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

My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Vanstone. Will the minister advise the Senate whether she or her department has ever been accused of being involved in identity fraud? If so, can the minister inform the Senate of the accusations and their accuracy?

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

I thank Senator Brandis for the question—a quite appropriate question, given his understanding of these issues. The answer in short is yes, quite specifically, by the shadow minister for immigration, Mr Tony Burke, and by immigration agent Marion Le. I will give you a couple of quotes. Mr Burke said in a doorstop on 14 September last year:

The story that the Kola name is not their true identity is a fabrication she—

that is, moi—

came up with last night.

The second quote reads:

The department of immigration knows exactly who this couple are. They know it is Mr and Mrs Kola and the concept of coming up with a second identity was only a last-ditch effort after a failed attempt at deportation.

The next quote reads:

I don’t believe for a minute the minister’s excuses that they had discovered they weren’t really Mr and Mrs Kola. They had trouble deporting them so they decided to revert to what they knew were false names.

Ms Le said, ‘To my mind, that smacks of fraudulently dealing with another government department.’ As Senator Brandis knows, these are serious accusations to make. This is not an accusation of a mistake; it is an accusation of a wilful intent to misrepresent the truth. In other words, it is alleged here that the intention is to deal fraudulently with another department. They are terrible accusations. Even for the shadow minister, who used to work for former Senator Richardson—‘whatever it takes’—I thought it was ‘a bridge too far’. That is what I thought at the time. I thought it was ‘a bridge too far’. We will see whether he has walked too far over the bridge and whether it will take the pressure. These were terrible accusations to make. The trouble is they were not correct. Both the shadow minister and the immigration agent now most likely know that they have made false accusations. To the best of my knowledge, neither of those people has apologised, either privately or publicly.

The case concerned a couple—Mr and Mrs A. They came in as Mr and Mrs A. They quickly said, ‘No, that’s not us; we’re Mr and Mrs B.’ After visa applications and reviews had resulted in a refusal of their visas, in good faith the department applied for documents in the names of Mr and Mrs B, because that is who they said they were and that is what they provided evidence to the effect of. In other words, the department, which are often accused of not believing people, believed these people, took their evidence and sought documents, but they later became convinced that the couple were not Mr and Mrs B, that they were in fact Mr and Mrs A. In other words, the documents they originally came to Australia on were their real documents and their real identities. So we applied for travel documents in that name; hence the accusation that the department have sought documents in two names, that they are fabricating it and they know it.

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

I think I speak on behalf of everyone when I say that we are completely lost.

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

It is no surprise to me that you are lost, Senator Evans. It is no surprise to me that you cannot follow A and B.

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

Senator Chris Evans interjecting—

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

Order! Senator Evans. Minister, ignore the interjections.

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

As one of my colleagues says, he has taken the wrong ‘fork in the road’.

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

Senator Chris Evans interjecting—

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

Senator Evans, come to order! I ask the minister to ignore the interjections and return to the question.

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

Thank you, Mr President; it would be my pleasure. This couple subsequently produced a child and the question was: what do we register the child as—the son of Mr and Mrs A or Mr and Mrs B? Guess what? The facts now show very clearly that the department, in seeking travel documents from the department of foreign affairs, was seeking documents under the correct name. (Time expired)

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister able to provide the Senate with further information concerning the allegations of identity fraud?

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

I thank Senator Brandis for the supplementary question. The further information is simply this: the child is now registered in the name in which the department sought the travel documents. The details of this case, which relate to Mr and Mrs Kola, are not in themselves that important. What is important is that the shadow minister asserted something in the chamber and outside that was not true. He can take the honest route, or the high road, and apologise publicly. The alternative is to stay on his current path—the low road: the road of slander, innuendo and ‘whatever it takes’. This is a test for Mr Rudd, given his promise of a new leadership style, to demand a public apology from the shadow minister. Bear in mind, this was not about asserting a mistake; it was about asserting a deliberate, intentional fraud; it was asserting dishonesty. He demanded honesty then and he should be honest now. (Time expired)