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

My question is to Senator Vanstone, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Can the minister confirm that, in relation to the compliance measures for the 457 visa, the department currently visits 25 per cent of employers employing temporary foreign workers annually? I ask whether the department stated, in relation to these compliance visits, that:

... as we are there at the courtesy of the employer ... we do not as a matter of course take the employees away and interview them separately.

Isn’t it a fact that employers are warned before a visit and have the right to refuse entry to DIMA officers? Doesn’t this explain why thousands of these site visits have identified fewer than 10 cases of noncompliance? Hasn’t the government failed to protect the rights of temporary foreign workers and done little to deter those employers who want to abuse the program?

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

I think what the senator says is right. I will check the exact words, but I think the expectation of what has been said is correct. The department does plan to visit 25 per cent of the companies. That does not mean visa holders, because we might have one company that might have a few hundred. We are there at the courtesy of the employer. There is not a right of entry. My experience in this place, both on this side and that, is that whenever a minister wants to give a department right of entry into somebody’s home or workplace there is a tremendous civil liberties debate about who can bash down doors and just go in. But we can have that debate. If the opposition is suggesting that the immigration department should be given automatic right of entry to premises where 457 visa holders are expected to be working, I for one would welcome that. It would make life a lot easier. In terms of compliance, we all have to work within limitations—that is, what we want to achieve and what other people’s liberties and rights are. That is why the parliament has always been very cautious about giving officials and compliance officials who are not at the most senior levels in the department the capacity to just arrive at someone’s door and say, ‘Here I am,’ and disrupt their business.

I do remember an occasion when, as a new minister, I was advised in advance of a number of immigration raids that were going to happen. They were looking for unlawful noncitizens, but they would have also picked up any people who were there on 457 visas as a part of the process. It was about a particular restaurant in Sydney. There was a furore that the immigration department would dare to go to a restaurant that was trying to serve lunch. If you are looking for people who are unlawful noncitizens, you do not go there overnight when they are closed; you go when the workers are going to be there—that is, when people will be serving tables et cetera. So, Senator Ludwig, there is a balance to be found here, but if you are indicating on behalf of the Labor Party that the balance is going to shift in favour of compliance and more power will be given to the immigration department to force entry into places to get information, we would—

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

He’s actually asking what you are doing to make sure you are satisfied.

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

By way of answering Senator Evans’s interjection, the question was raised in the context of, ‘Isn’t it true you don’t have this power?’ as if to say that if we did have it we would be better off. I am simply saying that, if that is the point that is being made on the other side, please tell us that you would like to give immigration officers more power to storm workplaces to understand what is happening.

I will simply repeat two things I have said here before. Firstly, this is one of the most valuable visas Australia has to grow Australian jobs. When there is a particular shortage in an industry or a company—there might be a piece of equipment that desperately needs fixing and there are few people who can do it or there might be some technology that needs installing and there are few people in the world who can do it and do it quickly—then people can be brought here and they can do the work. That means that Australian jobs are kept going and in fact grow.

The second thing that I have said is that if anybody has information about someone misusing this visa then they should give us the information and we will look at it. You only have to look at Western Australia, where about 90 per cent of the cases that we have sent to the Western Australian government for investigation have proved to be cases that should be looked at. What does that tell you? It tells you that we are unsure about 10 per cent of the cases but we send them anyway because we want to make sure that the people who are doing the wrong thing are caught.

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister agree that visiting companies and asking temporary foreign workers in the presence of their employer, ‘Are things going well?’ and ‘Is there anything you would like to talk to DIMA staff members about?’ is an ineffective compliance strategy? Isn’t that the description the minister’s own department gave of those visits? Can the minister confirm how many employers have been permanently banned from employing temporary foreign workers as a result of the department’s compliance activity?

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

Could those senators in the chamber who are standing please resume their seats. It is rather disconcerting during question time. Senator Campbell, could you hurry up, please, because it is disrupting the chamber.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Senator Campbell, resume your seat!

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

It is not always the case that people are interviewed in front of their employers. In fact, I might go back to the T&R case. I indicated that the report on that case had been held over, because I believed that, while one sentence could be true, it still might not give them a clean bill of health. I had been told there had been an issue in relation to housing, and I have subsequently been given some details of that. I am glad that my suspicious mind did in fact ask for the report to be held over, because I will have a further look at the housing issue given what I have now seen. The reason I say that is in part related to Senator Ludwig’s question, because some of the things that some workers said were not said in the presence of their employer. So it is not always true that it happens that way. We can all take one extreme example and extrapolate it out to be the norm. I can assure you, Senator, that if you have examples of people being misused, let us know and we will investigate. (Time expired)