Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Senator Vanstone) to questions without notice asked by opposition senators today, relating to unauthorised arrivals and other immigration matters.

It is a very important day for this parliament. Anyone who saw the humiliating capitulation of the Prime Minister at his press conference today will understand that an event of some importance has occurred. The Prime Minister decided to cut and run today. He was not prepared to bring on the migration bill for debate in the Senate. The Prime Minister talked about respecting the authority of the parliament but he refused to bring the bill on. He pulled it off the agenda last fortnight and again this fortnight, after months of internal debate inside the coalition parties. They have decided not to bring on the bill and not to bring on the debate. It is a humiliating capitulation on the Prime Minister’s behalf. The fact that he could not convince his own party to support him makes him a very diminished political figure. His authority has clearly been undermined by his own troops. The arrogance with which this government sought to treat the parliament and its own party room has been exposed. I offer my congratulations to those within the Liberal Party and National Party coalition who were prepared to stand up to the Prime Minister.

This was ill-conceived policy. It was policy that the Prime Minister described at an earlier time as ‘ludicrous’, when it was put to him when the last migration bill was being debated. It was described by Minister Vanstone as ‘ridiculous’. So ‘ludicrous’ and ‘ridiculous’ were the views of the Prime Minister and the minister about a proposition that they subsequently sought to bring before the parliament. That was what was contained in the migration bill regarding unauthorised arrivals that the Prime Minister was forced to withdraw today.

While I leave it for others to comment on the Prime Minister’s capitulation, it is important for this Senate to note that this is the third strike against Senator Vanstone. Minister Vanstone is unable to deliver on anything to do with her department. If you look at the matter of the administration of the department, we have had the infamy of the treatment of Cornelia Rau, who was diagnosed with mental health issues and locked up for a long period, and the appalling deportation of an Australian citizen, Vivian Alvarez Solon. She was deported because of the failure to identify her as an Australian citizen, and the department, even after discovering that she was an Australian citizen and that she had been deported, failed to act to seek her return to this country. The administration of the department has been terrible, and everyone of a reasonable mind in Australia thought that the minister ought to have gone because of it. She ought to have resigned or been sacked.

Today we have had that terrible administration culminate in complete disarray inside the government on the question of unauthorised arrivals. We have had three or four different policies in the last six months: we had the tough policy, we had the soft policy and then we had the Indonesian policy. The Indonesian policy has now been rejected because the government is unable to get its own party to support it. But where does that leave the minister? Totally diminished; totally without authority. She has largely been missing in the debate. We know the policy is largely run by the Prime Minister.

Now we have the section 457 visa fiasco, with the minister arrogantly dismissing any concerns raised about the exploitation of migrant workers; the fact that these people are being brought in to do unskilled work, not skilled work as required under the visa; the fact that they are being used to undermine Australian wages and conditions because they have not been paid proper award rates—or even AWA rates; and the fact that they are being forced to work extra hours. We have three issues running inside the department.

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

Can’t you get anybody to come in and support you?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ferguson, it is nice to see you back in the country for a change, but please do not interrupt. What we have here is a minister totally without any credibility inside her portfolio, be it on the question of the administration of the portfolio, the question of dealing with unauthorised arrivals or the question of the skilled migration program in this country. She is unable to command any authority or to maintain any consistent policy. The whole migration portfolio is a complete shambles. The minister has no credibility. She has been undermined by Mr Robb being put into the portfolio to try and bring some organisational sense. The minister ought to consider her position. (Time expired)

Ross Lightfoot (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not quite sure what the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Evans, was getting at. I will try and be specific so that this taking note of answers debate about immigration this afternoon can have at least some semblance of comprehensibility. What the Labor Party’s greatest fear seems to be is that those people who come into Australia—and I am not just talking specifically of 457 visas—‘are taking jobs away from Australians that already have jobs and they’re going to do them at cheaper rates’. Those opposite said that. That could not be further from the truth. Around 85 per cent of the people who come in on 457 visas come in as professionals or semi-professionals, or skilled workers. They are not truckies—although they can drive trucks, I assume. They are not labourers; they are not brickies; they are not tilers. If they were, they would probably take jobs away from people. But in the capacities in which they come and are employed here—and with the boom that is going on—there are two per cent unemployed in the 457 category. And one could safely say that those who are unemployed are unemployable.

The skilled migrant program is a good thing for Australia. It may not be good for the unions. Those who read the statistics know that only about 10 per cent of all employees in the private sector are in the union movement. With the advent of workers coming in on 457 visas, that 10 per cent will be reduced. Some, at least, of these people know what being under an authoritarian regime is like and they are not keen to go into the authoritarian trade union movement, where they would be told what to do and when to strike—at least, they would be told when to strike. But, given what is happening with the CFMEU in Western Australia, where the workers who went on illegal strikes are being fined up to $28,600 each, it is not a great talking point in the lunch rooms these days.

The government will not tolerate the exploitation of workers who come into Australia. Does this opposition really believe that the workers’ government, this government that was elected significantly with worker votes, is going to exploit workers openly, knowing full well that the laws prohibit that? The laws dictate minimum wages et cetera. Does the opposition think that all those 457 visa holders who are sponsored by business are not monitored properly? Within nine months of the workers arriving in Australia, there were some 52 ongoing inquiries by DIMA. Those inquiries found that, of the 57 misuses outlined in the so-called case studies that were investigated by DIMA, one was finalised satisfactorily earlier this year, one has been resolved through counselling, one has been referred to the Office of Workplace Services, two are the subject of ongoing investigation and two are being considered for sanctions by DIMA.

I will now turn to the fear that came about over the bill that was withdrawn earlier today by the Prime Minister. I am a strong advocate for the ability to know who comes into Australia. I want to know what they are like, how many they are replacing from our reserve of people overseas—of the 12,000 and often more that we take each year, how many are they going to replace, coming in illegally like they do—and whether in fact they are economic refugees, as I believe those people from West Papua were.

I would like to answer the question that was proposed earlier by one of my colleagues. The question was: if baby Jesus and Joseph and Mary were to come in as refugees, would they be allowed entry? Yes, they would. They would come in as religious workers, subclass 428, or as distinguished talent, subclass 124. This is a kind and generous government when it comes to taking our share of people from overseas. But they should come via the right channels. That is the way we would like it.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on what can only be described as the utter failure of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Amanda Vanstone. Since I have been in parliament there has been no greater litany of disasters, failures, incompetence, mismanagement and utter failure in proper accountability than that presided over by Senator Vanstone. True, she inherited some of it from Mr Ruddock, but only some of it. The remainder of it was her doing it—she presided over it.

This litany of failures started way back with the cowboy culture of the immigration department. That culture could have had its genesis under Mr Ruddock, but when Senator Vanstone took over the reins she failed to curb or change that culture. Finally, after a backbench revolt, she did decide that the culture needed changing. But there was not just the litany of failures in the immigration department; it moved more broadly into the 457 visa scheme, which is the focus today. Of course, while it is true that Mr Ruddock had a hand in all of these issues, it is now clearly Senator Vanstone who should take proper and full responsibility for all the issues that have come to light.

The Prime Minister’s response to Senator Vanstone has been, for example: ‘Well, I’ll take over the admission that the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006 will be pulled.’ He did not leave it to Senator Vanstone. Senator Vanstone was out there ridiculing her own backbench about their position, but she did not come forward and say, ‘It is now my turn to say that this bill should not come forward.’ That seems to be the usual form for this minister.

Let me remind this place that it was on Senator Vanstone’s watch that a mentally ill woman, Cornelia Rau, was detained and held for months before eventually being released. It was on Senator Vanstone’s watch that Vivian Alvarez was left overseas—and it was under the minister’s watch that the government ensured that a report into her deportation could never focus on the actions of the minister or her office. It was on Senator Vanstone’s watch that nothing was done about the infectious cowboy culture of the immigration department—which valued getting themselves on TV and allowing favoured media on immigration raids over dealing with the hard work of an immigration department. It was also on Senator Vanstone’s watch that five detainees were put in the back of a truck by detention centre staff and transported across the desert for six hours with no food, water or toilet facilities. That is just a taste of some of the utter failures of the immigration department that this minister has presided over.

We can say that the minister favoured announcing changes to the department that went to a range of issues. But as soon as something did not meet the minister’s direction—such as the offshore processing—it was rejected. As soon as it did not meet the direction the minister wanted to go in, it was rejected. We did see a softer approach emerging with the immigration department with the slogan ‘People—our business’, but it was all thrown in the bin as soon as the West Papuans turned up. It was all junked because this minister was looking for political outcomes, not outcomes for people. ‘People—our business’ was not what the minister was looking for.

Of course, we now have the 457 visa issue. There are reports that the minister will not make public, but we will seek an order to produce those documents. This smacks of a guest worker program being introduced by stealth. There was also the report into the T&R Pastoral company. Senators on the other side might encourage the minister to make that report public or available to this chamber so that we can see what the litany of abuses were there. And the list goes on. One of the greatest scams perpetrated by this government goes to issues of ensuring that the Work Choices legislation would be used under 457 visas. As I indicated, we also have T&R Pastoral and the related 457 visas issue. Senator Vanstone should table that report. I think it would be helpful if the report were brought to light. Will the minister table it? I doubt it. (Time expired)

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I always find it very entertaining in these debates to listen to these pious little lectures by members of the Australian Labor Party about issues of party governance. We had it again this afternoon, first from Senator Evans in relation to the Prime Minister’s announcement concerning the withdrawal of the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006. Senator Evans tried to ridicule Senator Vanstone. He tried to ridicule the government because the government made a decision today, in light of the announced intention of a government senator to exercise a right of conscience to vote against that bill and the likelihood, therefore, that the bill would not pass the Senate, not to persist with it. When was the last time anybody in the Australian Labor Party was vouchsafed the right to exercise their conscience? Never. And whenever they have attempted to do so, when was the last time they escaped political punishment for it? Never.

Mr Deputy President, if you have not already seen it, might I direct your attention to a most illuminating article in Saturday’s Sydney Morning Herald newspaper by the veteran political journalist Mr Alan Ramsey. It was on the editorial page and called ‘The lost art of crossing the floor’. Mr Ramsey made the observation that of the 245 members of parliament who have in the last half century, on occasions, not voted the party line in the parliament, all but 28 were from the coalition. Of 245 members of parliament who have exercised a right of conscience, only 28 times out of the 245 was that ever done by members of the Australian Labor Party. Even that overstates the figure, because if we look at those 28 rare occasions in half a century when a Labor politician has exercised a right of conscience, what do we find? We find that most of them were Labor politicians in the fifties who left the party during the split, like Senator George Cole, or that they were Labor politicians like Mr Graeme Campbell, the former member for Kalgoorlie, who were promptly expelled from the Australian Labor Party.

It is an issue of party governance, Senator Ludwig. The way the Labor Party does business and the way the government parties do business are entirely at variance from one another. We have seen in this parliament, since the new Senate convened after 1 July last year, a number of occasions when members of the government parties have crossed the floor. Senator Humphries crossed the floor recently on the legislation in relation to same-sex couples in the Australian Capital Territory. Senator Humphries continues to sit in the government party room and has an honoured place in it. Senator Barnaby Joyce, on two or three occasions now, has voted against the government policy line. But Senator Barnaby Joyce continues to sit in the government party room and has a welcome place in it. Last week Ms Moylan, Mr Georgiou and Mr Broadbent crossed the floor in the House of Representatives on the unauthorised arrivals legislation. They will join us at our party meeting tomorrow and each will continue to have an honoured place in it.

So do not give us pious little lectures, Senator Evans or Senator Ludwig, about the way in which the government does business. The right of free conscience exercised in good faith and with appropriate seriousness of purpose exists in the government parties and it does not exist in the Australian Labor Party. And do not tell us about policy consistency, Senator Ludwig. How many positions has the Australian Labor Party had on border security over the last few years? How many policy positions have you had on uranium over the last few years? How many different policy positions have you had on the terrorism legislation in the last couple of years? How many different policy positions have you had on tax reform? You have been all over the shop, and the reason is that the Labor Party does not know how to handle internal differences of opinion. Being an authoritarian party, it cannot deal with them. The caucus system will not admit of it. (Time expired)

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A report by the Forum of Australian Services for Survivors of Torture and Trauma, Out of the Abyss, states, in relation to torture and trauma impacts:

These impacts can present profound barriers to settlement in a new community. They can make it difficult for survivors to learn a new language, seek and keep employment, and make new social connections.

The way that the Australian government and the way that the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs are dealing with torture and trauma is of very significant concern to the groups around the country that I have been visiting. That is why I asked a question in the budget estimates of this year about the uptake of counselling for these issues. On 19 July 2006 I received a reply from the department that shocked me, even though I realised that the uptake was not as good as it should be. It was that only 18 per cent of those refugees and humanitarian entrants coming in were receiving such counselling. The reason for this is that DIMA and the minister were unprepared at the time that they let out their contract in October last year. The new IHSS services were poorly put together in many cases and were not properly implemented.

It does seem that, unless there is a crisis, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and its minister do not act. I certainly hope that it does not take a crisis in this kind of area for the department to act. We are constantly getting lectures from people in the community, and particularly from members of the government, about the necessity for migrants to this country to learn English and to integrate into the community. For those survivors of torture and trauma, this kind of counselling is essential to enable them to do that.

This is a critical issue and one that the minister’s parliamentary secretary, Mr Andrew Robb, seems to understand. He understands how critical it is that people from Africa and other countries who have been the subject of torture are given special assistance. Indeed, Minister Tony Abbott provided extra assistance to services providing counselling upon the release of the report this year. But where is the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Amanda Vanstone, in this? Does she not talk to the people in her department who produced the answer to the question? Does she not talk to the people in the area of refugee and humanitarian settlement—those people who are out in the field dealing with such people every day? Does she not even spend time with them or, if not with them, with the refugees who are affected? Does she not know that many of them are not receiving the counselling they require?

It is not only the minister who is lacking in this kind of understanding. Many of her backbenchers also lack that kind of understanding. Mr Don Randall, a member in the lower house, linked the now failed Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006 to terrorism. He was saying that we have to keep out terrorists. That is an illogical statement that completely flies in the face of the facts and revives the old Tampa debate about illegal immigrants being terrorists, when there is no shred of evidence to show that that is so. All of the people who were arrested in Britain in relation to the latest aviation incidents were actually born in England. They were British residents.

It is hard to see how this minister can educate the public in Australia about why we take in refugees and have humanitarian intakes, and why we provide the services they require to properly integrate them into society to provide a contribution, when her own backbench does not understand the basics of this process and is really content to inflame hard feelings against immigrants. We get letter after letter to function after function from government members claiming that they care about migrants and support multiculturalism, yet in instances like this the facts slip through the minister’s fingers. She is not aware of the problem and she appears not to be willing to do anything about it. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.