2. Circumstances such as complaints relating to previous employments may not be relevant immigration considerations. They should not in any event prejudice the helper's visa applications unless she has been notified and been given an opportunity to put her point of view.
3.
As the Immigration Department has done its best to be responsive to criticism the system has evolved mainly in response to the articulate pressure of one interest group only. The less well articulated interests of the helpers do not appear to have been accorded due weight. The system has principally evolved with the employer's interest in mind.
4. Protection of the employer's interests are a relevant consideration for Government, but the system of employment should be equally fair and reasonable to both parties.
5. The correct way to protect the parties's legitimate interests is by giving them mutual rights to damages for breach of contract.
The law has never specifically enforced a contract which seeks to put an employee in bondage to an employer for a fixed period of time. To seek to do so by administrative means is equally unacceptable.
6.
To attempt to compel an employee to complete a two year contract by severe restrictions on change of employment creates extensive opportunities for ill-treatment.
7.
My own subjective impression is that a a significant minority of helpers suffer considerable and unnecessary hardship. Even if I am wrong in this, a good administrative system should not create opportunities for exploitation.
8.
As temporary immigrants and as domestic servants living in their employer's household, the helpers are especially vulnerable to threats and coercion by unreasonable employers.
The spectre of repatriation and unemployment tends to preclude helpers from making any serious complaint.
9.
10.
Especially in a contract where duties, hours, etc, are not defined, conciliation and litigation do not provide an adequate safety net for the ill-treated employee. The burden of proving their allegations, and unfamiliarity with the legal process, are deterrents to its effectiveness in protecting the helpers.
11.
The only efficient remedy for a helper is the prospect of changing to a new job on similar terms. Greater freedom to dispose of her labour would also tend to ensure that she is treated reasonably by her employer.
- 9
Appendix A