Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the government response to the report of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on Mr Chen Yonglin’s request for political asylum.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I do not want to take up too much of general business time, but the simple fact is that these responses have been a long time coming. We need to specifically take note of that fact and examine them—at least those that I have had some experience with. This particular report of the foreign affairs committee was an interim report into Mr Chen Yonglin’s request for political asylum. People, I imagine, would recall that incident in relation to a senior Chinese diplomat from the Chinese consulate in Sydney. This report was tabled on 12 September 2005. The government response has come 20 months later—and the response is one page. It took 20 months to produce one page responding to two recommendations—and they were not exactly complex recommendations.

I suppose I should be thankful that the government has agreed to both of those recommendations. The recommendations were basically that the department of immigration formulate a protocol regarding circumstances where people claiming to be diplomats or consular officials seek asylum and also to remind all officials of their confidentiality obligations, because that was an issue that arose during the course of the inquiry. Thankfully, the department agreed with those. Indeed, they say they issued some guidance about obligations on confidentiality in October 2005. So why it has taken them 19 more months to get around reporting this fact by way of responding to the committee is beyond me.

Perhaps what is worse is that beneath that they say that they are also preparing a more detailed instruction for all the department of immigration staff in Australia and overseas relating to handling possible requests for asylum from consular officials. So even though it has taken 20 months to respond to two single recommendations, they still have not actually fulfilled them. How long does it take to prepare a set of instructions with regard to this sort of incident? This is a shoddy approach. It is contempt towards the Senate to take so long to respond to such a simple, straightforward pair of recommendations. But to then still be churning through actually acting upon those for one set of instructions 20 months later is simply not good enough. It is, once again, an indication of a lack of consideration—what I consider is a contempt for the Senate committee process. There is no reason at all why that response could not have been tabled at the end of 2005 or at the latest in early 2006. And certainly there is no reason why the set of instructions could not have been put together for diplomatic staff well before now as well.

I also note, to save time, a separate government response that is amongst these seven tabled by Senator Scullion, that can sit there on the Notice Paper for another day—a response to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration regarding detention centre contracts, which was originally tabled in December 2005. That also contained two recommendations. Again, it has taken 17 months to respond to two recommendations in a unanimous report of the joint migration committee. It is simply not good enough.

These completely inadequate responses, both in terms of time frame and content, need to be continually highlighted. It is one area that I certainly hope the Senate after the election, whoever is in government and whatever the composition of the Senate, puts renewed energy into trying to improve. A lot of expense goes into producing Senate committee reports, particularly those that engage the public. They are there in part to provide recommendations to government and they should be responded to far more promptly. I should remind the Senate that our standing orders have a guideline that the relevant government department or minister respond within three months. I am not sure I can think of the last report that was responded to within three months. I would be lucky to think of more than one that was responded to sooner than six months. But when we are getting to 18 months and beyond for a single page, then it is simply ridiculous. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.