(1) What are the official figures for the total number of visitor visa applications received and the number of applications refused during each year since 1994-95 by departmental posts in (a) Albania, (b) Bangladesh, (c) Bosnia, (d) Bulgaria, (e) Burma, (f) Cambodia, (g) Chile, (h) China, (i) Colombia, (j) Croatia, (k) Czech Republic, (l) Ecuador, (m) El Salvador, (n) Ethiopia, (o) Egypt, (p) Fiji, (q) Greece, (r) Hungary, (s) India, (t) Iran, (u) Iraq, (v) Israel, (w) Jordan, (x) Laos, (y) Lebanon, (z) Lithuania, (aa) FYR Macedonia, (ab) Nepal, (ac) Pakistan, (ad) Peru, (ae) The Philippines, (af) Poland, (ag) Romania, (ah) Russia, (ai) Sri Lanka, (aj) Syria, (ak) Tonga, (al) Turkey, (am) The Ukraine, (an) Uruguay, (ao) Vietnam, (ap) Western Samoa and (aq) Yugoslavia.

(2) For each post referred to in part (1), how many visa applications were (a) received and (b) rejected from applicants aged (i) between 20 and 30 years of age, (ii) between 30 and 40 years of age, (iii) between 40 and 50 years of age, (iv) between 50 and 60 years of age and (v) 60 years of age and over.

(3) What are the official figures for the total number of visitor visa applications received and the number of applications refused during each year since 1994-95 by departmental posts in (a) United States and (b) United Kingdom.

(4) For each post referred to in part (3), how many visa applications were (a) received and (b) rejected from applicants aged (i) between 20 and 30 years of age, (ii) between 30 and 40 years of age, (iii) between 40 and 50 years of age, (iv) between 50 and 60 years of age and (v) 60 years of age and over.

(5) For each post referred to in parts (1) and (3), how many applications for visitor visas in each age group were refused on the grounds that the applicant fitted into one of the categories on the High Risk Factor List.

(1) The honourable member will know that the Australian Government does not have posts in all of the countries listed in his question. However, all the data available at this time is included in Table A below. Until November 1998 the Department could only report on refusals by Post, and this was not always indicative of citizenship. From that time the Department has been able to report on refusals by citizenship and accordingly I have also included data, at Table B below, on applications and refusals by citizenship for calendar years 1999 and 2000 (to 31 May).

(2) Data on the age and sex of visitor visa applicants is not readily available for reporting purposes at present however systems development work is currently underway to enable data to be easily extracted and reported upon. I have asked officers of my Department to continue to advance this work and provide these statistics to the honourable member when they become available. Given the current position of the systems development, it is not possible to estimate when this information might be available.

(3) The honourable member will be aware of the difficulty in making comparisons between the countries discussed in question 1 and the USA and UK. US and UK citizens are eligible, along with the nationals of 31 low risk countries worldwide, to be granted an Electronic Travel Authority (ETA) if they are not listed on the Movement Alert List. Visitor visas, including ETAs, granted to UK and USA nationals during the period requested are included in Tables A and B.

(4) See (2) above.

(5) Public Interest Criterion 4011 (the “risk factor”) requires any visitor visa applicant who falls within certain age and sex cohorts to demonstrate to the decision-maker that “there is very little likelihood that the applicant will remain after the expiry of any period during which the applicant might be authorised to remain after entry.”

While I can state the number of visa applications rejected, the department does not record the reasons for those rejections in a way that can be accessed by the Department's reporting systems.

I can, however, state that the risk factor list is not used to automatically exclude applicants. It operates simply as an “alert” to decision-makers of the potential for continued stay in Australia and requires the applicant to provide a higher level of evidence to support their claim that they are only intending to visit Australia. An applicant will be rejected where they fail to satisfy a decision-maker that a genuine visit is intended.