Having now read the article in full, this summary is deeply misleading. A thread 1/ https://twitter.com/hui_echo/status/1305841638745358336

The article refers to numerous complaints by John Zhang - a policy advisor to a NSW MP - that the Australian authorities have breached PIL regarding ambassadorial and consular correspondence. 2/

The article then goes into detail about how *Zhang's* electronic devices were searched on numerous occasions. 3/

And yet the article continues: "Mr Zhang argues the search warrants may have been unlawful because the communications of diplomatic officials and their families are "inviolable" to Australian authorities under Australian and international law." 4/

We can safely assume that Zhang is *not* arguing that he is himself a member of a PRC diplomatic or consular mission. So what does that leave? 5/

Zhang's messages *to* the diplomatic missions plainly do not emanate *from* any PRC diplomatic mission. Nor does it appear that they were obtained from the archives of any PRC diplomatic mission (which would be a clear breach of PIL on mission inviolability). 6/

Elieen Denza's commentary on the VCDR and the process that led to its conclusion strongly suggests that "official correspondence" is confined to correspondence between the mission and other authorities of the *sending State* (in this case the PRC). 7/

(Denza, who used to advise the UK FCO, is acknowledged as an authority on diplomatic and consular relations.) 8/

Again, I have to assume that Zhang - the NSW Parliamentary staffer - is *not* arguing that he was acting in any official capacity *on behalf of the PRC*. 9/

In the circumstances, I must confess I find Zhang's argument - if the news article describes it correctly - to be deeply baffling. 10/10

h/t @Rory_Medcalf, who clued me in to this news piece