CHAPTER 1

Helping Australians Abroad A Review of the Australian Government's Consular Services

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Reference to Committee

1.1 On 24 August 1995, the Senate referred to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee the matter of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the Australian Government's provision of consular assistance to Australians abroad and measures that could be taken by the Government to improve the handling of consular matters. The Committee was required to report on or before 30 November 1995. This was subsequently extended to 30 June 1996. On 30 May 1996, the Senate adopted the report of the Committee recommending that the inquiry be continued in the new Parliament and report by the last sitting day in 1996. The reporting date was further extended to 30 May 1997 and further to 18 June 1997.

1.2 On 31 August 1995 the Senate agreed to a resolution moved by Senator Michael Baume that noted the establishment of the inquiry and drew to the Committee's attention the case of Dr John Flynn who was, at that time, in gaol in India.

Conduct of the Inquiry

Submissions

1.3 The inquiry was advertised in the national press on 2 September 1995 to seek written submissions. In addition, the Committee wrote to a number of individuals and organisations with an interest in the inquiry inviting them to make written submissions. In all, 45 submissions were received. The Committee also received written comments on the evidence provided by other witnesses and answers from Government agencies to questions taken on notice. A list of submissions and other written material received by the Committee and whose publication it authorised is listed in Appendix 1.

Public hearings

1.4 The Committee focussed on the broad consular issues in the early hearings on 9 and 16 September 1996, in order to gain a better understanding of consular services provided by the Australian Government before dealing with individual cases. The Committee then sought evidence from individuals on the consular issues and problems arising from a number of the cases specified in terms of reference, including the cases of Mr David Wilson and Mr Ben Maresh, and other cases contained in written submissions. The Committee then sought responses to this evidence from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

1.5 Following the hearings with the Department Foreign Affairs and Trade on the cases of Mr David Wilson and Mr Ben Maresh, the Committee gave members of the Wilson family and Maresh family the opportunity to present their responses to the Department's oral evidence and additional information received from the Department. These hearings took place in Melbourne on 11 March 1997.

1.6 The Committee also sought evidence on specific issues related to consular assistance from Government agencies and other organisations including the Australian Funeral Directors Association, the Australian Federation of Travel Agents, Schizophrenia Australia Foundation (SANE Australia) and the Insurance Council of Australia.

1.7 In all, the Committee held hearings on 13 days. A list of people who gave oral evidence to the Committee is in Appendix 2.

Calling of witnesses

1.8 In correspondence and evidence before the Committee, the family of Mr David Wilson appealed to the Committee to seek evidence from General Chea Dara on his role as negotiator during the Cambodian hostage crisis. At the Committee's first hearing with the Wilson family, the Chairman indicated that the Committee had attempted, through various sources, to have General Dara either come to Australia and appear before the Committee or to give evidence in Paris where he was resident. On 11 March 1997 the Chairman further stated:

1.9 At the 11 March hearing, Mr Peter Wilson requested that Mr Alastair Gaisford, who was present at the hearing, immediately be called to give evidence. Mr Gaisford had been Second Secretary at the Australian Embassy, Phnom Penh, during both the kidnapping of Ms Kellie Wilkinson and the hostage crisis involving Mr David Wilson. The Chairman informed Mr Wilson that the Committee was not prepared to interrupt the time devoted to the Wilson family to present its evidence to hear from Mr Gaisford. The Chairman pointed out that, as is the usual practice in Senate inquiries, if Mr Gaisford wished to present evidence he could make an application to the Committee and it would be considered. [2]

1.10 Following further consideration of the matter, the Committee invited Mr Gaisford on 25 March 1997 to make a written submission. Initially, Mr Gaisford queried the time frame of this request and raised the possibility of giving oral evidence. After protracted procedural argument regarding Mr Gaisford's status and legal protection if he appeared before the Committee, the submission was eventually received on 30 April. Subsequently, the Committee invited Mr Gaisford to appear at an in camera hearing on Monday 12 May. Mr Gaisford refused to give evidence in camera and continued to dispute the decision of the Committee. He provoked the Wilson family to speak to the media which resulted in a number of disturbing and inaccurate media reports and attacks on the bona fides of the Committee. Finally, on behalf of the Committee, the Chairman made a statement to the Senate to place the facts of the matter on the public record. A copy of the statement is in Appendix 3. Mr Gaisford's written submission and correspondence between the Committee and Mr Gaisford were tabled with the statement.

Responses to Adverse Comments

1.11 In a number of submissions to the Committee, individual cases were discussed in detail, often reflecting in one way or another on the work of government agencies and individual officers in them. In some instances, comments were made which, in the opinion of the Committee, could be regarded as reflecting adversely on the person or persons mentioned. The Committee, in accordance with the Senate privileges resolutions of 25 February 1988, provided those persons with the opportunity to respond to those adverse comments. Where possible, these responses were made public by the Committee at the same time as the submissions containing the adverse comments. The list of responses to adverse comments is contained in Appendix 1.

Access to information

1.12 In June 1995, Mr Tim Wilson, brother of Mr David Wilson, requested under the Freedom of Information Act, all material held by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Of 961 documents examined, the Department released 441 in full, 254 were released in part and 187 documents were totally exempt from disclosure. Mr Tim Wilson urged the Committee to examine all documents in relation to his brother's case. The Committee sought access to the exempted documents but access was refused by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon Alexander Downer, MP. The reasons for his decision are explained in Chapter 4.

Consideration of Individual Cases

1.13 The Committee's terms of reference specifically named five difficult and complex cases to be considered by the Committee. The Committee received submissions relating to four of these cases. The Committee also received details of other individual cases in both submissions and oral evidence.

1.14 In evaluating the evidence received on individual cases, the Committee was mindful that the terms of reference directed the Committee to assess the appropriateness and effectiveness of the provision of consular assistance including the problems in dealing with difficult and complex cases. As part of that evaluation, the Committee reviewed the facts of the case, as far as they were available to the Committee, in order to assess the appropriateness and effectiveness of the consular assistance provided to the person requiring that assistance or his or her family. It was not the role of the Committee to review inquiries conducted by police, State Coroners or other official investigating bodies to determine whether there was any validity in criticisms of some of them in evidence given the Committee. While the Committee did make use of reports of such inquiries, that use was restricted to gaining a better understanding of the circumstances of individual cases to facilitate judging the merits of consular assistance.

1.15 Inevitably, in an inquiry of this nature, government organisations, officers and Ministers are sometimes subject to criticism for their handling of particular cases. At the end of the last hearing with officers of DFAT, Mr Robert Hamilton, Assistant Secretary, Consular Branch, commented:

1.16 The Chairman responded at the time to Mr Hamilton's remarks:

1.17 After due consideration of the evidence, the Committee agrees that departmental officers were not ill-motivated in the evidence they gave to the Committee.

Acknowledgments

1.18 The Committee wishes to express its appreciation to the people who contributed to the inquiry, including those who made written submissions, appeared before the Committee in public hearings or provided other information. In particular, the Committee wishes to thank Mr Peter Wilson and Mr Tim Wilson; Dr John Flynn and Mr Timothy Eakin; and Mr Robert Maresh, Mrs Denise Maresh and Mr Sam Maresh, for their detailed submissions and other information and for appearing twice at hearings.

1.19 The Committee appreciates the particular contribution of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in providing detailed submissions, responses to other evidence and answers to many questions on notice. The Committee also expresses its thanks to the Department for giving the Committee the opportunity to hear the evidence of Mr Tony Kevin and Ms Stephanie Shwabsky. Both officers made a special visit to Canberra from Phnom Penh, where they are posted, to give evidence on the David Wilson case.

Footnotes

[1] Committee Hansard, p. 581.

[2] Committee Hansard, p. 565.

[3] Committee Hansard, p. 682.

[4] Committee Hansard, p. 682.