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 ministers to questions without notice asked today.

In doing so I want to concentrate on the response of Senator Vanstone to questions relating to the subclass 457 visas. I would like to say at the outset that I very much enjoyed the minister’s theatrical performance in response to the dorothy dixer she got. She is very good at it. Some of the best comedy routines I have seen have been performed by the minister. But the key issue is whether or not she is meeting her responsibilities as a minister in dealing with the hard policy issues. On two occasions today, and once yesterday, I asked the minister to give an assurance that she was satisfied with the performance of her department in administering the subclass 457 visas. On each occasion the minister refused to endorse the department’s actions. The minister has refused to state that she believes the visa system is being administered properly and that there are not major flaws with the scheme.

What we have seen from the minister, time and time again, are these sorts of dismissive, theatrical performances—but she fails to answer the key questions. When she is confronted with the shocking examples of abuse of the subclass 457 visas—of workers being forced to pay $10,000 to come to this country; of workers being underpaid, exploited or working without proper safety conditions; of workers being required to operate in areas where they do not have the skills—she has no answer except to say that the fact that the complaints are being raised proves that the system is working. Have you ever heard anything more bizarre? The fact that there is example after example of workers being exploited under the 457 visa system is proof that the system is working. I do not know what planet she is from, but it does not make any sense to me and it does not make any sense to anybody following these issues. What she is saying is that the complaints system is working. I do not think that is right either. She failed to answer the questions asked of her today relating to the inordinately long time it took for the department to intervene in a range of cases—answers, incidentally, that Mr Ruddock was prepared to deal with over the last couple of days in the other place. He is obviously better informed on these matters than the minister.

I think it actually highlights the fact that she is not prepared to engage in the detail. She is not prepared to defend the department. She is not prepared to defend the department’s administration of the scheme, because she knows that, as in so many other areas in the experience of the department of immigration, there will be serious problems. We know there are serious problems. We have the stories in the papers of the serious problems in the way these people have been exploited. The minister will not engage with the detail. She is dismissive of any attempt to engage with the question of whether or not these people have been exploited.

I support the 457 visa system in the sense that it allows skilled workers to come to this country. But I do not support a system that allows exploitation of foreign workers. I do not support a system that allows the importation of labour into areas where there are not skill shortages in this country. And I do not support a system that allows people to work in unsafe conditions doing jobs that they do not have the skills for. I certainly do not support a system that ignores the training needs of young Australians in order to bring people in to do the jobs that they could do. We do need skilled workers. We do need to bring them in to fill the skills shortages. But we need to administer that properly. We need to ensure that they get justice. We need to ensure also that it is not part of a broader attempt by the government—which Minister Vanstone admitted was part of her motivation—to drive down Australian wages and to put pressure on Australian wages.

The minister let it slip out a month or two ago that one of the advantages of the 457 system was that it allowed downward pressure on Australian wages. So not only does it export foreign workers, but it actually helps to lower the wages received by Australian workers and prevents training Australians to take up skills. The minister has to engage and answer for the administration of the scheme. She cannot just go on pulling stunts. She has failed to answer key questions. She has still refused to provide me with the information regarding the occupations of principal applicants under the 457 visa system. She says I am wrong with the list I got from the Parliamentary Library. Let her produce the real list. Let her come clean. (Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Evans for his complete endorsement of the government’s policy and of the minister and her approach to the 457 visa issue. Having heard Senator Evans indicating his support—and we know, as Senator Vanstone very adroitly pointed out today, that of course Senator Evans would support it because the union movement, who gets Senator Evans where he is, sitting at the table there, are actually users of it—

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

Not trying to undercut Australian wages and conditions like your mob!

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sterle!

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sterle, quite clearly the union movement has not got the skills in Australia to do these fairly simple jobs. People like you obviously do not have any skills, so they throw you into the Senate.

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

Aren’t you bitter and twisted: you are the only minister to get the chop in the summer holidays!

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They throw you into the Senate, where you are not too much of a worry to anyone!

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

Senator Sterle interjecting—

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sterle! Senator Ian Macdonald has the call.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sterle quite clearly should have applied for those jobs, but he could not compete with the skills requirement, so they had to import people from overseas to do the jobs which otherwise Senator Sterle might do.

This government, and I thank Senator Vanstone for her part in it, has presided over an economy which has seen the highest wages across the board for workers in Australia and, of course, the highest employment figures practically in history—certainly in the last 30 years. Each quarter new jobs are created by this government, unemployment continues to fall and it is because of the adroitness of the government that we have this situation—a situation which is almost bordering on overfull employment. It is for this reason that this 457 visa is so very necessary for Australia and so well appreciated by those businesses in Australia desperately seeking skilled employment.

I have mentioned in this chamber a number of times the critical shortage of workers at a goat processing factory in Charleville and another factory next door which processes kangaroos and wild pigs. They cannot get labour into those areas. They have been able to access, through the 457 visas, some Vietnamese families who have put in a fantastic effort there, side by side with Australian-born and Australian-naturalised workers and Indigenous workers—all working together in those processing factories in a very cooperative and worthwhile way. They get paid award wages. They get the same wages as Australian-born or naturalised workers who work next door to them.

This whole scheme is implemented with the right sorts of conditions and requirements to ensure there is no exploitation. Exploitation does occur and has occurred, and it is a credit to the minister and her department that these rare cases of exploitation have been followed up. They have been dealt with efficiently by the department and by the minister. There are some problems at times but the arrangement of the scheme is such that these can be followed through and addressed, and that is what is so very important in the scheme. The 457 scheme is a great credit to this government, as are the wages paid to all employees and the employment levels in Australia at the moment. I can only conclude by again congratulating Senator Vanstone on the way she administers a difficult portfolio and administers it so well. I thank again Senator Evans for his endorsement of the government’s policy and his endorsement of Senator Vanstone and her department.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a poor effort we have seen in question time today from the government. First of all we had the spectacle of Senator Vanstone unable to provide a straight answer to a straight question about 457 visas. You have the usual bluff and the usual bluster from Senator Vanstone, but we all know what she is about here: driving down wages and working conditions of Australian workers. That is what it is all about, and her administration of this issue—in a badly administered department, of course—is a disgrace. Her administration of her portfolio responsibilities remains the greatest scandal in public administration in this country.

We had that; then of course we had Senator Santoro on his feet, trying to give a bit of gee-up for the Queensland election campaign—one of the great own goals in Senate history. First of all, he got the question from Senator Brandis, a joke in itself, because Senator Brandis is so jealous of the fact that Senator Santoro is on the front bench despite the fact that Senator Santoro has much less ability than Senator Brandis. It is true: Senator Brandis is much more able. But Senator Brandis is on the back bench; Senator Santoro is on the front bench—and every question he gets, he fluffs.

He managed to do that again today. He even forgot that Senator Boswell was a Queensland coalition representative in the Senate. Then, when he was reminded, he completely forgot about Senator Joyce’s existence. Anyway, he was reminded by this side of the chamber, his own team and a very red-faced Senator Joyce and Senator Boswell. Senator Santoro put in a shocker. We are used to that. Then of course we had Senator Abetz. He also tried to get into the Queensland election campaign to give a bit of a confidence builder to Senator Boswell by saying what a terrific job Senator Boswell had done at a public meeting—‘He’s not a bad bloke at all, he’s a patsy for the National Party, a patsy for the coalition, a patsy for the Liberal Party—a terrific bloke. We don’t like Senator Joyce, but Senator Boswell is a terrific patsy for the coalition and the Liberal Party in Queensland.’

It was an attempt to get a few votes in the Queensland election. It will backfire, it will boomerang and it will not work, as we know. Then we had Senator Ian Campbell, again, speaking on the orange-bellied parrot—another abysmal performance. One of the great fiascos of this parliament is Senator Campbell’s handling of the Bald Hills wind farm issue. He still cannot answer a question about how he has managed to balls this issue up so monstrously to have ended up with egg all over his face, worthy of what you would expect if you had thrown eggs in any propellers of any wind farm. What a performance, again, from Senator Campbell today. But this all pales into insignificance compared to what we saw from Senator Ellison.

Senator Ellison was asked a perfectly reasonable question by Senator Ray. Senator Ray asked: ‘Why are young Australian service men and women risking their lives in Afghanistan to protect a government that ignores poppy cultivation, which in turn has the effect of allowing heroin to be sent to Australia, with the resultant death of young Australians?’ Senator Ellison deliberately turned this round, suggesting that Senator Ray was suggesting that Australian troops were protecting poppy producers in Afghanistan. What a disgraceful, despicable and contemptible slur that was. Senator Ray will not say this, but I will say it: there is no person in this chamber who has given greater support to our defence forces and troops than Senator Ray. No-one has worked more closely with them, no-one has defended them more and there is no-one who has greater respect from them and there is no-one who less deserves that despicable attack from Senator Ellison. But how typical! Senator Ray called Senator Ellison a dog and withdrew it, but Senator Ellison is so gutless, so low, he would not withdraw that slur against Senator Ray. What a shocker, what an awful performance. (Time expired)

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was no clearer and straighter answer given today than that from Senator Ellison to Senator Ray’s question. We all know that old political roue: he threw it out there and no sooner did it go belly up than he tried to reel it back in. The answer was straight and clear from Senator Ellison today: of course the government has a concern with regard to the Afghanistan poppy-growing industry. That it is and has been in the past and could well become a primary market in Afghanistan, the government is concerned about and is acting upon it. But the truth of the matter is that the main source of heroin to this country is South-East Asia. It is not Afghanistan. According to Senator Ellison, there have been samples and examples of heroin coming in from Afghanistan to Australia, but it is not the primary source into this country at all. That is the straight answer he gave you and that is the one you reeled back from mighty quickly, Senator Ray. It was pretty pathetic to see from someone with your background.

We know the committees that you represent, we know the information that you have and to take up a cheapjack question such as that was pretty pathetic indeed. There is no minister in this government who has had such a success rate with regard to the government’s Tough on Drugs policy than Senator Ellison. Don’t come in here and say that you have supported to the hilt the government’s Tough on Drugs policy. You have not. You have given it qualified support. That is the best I can say: you have given this government’s Tough on Drugs policy qualified support. You would not come out when most needed and condemn the New South Wales government when they brought in their harm minimisation program with the heroin injecting room policy. You went quiet and soft on that. You are tough on drugs when it suits you to be but, when one of your own introduces a harm minimisation policy, you go quiet.

In fact, you have given qualified support to the government’s Tough on Drugs policy, which has been enormously successful, and no minister has guided that policy better than Senator Ellison. It has a three-pronged approach: firstly, the education policy, which goes into schools and onto the television and into newspapers, educating the public and the young with regard to the harm that drugs bring; secondly, introducing the full force of the law, which is something you have shied at over there. You have shied at the full force of the law and the tough penalties. And what a result this policy has had. We have had record busts in heroin to the extent that we have a drought in heroin in this country. We are proud to say we have created a drought in heroin in this country. Senator Ellison cited the example of the Herald Sun, where it produced, alongside the disastrous and tragic road toll figures, the heroin overdose figures, which once remarkably and incredibly matched the road toll figures. That is no longer the case today. One of the reasons is the Tough on Drugs policy, the tough law enforcement and the greater resources given to the Federal Police and also the Australian Crime Commission, in tandem with the state police.

That has been incredibly successful in drying up the heroin coming into this country. We acknowledge that there has now been a shift towards amphetamines because of the focus of the Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission on the heroin trade. We will now get tough on the amphetamine trade too. It is a never-ending cycle but if you are not tough, if you do not have the laws and you do not have the education policy you will not be successful. Senator Ellison has been a successful minister, a minister who is undeserving of that question. In fact, the questioner was undeserving in presenting that question. God knows where it came from out of the tactics committee. It was utterly undeserving. It was not worthy of Senator Ray and it was certainly not worthy of the minister. (Time expired)

Robert Ray (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have heard from the pathetic defector from the National Party in Victoria talking about heroin drying up—and as a broad principle that is correct. But if he cannot see that the 162 per cent explosion in land cultivation of the poppy in Afghanistan is eventually going to affect Australia, I feel sorry for him. One of the reasons why most heroin comes from the Golden Triangle into Australia is that the rest of the Afghan heroin production goes to the rest of the world. But we are not isolated from the rest of the world. If it expands and blows up in Afghanistan it will be available to come into Australia. That is the first point.

Secondly, in my supplementary question I asked Senator Ellison what the Australian government is doing to assist the Afghan government to stop this explosion—no answer; that part of the question was not addressed at all. The part that was was addressed with a distortion of my question. My question was fairly explicit. It asked about Australian troops who were in Afghanistan—we know the reason they are there and we support the reason they are there—and whether the Afghan government is so inept that it cannot stop the explosion of poppy growing, which in turn, by the way, is funding the Taliban to be able to resist and threaten Australia’s troops. How you can move from that point there to say that my question alleges that Australian troops are protecting poppy growers, I do not know. It takes an awfully sick mind to get there. It is a pathetic diversion tactic, and it does not do Senator Ellison any credit. I did ask him to withdraw it. He refused.

I remind the chamber I made some silly interjection here about 18 months ago, it was not recorded in Hansard and a senator on the other side took objection to it and mentioned that to me. I came straight down to this chamber, I apologised to the senator and I withdrew the remark, and, apparently, only a couple of people ever knew what the remark was. So I have at least set the example. As for Senator Ellison, for the first time in this chamber in 25 years I ask for something that was said about me to be withdrawn—doesn’t happen, and the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who is sitting at the table, does not encourage it. I am disappointed in him.

Question agreed to.