Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support this motion in respect of human rights and religious tolerance because it gives me an opportunity to outline the very good work of Australia, in cooperation with Indonesia, in this area. I also rise to temper some of the attempts to censure our northern neighbour through comments about individual incidents, which I fear is no more constructive than the Indonesian parliament censuring Australia for events in Cronulla. After all, both nations, along with all of our near Asian neighbours, with Australia, have challenges in human rights and religious and cultural freedoms. Make no mistake.

When we look back—perhaps a decade from now—on the events of the last 12 months, our achievements will be measured by our ability at a community level with our near Asian neighbours to foster community strengthening and conflict resolution strategies and by the technical and training aid that we provide to our near Asian neighbours. We will be measured at a national level by our interfaith dialogue and at an international level by the conventions to which we and our near Asian neighbours are signatories.

I begin by pointing out that we are both signatories to the International Convention on the Rights of the Child. Every year, dating back to 1981, Australia has been a co-sponsor of a motion on the declaration on the elimination of intolerance and discrimination in both religion and belief. Indonesia has taken very important steps just recently in respect of the international covenant on civil and political freedoms and the international covenant on economic, social and cultural freedoms.

At the most basic level in a community, our achievements will be judged not by what we say in this place about individual events, for I believe that is quite unconstructive. That is not to say, of course, that we sanction them. Far more important, and what we will be measured on 10 years from today, is what we do at community level, what we can achieve at family level in the battle of ideas. As I alluded to in my maiden speech, our urgent appointment is right now with our near Asian neighbours to make sure that when youths—be they from a disadvantaged background or a privileged one—are inevitably confronted with a choice between intolerance and taking that path of moderation, understanding and prudence, we win that battle of ideas to which we contribute with our near Asian neighbours, and they choose the latter.

I think Australia is doing an excellent job with trade, with aid, with technical assistance and of course, at a national level, with the interfaith dialogue. That began in November 2004 and was repeated again this month in Cebu. It reached out to moderate Islamic leaders and empowered them and their voices. It said, ‘How are we going to empower you to have a coalition with governments, because you have a vital role in speaking to your supporters, and to help make those choices at village level?’ Be it around a fire, under a tree or around a kitchen table, it is happening here and it is happening with our near Asian neighbours. I want to emphasise that that is an international collaboration, fundamentally against terrorism.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs was right to say that this is not a battle between Islam and Christianity; it is between tolerance and intolerance—it is between those who support those fundamental freedoms held by our near Asian neighbours as well as in Australia and those who attempt to break them down. Australia’s role has been substantial at the UN level. We have worked exceptionally hard at regional level. Finally, we have worked with assistance and aid at the local level. At the level of interfaith dialogue, the chance is to take moderate religious beliefs, be they those of people right here in Australia or our near Asian neighbours, and work to ensure that their voices are being heard in government and that those in government, reciprocally, are actually listening.

So, to this motion today, I simply say that in highlighting individual acts, barbarous as they are, we need look no further than the response of the President of Indonesia, who said:

I condemn this barbarous killing, whoever the perpetrators are and whatever their motives.

Nothing could be clearer. Nothing is clearer in sharia law: it is obviously absolutely intolerable to kill innocent civilians. And that strong rhetoric was backed up with action. It was backed up by moving the chief of police and 800 security staff straight to Poso to restore the situation there. So we have evidence that there is a deep commitment in Indonesia, as there is here. Finally, we have seen reform locally with their 1969 regulations on construction of places of worship and with Indonesia’s recent signing of a number of international covenants to empower this. I think they should be acknowledged.

See this speech in context