John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak about document No. 2 in the Notice Paper list, the DIMIA 2004-05 annual report—all 528 pages of it. I want to talk about just a few things that you will not find, as well as some that you will find, in this annual report. This report does not tell you anything more about the outrageous scandal of a mentally ill Australian resident, Cornelia Rau, who was locked up in detention, except that it was the cause of a little scrutiny in the department. It takes the same scanty approach to the deportation of Vivian Alvarez Solon. It draws a veil over a pregnant New Zealand woman detained in a Brisbane prison for 23 days by immigration officials before being released. And it draws a veil over Ian and Jamie Hwang—11 and five years old at the time—who were forcibly removed from Stanmore Public School and wrongly detained for more than five months, even though they were legally in Australia on valid bridging visas.

You will not read about Peter Qasim, who had seven years in detention. He declared he was from Kashmir and the government claimed they were unable to confirm his background, despite three language experts brought in by the government stating he was likely to be from Kashmir. What about the late Harry Seidler’s citizenship and passport fiasco? You will not see that. You will not see the Hamberger report. A damning, independent inquiry found that five unnamed detainees were manhandled by GSL officers, subjected to sensory deprivation and denied access to food, water and toilet facilities during a 6½-hour journey in a small van—and the department misled the media about it.

You will not read the case of Mr X, a stateless man from Bangladesh and an insulin-dependent diabetic. The immigration department was planning to deport him even though he would have most certainly died within weeks of leaving Australia. You will not read the case of Mr T, a mentally ill Australian citizen who was detained in 1999, correctly identified after five days and released, only to be redetained in the same facility for 242 consecutive days. You will not see any reference in this annual report to the promotion of the departmental secretary of DIMIA who had oversight of all of this, Mr Bill Farmer, to Australian Ambassador to Indonesia.

We know this department was a shambles between 2004 and 2005. This department represents one of the greatest public administration fiascos in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia—a department so tainted by the Howard government’s politics that it has developed an obsession with detention and deportation. If you read this annual report, you will not know any of that. You will not know that Minister Vanstone and her discredited predecessor, Mr Ruddock, have overseen bungle after bungle and disaster after disaster, and that the department has been in chaos. But we know what is not in the annual report. We know the mistakes, the wrongful detentions and the wrongful deportations, and we wait to see what other disasters and incompetence will be revealed as time goes on. You can be sure you will not see them in this annual report of 528 pages, so I thought someone at least should today, in the Senate, put on the record the department’s real performance—put the real record on the record.

Before I conclude my remarks, I just wanted to take this opportunity to congratulate my leader, Mr Beazley, for accurately describing Mr Wilson Tuckey on these immigration issues as ‘weak and worthless’. You are absolutely right, Mr Beazley. Mr Wilson Tuckey was out there defending the indefensible. He was out there defending this department—this turnstile of incompetence. He was supporting Senator Vanstone, the most accident-prone minister that we have in the Howard government. (Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also want to take a couple of minutes of the Senate’s time to congratulate the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs for the work she and her department have been doing in a very difficult area over many years, even going back to 2004-05—when I do not think Senator Vanstone was then the minister, but whoever the minister was at the time—

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ruddock.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Someone tells me it was Mr Ruddock, so why did Senator Faulkner just spend 20 seconds talking about Senator Vanstone? He is not even aware of the right report.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because it’s this year’s report, you goose!

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He’s not even aware of the right report! It is from 2004-05. But this department does operate in very difficult circumstances. What I think the department does is very sensitively deal with a lot of issues. Thousands and thousands of people go through the hands of the department in any one year. You hear about two or three of them; there are mistakes made. Those mistakes are corrected as quickly as can happen.

Not quite on the report: I am glad Senator Faulkner drew attention to the loutish behaviour of the leader of the Labor Party, Mr Beazley, in fronting up to Mr Tuckey. Mr Tuckey certainly does not need me to defend him, I have to say, but there is a man of strength, courage and commitment, who has done a marvellous job for Western Australia, particularly his electorate, over a long period of time.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He has been here for much longer than any of those shouting from the other side will ever be. His contribution to Australia in the time he has been here will surpass the contribution of all those on the other side put together. It is a disgrace that the Labor Party have now perhaps sunk even lower than when Mr Latham was the leader. One would think that they could not have gone lower than Mr Latham. These people all supported him, of course, but the general public saw through Mr Latham. It is of interest that it now seems that the current leader is determined to lower the standards even further. That sort of loutish behaviour, where you confront in a physical way members of parliament who are out there making their points of view known, expressing their views as we love to do and are entitled to do in this country, does not suit Mr Beazley. He did not want to answer the questions that Mr Tuckey was suggesting should be put to him. Mr Tuckey quite rightly said: ‘Don’t talk about the so-called Liberal rebels; ask what the Labor Party is doing. Ask why the Labor Party is so weak on border protection, so weak on these sorts of issues that they oppose the government.’

But congratulations to the department on the work they did in the year 2004-05. And good luck to the current minister as she tackles some of the really difficult issues confronting Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs annual report for 2004-05. Honourable senators will recall that on 14 June this year I asked Senator Vanstone whether there was anything in the relevant regulations to prevent employers from forcing section 457 visa guest workers from working unreasonable hours in order to earn the required minimum salary of $41,850. I was concerned that, if the section 457 guest workers were paid the minimum wage, they would need to work more than 60 hours a week in order to earn the salary required under the regulations. In Senator Vanstone’s reply to my question she said:

We would be happy to make any investigation in relation to any claims that you bring forward.

Senator Vanstone also said, when asked a question on that same subject the following day by Senator George Campbell—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. It is not the point of order about Senator Sterle reading his speech yet again—I won’t raise that. It has just been clearly pointed out by the opposition that this report that we are discussing, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs annual report for 2004-05, covers a time when Senator Vanstone was not the relevant minister. What is the point of discussing this particular report? Senator Sterle seems to be discussing Senator Vanstone, who had nothing to do with the department at that particular time.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, on the point of order: I find it interesting that Senator Macdonald, who wants to talk about the opposition leader in his—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is your point of order, Senator Wong?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I raise a point of relevance. There are two issues. First, the minister is the minister who has tabled the document—it is her department. Second, my recollection—I am happy to be corrected—is that Senator Vanstone was in fact the appointed minister during that period after the 2004 election.

The Acting Deputy President:

Order! Both speakers have made very good debating points but I think Senator Sterle is in order.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will quickly reiterate that, when Senator Vanstone was asked a question by Senator George Campbell on the same subject, the response was:

... if the company is doing the wrong thing they will be dealt with ...

I have done some research into what exactly Senator Vanstone means when she says that companies that do the wrong thing will be investigated and ‘dealt with’ in my home state. I learnt that, far from making investigations into allegations of exploitation, the immigration department merely refers such matters to the Western Australian Department of Consumer and Employment Protection for them to investigate at Western Australian taxpayers’ expense. Under the terms of the memorandum of understanding between DIMA and DOCEP it is open to the employer to identify breaches and therefore avoid prosecution. How charitable!

I learnt that in 2004-05 the Western Australian Department of Consumer and Employment Protection conducted 36 investigations at the immigration department’s request into alleged breaches by bosses of their legal obligations to the section 457 guest workers. I also learnt that 28 of the 36 bosses investigated were found to be in breach of one or more matters, including failure to pay appropriate rates of pay, failure to pay penalty and overtime rates of pay, failure to meet annual leave and public holiday entitlements and failure to maintain appropriate time and wages records. The total value of identified underpayments for these 28 breaches was $203,000, with underpayments to individual workers of up to $30,000. One worker was even being forced to work 84 hours per week. But the Howard government has ensured that, if these dodgy bosses quietly fix up the pay, they will avoid prosecution for their crooked actions. So much for being ‘dealt with’. Despite the documented widespread and disgraceful rorting of these vulnerable section 457 guest workers, the Howard government can rightly say:

After thorough investigations of allegations there has not been one single prosecution of an employer in Western Australia for exploiting 457 guest workers.

All of these matters were quietly settled and swept under the carpet so that there is no record of prosecution for any of these 28 crooked actions in Western Australia.

I invite senators to compare the loving and forgiving treatment the Howard government shows to employers who rip off vulnerable 457 guest workers with that given to Mr Mal Peters, from my home state of WA, and his family. Mal Peters acted in defence of a delegate after that delegate in his workplace was sacked. Mr Peters is facing fines of up to $28,000 and stands to lose his family home or even face jail. There is no second chance for Mal Peters and his family. There is no opportunity to quietly fix up matters in order to avoid prosecution. Mal Peters is being dragged through the court by this government, not because he exploited anyone, not because he stole from the pay packets of workers but because he dared to act in defence of his delegate. We see it time and again with this government: the velvet glove for dodgy bosses, and jackboots for the workers. If senators still need evidence of the pig-headed hatred this government has for working people they need only compare the treatment dished out to Mal Peters with the second chances given to crooked employers who exploit 457 guest workers in my state.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to go to some matters in the report before the Senate at the moment, which is the 2004-05 annual report of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, as it was then. I want to emphasise some of the very valuable information in the report. I take Senator Faulkner’s point about what is not in it and I have spoken on that many times before. There is some valuable information in the report and it is worth mentioning, with all the public focus at the moment on immigration legislation dealing with unauthorised arrivals. If you consider all the fuss, the public debate and the political and policy focus around that group of people and then look at the figures in this report of the numbers of people coming in under a whole range of different visas, I think it has escaped the attention of many in the Australian public how high the migration intake is. That is something I support, I might say, but it is something we need to be more aware of and manage more effectively.

The number of permanent residents under the economic migration stream in the last financial year was nearly 78,000. The number in the family stream coming in as permanent residents was nearly 42,000, of which 33,000 were partners and only 4½ thousand were parents. It is a real problem that there is a continual restriction on the number of people allowed parent visas. For a government that talks about the value of the family, I think that restriction is a very antifamily measure. It also ignores the strong value of having parents around, which can enable migrant families to settle more effectively. It also helps, I might say, to make multiculturalism work more effectively.

In addition, we had 93½ thousand people coming in on temporary residency visas, which can be for as long as four years—57,000 of those in the temporary skilled area and many of which went to what I think Senator Sterle was talking about. We had 175,000 student visas granted in that financial year; nearly 212,000 people on student visas present at one stage during the financial year. The working holiday visa numbers have gone up to the record level of 104,600. If you look at all of those figures, all of which are residents, temporary or permanent, of various sorts—economic entry 78,000: family stream, nearly 42,000; other temporary residents, 94,000; student visas, 175,000; and working holiday visas, 105,000—we are getting close to the half-million mark, and that is before you count all the other visitors.

The total number of other visitor visas—tourists, short-stay business, family visitation, hospital and medical—in addition to all those I have talked about, was 3,588,947. So we have got about four million people coming in. Most of them are short-stay visitors, but around half a million of them are seeking various forms of longer stay or permanent residency. Yet we have this massive focus on and moral panic about a tiny number of people who come in an unauthorised way—people who when seeking asylum immediately seek to be identified, found and assessed. It shows how distorted our debate about immigration issues has been.

I have left out the humanitarian program: in this financial year, we had 13,178 come in under the offshore humanitarian program—only 5½ thousand are actually refugees; the other 7½ thousand are humanitarian—and 4,601 under onshore protection visas. So we have got a very small proportion that are refugees and an even smaller proportion that are asylum seekers. The problem with the massive and distorted focus on asylum seekers and the xenophobic approach to them is that it takes attention away from the much bigger need to properly manage the large numbers that are coming. We need to do better with settlement assistance than we have done, and it needs to be available more widely than it has been in the past, in my view. Such large numbers of people coming in from every corner of the globe reinforces the need to more strongly promote multiculturalism as an essential component of making that mix of people work together better.

Question agreed to.