Laurie Ferguson (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I commend the VCA for raising this matter. I commend the member for Fowler for bringing it before the House. What happens in this parliament and within this government with regard to Vietnam is extremely crucial because there is an attitude among many of our Asian neighbours that one does not interfere in the internal affairs of other member nations of ASEAN: that human rights is not essentially the province of the ASEAN group of countries as a whole. So what this country does is important, and it is right and proper that we do come to these matters today. Amnesty International, in discussing its three prisoners of conscience, said of Vietnam:

Harsh repression of dissidents continued, with severe restrictions on freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly.

Human Rights Watch equally talked of the Vietnamese government's human rights record remaining 'very weak' and said:

The government suppresses virtually all forms of political dissent—

Areas of concern include forcing prisoners to work while they are in jail, drug addiction, a judiciary that is not independent and the very wide ranging provisions and articles in the criminal code which mean that essentially any dissidence, criticisms or divergence from the government is basically a criminal act. They construe anyone advocating democracy in the country as propagandistic, against the national interest and treacherous.

I associate myself with the remarks of the member who spoke previously and who is, as he noted, the deputy chair of the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. When he speaks of government, I speak of governments, because the issues he spoke of should have been dealt with by a variety of Labor and Liberal governments—it has not emerged just this week. But I agree with him that if we are going to be serious about the human rights dialogues then the attendance of members of the human rights subcommittee should be financed, even though it does appear that public servants who are very persuasive with various ministers feel that it would be the end of Western civilisation if any MPs were in Vietnam for oversight.

During the inquiry that the subcommittee has conducted, it has been clear—without pre-judging the final outcomes—from members of the Vietnamese community that they have significant issues with the way in which dialogues with Vietnam operate. They have called for wider involvement of non-government organisations and civil society groups from this country. They have spoken of there being little transparency in Australia's human rights dialogues, primarily due to poor reporting. They have questioned the consultation with groups before and after meetings. They have spoken of a lack of monitoring and evaluation of outcomes from human rights dialogues. It is quite clear that the reporting back is insufficient. It is quite clear that not enough groups are engaged in discussions about the way that dialogues operate.

The Australian overseas development program of $150 million is significant to Vietnam and is one of our larger international efforts. There should be some changes made by DFAT to the way it operates. There is a balance—we cannot dictate to countries exactly how they will operate in regard to foreign aid—but we are supplying the money and, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs said recently about Papua New Guinea, the questions of human rights, democracy and judicial practices should be relevant. The dialogue with Vietnam that we have spoken about since 2002—there have been nine rounds of it—could be perceived by many critics as not having gained very much.

I turn now to talk about a few of the prisoners of conscience. Cu Huy Ha Vu has been signalled as a particularly relevant person because he comes from a family that has been associated with the regime. Some of his forebears were regarded as revolutionary heroes. He has been jailed for interviews with foreign media, as though that is something that people should be jailed for. His main efforts have been on the subject of bauxite mining and the confiscation of lands that were owned by people who fought the French. Nguyen Dan Que has been incarcerated, once again under the wide provisions of Vietnamese law, because he allegedly advocated the overthrow of the government. As many people have detailed, Father Nguyen Van Ly was jailed for 17 years for activities construed as spreading propaganda.

I associate myself very much with the previous speakers. I have been active, as have some of the other members, around Amnesty International's endeavours on this front and in the broader efforts by the VCA to put create some interest in this country in human rights in Vietnam. I commend the motion.

See this speech in context