Senator CHRIS EVANS (Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (2:00 PM) —My question is directed to Senator Vanstone, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. Can the minister confirm whether her departmental officials contacted the Chinese embassy or consulate in relation to a request for political asylum they had just received from a Chinese diplomat, Mr Chen Yonglin? Wasn’t Mr Chen’s request for protection based on Mr Chen’s fears for his own and his family’s safety if the Chinese government were to be alerted to his application? Why then did the minister’s department put Mr Chen’s future at risk by contacting the consulate to verify his identity and diplomatic status? Can the minister confirm that this departmental disclosure immediately prompted the consulate to call Mr Chen’s mobile phone while he was still in the immigration office making his application for protection? Does the minister believe that her department has properly carried out its responsibilities in dealing with Mr Chen’s application for protection?

Senator VANSTONE (Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) —I thank the senator for his question. Senator Evans, there is a short answer to two of your questions: the first one is no and the second one is yes. But let me elaborate on why I cannot confirm what you have alleged in your question. I draw your attention to a press release put out by the department on 8 June, which I assume, if you are interested in this matter, you will have seen. I see that you are not giving me any indication of whether or not you have seen that press release, so I will read the relevant portions of the release into the Hansard for you. It begins by saying that the department issued the release because it wanted to ‘correct misleading reports and place on record the facts’. There are four dot points under that. The first reads:

I might sidetrack to indicate that the current state director has been there from September last year. The previous state director was there until the end of June last year. The second dot point in the release reads:

The media release continues:

Given those facts, you will see why I say, ‘No, I can’t confirm that which you allege,’ and why I say, ‘Yes, I am happy with the way in which my department has handled this.’

Senator CHRIS EVANS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for her answer. I was really seeking to find out whether she had further information to what the department had said. I ask the minister: is she aware that section 336F of the Migration Act prohibits the unauthorised disclosure of information identifying an applicant for a protection visa to the foreign government from whom the protection is sought? Is the minister satisfied with her department’s dealing with Mr Chen’s application? Is she personally satisfied that they have acted properly and that they have acted in his best interests in dealing with his application?

Senator VANSTONE (Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) —We have from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate the mistake that some senators opposite fall into, and that is reading out your supplementary question disregarding completely the answer that you have been given. The answer that the leader was given made it very clear that the officer rang the consulate, having told Mr Chen that that was what he was going to do. In fact, Mr Chen gave the officer some numbers to confirm that he was who he said he was. Equally, the DIMIA officer did not disclose anything because in fact at the time neither the DIMIA officer who made the call nor anyone else, as I understand it, knew what it was that Mr Chen wanted.

Senator Chris Evans —So why did they call?

Senator VANSTONE —To confirm that this man was who he said he was. (Time expired)