|
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Chapter 2 - Mr Chen
Yonglin's request for political asylum
2.1
Mr Chen
Yonglin, a 38 year old Chinese diplomat,
arrived in Australia
on a diplomatic passport in August 2001 and assumed the role of Consul for
political affairs at the Chinese Consulate in Sydney.
He tells the Committee that he was 'in charge
of implementing the PRC Central Government policy in relation to the Five
Poisonous Groups (Falun Gong, pro–democracy movement activists, pro–Taiwan
independence force, pro–Tibet separation force and Eastern Turkistan
force)'.[181]
2.2
In particular, he noted he was required to persecute
Falun Gong practitioners overseas, a task which, if he is to be believed at
all, presumably Mr Chen accepted and carried out for some time as his chosen
diplomatic role, notwithstanding his subsequent comments that it distressed him
to work for an authority which he deemed unjustifiably placed Falun Gong
practitioners in labour camps, jails, forced re–education courses and put
uncooperative practitioners to death.[182]
He claims to have grown to hate his work because he supports democracy and the
information he collected on these groups could be used against the individuals
and their families.[183]
Initial contact with DIMIA
2.3
On 26 May 2005,
Mr Chen Yonglin
approached the Australian Government, more particularly the Sydney
offices of DIMIA, to seek political asylum. According to Mr
Chen:
I approached DIMIA on the morning of 26 May to ask for an
appointment with the state director of DIMIA. I stood in the public space
outside the entrance to the department's inquiry office and I used my mobile
phone to call the department. I said I wished to speak to Mr Nick Nicholls. A
male official indicated that Mr Nicholls
was no longer the director and that the new director was Mr
O'Callaghan. The male official transferred
the call to the state director's office, but the phone line to the state
director's office was busy.
A few minutes later I called the director's office directly. I
introduced myself and identified myself. I said that I was the consul for
political affairs in the Chinese consulate in Sydney and requested an urgent
meeting. The female official asked whether I had made a prior appointment and I
said 'no'. The female official then asked for the phone number of the Chinese
consulate. I said, 'I would prefer not to give you the phone number but if you
insist I can give it to you', and later I gave the phone number to the female
official. I said: 'Please don't call them. It is an unusual meeting request. I
have a very important matter to talk to the state director about and I can
prove myself with my ID issued by DFAT and my passport'. The official later
indicated that the state director was in a meeting and asked if it was an
urgent matter. I said 'Yes'. She later talked to the director and asked me to leave
my mobile phone number and said that she would call me back.
I waited and about 10 minutes later I called again. The first
official responded that the director already knew of my request but that he was
in a meeting. She asked if it was necessary to interrupt the meeting. I said
'yes'. She went to talk to the state director and I approached the reception
desk and showed my ID to the security guard and the security guard called the
state director's office to prove that I held the ID card issued by DFAT.
At that time I called the state director's office again. The
phone was answered by another female secretary and she said that the first
official was connecting to the Chinese consulate to check my ID. I said that
would not be necessary, that I had shown my ID to the security guard, and said
that I would be in danger—my life would be in danger—if they contacted the
Chinese consulate and I feared that.
The second female official said that the first one was
connecting. I was very shocked to learn that. She said that the first one was
transferring the call to my mobile, so that I was frightened and hurried to
say, 'No, I have to go; I can't stay here any more'. I left two letters. One
was addressed to the state director and I changed the name to Mr
O'Callaghan. The other letter was addressed
to Mr Illingworth.
Then I left the immigration building. At that time, because I was frightened
that the immigration office was too close to the Chinese consulate—it is about
10 minutes drive by car—I hurried to take a taxi and go to Chatswood railway
station and go away to my hiding place.[184]
2.4
The submission from Mr
Chen and his lawyer describes his concerns
regarding contact with the Chinese embassy:
A DIMIA official informed the Chinese consulate that Mr
Chen was present in the Department on 26 May
despite Mr Chen's
protestations that such action may endanger his life. This action, we submit,
may reasonably be construed as an attempt to refoule Mr
Chen. We submit that the Department, by
failing to keep Mr Chen's
visit confidential, made it impossible for Mr
Chen to re–avail himself of the protection
of the PRC [People's Republic of China]
government and in fact enhanced his chances of being persecuted. In this regard
we submit that the mere act of seeking political asylum could be seen by the
PRC as an act of treason or an act endangering state security.[185]
2.5
This account fails to address the fact that Mr
Chen left a detailed letter addressed to his
superiors setting out his intentions and indicating his disposition to his
Government and its diplomatic mission as discussed below.
2.6
DFAT told the committee the consulate advised them that
Mr Chen
also left a letter in his apartment which stated he was not happy in his job
and was not going back to China.[186] The committee failed to question Mr
Chen about the alleged letter as it had no knowledge of it at the time they
spoke to Mr Chen. This was a consequence of Mr
Chen failing to inform the Committee,
either in his evidence or in the written submission made to the Committee,
of the existence of this letter and accordingly the Committee
was not afforded the opportunity to properly examine Mr
Chen on this important aspect of matter.
DIMIA's version
2.7
According to Mr Jim O'Callaghan, the current State
Director, New South Wales, Mr Chen's calls on 26 May 2005 did not come to him
personally but were handled by executive assistants as he was in a meeting in
another part of the building at the time of the calls. Mr
Chen was told that Mr
O'Callaghan was unavailable. Mr O'Callaghan
stated 'at one point the executive assistants sought to confirm he (Mr Chen)
was who he said he was. He provided some telephone numbers for us to confirm
that with the Chinese consulate'.[187]
Mr O'Callaghan said that Mr Chen did not offer to wait when told he was
unavailable but called back three or four times. When he could not meet the
State Director or get past the security guards he left two identical letters
addressed to two people with the security guards at the front desk.
2.8
Mr O'Callaghan
indicated one of the executive assistants called the Chinese consulate
mid-morning. He said he did not ask for the call to be made but that it had
occurred by the time he returned to his office. Mr
O'Callaghan stated:
I recall coming back into the office and saying, 'There is
someone from the Chinese consulate seeking to talk to me. Where is the number?'
and so on, I had returned, I had undertaken to follow up, and at that stage I
was advised that one of the executive assistants had made contact with the
Chinese consulate. That was done on the basis that Mr Chen was advised by the
executive assistant that we wanted to confirm his identity as part of the
process of determining whether he should be having an appointment with the
state director. Mr Chen was asked to provide some telephone numbers. He
provided two telephone numbers at the Chinese consulate. At no time did Mr
Chen indicate any difficulty about following
up his identity with the Chinese consulate.[188]
2.9
Mr O'Callaghan
emphasised that until he read Mr Chen's
letter there had been 'no information about what Mr
Chen's interest in calling the immigration
office was'.[189] He further stated, 'I
asked what were the circumstances of the contact with the Chinese consulate and
I was advised—and I did double check this on more than one occasion—that Mr
Chen provided two numbers and consented to his identity being checked at the
Chinese consulate'.[190] Mr
O'Callaghan told the committee that after he
read Mr Chen's
letter he asked the two executive assistants to prepare an account of what
occurred that morning before he returned to the office.[191] This account was provided to the
committee and is consistent with Mr O'Callaghan's
evidence. It is attached at Appendix 4 to the majority report. In all of the
evidence and the conduct and demeanour of Mr
O’Callaghan before the Committee
there is nothing to cause this account to be brought into any doubt.
Identity check
2.10
During a phone call with Mr
Chen, the executive assistant heard laughing
in the background and became concerned that the call may not be genuine. She then
asked for his number at the consulate to confirm his identity and Mr
Chen said that he had no problem with them
being contacted.[192]
2.11
Mr O'Callaghan
further explained to the committee:
In this case Mr Chen
provided numbers to the executive assistant and indicated no difficulty about
that contact being made and that is why the contact was made. I think what that
indicates is a responsiveness on behalf of this junior officer to Mr
Chen's request to escalate his situation to
see a senior officer. She was doing her job to test the appropriateness of him
being able to see a senior officer.[193]
2.12
It would seem that Mr
Chen and DIMIA had a different understanding
of the reason for providing the number of the Chinese consulate. Mr
Chen told the committee 'I just wanted to
ensure that giving the consulate phone number should be enough'.[194] Mr
O'Callaghan, however, took the view that Mr
Chen was clearly being asked to provide
assistance to confirm his identity and gave no indication that he had any
difficulty with his identity being checked at the consulate.[195]
2.13
Mr Hughes, First Assistant Secretary, Refugee,
Humanitarian and International Division in DIMIA, reiterated that Mr Chen did
not indicate a problem with his identity being confirmed with the consulate and
indicated to the committee that Mr Chen was not known to be an applicant for
political asylum or a protection visa at the time DIMIA spoke to the consulate
and no information was provided to the consulate.[196]
2.14
DIMIA stated its position regarding contact with the
consulate in a media release dated 8
June 2005. It emphasised that Mr
Chen had not indicated any problem with his
identity being confirmed with the consulate, DIMIA did not provide any
information to the consulate and at the time of the call, DIMIA had no
knowledge of the matter Mr Chen
wanted to discuss.[197]
Discrepancies between Mr Chen
and DIMIA's accounts of 26 May
2.15
DIMIA's account of this period contradicts evidence
provided by Mr Chen
on the following points:
- Mr Chen claimed that he asked the executive
assistant not to call the Chinese consulate. DIMIA officials stated to the
committee and issued a media release saying that Mr Chen did not indicate any
difficulty with the Chinese consulate being contacted;
- Mr O'Callaghan's evidence and the media release
indicate Mr Chen provided more than one telephone number for the Chinese
consulate. According to Mr Chen, he provided only one;
- Mr O'Callghan indicated that the phone call with
the Chinese consulate was only to check identity. Mr Chen's evidence seems to
indicate that they were trying to transfer the Chinese consulate to his mobile;
importantly, DIMIA's version does not mention that Mr Chen expressed concerns
for his safety. Mr Chen told the committee that he tried to persuade the
executive assistant not to call as he feared for his life if the Chinese
consulate were contacted;
- DIMIA asserted that the call to the consulate
was made without further information being provided. Mr Chen's submission notes
that a DIMIA official informed the Chinese consulate that Mr Chen was present
in the department on 26 May 2005; and
- there may also be an additional discrepancy as
the DIMIA media release seems to suggest that Mr Chen offered the phone number
of the Chinese consulate without being asked whereas Mr O'Callaghan told the
committee that Mr Chen was asked to provide the number for the Chinese
consulate.
2.16
The committee reminded Mr
O'Callaghan that Mr
Chen was on the public record saying he
asked the consulate not to be called, that he had an unusual request and it was
a serious matter. Mr O'Callaghan
replied 'that is inconsistent with the advice my officers have given me'.[198] He further stated 'all I can say is
what I have been factually advised, and that is that Mr Chen provided phone
numbers for the consulate to be contacted and gave no indication that he had
any difficulty with his identity being checked at the consulate'.[199]
2.17
There was, as has been stated, nothing save for Mr
Chen’s subsequent account to cause this
version to be brought into doubt. Accordingly, the minority members of the
committee make no determination as to which version of events regarding the
contact with the Chinese embassy is correct. It is clear, however, that DIMIA
did contact the Chinese consulate about Mr
Chen.
2.18
The committee sought further explanation from DIMIA
regarding why the phone call to the Chinese consulate was made. Mr Chen claims
to have been offering his ID card and, according to Mr Chen, also his passport.
Mr O'Callaghan
stated several times that the call was made to confirm Mr
Chen's identity and he indicated he had
answered this question previously and had nothing to add.[200]
2.19
The circumstances surrounding Mr
Chen's visit to DIMIA were highly unusual,
quite rare and extraordinary and obviously took the Sydney
office by surprise. Despite this unique turn of events it nevertheless raises
the question of whether DIMIA should have been more sensitive to his
circumstances. Mr Green
asserted that:
Mr Chen, who was then an accredited diplomatic representative of
the People's Republic of China made a very serious attempt to communicate his
fear of persecution and the reasons for that fear to the Australian government.
In taking that step Mr Chen
and indeed his family clearly indicated that they no longer wished to avail
themselves of the protection of the People's Republic of China.[201]
2.20
Mr Green
told the committee that 'Mr Chen
made several protestations on that day to Department of Immigration officials
that, were they to take certain courses of action, his life would be in danger.
These are not mere words; these are things which, when said, need to be taken
very seriously'.[202] He further
stated:
The department and the government of Australia
throughout this case should have been aware, we would submit, that the mere act
of seeking political asylum in Australia
could always be seen by the government of the People's Republic of China
as an act of treason and an act that endangered state security.[203]
2.21
The letter from Mr
Chen dated 25 May seeking political asylum
clearly stated that he believed his life was at risk.[204] Mr Chen informed the committee that
if he returned to China 'I definitely would have been persecuted. My life and
my career would all be finished. Even my family would also be facing certain
persecution. Freedom would be limited'.[205]
2.22
Mr Chen
now claims to have said:
I said I would give the phone number, but please do not call the
Chinese consulate. I just wanted to ensure that giving the consulate phone
number should be enough. I persuaded her not to call the consulate, because,
once she called, the consulate would definitely know that I was there to make
some unusual, special meeting and that would definitely alert them.[206]
2.23
DIMIA's account of the telephone call to the Chinese
consulate does not mention that Mr Chen
expressed fears for his safety.
2.24
The minority members of the Committee
have been presented with two conflicting accounts regarding whether Mr
Chen made concerns for his safety known to
DIMIA before it made contact with the Chinese consulate and are unable to
determine the clear facts. Clearly, if Mr
Chen did express fear for his safety, this
should have been of importance to DIMIA and treated responsively.
2.25
With the benefit of hindsight, any contact with the
Chinese consulate by a junior departmental official or others, albeit with
innocent intentions, in the apparent circumstances of an asylum seeker also
raises some concerns about the maintenance of confidentiality and protocols.
Although it should be mentioned here that there was no specific evidence at
all, of any prejudicial disclosure of matters which might be considered
"confidential" to Mr Chen.
2.26
UNHCR has advised the following principles should
inform the application of the Migration Act 1958, its regulations and
guidelines concerning the maintenance of confidentiality, for any consular
officials or staff who apply to DIMIA, DFAT, or their respective Ministers for
territorial asylum and/or protection visas:
Confidentiality in the
context of Refugee Status of Determination
The consent of the asylum seeker should be sought before
individual case information about his or her claim for refugee status is shared
with other parties. In addition, individual case information about asylum
seekers should be kept strictly confidential because of the potential risk to
the asylum seeker and others. Confidentiality in asylum procedures is
particularly important because of the vulnerable situation in which refugees
and asylum-seekers find themselves. As discussed during the Global
Consultations in International Protection, 'the asylum procedure should at all
stages respect the confidentiality of all aspects of an asylum claim, including
the fact that the asylum-seeker has made such a request' and highlighted that
'no information on the asylum application should be shared with the country of
origin'. State practice also shows that the principle of confidentiality is
paramount in asylum procedures.
The decision–making authority in the country of asylum should
not share any individual case information about an asylum seeker with the
authorities of the country of origin...A decision-making authority should not
confirm to the authorities or other entities in the country of origin whether
or not a particular individual is or has been in contact with the
decision-making authority, regardless of whether the person concerned is an
asylum-seeker, a refugee, a resettled refugee, or whether she or he has been
denied refugee status or excluded.
The decision–making authority in the country of asylum should
not communicate with entities within the country of origin, whether they are
governmental or non-governmental, in order to verify or authenticate
declarations or documents provided by an asylum seeker.[207]
2.27
There was no conclusive evidence or at all, that any of
these criteria were breached in Mr Chen's
case.
The Migration Act 1958
2.28
DIMIA, DFAT and the Minister for Foreign Affairs were
also criticised in the press with suggestions that the Migration Act 1958 may
have been breached by providing compromising information to the Chinese
government about Mr Chen
Yonglin's bid for political asylum.[208]
2.29
Part 4A of the Migration Act (obligations Relating to
Identifying Information) contains the following provisions regarding the
prohibitions on the authorisation to disclose and the disclosure of identifying
information to foreign countries which are central to determining whether a
breach occurred.
2.30
Section 336 E, Disclosing identifying information,
states that:
A person commits an offence if:
the person's conduct causes disclosure
of identifying information; and
the disclosure is not a permitted
disclosure.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years, or
120 penalty units or both.
A permitted disclosure is a disclosure
that:
is for the purpose of data matching in
order to:
identify, or authenticate the identity
of a non-citizen; or
facilitate the processing of
non-citizens entering or departing from Australia;
...
2.31
Section 336 F (3), Authorising disclosure of
identifying information to foreign countries etc, states:
... (3) A disclosure is taken not to be authorised under this
section if:
the person to whom the identifying
information relates is:
an applicant for a protection visa; or
an offshore entry person who makes a
claim for protection under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees
Protocol; and
the disclosure is to a foreign country
in respect of which the application or claim is made, or a body of such a
country.
2.32
Section 336 F also states:
However, if:
the person to whom the identifying
information relates has requested or agreed to return to the foreign country in
respect of which the application or claim is made; or
the person is an applicant for a
protection visa, and the application has been refused and finally determined...
2.33
Section 336A states:
In this Part :
"identifying information" means the following:
- any
personal identifier;
- any meaningful identifier derived from
any personal identifier;
- any record of a result of analysing any
personal identifier or any meaningful identifier derived from any personal
identifier;
- any other information, derived from any
personal identifier, from any meaningful identifier derived from any personal
identifier or from any record of a kind referred to in paragraph (c), that
could be used to discover a particular person’s identity or to get information
about a particular person.
2.34
Section 5A states:
In this Act:
“personal identifier” means any of the
following (including any of the following in digital form):
- fingerprints or handprints of a person
(including those taken using paper and ink or digital live scanning
technologies);
- a
measurement of a person’s height or weight;
- a
photograph or other image or a person’s face and shoulders;
- an audio or a video recording of a
person (other than a video recording under section 261AJ);
- an
iris scan;
- a
person’s signature;
- any other identifier prescribed by the
regulations, other than an identifier the obtaining of which would involve the
carrying out of an intimate forensic procedure within the meaning of section
23WA of the Crimes Act 1914.”
2.35
The definition of personal identifiers in the Migration
Act 1958, Section 5A, does not include names but it does include 'any other
identifier prescribed in the regulations'.[209]
A review of the regulations indicates that a person’s name is not a personal
identifier and the scheme of the Act and Regulations appears designed to
establish identity over and above and separate from a person’s name. In all of
the circumstances of the facts before
the committee, the minority members can conclude or comment that there is no
evidence to support any objective contention that there has been any breach of
the Migration Act by either the DIMIA executive assistants in Sydney, any DIMIA
or DFAT officers in Sydney or Canberra or Minister for Foreign Affairs.
Action taken on 26 May AM after Mr
Chen delivered hisrequest for political asylum
2.36
Once DIMIA became aware that Mr
Chen was seeking political asylum, the
government and Mr Chen
became engaged in a formal process arising from the government's obligations
under the Migration Act 1958.
2.37
Mr O'Callaghan
clarified for the committee that he became aware of Mr
Chen's approach somewhere between 10:30am and 11:00am
on 26 May. He said that while in a meeting he received a message that someone
was seeking to talk to him but he did not know about what saying 'I had no
information about that because our officers had no information and Mr Chen
provided no information'.[210] Mr
O'Callaghan said the message he received indicated that the person wishing to
speak with him claimed to be an official of the Chinese consulate. He said his
response to the executive assistant providing the message to him in the meeting
was that 'I would respond when I got back to my office'.[211]
2.38
Mr O'Callaghan
explained why he did not respond immediately to a matter which seemed to be of
sufficient importance to his executive assistant that she chose to interrupt
his meeting:
It was suggested that someone claiming to be an official of the
Chinese consulate was seeking to speak to me. Many people seek to speak to the
state director of the immigration department. We have between 1,000 and 1,500
people come into that office alone each day. We have 80,000 calls come into the
contact centre in the office each month. We have many calls come through to the
executives' numbers on a daily basis, where people are seeking to speak to the
state director or the deputy state directors. As you know, Immigration is an
agency dealing with people. There are a lot of people in New
South Wales and beyond who seek to speak to me.[212]
2.39
Mr O'Callaghan went on to explain that on occasions his
executive assistant does interrupt meetings to bring him messages that people
want to speak to him and on that occasion he expected to be back in the office
in 30–40 minutes 'and there was no reason to think that it could not wait until
then'.[213]
2.40
Mr O'Callaghan
told the committee that the letters left at the security desk by Mr
Chen were taken by the security guards to
the mail opening area where they were opened and brought to his office.[214] He clarified that he returned to his
office about 11:20am and the letter was delivered around 11:30am.[215]
2.41
These identical letters were Mr
Chen's request for political asylum. One was
addressed to the former state director and this had been crossed out and Mr
O'Callaghan's name written in handwriting
and the other was addressed to Mr Robert
Illingworth, Assistant Secretary of the
Onshore Protection Branch in the Refugee, Humanitarian and International
Division, DIMIA.[216]
2.42
Mr O'Callaghan
told the committee that upon reading the letter his first reaction was surprise
and then he called the business manager of the onshore protection area, Ms
Louise Lindsay,
to his office and asked her to contact Mr
Chen. He then put a phone call through to Canberra
to speak to any of the senior executive officers in the Refugee, Humanitarian
and International Branch but all those officers were before a Senate estimates
hearing and were unavailable. He then spoke to a director in that division, Ms
Kathleen Dunham.[217]
Contact with senior executives in Canberra
and DFAT
2.43
Mr O'Callaghan
told the committee that he understood that Ms
Dunham sought to contact senior officers who
were in Parliament House for Senate estimates hearings. She also spoke with
some other senior officers in the Canberra
office and contact was made with DFAT.[218]
Mr Illingworth,
DIMIA, clarified that Mr Chen's
letter was faxed from the NSW office to Ms
Dunham and she made a number of calls within
the department and calls to contact him at Senate estimates hearings which she
eventually did.
2.44
According to Mr Illingworth, 'The upshot was that we
received the letter around noon, DFAT was called, they were briefed on the
content of the letter and the issue of territorial asylum visas orally over the
phone and the letter was faxed to DFAT at 1.06pm'.[219] Mr
Hughes, DIMIA, said that he was not aware of
DIMIA contacting the office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs.[220]
2.45
Mr Illingworth
told the committee that DIMIA's response was to see this as a request for
political asylum and to deliver it to the appropriate portfolio to be actioned.
He added that at a practical level they continued to be in contact with the NSW
office regarding the efforts to contact Mr Chen. Mr
Illingworth said that there was
communication during the afternoon between officers of the division in Canberra
and DFAT but 'there was no response in terms of the outcome of the request put
in the letter'.[221]
2.46
DFAT officers told the committee that DFAT first became
aware of this matter:
...when it received from DIMIA a copy of Mr
Chen's letter addressed to DIMIA New South
Wales office seeking political asylum. We received this letter by fax from
DIMIA on the afternoon of Thursday 26 May. This letter was brought to the
attention of Mr Downer's
office later that evening...about 7pm.[222]
2.47
Mr O'Callaghan
said that Ms Louise
Linsday tried to contact Mr
Chen around 11:30am
on 26 May but his mobile phone was switched off. She was able to contact Mr
Chen mid–afternoon on 26 May and they had a
discussion regarding setting up a meeting for 27 May.
2.48
Ms Lindsay
explained:
I attempted to contact him at about 11:30am or 25 past 11
as I had been requested to by the state director. His mobile was turned off. I
got the message about the phone being out of range or switched off. I rang back
later that afternoon, just after 3pm.
I spoke to him and invited him to come in to our office for a chat about his
visa options. We had been conversing with Canberra,
who in turn had been conversing with DFAT as they have explained. Following the
claim for territorial asylum, we wanted to inform Mr
Chen of the kinds of options that would be
open to him if he did indeed want to remain in Australia.[223]
2.49
Ms Lindsay
told the committee that they organised for Mr
Chen to come to the Parramatta
office on 27 May and she arranged for one of the other business managers to
attend as they had a lot more information and knowledge of the visa classes.[224]
Conclusion
2.50
The Committee examined
the events which took place on 26 May
2005 from the time Mr Chen
called to make an appointment to see the state director until the appointment
was made for a face–to–face meeting on 27
May 2005. This examination included an assessment of all accounts
regarding the telephone contact made by DIMIA with the Chinese consulate on 26
May to verify Mr Chen's
identity. The minority members see it a clear that there was no breach of the
Migration Act.
2.51
From the evidence now provided by Mr
Chen, he was clearly anxious to see the
state director, calling several times in a short timeframe. Although not
providing a reason for wanting to speak to Mr
O'Callaghan, he stated the matter was
urgent, important and unusual. In the circumstances of Mr
Chen's surprise and extraordinary request,
it is doubtful that any other reasonable response could have been anticipated
by Mr O’Callaghan
and his staff in Sydney.
2.52
The contact with the Chinese consulate, was, in the
minority senator’s view unfortunate, inadvertent and an error in judgement, but
was to some extent excusable in the peculiar circumstances of Mr
Chen’s attendance at the DIMIA Sydney
offices.
2.53
On the basis of any proper and objective assessment of
the evidence presented to the committee, the minority members do not consider
obligations regarding confidentiality were breached when DIMIA contacted the
Chinese consulate to confirm Mr Chen's
identity.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
|
