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, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Can the minister confirm her claim yesterday that on 16 August 2006 ABC Tissues were issued with a notice of intention to sanction by her department on the grounds that two workers were not carrying out their nominated duties? Is it also true that two days later, on 18 August 2006, the department approved sponsorship for 12 more 457 nominations for ABC Tissues, with one application approved on the same day? Didn’t this follow the department finding breaches by the company as far back as August 2005? Isn’t it a requirement of the 457 program that the sponsor has a ‘good business record and abides by immigration law’ and that ‘there must be nothing adverse known about the business’? Can the minister explain how ABC Tissues were allowed to bring in more foreign workers on 457 visas when there was clear evidence they had broken the law?

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

Senator, I will check the detail of what you suggest happened afterwards, but I make one point clear. This was a point that was struggled with, but I will pass up the opportunity to be disparaging of someone. I make the point that approval of nominations is not a visa approval. I will have a look at the rest of the detail contained in the question. I indicated yesterday that there were a large number of people, relatively speaking, working with the Hunan company. That matter has not been resolved. I indicated that we had had a reply from ABC Tissues and that was being looked at, but that related to only two workers. In any enforcement area we need to keep a sense of balance. There will be people who will make mistakes and there will be minor infractions. You need to balance that up. I do not have with me details of what Senator Ludwig alleges may have happened afterwards. I simply make the point that I would have thought, on the basis of—

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

This was your answer yesterday.

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

Senator, your contribution last week indicates that you do not understand the migration program, so perhaps you could butt out and leave it to one of your colleagues who does have an interest.

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

You answered this yesterday. Come clean. You were asked about this yesterday.

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

Senator Evans will cease interjecting and Senator Vanstone will address her remarks through the chair.

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

The leader demonstrated by embarrassing himself in the last fortnight that he did not understand the program or the figures that he was using. What I was saying to Senator Ludwig, who does have an interest in this matter, a longstanding one—and I think he does understand the issues—is that I will have a look at what he said and I will report to him later.

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. I thank the minister. I understand that the minister will take the question on notice and provide confirmation. I ask whether the minister can confirm that on 5 July 2006 the department received an allegation that the pregnant wife of a 457 worker employed at the ABC Tissues site in Queensland was forced to return to China against her wishes. Isn’t it a fact that if the wife had stayed in Australia then ABC Tissues would have been required to cover her medical expenses? Do employers have the right to forcibly remove from Australia family members of workers on 457 visas? Has the minister investigated that allegation? If she has, can she provide some information to the Senate?

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

I have no advice with respect to that allegation. I will certainly look into it. People who have a visa to lawfully stay in Australia are entitled to stay here until that visa is cancelled or it expires. I can see no reason why someone should be entitled to ‘forcibly remove’ someone. However, let me leave it open, since I have no advice of this matter, and say that there may have been—I am not suggesting there was—a contractual arrangement whereby someone might have agreed to sponsor a worker and it was a part of the contract that if their wife were to go into confinement the birth would take place back home. That may be the case; I would be surprised.

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

Why?

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

It is simply because I do not have any information on this that I am reluctant to say any more than I will have a good look at it. The general provision is that if you have a visa you are entitled to stay until it is cancelled or it expires.