Senator LUDWIG (2:46 PM) —My question is to Senator Vanstone, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. I refer specifically to appendix B of the Palmer report, and ask the minister whether Mr Palmer has forgotten to interview a few people. How is it that Cornelia Rau wrote to the minister while in detention, yet the minister and her office were not questioned about the handling of that application? How is it that the minister’s chief of staff, Dr Nation, acted as the contact between Immigration and Ms Vivian Solon’s ex-husband, yet was not questioned by Mr Palmer about why he decided to hide the fact that Ms Solon had been deported from the public? How can the minister stand here and tell the Senate there has been a full inquiry when half the players in the drama have not been investigated?

Senator VANSTONE (Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) —I thank the senator for the question. I do not have appendix B with me. Senator, you make the suggestion that Mr Palmer has interviewed a few people and not others. I have yet to hear someone put forward the suggestion that Mr Palmer did not do a thorough job and that the recommendations in the Palmer report do not very, very clearly highlight what the difficulties are and what needs to be done about them. I am not aware of any request by Mr Palmer to interview my chief of staff but I will have something to say about this at a later date. My chief of staff has been on sick leave for four weeks and is not expected back for another two. I may leave it until he returns to clear the air. It has been cleared in estimates—I thought very clearly—for Senator Faulkner’s benefit.

To make a small point with respect to that, one of Ms Alvarez’s partners rang my office to make inquiries about what had happened and indicated that what he wanted to do was find out where she was and that he did not want the media involved. I have said before in this place that there was a specific reason for that—not that the media or anyone else cared. That information was passed on to the department. I will have more to say about that, because the proposition you put now—and it has been put by Senator Faulkner in this place—has already been answered in the Hansard. It is just another example of Labor seeking to traduce the good character of people who work with ministers or public servants, and I will come back to that.

As to people who were not interviewed, I have had occasion to reflect on whether I have got the time to go through appendix B and see who put submissions forward. It has occurred to me that I would be very interested to see whether Mr John Harley, who is the Public Advocate in South Australia, did. Senators on this side will know that Mr Harley appeared on The 7.30 Report. It was through Mr Harley’s comments that the nation was led to believe that Ms Rau was kept under lights, badly mistreated and a whole range of things that, for the benefit of Ms Rau and her family, I will not repeat. But they were salaciously repeated around Australia by the media.

The proposition put by Mr Harley was that he had been arguing for two months to get Immigration to listen to the plight of this woman. Mr Harley privately admitted to me the next day, by way of a faxed letter, that he never raised the matter with my office. I wrote to him and asked him: given that he is the Public Advocate in South Australia, did he raise it with South Australian mental health authorities, because the Palmer report indicates there were some problems there? I received no reply on that issue. I did receive a reply but not on that issue. I was interested to read in the paper the other day that Mr Harley now says that he did raise it with South Australian mental health authorities and that he was happy with their response. So I would have welcomed Mr Harley detailing his role and the exercise of his responsibility in South Australia or otherwise. But what Mr Harley did or did not do is not material regarding what Immigration did or did not do, and matters, frankly, very little. But I would personally be very interested.

Senator LUDWIG —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I would appreciate it if the minister would come back to the question and answer it or, if not, take it on notice. I remind Senator Vanstone that the question goes to whether any of her staff have been interviewed, whether she has been interviewed, whether Mr Ruddock has been interviewed or whether Mr Ruddock’s staff have been interviewed by the Palmer inquiry. The minister can answer that.

Senator Hill —Mr President, I rise on a point of order. This is not the occasion for the honourable senator to be reminding the minister of anything. This is his opportunity to ask a supplementary question arising out of her answer, and he has not even attempted to do so as yet.

Senator Chris Evans —On the point of order: what Senator Ludwig was attempting to do was remind the minister of the original question.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator Chris Evans —That is right. In the form of the supplementary question he has been forced to ask it again, because again the minister was allowed to meander, tell her little anecdotes, reflect on the culture that has so concerned Australians and not answer the key questions that were put to her. Senator Ludwig, in his supplementary question, has been forced to re-ask the question that the minister refused to answer.

The PRESIDENT —I ask Senator Ludwig to ask his supplementary question.

Senator LUDWIG —Can the minister tell the Senate whether she has been interviewed, whether her staff have been interviewed, and whether she is aware of whether Mr Ruddock has been interviewed? If she cannot do that, how can anyone have any confidence in the government’s secretive inquiry processes? Can the minister now explain to Australians the full facts about the dimensions of the public administration fiasco in the immigration department overseen by both her and Mr Ruddock?

Senator VANSTONE (Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) —The short answer as to who was interviewed is: have a look at the report. There is an appendix that indicates who was interviewed.

Senator Ludwig —You haven’t read it!

The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Ludwig, you asked a question. Have the manners to listen to the answer.

Senator VANSTONE —I have in fact read the report, and I have read the appendix. But it is apparent that either Senator Ludwig has not or he has some trumped-up question about whether someone was interviewed when the information is clearly available for him. As to the administration of the immigration department, at present and in the past, I might have something more to say about that during the next sittings.