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 Ellison, the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. Can the minister confirm reports that the 457 visas of two Chinese men have been cancelled despite the men being owed more than $30,000 each in unpaid wages? If these two workers did not have the required skills, as Immigration now claims, can the minister indicate how and why they were granted their visas in the first place? Can the minister also explain why the official who cancelled the visas said, ‘I do not consider that the visa holder will be caused significant hardship by the cancellation of his visa’? Does the minister support this finding? If so, can the minister explain to the two men why he thinks that being forced to leave Australia despite being owed $30,000 is not an example of significant hardship?

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note that Senator Ludwig does not refer to a particular case. For privacy reasons, I can understand that, but I am not aware of the particular two instances that Senator Ludwig has referred to. Can I say that section 457 visas play a very important role in getting industry the skilled labour it needs. I mentioned the other day in this place the oversight that we put in place in relation to 457 visas and the fact that the Workplace Ombudsman has advised that the cancellation of a visa holder’s visa will not preclude them receiving any back payment owed. That is in a general sense.

As for the specifics of this case, I am quite prepared to provide a briefing to Senator Ludwig without revealing the details publicly if he does not want to, but I am not aware of the particular instance involved. The only advice I have is that the Workplace Ombudsman has advised the department that cancellation of a visa holder’s visa will not preclude them from receiving any back payment owed. That is my advice. If Senator Ludwig has any further details, he can take them up with me.

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. The minister can look at the Sydney Morning Herald of 19 September to perhaps gain a few more details in respect of the case. He might like to get back to the Senate with an answer to the question. But—while he is doing that—doesn’t this case, in the words of the Sydney Morning Herald journalist Malcolm Knox, ‘lay down a template for any employer wishing to import cheap labourers and rip them off’? Does the minister seriously think that the two workers will not be disadvantaged from pursuing their underpayment claims if they are forced to leave? Doesn’t this case again expose the fact that the government is allowing the 457 visa scheme to be used as a way of driving down the wages and conditions of Australian workers?

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Now that I have some more information to identify the source of the question—the newspaper reports referred to by Senator Ludwig—I can say that, on the advice I have, both visa holders and the employer have provided false and misleading information to the department. The visa holders were happy to go along with this employment relationship until it broke down. It was only then that it came to the attention of the department, the Workplace Ombudsman and the New South Wales police. The investigation is now with the New South Wales police. In those circumstances, I will not comment any further.