Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

On indulgence: in a statement to the Western Australian parliament exactly six years ago, on 15 October 2002, the then WA Premier, Dr Geoff Gallop, noted that on the night of Saturday, 12 October 2002 a cowardly bomb attack shattered the tranquillity of a favourite holiday destination for many generations of Australians. These Australians experienced the horrors of war in what was expected and assumed to be a peaceful holiday destination.

I offer my deepest condolences to the families of the 202 people, including 88 Australians, who died as a result of the bombings and to the many who were injured. I also note the devastating effect this event had on the peaceful people of Bali. In addition, I wish to express heartfelt thanks to the staff at the Royal Perth Hospital and other hospitals who worked so hard to ensure a decent quality of life for those injured by the Bali bombings.

At the time the bombings occurred, I was working with the United Nations in Gaza. Unlike Bali, Gaza was not a peaceful holiday destination and bomb attacks were not entirely unexpected. Nevertheless, the fact that it happened often did not make it easier. I also had close friends working for the UN in other conflict zones such as Iraq. On 19 August 2003, my good friend Jean-Selim Kanaan, to whom I dedicated my first speech in this place and one of a number of colleagues I had worked with in Kosovo, was killed in the terrorist bombing of the UN Canal Hotel headquarters in Baghdad. Jean-Selim had worked in war zones in Africa, the Balkans and the Middle East, he spoke seven languages, he had written a book called My war against indifference and his wife, Laura Dolci-Kanaan, had just given birth to their only child, Mattia-Selim—three weeks before Jean-Selim died, too young, at the age of 33. Rather than becoming disillusioned with the world, Laura continues to work for the UN and in particular for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. She is committed to raising Mattia-Selim with the values that his father stood for, including respect for human life and dignity.

In his speech to the WA parliament after the Bali bombings, Dr Gallop noted:

This will unsettle many people. It may even disillusion us, and affect our view of the wider world and the opportunities that the wider world offers. We will need to work together as a community to assist individuals and families cope with the consequences of this tragedy. … We will also have to renew our commitments to each other, despite the many differences that exist between us, be they racial, religious, philosophical, ideological or political. The time has come for us to renew our commitment to our common purpose as a society, a democratic society that respects the rights and interests of all of the individuals within it.

This is the spirit in which we must go on. Some people want to seek the bluntest and most direct form of justice for what happened in Bali. This is an understandable reaction to fear, hurt, anger and a deep sense of loss, but the death penalty is not the solution. It did not deter terrorists from committing this act and it only confuses the otherwise clear issue that those who did this deserve to be punished. I note this comment in the New York Times by former US Supreme Court Justice William Brennan: ‘Even the most vile murderer does not release the state from its obligation to respect dignity, for the state does not honour the victim by emulating his murderer.’

Another US judge, Daniel Gaul, in a 2000 case in Cleveland was required to impose the death penalty upon the defendant, who had been convicted of murdering a police officer, but the judge was moved to comment: ‘Why do we kill people who kill people to prove that it is wrong to kill people? It is not about his soul. It’s about our souls, the community’s soul.’

The Asia Pacific Human Rights Network has noted: ‘Like other forms of punishment, the application of the death penalty is subject to human fallibility. However, unlike other forms of punishment, the death penalty is irrevocable. These two factors make the outcome intolerable.’

Former Chief Justice of India, PN Bhagwati, in a dissenting judgement in a death penalty case in 1982, said the following: ‘The death penalty is irrevocable; it cannot be recalled. It extinguishes the flame of life forever and is plainly destructive of the right to life, the most precious right of all, a right without which enjoyment of no other rights is possible. Howsoever careful may be the procedural safeguards erected by the law before the penalty is imposed, it is impossible to eliminate the chance of judicial error.’ Justice Bhagwati expressed the view that one innocent man being executed is enough to wipe out the value of capital punishment forever.

Similarly, I note Amnesty International’s description of the death penalty:

… the ultimate, irreversible denial of human rights … created by a system riddled with economic and racial bias and tainted by human error …

Amnesty International participated in the sixth World Day Against the Death Penalty on 10 October this year, which is organised by the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty. I would like to read a short excerpt from a letter written last week, on World Day Against the Death Penalty, to the member for Werriwa. It is from Scott Rush, who is currently awaiting the death penalty in Indonesia. In the letter, Scott says:

If the Opposition—

against the death penalty—

is just (for) us Australian citizens it makes us stick out, like sore thumbs, amongst all the other nationals who have also got the death penalty. I say this because I share my cell with a Nigerian, Emmanuel, who’s dignity and kindness helps comfort us on our many dark nights.

So taking consistent stand for everyone on the death penalty—that helps us here on the inside of the wall.

This year the efforts as to World Day Against the Death Penalty are being focused on the Asian region. Amnesty International claims that at least 664 executions have occurred in Asia in 2007 and that the real figure is probably much higher. It is estimated that between 85 and 90 per cent of the world’s executions occur in Asia. The European Union, including countries such as the United Kingdom, which recently experienced the horror of the London bombings, also initiated World Day Against the Death Penalty occurring yearly on 10 October since 2007.

The trend against the death penalty is due, in part, to the lobbying efforts of the European Union. In recent years Albania, Argentina, Rwanda, Uzbekistan and the US state of New Jersey have all taken steps towards the abolition of the death penalty. It is of great concern that three people may be executed next week in relation to the Bali bombings and that the Indonesian government’s announcement about the executions is likely to be made on Friday, 24 October, which is also United Nations Day.

Australia is a signatory to the Second Optional Protocol to the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is aimed at the abolition of the death penalty. The optional protocol states that the state parties ‘believe that abolition of the death penalty contributes to enhancement of human dignity and progressive development of human rights’ and that they are ‘desirous to undertake hereby an international commitment to abolish the death penalty’.

As with the barbaric execution of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the execution of Amrozi, Mukhlas and Imam Samudra in Indonesia will not be a cathartic conclusion to the Bali bombings and it will not reduce terrorism in our region. It will only decrease our human dignity. No-one in this place would suggest that an Australian life is worth more than the life of someone from another country, yet if we have an inconsistent position on the death penalty when applied to Australians, as opposed to those from other countries, we leave ourselves open to this very criticism. The fact that Australia has abolished the death penalty is a testament to our commitment to human rights at home but we must also be consistent in our approach to the death penalty and human rights abroad. With our close neighbours and friends, be they the governments of Indonesia, the United States of America, China or Singapore, we have not only the opportunity but the duty to respectfully insist that international human rights standards be upheld.

This sixth anniversary of the Bali bombings is a time for us to reflect on the terrible losses that occurred six years ago. We may also reflect on the fact that, while Australia is lucky to have little history or experience of terrorism on its shores, it is in our own national interest to reduce the potential for terrorism in other countries, particularly within our region. Promoting the enhancement of human dignity and the progressive development of human rights through the Millenium Development Goals and the universal abolition of the death penalty will go a long way towards achieving this. I think it most appropriate on this occasion to conclude with the words of former Adelaide magistrate Brian Deegan, whose son Josh died in the Bali bombings and about whom the member for Werriwa spoke just a moment ago. Mr Deegan said Josh:

… detested violence, he detested conflict. For him to think of somebody being stood up in cold blood—

to—

be cut down by machine-gun fire would repulse him as it does me.

See this speech in context