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

I do not relish speaking on a motion of this character, because there are the lives of two young Australians that are before us. I want to thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the shadow minister for the motion that they have proposed in the House of Representatives today, noting that Chan and Sukumaran are presently imprisoned, the serious nature of their crimes, Australia's abolition of capital punishment, speaking of the genuine remorse demonstrated by both Chan and Sukumaran, their rehabilitation, and the widespread support of the Australian people for commutation of the death sentences imposed on them, and encouraging Indonesia to give consideration to their circumstances and stay their executions.

I was the lead signer of a letter signed by more than 100 members of the House of Representatives and the Senate expressing our view. This is a clear majority of members who feel this way. I had no pleasure in writing the letter, because of the circumstances, but I have been involved with Amnesty International over a long period of time, as has the speaker before me. I was a member some 40 years ago. Opposition to the death penalty and the assertion of the right to life are things that I have always been strongly committed to.

I have continued to push very strongly for the abolition of the death penalty around the world. I reminded some members of the circumstances of a meeting we had on this very issue today. When George Bush Senior first visited Australia, I endeavoured to present to him a petition on this very issue. We take it up with the United States, because we believe that capital punishment is wrong in principle. We take it up with China. We take it up with Iran. We take it up with Saudi Arabia.

I think the most interesting comments in the debate today have been those of the Minister for Foreign Affairs outlining the approach Indonesia takes to this matter when its own citizens abroad are subjected to the possibility of a death penalty. On the information provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs, I am told that something of the order of 420 Indonesian nationals have faced a death penalty abroad between 2011 and 2014. They have worked exceedingly hard to seek remission of those penalties for their citizens abroad, and I commend them for that. One hundred and seventy-three of their citizens who have faced the death penalty have been freed. The circumstances in which they were freed have often involved paying moneys—and I understand Indonesia raises the funds—to compensate families of those who may have been adversely affected by the activity of an Indonesian national. On the basis of that compensation, the remission can occur. I do not know what compensation could be paid to secure the release of Chan and Sukumaran, but it is interesting, isn't it, when you think about?

I hold no adverse brief to Indonesia. I want to work with Indonesia. I have said to members of their foreign affairs committee, whom I have met with from time to time, that I would like to work with Indonesia to secure the release of Indonesian nationals sentenced to death, because I believe, in principle, it is wrong. I would like to think that we could have a unity ticket of those of us in public life to produce that change. I continue to reiterate to Indonesia, through its ambassador and through its public officials, my willingness to work with them to save the lives of their nationals where they are at risk.

But in the cases that we are speaking of today, if you actually look at the letter that we wrote to the Indonesian ambassador, it outlines why the circumstances of Chan and Sukumaran are so different, even to those many others who face the death penalty. Indonesia has noted that if people have been held for more than 10 years and have shown good behaviour that can be taken into account. Chan and Sukumaran have been imprisoned for more than 10 years. They have demonstrated, as we say in our letter, genuine remorse. They have worked constructively to rehabilitate not only themselves but others. In that context, in the circumstances that Indonesia have said should be taken into account, in our view the President should have some regard.

As a lawyer, I am interested in these matters and I read today that there is a further appeal. I hope it may have some success—inviting the President to not have a blanket approach to these matters, but to require him to genuinely consider the circumstances of the individuals, which, it is suggested, their law requires. I certainly hope and request—and I reiterate that again—that in the time that is left he may return to this matter. It is not a matter of us wanting to berate Indonesia. It is one in which I hope we can work together, not only to save Chan and Sukumaran but to save the lives of many others who may be at risk of capital punishment.

A number of Australians were killed as a result of a terrorist act in Indonesia, and those responsible were found. When Indonesia sought to execute them, as a matter of principle, I took the view that we should seek clemency for those even though, through their conduct, they had a very adverse impact on many Australians and adversely affected the lives of many of those Australians related.

There is a need for consistency in these matters. I hope that our efforts may bear fruit. If they do not, I hope we can continue to work to try to produce change in the views of national governments around the world, including Indonesia, for the future. The world would be a far better place if we were able to achieve that.

See this speech in context