month-old daughter in November 2005 and now works for a Sydney-based Indian IT company which subcontracts IT workers to various Australian businesses. At the time of the interview, Vijay was working in the IT department of a large electronic firm, and his biography was fairly representative of many of the IT workers who provided interviews in the study.

Naresh, from Andhra Pradesh, also had work experience in places such as Mumbai, New Delhi, Chicago, Jakarta and Singapore before he came to Australia in early 2005. He found out about his present job with an Australian bank through a former work colleague in New Delhi. These networks put the already mobile, middle-class, urban Indians in a strong position to seek employment outside of India. However, by and large, Australia was not at the top of the list in terms of their career and lifestyle aspirations. As Vijay said,

Naresh’s narrative is an interesting reflection of the global sensibility of this class of mobile professional workers. Their networks span several continents which enable the flow of everyday comparative knowledge about visa, tax, employment and pay conditions across the world. As a group, they were much less concerned with so-called lifestyle issues, although this did come into their self-narratives about past placements and how this compares to their lives in Australia. Unlike permanent migrants, issues of lifestyle, such as where to bring up children, and family and community links were less important than fiscal issues. For most of them, financial incentives offered by different countries were a chief driving factor for seeking overseas appointments.

Reference BiaoXiang Biao’s (2007) book entitled Global Body Shopping is an exemplary study of the precarious nature of work and recruitment in this sector. He undertook detailed research into IT labour hire practices in Australia (and globally), and the role of Indian recruitment agents. Similar to Xiang, the IT workers in our study were recruited primarily through professional agents operating multi-nationally. Most of the workers were not in direct employment of the organisation in which they were based on a day-to-day level. Instead, the majority of IT workers were recruited and employed by labour hire firms who sub-contract out for short- and long-term periods to Australian companies requiring IT services. In many cases, these workers were based with large Australian firms, some of which were IT focused themselves (such as Canon, Optus Telecommunication and Macquarie Bank). Some of these labour hire organisations were local, but, in most cases, were multi-national Indian firms such as Satyam, Infosys and Tata Consultancy Services. Organisations such as Satyam have bases in many countries, including Australia, and workers we spoke to had commonly circulated to different countries through these contracting firms. These 457 IT workers are effectively employees of Indian firms with an Australian base.

Compared with the other two categories of workers we interviewed in the study, the working conditions for IT workers were generally good; however, many of the key issues among this cohort had to do with their ambiguous status as ‘employees’ without a direct employer, and the sense of uncertainty this caused in terms of day-to-day life, relationships with permanent colleagues and who to turn to in difficulty or for complaints. The uncertainty of tenure was highlighted by many of our interviewees as always hovering in their minds. In a number of cases, what they thought was a long-term placement was cancelled after a few months duration, and they faced an unpaid period ‘on the bench’ until their labour hire firm was able to place them on an alternative project. This uncertainty of tenure also made it difficult for these workers to feel settled, especially those who had brought family.

A key aspect of labour hire that has been discussed in non-migration-related literature is the precarious nature of contract-based employment, and the ambiguous, both in legal and moral terms, relationship ‘triad’ between the labour hire firm, the employee and the employer/day-to-day workplace. Despite many of these IT workers working in one company for long periods – in some cases running into years – the ambiguous nature of their employment status – as contracted staff, rather than direct employees – had a negative impact on their everyday life as a worker. For example, relationships with local colleagues were minimal. It appeared that local employees of the client company were reluctant to ‘invest time’ in establishing friendships with these workers who were understood to be temporary and not ‘real colleagues’. There was also some resentment towards them from local IT workers who had seen colleagues displaced or downsized by their corporation and replaced by contract labour. The very presence of 457 visa workers made permanent workers feel a sense of insecurity in terms of their own jobs.

Career progression was also seen by Indian IT workers as more difficult because of the contract-based nature of their employment. Because they were contracted out on a job-by-job basis (even on projects spanning years), these workers articulated to us that opportunities were largely limited horizontal movement (from similar project to similar project) rather than vertical promotion within an organisational hierarchy. This meant that many felt their career trajectories had stalled since becoming contract labour on the international scene. Their client companies (where they were based at a day-to-day level) saw them simply as consultants and thus had little interest or investment in their development as employees or concern for their well-being. The traditional human resource (HR) function tended to be confined to permanent employees only. Thus, these workers missed out on formal performance development processes such as opportunities for training and up-skilling, professional mentoring, and supervisor-led career management towards career goals. However, by and large, their Indian (Australia-based labour hire firms) employing companies were not especially invested in the professional development or well-being of these workers either. This had an impact in the sense of what we might call the ‘moral economy’ of employment. There were a number of instances of buck passing between the client company and the labour hire firm over whose responsibility it was to deal with key issues relating to conditions and employment of the IT contractor/worker. Workers expressed a feeling that neither their client company nor labour hire firm were interested in them as anything other than bodies for hire, and that they had no one to turn to for professional and personal mentoring and advice. They spoke of feeling as though they existed in a bubble, caught between two companies.

Another way in which these 457 workers ‘fell between the cracks’ was with regard to settlement issues. Australian multicultural policy and service provision has not yet come to terms with the fact that temporary migrants now numerically outstrip permanent settlers. Yet, services by and large ignore temporary migrants as having settlement needs. They are largely viewed as fairly privileged, professional classes. Certainly, it is commonly assumed that Indians are well-educated and highly motivated migrants. Given their English language proficiency and social skills, they are also generally considered to be ‘good migrants’ who fit into Australian society with relative ease and are less ‘needy’ compared to other migrant groups when it comes to social and community services. However, this study has found 457 holders from India from all occupation groups have a number of under-recognised settlement issues. A lack of support and social isolation prevails, and many have few links outside the workplace with either the mainstream Australian community or the Indian community itself. Most rely on a small group of friends also on 457 visas.

Quite remarkably, all the informants indicated that when they arrived in Australia, they were not received by the representatives of the agents or employer. There was no arrival party or induction package. Nor, for the most part, was any assistance available in seeking accommodation, except for a few weeks of temporary accommodation in the case of some IT workers. There was a real sense that many of these workers arrived in Australia with little knowledge of this country or how to navigate day-to-day realities here. Naresh said,

Many expressed feelings of severe social isolation, they did not know any of their neighbours and had no contact with work colleagues outside work. As a result, they tended to gravitate towards Indian community events and functions. Their primary source of community information was through local ethnic community media. Vijay said,

Whereas other professional migrants or those who arrive under the humanitarian programme are in some ways cared for in terms of being accommodated, introduced to resources and settlement services and so on, those who are in the middle – such as 457 temporary skilled migrants – find they must fend for themselves. Moreover, as has just been argued, neither the Australian client company that is their daily base nor their agent company takes responsibility for the well-being of these migrants throughout their stay.

Blue-collar workers

Blue-collar 457 visa workers of Indian background faced much more serious challenges than their professional counterparts in the IT sector. A number of blue-collar workers employed in the manufacturing and construction sectors were interviewed. They were largely from South India, and many had limited English, although all had good trade qualifications and/or years of work experience prior to coming to Australia. For these workers, transnational employment facilitated an upward social mobility denied to them in the Indian context. The men interviewed were all in their 20s, half newly married and approximately half from rural village-based backgrounds. Not surprisingly, a key motivating factor for coming to Australia was the possibility to earn more money than they could in India or other more traditional locations for Indian migrant workers such as Singapore or the Middle East.

Although it was not an initial motivation, once in Australia, many were hoping to obtain permanent residence in Australia. They had known little about Australia before they came, other than ‘it’s a beautiful country, nice people and the salaries would be higher’. What was most interesting about their narratives was that migration existed firmly within the popular imaginary of their communities in India. The very idea of migration is universally understood to represent the possibility of opportunity beyond what they have in India. Working overseas was deeply embedded in the social psyche and in Indian history and is also encouraged by the Indian state. In all cases, influence of family and villagers was significant. Often migration was a family ‘project’ in the sense that family members – fathers, uncles and older brothers – encouraged the worker to try their luck overseas. The economic success of each of these individual workers was understood to be intimately tied to the opportunity structures of all their family and close community. Most had cousins or siblings overseas in Gulf States such as Kuwait, Dubai and Saudi Arabia, and places such as the United Kingdom and Singapore. All those interviewed had significant family responsibilities such as helping parents financially, financing the education of younger siblings, paying the dowry of sisters, paying back debts and so on. There were ongoing demands for remittances to contribute to the day-to-day household income of immediate and extended family back home.

These blue-collar workers came mostly through agents whom they had paid quite substantial sums to secure employment and process visa documents. Among the South Indian blue-collar workers interviewed in the study, Singapore was a common pathway, a number of them having spent several years working there in key industries such as shipyard and construction work, before being recruited by agents looking to place skilled workers in Australia. There were a number of aggressive agents based in Singapore. They had largely small businesses, often Chinese, sometimes Indian background, agents who targeted Singapore’s large population of foreign workers through word of mouth and posting flyers in worker’s hostel accommodation in Singapore to recruit potential candidates for the 457 programme. These Singaporean agents typically charged around SGD12,000 (AUD10,000). Of this, half was required to be paid upfront by the employee and the balance deducted from their wages once in Australia. On top of this, they were required to pay the Australian Immigration Visa charge plus their airfares. The total cost of securing employment, visa and airfares was up to around AUD16,000 or AUD17,000 . This is in a context where these workers earned about SGD700–800per month.

Unsurprisingly, all the workers were forced to borrow from friends and family to pay their upfront deposits and other costs. In terms of borrowing from friends, the usual practice was to provide some form of collateral such as property or a car back in India. The loans are then required to be paid back with interest within a set period between one and two years. These were often transnational debt circuits. For example, one worker told us he borrowed some of the money from colleagues in Singapore (where pooling resources was common). Some of these workers also had family or home town links back in India. Others borrowed money from family and friends in India. Failure to make repayments would often result, first, in loss of face of the workers family in India, and more seriously, threatening visits from debtors who would, if not repaid, simply claim the collateral or other available items, putting the worker’s family in emotional and financial stress.

Once in Australia, these workers had the dual burden of deductions from their pay to repay agents fees, sometimes accommodation, in addition to repaying these substantial loans to friends and family. One worker reported having AUD33 left in his pay packet after all the deductions. At the time, he was also supporting his wife and baby who had accompanied him to Australia. To reduce rental costs, they lived in a two-bedroom flat in Western Sydney with two other (single) Tamil workers. He shared a room with his wife and baby.

As the case study below suggests, it was also quite common for further payments described as a ‘service fee’ to be demanded by agents in Australia for renewal of visas beyond the initial term, or for securing alternative employment contracts if the initial contract is cut short. Amounts charged ranged from AUD3,000 to AUD6,000 for these ‘services’.

The study also identified a small number of Australia-based agents specialising in recruiting and placing 457 visa workers – aggressively recruiting and charging similarly high fees. These agents were typically of ‘co-ethnic background’ (Indian agents recruiting Indian workers). Some had links to the agent in Singapore who did the initial recruitment. In a number of cases, a Malaysian–Australian co-national of Indian background was involved in work re-placement and visa transfer arrangements for large fees.

The initial recruiting agents in Singapore appeared to be consistently misrepresenting the conditions of employment to the employee before leaving, and these conditions typically changed (to a much less generous set of conditions) once the worker arrived in Australia.

Sanjay’s experiences (see Box 1) were fairly reflective of a number of Indian blue-collar workers interviewed. Balan was among a group of six research participants we interviewed on more than one occasion, and his story was very similar to Sanjay’s. Balan was an articulate and enthusiastic young man in his late 20s from a village in Tamil Nadu. He is a highly skilled worker, with 9 years’ experience as a boilermaker in a Singaporean shipyard. Balan came with a group of six workers recruited from worker’s hostels in Singapore. A number of them had also worked in the Singaporean shipyards for several years. They were asked by the agent in Singapore to sign what they thought is a fair contract with a salary of AUD40,000 for a 40-hour per week job. The letter of offer was for 4 years and had the usual standard conditions around sick leave and annual leave and so on.

When they arrived in Australia, the Indian HR manager of this medium-size family business presented Balan and his friends a revised contract and given 24 hours to sign or face termination. The new contract stated that they would be required to work 11–18 hours per day (overtime without penalty rates), accept termination without notice and leave Australia if terminated by the company. On refusing to sign, their passports would be confiscated.

He contacted his 457 visa friends in Sydney who put him in touch with the Union for assistance. The union was successful in securing him a new employer in Sydney. Sanjay contacted the migration agent to ask for a refund of his AUD3,000 but was refused. The agent told him that it was not his problem and that he should seek redress with his former (Brisbane) employer.

They had been promised accommodation by the Singaporean agent, who told them good-quality housing would be provided by the employer at low cost. Once here, they found themselves in a room at the back of the factory, no larger than a typical living room. Its walls were lined with bunks which housed five men, and within the space was a small kitchenette and bathroom. They were each charged AUD100 per week for this room, which was deducted from their salary (on top of repayments to the agent). To put this in perspective, AUD500 a week (which is what these men were collectively paying) would rent them a very nice three-bedroom house in a good part of Sydney. They were also promised that the employer would provide training and a local licence to operate specific equipment. On arrival, they found they had to pay for their own training and licences, which added up to quite a substantial sum. Despite the job entailing work on external construction sites, there was no induction or safety training once they commenced employment. There were other ongoing workplace issues, including

• • Sick leave deducted from annual leave, despite medical certificates;

• • Long hours without paid overtime: working 9 hours on-site then required to travel an hour back to their factory where they were expected to work several more hours on the factory floor;

• • Safety breaches: being forced to work in unsafe conditions and required to do jobs they were not trained to do. Often this work involved dangerous tasks that required specialist skills they simply were not equipped with.

When they complained to their supervisor about their treatment, and questioned why their conditions were so much worse than their local colleagues’, their employer told them that overseas workers do not have same rules of pay and employment as local workers. Until the interviews, they continued to be under the impression that there are special conditions for 457 workers that allowed employers to pay them less than the minimum wage and work without overtime. They believed the employer’s version of events because it is usual, and legal in places such as Singapore (where they had worked) for foreign labour to receive lower salaries and conditions than locals.

They eventually became aware that their pay and conditions were probably in breach of what is legal in Australia, but had no idea how to deal with the situation as approaches to their employer had rendered nothing other than threats to terminate employment and send them back to India. With the help of a co-worker, Balan and his friends contacted the union who advised them of their work rights and to approach their employer with this information. Upon doing so, they were fired for joining the union and reported to the Department of Immigration to have their visas terminated. The union took immediate action and intervened in the situation with the employer, among other things, with threats of legal and industrial action involving other employees. Balan and his friends were out of work for approximately 3 months while this process worked its way through. In the meantime, the union held a number of public fundraising events for these workers, raising enough money for them to live on, and provided them accommodation in a flat until their situation was sorted. Eventually, the employer agreed to re-instate the workers and compensate them for unpaid wages. Balan and his friends, subsequently, left the employer and found work at a large construction company.

While their experiences mirror some of those of the hospitality workers we discuss in the next section, Balan’s story highlights two things. The first is a social capital perspective, indicating the importance of links to the Indian community and the supports and resources such networks can provide. Even though their work hours were excessive and pay inadequate (and sometimes non-existent), they nonetheless had weekends off and the opportunity to build connections into the local community that in the long run proved their saviour. Second, the industry in which they work is a highly unionised one. The union was not, unlike some in Australia, xenophobic towards temporary migrant workers, and it had the resources and power to intervene successfully in this case. The following section on hospitality workers shows some similarities, but also stark contrasts with the preceding two groups.

Hospitality workers

Sydney, like other Australian cities, has a large number of Indian restaurants. Similarly to ‘ethnic’ restaurants in other parts of the Western world, they often have little to trade on other than reputation and good, cheap, food. In a situation of increasing pressures to keep costs down, it is not surprising that many of these restaurants have turned to the 457 visa scheme to find good Indian chefs and cooks to work in their kitchens at lower rates than local chefs would. Of course, this trend tends to be defended by these restaurants on the grounds that it is increasingly difficult to find good Indian chefs locally, but this is a somewhat circular argument as the import of 457 visa labour has driven down wages and conditions such that few locals (including Indian permanent residents) are willing to do this work.

Low, sporadic or sometimes entirely absent wages were a common feature, as were exceptionally long hours. All restaurant workers we spoke to worked long hours – typically 15 or more hours a day, 7 days a week. Few had time off, other than short periods between the lunch and dinner meal shifts. They worked long into the evening, deployed to cleaning duties once the kitchen closed and patrons departed. All told of being lured to Australia under the false impression that they would be working in good, well-paid jobs. All we spoke to had the experience of ‘two contracts’ – one they signed in India prior to departure and an amended one presented to them upon arrival with far less favourable conditions. They were left with little option but to sign, having borrowed to pay agents, airfares and visa fees. Complaints about overwork and underpayment mostly went unreported. This was due to a number of factors, including poor English and education, fears of losing employment and visa, and physical and psychological intimidation by the employer. There is also a lack of awareness of the correct pay and conditions and little knowledge about how to seek redress. Complaints to the employer about conditions were usually met with threats of early termination and loss of visa. We present two compelling case studies below (Boxes 2 and 3):

Recruitment of workers in the hospitality sector tended not to involve formal agents, and typically was direct from India. The usual pattern was that the restaurant owner would use family, town or village networks to identify potential individuals. In some cases, the owner would make visits to India to recruit. For example, Mr Lal, above, owned a well-known sweet shop in a small town in northern India where his employer had family connections. His employer approached him on a visit to India and offered him well-paid work, framing it as an exciting ‘career opportunity’. Because of the direct employment approach, fewer of these workers had debts to agents, which eased their situation somewhat. However, this was far outweighed by the fact that their eventual pay and conditions were at the extreme end of the spectrum in terms of workplace exploitation.

What makes restaurant workers particularly vulnerable is the fact that they are typically isolated working with two or three other overseas workers. They live in a ‘bubble’, working long hours in the restaurant with little time to tap into support networks beyond the workplace. The sector is not particularly unionised – which is typical for small business employees, and moreover, the particular union responsible for this sector was not, at least at the time of the research, particularly good at engaging culturally diverse workers, or 457 visa workers. The DIAC, at the time of the study, did undertake ‘spot inspections’ on the workplaces in question, but would typically inform the restaurant owner before coming. Workers would be fearful to report their conditions to the department for fear of losing their job and being returned to India. Employers were also skilful at using ‘divide and rule’ tactics – ensuring that whenever a single worker complained, his other workers would contradict his story when questioned by authorities. This was achieved by making threats to the other workers that unless they upheld the employer’s version of events, their families would be in danger, or they would be fired. The threat of termination was used as a bargaining chip to extract longer hours from a worker, and threatened deportation was raised to divert disgruntled employees from reporting their situation to authorities. More than once, we heard stories of the lengths employers would go to ‘lose’ the employee to avoid paying back wages.