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

It is good to see that the Government Whip is now awake. My question is to Senator Vanstone, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural—

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sterle, there really was no need for that comment. I was the one who should have been awake, not the Government Whip.

Jeannie Ferris (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. It is customary in this place to ask a question when you are called by the President and not before.

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sterle.

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

As I said, my question is to Senator Vanstone, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Does the minister recall my question on 14 June 2006 on the potential for employers to require workers on 457 visas to work excessive hours for the minimum salary level? Does the minister recall arrogantly dismissing those concerns? Can the minister also confirm that, when asked about what she would do to close that loophole in the law, she jokingly asked me to call her with evidence of employers exploiting this flaw? Can the minister now explain why she quietly signed off on a regulation, just two weeks after dismissing my question, that clearly specifies a 38-hour week for the minimum salary level? How long had the minister been aware of this loophole? Why was it only after Labor questioned her inaction that she did something to fix it?

Amanda Vanstone (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, the answers to your questions are: yes, I do remember your question; no, I do not remember having anything like the disposition that you seek to give to me; and, yes, I do recall asking you if you had evidence of that to come forward. I am unaware of whether you have sent that to my department or not, and you might illuminate us with respect to that. I further recall indicating in this place that a regulation had been signed off and coming back into this place, either that day or the next day, to indicate that at the point at which I gave the answer it had not been done but that subsequently it had been done. It is certainly not my recollection that it was two weeks later. I think it was the same day or the following day.

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister confirm the legal effect of the new regulations? Does it mean that workers on the $41,850 minimum salary level must receive an hourly rate of at least $21.18 per hour? Specifically, does it mean that a worker who works 45 hours would receive at least an additional $148.26 in overtime? What action has the minister taken to inform all employers and workers of this change?

Amanda Vanstone (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, the advice I have is the same as the advice I gave you at the time. The advice I gave you at the time was that we did not believe that one could look at the regulation alone—that anyone who was engaging a 457 worker had to look at the determination or regulation order, or whatever the delegated legislative instrument is, but also look at the agreement that was made with the department and Australian industrial relations law. All three needed to be read together. On that basis, the view was that the proposition you put was not acceptable. I further said to you that, just in case some people did have the idea that you put forward, we would make it crystal clear and therefore we would change the delegated legislative instrument, which we did. The point I am making to you is that the proposition the government puts is that, when you read all three together as they were, you still had to pay the appropriate salary, but, because you raised the doubt and others presumably agreed with you that the legislative instrument was not crystal clear on that, we would make that crystal clear. So the legal advice has not changed. As to the degree to which that has been canvassed currently, I will get some advice on that. (Time expired)