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

I second the motion. I thank the member for Fowler for moving this very important resolution. He may not thank me entirely because I will take up aspects of what he has had to say about the way in which the government has been dealing with this issue in the dialogue that does occur on human rights issues between Australia and Vietnam. As I am the deputy chair of the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, I continue to have an interest in these matters and I put that very directly.

My interest is not new. It goes back almost to the first of the Vietnamese who came to Australia through our refugee resettlement program, people whom I supported as they came and needed help and assistance. When Ian McPhee was Minister for Immigration, he asked me to go and work with Dick Klugman who was then the member for Prospect in relation to some of those settlement issues. Over a period of time I continued to have an interest in the way in which Vietnam was evolving. There was a unique committee of which I was patron for a number of years, the Australian committee for a free Vietnam. I remember many of those with whom I was engaged. A young lady who served on the refugee resettlement advisory committee for me was Kathryn Nguyen, who eventually went to the United States. Therese, or Kim Noc Dong, who I have known over many years, was actively involved. There were a number of Canadian members of parliament as well as Professor Steven Young, who provided a leadership role in the United States. I remained associated with the Australian committee for a free Vietnam until I became a minister and it was appropriate that some of my colleagues took on that continuing role.

I was interested that mention was made of Colonel Vo Dai Ton. He is a very significant personage because he decided, after having spoken on the need for freedom in Vietnam over a number of years, that he should go back and encourage people to strive for freedom. He was identified after entering Vietnam through Laos, if I remember correctly. In the late 1980s or early 1990s, Greg Sheridan, a writer for the Australian newspaper, asked me when I was visiting Vietnam whether I would take up the case of Colonel Vo Dai Ton, who had been imprisoned in what was colloquially known as the Hanoi Hilton. I see a lot of nodding in the gallery. Numbers of representations were made. I would like to take the credit, but I am not sure that I am deserving of the credit, although I was given some for the fact that I made representations at that time, but the Australian government—I think through Gareth Evans—was equally and actively involved on Colonel Vo Dai Ton's part.

My comments today are in the context of what is happening in Vietnam now. I have continued to maintain a strong interest in the community, notwithstanding the fact there are some but not all that many Vietnamese living in my electorate of Berowra. They would be very welcome in the electorate of Berowra, let me say, but it is not the case.

The passing of the Most Venerable Thich Phuoc Hue, who had been the leader of the Vietnamese Buddhist church in Australia, was tragic. He had had the refugee experience and was very much aware of it. Only two weeks ago, along with the member for Werriwa as the chairman of the Human Rights Subcommittee, of which I am a member and deputy chair, I had the opportunity to meet with a protestor outside of this House. That was Mr Truong Quoc Viet from the Block 4806 movement who was raising issues about land rights in Vietnam of behalf of his family, friends and community—not land rights in the sense that we understand it but the expropriation of their property without just compensation.

Human rights in Vietnam remain an issue of concern. Numbers of us in this House have been associated with Amnesty International. Their report for this year regales the harsh repression of dissidents, which they say continues with severe restrictions on freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly. It goes on to say:

Critics of government policies were targeted, including social and political activists. At least nine dissident trials took place with 20 defendants. Vaguely worded provisions of the 1990 Penal Code were used to, in effect, criminalize peaceful political and social dissent—

something that we take very much for granted here in Australia. It goes on—

The government continue to censor the internet …

Dozens of prisoners of conscience remained in prison. Religious and ethnic groups perceived to be opposing the government continue to face human rights violations. …

Severe restrictions on freedom of expression continue. The vaguely worded provisions of the 1999 penal code were used to criminalise dissent. Article 78 speaks of 'aiming to overthrow the state', whatever that means. Article 88 speaks of 'conducting propaganda against the state', whatever that means. Nine dissident trials of 20 defendants that are taking place remain of very considerable concern. There have been more than 18 individuals who have been arrested and many remain in pre-trial detention. Land ownership disputes continue between local authorities. Ethnic and religious minorities have to register before being able to own property and access education, health care and other services. Local security forces hold power to approve registration and thus hold great threat over individuals. The Montagnards in the Central Highlands and the Hmong in the Northern Highlands are victims of ongoing discrimination, beatings, harassment and torture. Mobile trials have been conducted, with more than 350 Montagnards sentenced to long prison terms since 2001 for crimes like demonstrating and attempting to flee the country, and attending prayers.

This is an appalling record that has been documented by Amnesty International. But mention is made in this resolution of a number of activists who remain under house arrest or in prison, such as the Most Venerable Thich Quang Do. I know of Thich Quang Do through my good friend the Venerable Thich Quang Ba, who continues his presence here around the parliament to apprise us of the concern for the United Buddhist Community. The Venerable Thich Quang Do remains under house arrest. He has been in prison for the last 30 years on a variety of charges. He has been released and re-arrested. He has been an advocate for religious freedom, democracy and human rights, and he was named in 2008 as the patriarch of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam. That continues to be banned by the government; it has been outlawed since 1981. The government has declared that it does not exist and that it is illegal, and monks, nuns and followers continue to experience harassment and surveillance.

It is not just his experience; he is a person of very considerable note and has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. A quote says:

One single party cannot possibly represent more than 80 million Vietnamese people. We must have a multiparty system that gives the people wide representation. To solve all these problems and injustices, we must work together for pluralism, democracy and human rights. Freedom of expression is especially important, for without this freedom, how can people voice their grievances and express their opinions to their rulers?

Mention is made of Reverend Nguyen Van Ly, re-arrested on 25 July while on sick leave from prison because of a stroke and a brain tumour. He is aged 64 and serving an eight-year sentence, having been arrested in 2007. The sentence was for conducting propaganda against the state. He has spent 17 years in prison due to his advocacy for human rights and freedom of expression. Equally, when you look at Dr Nguyen Dan Que, Dr Cu Hy Ha Vu and Mr Viet Khang, you see why we need to remain interested in these issues.

The member for Fowler, who spoke on this matter initially, raised the issue of Australia's aid program. It is a very significant program of $150 million planned for 2012-13. The only reference to support for human rights in our aid program is under the heading 'Vietnam human rights technical cooperation phase 4', and that does help to develop practical strategies to promote human rights in Vietnam. But when you look at the wide range of other activities in which we are engaged, I think it is important to reflect on how much influence we might have if we were prepared to engage vigorously in relation to these matters. Regrettably, while the dialogues occur and were designed to avoid a deterioration in bilateral relations, they were also designed to give us an opportunity to express our views on these issues with some determination. I would have to say that if members of parliament were actively included in these discussions I suspect the outcome would be very different. Instead of, after the event, asking the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to come before the Human Rights Commission and try to explain what issues they have raised and what sort of responses they may have had and to get some semblance of whether or not we have been able to influence anything, we would have members of parliament, possibly from the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee of Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, involved in those discussions.

The committee has, on a number of occasions, suggested to the government that that level of engagement should occur, and the government says that it is welcome. It even wrote to me as the deputy chair and asked whether I would like to go, provided I found money for my fares and could get myself there. I said that I did not think that was really appropriate and that we ought to be included. I wrote off to the foreign minister again and I got a response, saying, 'Maybe you should get the parliament to take money away from other parliamentary programs to give this one priority.' I imagine these delegations do not go without the government committing itself to the expenditure of sending the officers from the Department of Foreign Affairs Trade and others whom they have invited to participate. I do not imagine that they say to the department of foreign affairs' officials, 'Would you like to go to Vietnam as part of the delegation, and would you like to pay your own fares?' Thank you very much! I thank the member for Fowler for raising these matters because I think his colleagues are not serious or they have been conned by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, who think that this is not a priority for them and that maybe they can get somebody else to pick up the funding for them.

It may be benign and I may be misinterpreting it, but let me just make the point that the member for Fowler raises these issues very seriously. I commend him for doing so, and I think that this motion is very significant because it bells the cat about the government's willingness to have members of this parliament who are interested discuss and push human rights concerns and so make a difference. I thank the member for Fowler for giving me the opportunity to make these remarks. I hope I have not damaged him in the eyes of his colleagues. I hope those who are listening here will support him very fully and that maybe, next time we go back to Vietnam, rather than when they come here—and we can get there relatively easily—members of parliament will be included in the delegation and able to make the case that you want to hear made strongly on behalf of the people of Australia.

See this speech in context