Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Last week, on 12 August, I was out the front of Parliament House and there was a demonstration taking place. Like many of these demonstrations, it had attracted people. The Federal Police were there watching over the demonstration. There were also members of the armed forces—in fact, there was someone from the Navy, someone from the Air Force and someone from the Army. So the military was standing there watching over the demonstration, but it was not your normal sort of Parliament House demonstration. It was a particular event that saw 10 people standing in a line handing a book from one to the other. The last person in that passing line was the Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, and what he received was a copy of the Geneva conventions. There were members of the military in that parade passing that document along. It was a very moving event. Later on the same day, people from that demonstration were down at the High Court, where Chief Justice French gave a great talk about the history of the Geneva conventions. It was fantastic to be able to witness that event that took place in between those two important institutions: the High Court and the parliament. Between those two, between justice and democracy, was that ceremony of the Geneva conventions passing between members of the military, members of the public and members of parliament. It was fantastic.

Why did this occur? Because it was 60 years to the day since the four Geneva conventions of 1949 had been signed. The Red Cross had been around a long time before that, but these four separate conventions were signed in 1949 and remain in effect today. The first convention contains laws pertaining to the care and protection of the wounded and sick on the battlefield. Obviously that is the history of the Red Cross. The second convention applies to those wounded, sick and shipwrecked at sea. The third pertains to prisoners of war, which was very important coming after World War II when many prisoners suffered atrocities and is especially poignant for Australians because of the horrors of what happened in Changi as well as in Europe. The fourth convention deals with the protection of civilians in time of war. This was also very important because, as the military machine had grown in power, unfortunately civilians were the collateral damage, I guess, more so in World War II than in any preceding wars.

At the media event that I just talked about, Robert Tickner, the CEO of the Red Cross, talked about the recent survey they had done around the world. Standing in between the High Court and the Australian parliament building, we had a discussion about the fact that the survey found that more than 40 per cent of Australians believe it is okay to torture captured enemy soldiers in certain circumstances. Yet according to this comprehensive research on attitudes to war released by the Red Cross, which surveyed more than 1,000 people, 93 per cent of Australians also believe that those who break the rules of war should be punished. It is interesting to try to reconcile those competing ideas: that it is okay to torture captured enemy soldiers in certain circumstances and, on the flip side, that if you break the rules of war you should be punished. It is reassuring to know that a majority of Australians understand that even wars have laws, but it is a bit horrifying that two out of five Australians also believe it is sometimes okay to break those laws. As I said, standing there between the High Court and Parliament House, maybe in Australia because we have such institutions we are a little more relaxed about them.

In the same survey, people in countries like Afghanistan and Liberia were much more focused. In countries that have been wracked by war and where to have an election is a major event where people are dying today, people died yesterday and, no doubt, in the next couple of days in Afghanistan more people will die just in an attempt to cast their vote. In countries such as Afghanistan and Liberia 85 per cent of the people believe that the Geneva conventions limit the sufferings of civilians in wartime. Dr Durham from the Red Cross made the point:

Cynicism and complacency are luxuries for people who aren’t living in a conflict zone and who haven’t experienced the horrors of war. Almost half of those surveyed in Australia believed the laws of war made no difference, yet those from conflict-ravaged countries feel more positively that laws can make a difference.

That is a telling survey result. The same day after that ceremony when the Attorney-General received the Geneva conventions he then came into the House and moved a motion commemorating the 60th anniversary of the Geneva conventions. In his opening comments he made the point that, when Nauru ratified the Geneva conventions in June 2006, every single nation had ratified these conventions. It does not matter where they sit on the political divide or where they sit culturally, every nation has said, ‘These are rules that we must embrace.’ Every member state of the United Nations is party to them, which is quite momentous. I know, on occasion, we can focus on the darker side of human nature and that is obviously a role of government, but it is also important to recognise the positive things that occur.

In 2002 I especially recognise the previous Howard government for enacting the International Criminal Court (Consequential Amendments) Act, which provided that all crimes within the jurisdiction of the court namely genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are now crimes under Australian law. They can be dealt with in Australian courts irrespective of where they are committed and regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator. It is fantastic to think that these are universal laws. If you have ended up on our shores and you have committed these crimes then we can prosecute you in our own judicial system. I note that 109 countries have signed up and that the courts have started their first trial looking at some of the atrocities committed in the Congo, Uganda and Sudan—something which is of particular interest to the Sudanese population in my electorate.

The Red Cross has a wonderful tradition that can be traced back to the Battle of Solferino in 1859, which was witnessed by Henry Dunant. It is great to see that in Australia in 2009 we are still making changes and still trying to ensure that the laws of war are enforced and that the laws of war hopefully will protect more civilians and prisoners of war. If we go back to 1859 when the Austrians and Italians battled it out with horrific casualties that then prompted Henry Dunant to get off his backside. So many organisations spring from someone saying, ‘I have to do something about it, what can I do?’ In 1864 he had the first Geneva convention and then in 1867 the Red Cross formed. In 1929 a later Geneva convention that was a precursor to the ones I have already mentioned. In 1949 we had the Geneva conventions that I have mentioned. The symbol was the Red Cross on the white armband. Initially it was just going to be a white armband but people thought it might be a little bit too close to the act of surrendering. In Muslim countries it was a Red Crescent. And in 2005 a non-religious symbol of the Red Crystal was introduced.

The Red Cross is well respected throughout the world and well respected in this parliament. On the Labor side, I am one of the convenors of Parliamentary Friends of Red Cross. We also have Bruce Scott from the Nationals and Senator Russell Trood from the Liberals. That is three Queensland blokes, so to give us a bit of balance we have Christine Milne from the Greens as well. We will continue to do what we can to recognise the good works of the Red Cross both in Australia and around the world.

See this speech in context