Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties I present the committee’s report entitled Report 71Treaty tabled on 29 November 2005: agreement between the government of Australia and the government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China concerning transfer of sentenced persons.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

Report 71 contains the findings and recommendations of the committee’s review of the agreement between the government of Australia and the government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China concerning transfer of sentenced persons.

This agreement, tabled in parliament on 29 November 2005, will allow for the repatriation of Australian or Hong Kong prisoners who are serving out their sentences in reciprocal countries and have community ties in their country of origin.

As you would be aware, Mr Speaker, the period of review of proposed category 2 treaty actions by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties is 15 sitting days. The period of review for this treaty expires on 27 March, when the committee expects to report on other proposed treaty actions which were tabled on 29 November 2005.

However, the committee has decided to table this report today because of its regard for 18 Australians who have the potential to improve their chances of rehabilitation by serving out their sentence in Australia, where they would have no language and cultural barriers to overcome. This includes five Australians sentenced to imprisonment in Hong Kong, another four who are in jail awaiting trial or sentence and a further nine who have been arrested and are currently on bail.

Under the agreement, the transfer of prisoners between Australia and Hong Kong would be voluntary, with the terms of the transfer negotiated between parties and agreed to by the transferring prisoner. Transferring countries would retain jurisdiction for the revision, modification or cancellation of convictions and sentences imposed.

As the agreement provides for the continued enforcement of a transferred prisoner’s sentence, the sentences imposed by the transferring party would not change; however, a sentence may be adapted in accordance with the domestic law of the receiving party if it is incompatible with the law of the transferring party. Where this is the case, the receiving party cannot impose a more severe sentence than that imposed by the transferring party.

The committee found that the agreement is worth while, considering the high number of sentenced Australians in Hong Kong. In particular, the agreement will help to relieve the financial and social burdens imposed on prisoners’ relatives, improving the potential for prisoner rehabilitation and reducing the burden on Australian consular officials in Hong Kong.

The parliament passed the International Transfer of Prisoners Bill in 1997. We currently have three international agreements to facilitate the international transfer of prisoners. We have a convention with the Council of Europe which facilitates the transfer of prisoners between Australia and 56 other countries. Currently 16 prisoners have been transferred from Australia to five other jurisdictions. We have another bilateral one with Thailand. Under this agreement, three prisoners have been transferred to Thailand. The committee was also informed that Australia is currently negotiating a transfer of prisoner agreement with China, although the details of these negotiations are not publicly available. It should be obvious that there is a number of other countries in South-East Asia where a transfer of prisoners agreement should be a priority. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties expects that we may see some further arrangements of this type in the future.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, the committee believes it is in Australia’s interest for the treaty considered in Report 71 to be ratified. I commend the report to the House.

See this speech in context