Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

a discussion on ‘the importance, on the fourth annual World Day Against the Death Penalty, for Australia to continue to advocate strongly and consistently for the abolition of the death penalty, and for the promotion of human rights both at home and abroad’. I support the MPI in the terms offered. I cannot support all the comments made by the member for Gellibrand as she spoke to it, and I am a touch disappointed that, in the context of the traditional police courts, she has sought to verbal me in relation to a number of matters that have been raised. I will deal with those in time—perhaps not at length, because I think it is more important to speak to the substance.

Let me make it very clear that the Australian government has not changed its longstanding policy of opposition to the death penalty. We are a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its second optional protocol, which requires Australia to abolish the death penalty in its jurisdiction and to ensure that no-one within its jurisdiction is subject to the death penalty. Australia is committed to the principles espoused in the protocol and has supported international actions aimed at abolishing the death penalty or establishing a moratorium on executions. Australia complies with its international obligations in this regard, and each jurisdiction in Australia has independently and separately abolished the death penalty. It has not been used since 1967, as was mentioned by the member for Gellibrand. It was outlawed under Commonwealth law, for Commonwealth offences, in 1973. It has been formally abolished by all jurisdictions in Australia. The last state to abolish it was New South Wales, in 1985.

There is no suggestion that action is required from the Australian government to ensure the continuity of this position. I heard no evidence of that today. Under the Constitution, the Commonwealth has no specific power to deal with criminal matters. This means the states deal with most criminal matters, including crimes such as rape and murder, and part of this responsibility includes sentencing. As there are no proposals by any government to reinstate the death penalty, further Australian government legislation is, in my submission, not necessary.

Contrary to the suggestions by some, the Australian government supports international action encouraging states to either abolish the death penalty or, as an interim measure, establish a moratorium on executions. The Australian government has supported resolutions to this effect at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The Australian government has made representations against the death penalty to countries which maintain it and it will continue to do so.

The fundamental difficulty with the death penalty is that, it being a final remedy, an innocent person has no chance for corrective action once a sentence has been carried out. The Australian government acknowledges that it is an unacceptable method to use to punish criminal offenders and continues to express this view internationally. We are committed to the principles espoused by the second optional protocol and encourage its universal ratification.

It was in this regard that, when I was in the Philippines recently, I was able to commend those ministers who were party to ensuring that the death penalty was abolished in the Philippines. But obviously we do recognise that the right of sovereign countries to pass judgements in relation to crimes committed within their jurisdictions means that they make decisions on those matters, and that can involve the death penalty. That is one of the reasons we continue to press for change. But we cannot enforce change.

Some have raised the issue of what Australia should be doing about its own nationals. Australia has been very active in cases where an Australian citizen is sentenced to death overseas, and we will always make representations or seek clemency on their behalf. This is consistent with us having abolished the death penalty as a punishment in our own territory, and it is consistent with our government’s consular responsibility to assist our nationals where their lives are at risk. The important point I will make is that we have continued to do this—in some cases successfully; in others, unfortunately, not so.

We made representations, for instance, to the Vietnamese President earlier this year, who decided to commute the death sentence for two Australians, following our representations. It is regrettable in the case of Van Nguyen that, prior to his execution on 2 December 2005, notwithstanding representations at the highest level by numbers of ministers, including me, and our efforts to convince it to act to the contrary, Singapore continued to proceed to an execution.

In relation to the Bali nine, the Prime Minister has indicated publicly that we would seek clemency if they were found guilty and the death penalty was imposed. I make the point that in relation to that matter the courts are still hearing those appeals. As I understand it, none of those are yet final. We will, of course, at the appropriate time, as we have made abundantly clear, represent each of them in seeking clemency if the government of Indonesia continues a course that might involve execution.

Let me just say that I too have been aware from time to time of comments that have been made that some have characterised as being perhaps more supportive of Australians than necessarily others in other jurisdictions. The member for Gellibrand was quick to make her comments in relation to the Prime Minister—and her former leader, whom she sought to walk away from. I would just like to ask her whether she intends to walk away from the present leader, because, on 10 September 2006, in a Meet the Press interview, Mr Beazley had this to say. Greg Turnbull said that we have a problem internationally in that we have been ‘seen to be seeking clemency for our own people but barracking for the executions in relation to the Bali bombers’. Mr Beazley responded:

I think there’s issues here of proportionality. I think we’re here dealing with Australian citizens who are facing the death penalty. We’re here to argue their particular case, and that’s what we’re trying to do or about to do.

I simply make the point that, if we are going to turn it into a political debate, I would have thought that there would be an element of consistency.

See this speech in context