Immigration minister Andrew Giles has warned employers previously found guilty of having exploited migrant workers that he will be asking them personally why they should not be permanently barred from hiring people on temporary visas in a direct hammer strike against bad actors in the industry.
The comments were made prior to the introduction of tough new prohibition measures on July 1 giving government powers to stop employers caught engaging in serious, deliberate or repeated forms of non-compliance from hiring the visas holders.
Large pockets of the agriculture industry rely heavily on migrant workers and labour hire operations for a steady stream of farm labourers.
However, both isolated and endemic exploitation of migrant workers have blighted the industry for years, including stolen wages and passports, extreme charges for food and lodgings, being tormented with empty promises of permanent residency and, in some cases, physical and sexual abuse.
Mr Giles also said employers subject to a prohibition notice will be named and shamed on the Department of Home Affairs website and the number of compliance officers will be increased to enforce the new regime.
"We have all heard the horror stories. I have no tolerance for our visa system being abused," he said.
Mr Giles said dodgy employers and labour hire outfits had been able to game the system for too long by being able to simply "pay a fine and move on with their business."
He said he will be writing to employers from July 1 who are liable for prohibition, including those found guilty of exploiting workers by the Federal Court under the Fair Work Act, along with those who have been subject to a bar due to a breach of the sponsorship obligations in the Migration Regulations.
"I will be... asking why they should not be prohibited from hiring workers on temporary visas," he said.
"The prohibition tool will deliberately seek to disrupt business models predicated on exploitative practices, where employers simply churn through new staff, many of whom are unaware of what they are about to experience.
"Sometimes new powers are introduced and seldom used. I intend to use the prohibition scheme for the purpose it was designed for, as soon as the Act takes effect."
The measure is a key component of Labor's Strengthening Employer Compliance Act, which was a response to the Migrant Workers Taskforce, that contains several new measures to make it an offence to use a person's migration status to exploit them in the workplace.
These include powers closing a loophole where an employer might no longer be allowed to sponsor temporary workers but remained free to keep hiring international students, backpackers, temporary graduates or bridging visa holders.
Mr Giles' argument is that if businesses were allowed to continue to underpay people because they are migrants then there was no incentive for them to pay workers fair wages and conditions.
"It is critical that workplace laws provide the same entitlements and protections for all workers, regardless of their immigration status; and that immigration policies address both the misuse of migration rules to exploit temporary migrants and migration-related barriers to resolving workplace exploitation," he said.
He also said stealing wages in one sector of the economy effectively drives down wages and conditions "for everyone, regardless of where you are born."
The National Farmers Federation has previously said it condemned practices depriving workers of entitlements or rights and supported penalties to be used against bad bosses, including prohibition.
However, it also warned in a submission to a senate committee last year that declaring a farm to be a "prohibited employer" and stopping them from hiring migrant workers could be "devastating" for the individual business.
"Unlike other (city-based) enterprises who can access domestic workers, if a regional/farming business is banned from engaging migrant workers they may have to cease trading or operate at a highly reduced - and perhaps unsustainable - capacity," it said.
"While we accept that, alone, this concern is not a reason to object to the Bill in its entirety, it is a matter which the government must bear in mind in the delivery of the Act."
