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

My question is directed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Vanstone. Can the minister confirm that on 23 May 2006 she received a letter from the AMWU detailing serious concerns about the exploitation of workers on 457 visas by Hunan Industrial Equipment Installation Company at the ABC Tissues site? What action did the minister take when she received this letter and why was it not until a month later that the department visited the site? Why did it take a further month for any notice of intention to sanction Hunan to be issued and why was the company then given another six weeks, until 4 September, to respond? Can the minister explain why, four months after serious concerns were raised directly with her, we are still waiting to find out whether or not any action will be taken against the company? Does the minister still have full confidence in the 457 visa approval system and her department’s monitoring of the treatment of visa holders?

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

I thank the senator for the question. The senator asked me whether I received a letter on 23 May. I have a pretty good memory but I do not have a file in my head of all correspondence received. I am quite sure that I would have received correspondence during the year on this issue. What would happen with that correspondence is what happens in, I think, all ministers’ offices: the correspondence goes down to the department for appropriate action or reply. Clearly, if this correspondence did arrive, it has gone off for appropriate action.

The senator asked me about the time period between a letter arriving and a visit being undertaken. I will make some inquiries about what happened in that time period, but one should not assume that a time period between notification of an allegation and a visit means that nothing happened in the meantime. Of course, when one wants to make a visit to a site in order to check out some allegations, arrangements and preliminary inquiries have to be made. As a consequence of that, the site can be visited—and that is what has happened.

I indicated in this place yesterday that a notice of intention has been given. It is normal practice, when notice of intention to cancel is given, that the person at the other end is given the opportunity, which comes under the natural justice rules, to reply to the allegations and the preliminary findings of the officers concerned. That is just normal practice.

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I am quite shocked that the minister does not have a brief. I can advise her that those details were provided to the House by Mr Ruddock a couple of days ago, so I am absolutely amazed that she does not understand the issue. Does the minister really believe, as she claimed yesterday, that the revelations of shocking abuse of 457 visa holders are a sign that the system is working? Aren’t these cases actually confirmation that the scheme is being fundamentally exploited by some and that the department’s oversight is manifestly inadequate? Given that new reports about exploitation keep emerging, can the minister provide an assurance that she has complete confidence in her department’s administration of the 457 visa scheme?

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

The good senator uses the term ‘revelation’. Of course, the case raised in this place yesterday was not a revelation to the department; the department knew about it before it was in the media. It might have been a revelation to the media, but it was certainly not a revelation to the department. It was not exposed to the department by the media; it was, in fact, already being actioned by the department. Have I said that cases of misuse of the visa are a sign that it is working? No. What I have said is that cases where people complain, and the complaint is actioned, confirm that, if there is an allegation, it will be properly investigated, it will be looked into and people will be dealt with. In other words, the system is working. I have made the point that there is a law against speeding but some people still speed. It is impossible to design a system that people will not at some point try to misuse.