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

My introductory remarks have had to be recast a little. I was about to say that this is one of the finest moments of the parliament, when we can come together in agreement to support a very important motion. I must say that I commend my colleague and friend the member for Ryan for proposing it. And I commend my colleague the member for Fremantle's initial remarks supporting the member for Ryan, because I think that is when the parliament is at its very best. I do not think that everything the member for Fremantle said was appropriate. In fact, if I had been a little mischievous I might have taken a point of order that the member was not speaking to the motion.

Aside from that, let me just make the point that this resolution is about celebrating the release of Peter Greste; it is to commend his family on their courage, resilience and grace for the more than 400 days in which he was held; it is to commend our consular officials—Justin Brown and Ambassador Ralph King—for their work; it is to thank the Egyptian president for his role; and it is to seek the release of his colleagues. This is a very important motion and one in which I think it is our parliament at its very best, when we can agree on a motion in this form.

I was delighted when it was announced that his appeal had been successful and that then, because of the president's intervention, he was able to be returned to Australia. I was particularly impressed with the way in which his family—his parents, Juris and Lois, and his brothers, Mike and Andrew—supported him as he was detained for so long.

But I think it is important to acknowledge what the government was able to do. It has to be understood in context, because all too often we have consular issues raised with us where Australians abroad find themselves in difficulties—and we want to help our Australians. If you are in a country where the law is not as you understand it here, you can sometimes find yourself inveigled into legal proceedings which are difficult to resolve and where we cannot interfere because foreign legal processes are independent. We would not entertain foreign governments interfering in our processes and it is very difficult for us to do so in theirs.

But the government did conduct a campaign of targeted advocacy. The representations included approaches by the Prime Minister, the foreign minister, the Attorney-General, the Australian Ambassador to Egypt and other senior DFAT officials. The foreign minister made numerous representations. She spoke several times to her counterpart and she also wrote to him. She had been in touch with his predecessor and she raised the case with the Egyptian ambassador here in Australia—as, I might say, did many of us, because we had the opportunity from time to time in some of our structured arrangements to be able to make representation. The Prime Minister made personal approaches to the president as well as to his predecessor during the trial and after the initial conviction. The Attorney-General spoke to his counterpart, the Egyptian Minister for Justice. So I think it is important to recognise that there was a very positive role played within the limits that do exist as to how far you can go when it involves a foreign government.

I have always been particularly impressed with the way in which Australian officials work. I have a case involving a difficulty at the moment in Kenya and I know that the high commission is taking a very considerable interest in it and pressing to try to have the matter resolved. It was important that we recognise that our officials raised this case persistently and constantly, and did so in a way which maintained our capacity to have an ongoing dialogue. I am delighted that his release has been obtained. I thank all of those who were able to achieve it. And, as I said, when the parliament agrees on the terms of a resolution likes this and supports it fully then the parliament is at its best.

See this speech in context