Senate debates

Wednesday, 12 September 2007

Questions without Notice

Human Rights

2:32 pm

Photo of Chris EllisonChris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

I can confirm that there is a Chinese national in custody, and I note that Senator Bartlett has not identified him, so I will proceed on that basis. A Chinese national has been in custody since 2004, and that is as a result of his visa not being granted, and, as he has no lawful reason to stay in Australia, he will be deported. I should say at the outset that I understand he has had the opportunity of having his situation reviewed. There was a last minute request from the UNHCR—it was an interim measures request—asking that he not be removed and that is being considered. The department deferred those removal arrangements for that to be dealt with. It provided no new information and, as a result of that, the plan is to deport this Chinese national today, subject to a medical assessment of his situation. This person has been in custody since February 2004. There were a number of issues to be considered during that time and various avenues that this person had pursued by way of appeal. Also, there has been an arrest warrant in China for some time for this person for very serious charges relating to alleged kidnap and murder.

Of course, the death penalty is an issue between the two countries of China and Australia and a period of time has been taken up in obtaining the necessary undertaking from the Chinese authorities that, on return of this person, if there was a conviction, the death penalty would not be carried out. That has now been obtained. That accounts for the effluxion of time for this person being in detention. There has been adequate opportunity for him to canvass his position. This has been exhaustively reviewed under Australia’s international obligations under the Convention against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I am advised that the issue of this person’s religious beliefs is not a factor in this case.

Comments

No comments