David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Gellibrand proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The importance, on the fourth annual World Day Against the Death Penalty, for Australia to continue to advocate strongly and consistently for the abolition of the death penalty, and for the promotion of human rights both at home and abroad.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to be able to speak to this motion which I think is very important for the parliament to debate. I was hoping that, given the nature of this debate, members opposite would also be supportive of the terms of it—given that Australia has been an abolitionist country for my entire life. The last man who was hanged in Australia was, I think, hanged two months before I was born. So Australia has not used the death penalty as a sanction against its own people for nearly 40 years. I think it is very important that we put on the record today—when there is action being taken all around the world in opposition to the death penalty—that although we are a country that does not use the death penalty any longer, we want to advocate for its abolition in other countries.

Obviously we need to be consistent in arguing not only that there should not be a death penalty in Australia but also that other countries around the world should not use this inhumane, degrading and barbaric form of punishment. We need to be able to argue on behalf of Australians who might have committed offences elsewhere that they should not be subject to the death penalty. I think it is important that this parliament note today that we not only advocate consistently on behalf of our own citizens; we also think that countries in our region and elsewhere around the world should abolish the death penalty for their own citizens as well as for any of ours who might be caught in their laws.

Both of the major parties in this country have had a longstanding opposition to the death penalty. We signed the international protocol many years ago, but it has not yet been passed into domestic law. I hope that the government will consider, in addition to a number of other issues that I want to raise today, whether some action can be taken to pass that convention into our domestic laws to make sure that, once and for all, Australia will never be able to reintroduce the death penalty.

I think members of this House would be aware that there are a vast number of countries that still do use the death penalty. There are 68 countries in the world that still use the death penalty for some offences, and 15 of those countries are in our region. It is a large number of countries. Those countries in our region also, unfortunately, have some of the highest rates of execution. It is something that we should engage with as a matter of interest in our region, not only for our own people but also for citizens of the world and for citizens of our Asian region.

One of the reasons that I wanted to have this debate today—and some people in the House would be aware of this—is that over recent years, unfortunately, a few comments have been made that are quite inconsistent with what we in the parliament think about the death penalty. I might say that on this issue both the Attorney-General, who is at the table, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs—who are the people most commonly asked about this issue—have had a longstanding opposition to the death penalty. They have spoken on it in many places. They have advocated on behalf of our citizens, they have been members of Amnesty International and they have supported calls for the death penalty to be abolished.

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister’s record is not so clear on this—and, unfortunately, neither is the record of the previous Leader of the Opposition, the former member for Werriwa. We had a situation several years ago where both the Prime Minister and the then Leader of the Opposition made some comments which might have sent mixed messages to the community about how we feel about the death penalty. So it is timely today, when the abolition of the death penalty is being called for in many other countries and parliaments around the world, that we, as the Australian parliament, reaffirm our commitment—I am hoping it is across the parliament—that the death penalty is not an appropriate form of punishment, no matter what the offence, no matter how great the anger and no matter how much distress people may feel about the offences that people have been involved in.

I do not think it is an easy thing to do in some situations, particularly when people look at the sorts of offences that have been committed. Of course, everybody on this side of the House would understand the inclination of those whose family members or loved ones might have been killed in the Bali bombings. Everyone understands the calls that people make in Iraq for Saddam Hussein to be executed. Everybody understands the entirely natural feeling of people whose families might have been affected by their loved ones falling victim to the drug trade and perhaps becoming addicts as a result of others who have been trafficking. All of those emotions are entirely justifiable and deserving of our sympathy. But we need to be able to say that nothing will be cured for those affected in this way if we advocate the death penalty. Nothing will be cured for those affected if we say that state sanctioned murder is a way of dealing with those people or bringing those people under our control.

We can of course say respectfully that we understand that other countries’ judicial processes need to be followed. But, at the same time, I think we need to be more consistent and more prepared to argue against the death penalty in other countries in our region—not just for Australians but also for others who are affected by those laws.

Have a look at the situation that we face at the moment. There are eight Australians currently on death row in China, Indonesia and Vietnam and another person has murder charges pending in Uganda, where the death penalty is available. This is something that we are going to have to deal with in the very near future. It is something that has been in our community and has been debated in recent times. We need this government—and it will be able to do it with our support—to take a more active and consistent role in expressing Australia’s opposition to the death penalty and to take the opportunity to use that as an initiative within our region.

I draw the House’s attention to an excellent paper that was written by Michael Fullilove, of the Lowy Institute. He argues that capital punishment should be an Australian foreign policy issue. I quote from his paper:

The best position from which to petition foreign governments on behalf of our nationals is that of consistent and strong opposition to the death penalty regardless of the nationality of the condemned. Such a stance would enable the government to deal with the issue positively and continually, rather than negatively and sporadically. It would increase the momentum to universal prohibition and bullet-proof us against claims of hypocrisy.

In this very important paper, he goes on to set out a range of initiatives that we could undertake within the region to try to further this issue. For example, he thinks that we could argue for countries that are already de facto abolitionist countries, such as Sri Lanka—which really does not use the death penalty, although it is still on its statute books—to take the next step and abolish the death penalty from their statute books. He thinks that we could call on countries in our region to announce a moratorium on executions and that we could call on these countries to restrict the numbers and types of offences for which capital punishment is imposed. He thinks that we could call on these countries to abolish mandatory death penalties like that imposed on Mr Nguyen, who was executed in Singapore last year; and there is a range of other things.

It is important for us to look at these practical initiatives, because this is not just something that we in this parliament want to say that we oppose; we have to say what further action could be taken. Can we make sure that we implement into our domestic law some clear statement that will make sure that there will never be a death penalty reintroduced in Australia? Can we express that view of the parliament more consistently by arguing within our region, as part of our foreign policy, that these sanctions should be removed not just against Australians when they are caught up in a foreign jurisdiction but also against all people, whether they live in Indonesia, China or any of the 68 countries that continue to have the death penalty?

Although I want to place on the record my clear acknowledgement and understanding that the Attorney and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have in the past had a very strong record on this issue, part of the reason that I am particularly concerned to debate this issue today is that we are fearful that the minister at the table, the Attorney, has been making a habit recently of walking away from some longstanding commitments in the human rights area.

The Attorney—who is sitting at the table and has on his Amnesty International badge—has been on the record many times saying that he is absolutely committed to the abolition of the death penalty and expressing his opposition to torture and other things, but then we have him in the media saying that he does not think sleep deprivation is torture. And not only does he not think sleep deprivation is torture but he also had the gall to say that he had never heard it put that way by anybody before, which seems fairly extraordinary to me.

Although the Attorney and I have disagreed on a number of things on many occasions, I generally had the view that the Attorney was relatively well informed. I find it surprising that the Attorney would not be aware that the KGB uses sleep deprivation as a type of torture during interrogations. I am also surprised that the Attorney does not know that South Africa, in its period of apartheid, used sleep deprivation as a type of torture. I also think the Japanese prisoners of war might have a view on this, as would people like the former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin. He wrote about his experience of being tortured by the KGB and the impact that it had when he was deprived of sleep. He said:

In the head of the interrogated prisoner a haze begins to form. His spirit is wearied to death, his legs are unsteady, and he has one sole desire: to sleep ... Anyone who has experienced this desire knows that not even hunger or thirst are comparable with it.

He also talks about the hallucinations, the paranoia, the disorientation and other things that people suffer if they are subject to sleep deprivation.

I am hoping—I am trying to be kind here, although it is occasionally difficult with the Attorney—that, in making these comments in Washington, the Attorney was perhaps suffering from some jet-lag himself. He may have been sleep deprived! It may be that he made that comment without fully thinking that he was being quite inappropriately dismissive of what can be a very serious form of torture. I have called on him to retract that comment. If he is going to continue to stand here—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Gellibrand will address the chair and not use personal pronouns.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I think it is in order for me to ask, through you, for the Attorney to retract that comment. It does the history of his party and this parliament a great disservice to have that on the record, and it does Amnesty International a great disservice for the Attorney to stand up here and debate this with his badge on. Some of these commitments to human rights have had cross-party support for a long period of time. Australians have been able to be proud of the commitment that we have to human rights, and I am concerned that he is so prepared to walk away from it. I am hoping that it was just a mistake. I am hoping that he was jet-lagged. I am hoping that he did not intend to make that comment.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The personal pronoun is coming through again.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are another few areas where the minister’s record is more than questionable. One of them—again it goes to core human rights issues—is free speech. In Australia we pride ourselves on having a robust democracy. We think that people should be able to criticise the government and should be able to argue their political views peacefully. We in this parliament know the ridiculous position we were put in when this Attorney forced the House to vote for sedition laws that he knew were out of date, ill-conceived and ill-suited to do the job of actually targeting those who are causing violence within our community. Now the Law Reform Commission has agreed with us—not surprisingly, as everyone else in the country except the Attorney thought these sedition laws were a joke. And now the Law Reform Commission has said as much.

The Law Reform Commission, which was asked to do the serious job that the Attorney would not allow this parliament to do when we were debating these laws, has come up with a range of recommendations. The Attorney has already said he will not consider the two most important ones. He is not prepared to look at intention being a component. The only conclusion that I can draw from this is that the Attorney is determined to keep the media, journalists, artists, academics and others clearly within the government’s sights. He is not prepared to say that we should make sure that those people are protected within our democracy and that peaceful criticism or satire is protected. Imagine there being satire of the Attorney. I am sure that no-one really serious about their artistic worth would be doing that, but they might want to, and it is the sort of thing that in a democracy we should be prepared to support.

Interestingly, one of the other things that the Attorney has said is that the greatest protection against sedition laws being abused in a country like ours is that the Attorney has to consent to any sedition prosecution being brought. Is that a great relief to anybody on this side of the House? The most politicised Attorney-General of our history is going to be the person who has to consent, and he has the audacity to say that that is a safeguard in our system.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Albanese interjecting

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is ridiculous. I hope that on more reflection the Attorney may change his mind. Maybe his backbench, who were so concerned about sedition and free speech when we debated these laws six, seven or eight months ago, might be pressuring him again to reconsider that.

Last but not least, what about one of the other things that we think is a human right in Australia, which is the right to a fair trial? What about the right to not be detained time and time again—maybe for five years, for example? What about freedom from arbitrary detention? We have an Australian citizen in Guantanamo Bay whom, I agree, not many people in this House or elsewhere in the community have much sympathy for. But we do not have to have sympathy for people to demand that they are entitled to a fair trial, that they are entitled to be detained and charged in a proper way, not— (Time expired)

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for Gellibrand for giving us an opportunity today to support—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Albanese interjecting

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Grayndler is now warned!

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

a discussion on ‘the importance, on the fourth annual World Day Against the Death Penalty, for Australia to continue to advocate strongly and consistently for the abolition of the death penalty, and for the promotion of human rights both at home and abroad’. I support the MPI in the terms offered. I cannot support all the comments made by the member for Gellibrand as she spoke to it, and I am a touch disappointed that, in the context of the traditional police courts, she has sought to verbal me in relation to a number of matters that have been raised. I will deal with those in time—perhaps not at length, because I think it is more important to speak to the substance.

Let me make it very clear that the Australian government has not changed its longstanding policy of opposition to the death penalty. We are a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its second optional protocol, which requires Australia to abolish the death penalty in its jurisdiction and to ensure that no-one within its jurisdiction is subject to the death penalty. Australia is committed to the principles espoused in the protocol and has supported international actions aimed at abolishing the death penalty or establishing a moratorium on executions. Australia complies with its international obligations in this regard, and each jurisdiction in Australia has independently and separately abolished the death penalty. It has not been used since 1967, as was mentioned by the member for Gellibrand. It was outlawed under Commonwealth law, for Commonwealth offences, in 1973. It has been formally abolished by all jurisdictions in Australia. The last state to abolish it was New South Wales, in 1985.

There is no suggestion that action is required from the Australian government to ensure the continuity of this position. I heard no evidence of that today. Under the Constitution, the Commonwealth has no specific power to deal with criminal matters. This means the states deal with most criminal matters, including crimes such as rape and murder, and part of this responsibility includes sentencing. As there are no proposals by any government to reinstate the death penalty, further Australian government legislation is, in my submission, not necessary.

Contrary to the suggestions by some, the Australian government supports international action encouraging states to either abolish the death penalty or, as an interim measure, establish a moratorium on executions. The Australian government has supported resolutions to this effect at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The Australian government has made representations against the death penalty to countries which maintain it and it will continue to do so.

The fundamental difficulty with the death penalty is that, it being a final remedy, an innocent person has no chance for corrective action once a sentence has been carried out. The Australian government acknowledges that it is an unacceptable method to use to punish criminal offenders and continues to express this view internationally. We are committed to the principles espoused by the second optional protocol and encourage its universal ratification.

It was in this regard that, when I was in the Philippines recently, I was able to commend those ministers who were party to ensuring that the death penalty was abolished in the Philippines. But obviously we do recognise that the right of sovereign countries to pass judgements in relation to crimes committed within their jurisdictions means that they make decisions on those matters, and that can involve the death penalty. That is one of the reasons we continue to press for change. But we cannot enforce change.

Some have raised the issue of what Australia should be doing about its own nationals. Australia has been very active in cases where an Australian citizen is sentenced to death overseas, and we will always make representations or seek clemency on their behalf. This is consistent with us having abolished the death penalty as a punishment in our own territory, and it is consistent with our government’s consular responsibility to assist our nationals where their lives are at risk. The important point I will make is that we have continued to do this—in some cases successfully; in others, unfortunately, not so.

We made representations, for instance, to the Vietnamese President earlier this year, who decided to commute the death sentence for two Australians, following our representations. It is regrettable in the case of Van Nguyen that, prior to his execution on 2 December 2005, notwithstanding representations at the highest level by numbers of ministers, including me, and our efforts to convince it to act to the contrary, Singapore continued to proceed to an execution.

In relation to the Bali nine, the Prime Minister has indicated publicly that we would seek clemency if they were found guilty and the death penalty was imposed. I make the point that in relation to that matter the courts are still hearing those appeals. As I understand it, none of those are yet final. We will, of course, at the appropriate time, as we have made abundantly clear, represent each of them in seeking clemency if the government of Indonesia continues a course that might involve execution.

Let me just say that I too have been aware from time to time of comments that have been made that some have characterised as being perhaps more supportive of Australians than necessarily others in other jurisdictions. The member for Gellibrand was quick to make her comments in relation to the Prime Minister—and her former leader, whom she sought to walk away from. I would just like to ask her whether she intends to walk away from the present leader, because, on 10 September 2006, in a Meet the Press interview, Mr Beazley had this to say. Greg Turnbull said that we have a problem internationally in that we have been ‘seen to be seeking clemency for our own people but barracking for the executions in relation to the Bali bombers’. Mr Beazley responded:

I think there’s issues here of proportionality. I think we’re here dealing with Australian citizens who are facing the death penalty. We’re here to argue their particular case, and that’s what we’re trying to do or about to do.

I simply make the point that, if we are going to turn it into a political debate, I would have thought that there would be an element of consistency.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can’t come up with anything better than that?

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You mean there are other comments I should have found? Let me continue to the observations in relation to me, on which she could not help herself. Quite frankly, I try to enjoy a good relationship with the shadow Attorney.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, you don’t.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I try.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We do not need any chatter across the table.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not seek to personalise debates in this place in relation to her. She might like to seek out each occasion on which I have personalised debates in relation to her. If she is able to find them, I would be happy to reconsider what I might have said.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like the Attorney not to use the personal pronoun.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be happy to continue to refer to the member for Gellibrand. In the United States I was recently explaining the law passed by the congress of the United States in relation to military commissions. I outlined fully my understanding of what the United States has done in its law. The legislation there makes it clear that evidence obtained by torture will not be admitted in a military commission process. It is important to understand that they also defined in some general terms common article 3 of the Geneva conventions, by which they have agreed to be bound. But the issue as to what constitutes torture will be left to the military commissions to determine, taking into account the totality of circumstances.

They have other provisions that deal with evidence of a different character, and that is evidence that was obtained by coercion. The question of the degree of coercion which may be admitted, if a judge finds it to be reliable or probative and in the interests of justice, was the matter that I was addressing. It is quite clear, if you look at statements obtained after 30 December 2005 in the United States military commission process, that there is now an additional requirement that interrogation methods do not amount to ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment’ as prohibited under United States law. It will ultimately be a matter for a judge to determine the totality of the circumstances.

I was asked a question in relation to what might constitute torture. Let me give you my answer. Torture, in my view, is where a person commits or conspires to commit an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon another person within his custody or physical control. If people want to get into the business of what is behaviour of that sort—that which is inflicting severe physical or mental pain or suffering—let them define what that behaviour is. If it is sleep deprivation per se without any other acts involved—and the member suggested that I might have been sleep deprived when I made these statements—then clearly that does not constitute torture. But it can constitute torture—

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Finally—it can.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, it can constitute torture if it is linked with other behaviour that constitutes—

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Roxon interjecting

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Gellibrand is warned!

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

as I said, acts which are intended to inflict physical or mental pain or suffering. All of the examples that I have heard which people have used to try and condemn me as condoning torture—

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Including POWs.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. All of those examples have involved additional acts. That is the only point I make. Interestingly, I found recently a quote by somebody whom the member for Gellibrand would probably want to eulogise, and that is the former President of the United States, Bill Clinton. At the University of Berkeley, when he spoke at Zellerbach Hall, he said: ‘I’ve spent 30 years sleep deprived and I’ve got used to it.’ The only point that I am making is that sleep deprivation per se, without further steps, is not necessarily torture. I was speaking about these issues in a context in which I made it clear that torture was specifically outlawed under the military commission process. Even further, if it were coercive, it would have to be judged in terms of its probative value.

There were some other issues on which I have been verballed today by the member for Gellibrand. Let me make this point: I support freedom of speech. But, like every human right, it is not absolute. I have talked about these matters before. Some people assert particular human rights as if they are more absolute than others. The fact is, in dealing with terrorism, governments have a responsibility to protect people’s rights to life, safety and security. But that may mean that you have to put some limit on people’s freedom of movement or on what they might say. In the sedition laws we certainly did put limits upon those who were going to incite others to carry out acts of violence.

In relation to these matters, it is very interesting—particularly when I get into the question of classification powers, about what may be published or not published—to find that there are those who are quick to say that the Attorney is involved in restricting people’s freedom of speech and burning books if I act against books which might encourage people to carry out terrorist acts. But I tell you that it surprises me quite frequently how many people come forward and say that if a book is encouraging people to break another law—say, the one about graffiti—then we ought to have much more vigilant provisions to deal with that. Recently, I found that they make the same point about the conduct of people in relation to schools. I am sorry that this debate, which is a very important debate, has been demeaned by the way in which the question was argued. (Time expired)

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 30 November 2005, an impressive cross-section of Australians gathered on the lawns in front of Parliament House to call for leniency for convicted drug smuggler Van Nguyen, not because any of us there sympathised with his crime but because we were and remain genuinely opposed to the death sentence. It was particularly moving to hear the speech of Brian Deegan, whose son died in the Sari Club blast. He repeated his earlier eloquent opposition to the death penalty, including for Amrozi, who has been convicted for his involvement in that terrible massacre. It is by that standard that those who claim to be opposed to the death penalty should be judged.

Opposition to capital punishment is like advocacy for other civil liberties: the genuine test of commitment is what we advocate for the worst of us—what we say about the hard cases, not the easy ones. I found a very interesting quote from former United States Supreme Court judge Felix Frankfurter, who said:

It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.

That is essentially right. The progress is made when we are prepared to stand up for civil liberties in unpopular circumstances. It was not hard in Australia to stand up against capital punishment for Van Nguyen. I am not critical of the Australian government for its defence of him. I, like many of the ministers, sought to intercede on his behalf with friends of mine in the government and parliament of Singapore and made no progress because they were committed and determined. But it is hard to do it for Amrozi, and that is what is important.

Let me quote from the member for Griffith’s recent excellent article in the Monthly magazine. He posed his argument on Christian principles, which I do not hold—I am not a religious person. But he said:

We must conclude that capital punishment is unacceptable in all circumstances and in all jurisdictions.

That is what I have always thought Australia’s position was. That is what I have always thought that all governments in Australia have advocated. But that has been compromised by recent equivocation by the Australian government on this matter.

I will quote Michelle Grattan, who talked about this in an edition of the Age in September of this year. To some extent, this article refers to the Michael Fullilove essay to which the member for Gellibrand so correctly referred earlier, because it is an excellent essay. Michelle Grattan said:

It is very hard for the Australian Government to ask for clemency except on straight special pleading grounds. Australia would be better armed in such situations if internationally it argued the general anti-capital punishment case more robustly.

In a recent Lowy Institute paper, Capital Punishment and Australian Foreign Policy, Michael Fullilove observes that while Australia “engages in modest advocacy” against the death penalty, most of Canberra’s work is on behalf of individual Australians.

Australia has a double problem: “Australian diplomacy is making little progress toward universal abolition, a bipartisan national policy; and our bilateral relationships are being damaged because of our perceived hypocrisy on the issue.”

The PM’s selectivity has made Australia appear hypocritical. Howard, while declaring himself an opponent of capital punishment, has made it clear he’s happy enough for the death penalty to be applied to the Bali bombers. He declared in early 2003 that there “won’t be any protest from Australia” against the death sentence.

…       …            …

Fullilove urges Australian leaders to bring consistency to their rhetoric, and also suggests Australia should initiate a regional coalition against capital punishment.

It is to that point about the regional coalition that I now turn, because if you want to build a national campaign you need to advocate on the basis of a strong and consistent principle. We will be more effective in our advocacy on behalf of Australians if we are consistent. We will have more chance of succeeding diplomatically if we are consistent. And if those reasons are not powerful enough, it just happens to be the right thing to do.

The prospect of a successful campaign is not without encouraging signs at the moment. Over half the countries in the world have now abolished the death penalty in law or in practice—86 countries for all crimes; 11 for all but exceptional crimes, such as those committed during wartime; and 25 which can be considered abolitionist in practice, for, while they retain the death penalty, it has not been enforced for 10 or more years. That makes a total of 122 countries in law or practice, and since 1990 over 40 countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes.

We cannot expect that it will all happen immediately, that it will all happen overnight. It will take a lot of very hard work. But the signs are encouraging in another matter to which the Attorney referred, which is the initiative by the Philippines to abolish the death penalty. I greatly welcome that. The Philippines abolished the death penalty in 1987—they were the first country to do so—but it was reintroduced until 2000, when former President Estrada announced a moratorium. President Arroyo has continued that practice through her presidency. She advocated that the Philippines congress should pass a law abolishing the death penalty, which it recently did, and I greatly welcome that.

It is very important that we look at building a campaign, particularly in our region—not because the death penalty is more important in our region than in other countries like the United States but because we have the capacity to more effectively campaign in this region. It is where our diplomatic resources are, it is where our influence is the greatest and it is of course where Australians are most prone to getting into trouble as a result of the death penalty in some of our neighbouring countries.

We must start to seek to encourage more countries in our region to sign up to the second optional protocol. It is a top priority foreign policy initiative that any Australian government should adopt. But we have no chance of succeeding if we advocate clemency for Australians but different standards for everybody else, if we advocate an abolition of the death penalty every time it is easy and equivocate every time it is hard. That is the direction in which we have been going, and we must stop.

We cannot expect other countries to take us seriously if we say, ‘You shouldn’t hang Australians but it’s all right to hang everybody else.’ That is not a tenable position. Clearly, diplomatically, it cannot succeed. Can you imagine going in to argue in the halls of the countries in which we have to do this advocacy, they having seen our Prime Minister equivocate about the question of the death penalty being applied to Indonesians, and seeking to convince the Indonesians that we are consistent and proud of our policy of being opposed to the death penalty?

It would be a difficult domestic political position to argue, I know, but we are elected to this parliament with responsibilities to lead, not just to follow. Consistently, for at least four decades, political leaders in Australia of all political parties have led on the issue of capital punishment. They have had the capacity and the courage to say, ‘We know there are many Australians who do not agree with us but we will not tolerate the death penalty in Australia and we do not support it anywhere else.’ That is a standard to which we need to return.

There is in this debate a general theme of civil liberties. I do not want to refer to it too much; I want to concentrate mainly on the death penalty issue, and it was covered very adequately by the member for Gellibrand. But I do want to say something briefly about two matters to do with David Hicks. I have spoken about David Hicks in this parliament before. He has been incarcerated for five years, and it appals me that Australia applies lower standards in the defence and advocacy of the rights of our citizens than any other Western country with regard to this matter. The standards that are being applied to David Hicks cannot apply to UK citizens, because the British government will not allow it.

What is more appalling is that the American government will not apply this standard to their citizens. When US citizens were charged with offences in Afghanistan, they were tried in open court—and they should have been. As my recollection goes, they were found guilty and sentenced, but they were tried properly. Why can that same standard not be applied to Australians and why can the Australian government not get the courage to argue for it? This is not a matter for sharp partisan political tricks, clever weasel words or dog whistles in the hope of rustling up a few votes in Australia. This is a matter, as I said, on which those of us with the privilege of being elected to this place are called upon to lead.

Over three or four decades all our political leaders, irrespective of political persuasion, have shown that lead. It is a cause of regret to me that that leadership appears to be missing in the Australian government today. I hope and trust the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General can find it in their hearts to rise above the temptations of the short-term partisan advantage and return Australia to a principled leadership on this issue. (Time expired)

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am also pleased to rise in support of the general terms of the MPI that is before the House this afternoon:

The importance, on the fourth annual World Day Against the Death Penalty, for Australia to continue to advocate strongly and consistently for the abolition of the death penalty, and for the promotion of human rights both at home and abroad.

I am pleased that the matter of public importance takes note of the continuation of the strong advocacy and the consistency of this advocacy under all three major political parties in this chamber. As a nation, and as a people, we have a proud track record of being advocates in opposition to capital punishment and of being advocates in support of fundamental and basic human rights.

Indeed, in speaking in the chamber today, I am proud of the fact that the party that I represent has as its bedrock individual rights and the concerns of individuals over those of the collective and over those of the state. I have argued in my party room and in other Liberal Party fora that I believe those who are concerned with human rights and matters such as capital punishment can take stock of the Liberal Party as being the natural party to advocate for such positions. However, I do not intend to dwell on partisan areas. I simply highlight this as a matter of track record.

In speaking on the matter of public importance that is before the House today, I am mindful of the fact that Australia has had, for some 40-odd years now, a proud tradition of being opposed to the death penalty. We are a signatory to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights and its second optional protocol, which requires Australia to abolish the death penalty in its jurisdiction and ensure that no-one within its jurisdiction is subject to the death penalty. In fact, in this country each jurisdiction has, independently and separately, abolished the death penalty. It has not been used in Australia since 1967. It was formally abolished by all jurisdictions, with the last state, New South Wales, abolishing the death penalty in 1985.

I am mindful of the fact that opposition to capital punishment and to the death penalty is not universal. I am also mindful of the fact that there are a substantive number of Australians who would be in support of the reintroduction of capital punishment. That is not my personal point of view, and I would suggest that it is not the point of view of the majority of members who make up the House of Representatives. Notwithstanding that, in being an advocate for opposition to capital punishment, I need to provide sound reasons and arguments as to why I hold the position that I hold.

I understand comprehensively that some Australians would take the view that the Bali bombers, for example, deserve to be sentenced to death. Again, it is not a point of view that I share. Notwithstanding that, those of us who stand opposed to capital punishment must be strong advocates for why we are opposed to it. That advocacy must rise above mere examples of saying, ‘Well, because it’s right.’ The basis on which we hold the position that all of us have been talking about today must be promulgated in such a way as to compel other Australians to join us.

In the same way that we must meet that test within Australia, we as a nation must also meet that test internationally. We sit in a region of the world in which there are a number of countries that still maintain, in active service and on their books, the death penalty. In the last 10 years, in a number of countries we have seen the successful abolition of the death penalty. Cambodia, Nepal, Timor-Leste, Bhutan and recently the Philippines—to which the Attorney-General made reference—have all, in the last 10 years, abolished the death penalty. I am certainly very pleased about that.

As a nation we have work to do with our other surrounding neighbours, in highlighting to them what we believe to be the inadequacies involved in maintaining the death penalty on their books. But that is a dialogue that I believe needs to be put strongly with the passage of time. I am also mindful of the fact that many nations hold the view—in their view legitimately—that the death penalty is something which they as sovereign states have the right to impose. So our advocacy, in the first instance, must surely involve protecting what we believe are the fundamental rights of Australians who may be sentenced to death in other nations.

This government has a very proud record of doing just that—as, indeed, have governments of other political persuasions in Australia’s history. There have been many instances when the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow minister for foreign affairs and others have highlighted to foreign governments our belief that the death penalty is the wrong outcome. The government’s policy is that we will always make representations and seek clemency on behalf of any Australians who are sentenced to death. That stands as an absolute. Notwithstanding that, the second priority for this government and for the opposition, in opposing capital punishment, will be to start to address the matter of other foreign nationals who may be sentenced to death, and highlighting the reasons why we believe they should not be so sentenced.

In taking up that argument, we must be mindful of the fact that within those sovereign states it is the view of their governments—and most often it will be a duly elected government—that the death penalty should remain. Whether it is a country such as Indonesia, which actively practises the death penalty, or a great democracy such as the United States, we must be mindful of the fact that that remains as a legitimate point of view in their law. Therefore, while I note the arguments that the opposition have put forward regarding the position that the Prime Minister has taken, I do not agree with them. I believe it is only natural for the government, the Prime Minister and others to say that our first priority is to act as an advocate in seeking clemency for Australians who are detained abroad and who are facing the death penalty. Our second priority is to then look at persuading sovereign governments in other jurisdictions that they should change their policy. They are distinct priorities, and I think it is justifiable that they remain distinct.

In the few minutes remaining to me, I turn to a second area covered in the matter of public importance that is before the House today which other speakers have not really touched upon—that is, the notion of human rights. I have mentioned in this House my belief in a bill of rights, so I am pleased to speak about what I believe to be the fundamental and inherent right of all Australians to have human rights—subject, of course, to the need for the state to be able to function with peace, order and good government.

Australia, under both political parties, has a proud track record of protecting and promoting human rights. We certainly take human rights and our obligations under international covenants and under our own laws very seriously. Domestically, the government has consistently stood by the rights and responsibilities of all Australians under federal antidiscrimination laws and ensured that legislation and programs comply with those laws. In addition, the government has taken many major and far-reaching initiatives in the area. Significant among them are the Age Discrimination Act 2004; standards that we have developed for transport and education for those with disabilities; the improvement of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 to clarify protections that are provided and afforded to pregnant women; as well as developing Australia’s national framework for human rights, the national action plan.

Internationally, Australia has a very long tradition of supporting human rights around the world and was closely involved in the development of the international human rights system from its inception. For example, we contributed to the crucial negotiations on the UN charter to ensure that human rights were placed alongside peace, security and development as the primary objectives of the United Nations. We also participated in the eight-member committee charged with drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Our heritage in this regard is long and very proud, and I am certainly pleased to be part of a people and of a nation that will continue this advocacy both for human rights and in opposition to the death penalty.

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The discussion has concluded.