Alan Cadman (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the House:

(1)

notes the maturing relationship between Vietnam and Australia, the high-level contacts between Prime Ministers, Australia’s development cooperation program of approximately $81 million per year and the strong people-to-people links;

(2)

notes continuing international concern about human rights issues in Vietnam, including gaoling, administrative detention and harassment of human rights activists for their advocacy of democracy and religious freedom;

(3)

notes the importance of addressing the cases of individuals such as The Most Venerable Thich Quang Do and Thich Huyen Quang, Hoa Hao Elder Mr Le Quang Liem, Pastor Nguyen Cong Chinh, Dr Pham Hong Son, journalists Nguyen Khac Toan and Hguyen Vu Binh and many ethnic Montagnard people such as Siu Boch, A Brih and Y Tim Bya;

(4)

calls on the Vietnamese Government to observe its international obligations on human rights, including the provision of free and fair elections; and

(5)

notes the Australian Government’s active support for, and promotion of, democratic freedoms and human rights in Vietnam, including through the annual human rights dialogue and other cooperation programs, and encourages the Government to continue these efforts.

The motion I have moved notes the maturing relationship between Australia and Vietnam and the high-level contacts we have had but also notes the international concern regarding human rights in Vietnam and mentions the importance of addressing individual cases in line with the international understanding of human rights and the treatment of individuals. It calls on the Vietnamese government to observe certain international obligations and notes the Australian government’s support for the improvement in governance and the promotion of democratic freedoms and human rights in Vietnam.

It is 30 years since the first Vietnamese refugees arrived in Australia, and now 177,000 Vietnamese people make a wonderful contribution to Australia. Over those 30 years, the Soviet Union has changed; it has become democratic, broken up and taken a new form. China is changing quickly. This motion is about the slowness of change in Vietnam. Whilst there is progress, it is not fast enough. Although there have been the changes I have mentioned, there need to be more. The warm relationship between Vietnam and Australia is a maturing relationship, as witnessed by the Prime Minister’s visit to Vietnam and Prime Minister Khai’s visit to Australia. This motion also relates to Australia’s aid program, the development cooperation between Australia and Vietnam of $81 million per annum, and the consistent economic growth and entry into the World Trade Organisation by Vietnam. But this motion relates very strongly to the failure of Vietnam in so many ways to pick up some of the basic tenets of an open and free democracy.

The statement by what has come to be known as Bloc 8406, made on 8 April 2006, was a statement made by 118 democracy activists within Vietnam. What those activists spoke about was the need for change in Vietnam. They were brave and courageous people to make this public statement. The four basic tenets that this group of 118 freedom-loving individuals based their statement on were, firstly, the need for freedom of information and opinion, as defined by the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; secondly, freedom to assemble, form associations, political parties, vote and stand for elected offices; thirdly, freedom to participate in independent labour unions and the right to legitimate strikes; and, fourthly, freedom of religion, as defined by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

In my motion are the names of a number of leading Buddhists who have been imprisoned or confined in movement by the Vietnamese regime. The Reporters Without Borders worldwide press freedom index released on 23 October this year says that, out of the 168 countries surveyed, Vietnam ranks within the bottom 20 for the basic freedoms of religion, expression and association. It is with sadness that I report that the Most Venerable Thich Quang Do, leader of the Unified Vietnamese Buddhist Congregation, who has been awarded an important international prize for human rights, was so concerned for his own safety that he was not prepared to leave Vietnam in case he was never allowed back there to lead his people. That is a tragic circumstance by anybody’s standards. In closing these brief remarks, I refer to a statement by Dr Tien Nguyen, the federal president of the Vietnamese Community of Australia, who said, ‘We applaud our PM’s firm stand regarding anti-corruption measures and good governance required of our aid recipients’. (Time expired)

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

Is the motion seconded?

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion. I second it because I welcome any opportunity to make a contribution to the case for human rights in Vietnam. I do not second it without reservation—I support a motion more strongly worded—but I do welcome the opportunity provided by the honourable member for Mitchell to put on record our support for improved human rights in Vietnam. It is on that basis that I second the motion.

There are 83 million people living in Vietnam—83 million people who do not have the basic rights that the rest of us have and who deserve better. As the honourable member for Mitchell referred to, on 8 April this year, 118 Vietnamese citizens signed the 2006 democracy manifesto. Now over 1,000 Vietnamese citizens have signed that manifesto. These brave individuals deserve to be recognised in this House. It is easy for us to raise human rights from the privilege of this House; it is courageous for them to do so. I have had the privilege of attending a number of functions—as, I think, has the honourable member for Fowler—where there have been live radio crosses to some of those individuals who have signed the manifesto, and it has been an honour and a privilege to be present to hear them directly.

This movement is redolent of charter 77 of the solidarity of movements that eventually brought democracy to their countries. On Wednesday this week members and senators will have the opportunity to support an open letter expressing support for the manifesto for democracy and calling on the Vietnamese government to allow for calls for democracy without persecution. A similar letter was recently circulated through the United States Congress and 50 congressmen and senators signed that open letter. I encourage all members and senators to come at 11 o’clock to the ceremony, where we are invited on a bipartisan basis to sign that open letter.

The recent APEC summit was an opportunity to highlight the case for human rights in Vietnam. The Prime Minister indicated to the Vietnamese community in Australia that he would raise the issue of human rights during his visit. I am not sure if he did, but I accept that he indicated that he would. It is a case which needs to be highlighted. Transparency International has rated the Vietnamese government as 102nd out of the 146 nations and rated it amongst the four worst in Asia in relation to corruption. As the honourable member for Mitchell referred to, Reporters Without Borders has rated Vietnam as one of the worst nations in the world for transparency and freedom of speech.

Some signatories to Bloc 8406 have been imprisoned, placed under house arrest or had their movement monitored, as others have. For example, there is the case of Nguyen Vu Binh, who is serving a seven-year sentence after submitting written evidence to the United States Congress about breaches of human rights. This is somebody serving seven years in prison for reporting to the Congress of the United States—that is, of course, outrageous. The United States House Committee on International Relations wrote in its most recent report:

The government continued to pressure, harass, and imprison persons for the peaceful expression of dissenting religious and political views.

In recent years, Vietnam has embraced economic reform, but economic reform without political reform is not enough. On every test, Vietnam fails—lack of freedom of speech, lack of freedom of religion, lack of freedom of association, lack of freedom of assembly and lack of freedom of political expression. The United States House of Representatives committee which I referred to identified 17 separate areas of concern in relation to human rights in Vietnam.

This motion calls on the Australian government to continue its efforts to promote human rights in Vietnam, and of course we should. But we should also increase our efforts. We as a parliament must take every opportunity to express to those brave individuals who have signed the manifesto and to the other 83 million Vietnamese citizens—and, of course, to the hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese residents in Australia—that we stand shoulder to shoulder with the cause of democracy in Vietnam and that we will not rest until we see democracy come to Vietnam, as we have seen it come and assisted it to come to nations such as South Africa and those in eastern Europe. (Time expired)

Kerry Bartlett (Macquarie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia has a warm and growing relationship with Vietnam which is yielding increasing benefits to both countries. High-level contacts between both nations’ leaders are increasing, evidenced most recently by Prime Minister John Howard’s visit to Vietnam and by the visits to Australia by Vietnamese Prime Minister Khai in May 2005 and Vice President Hoa in October this year. Vietnam is also becoming a valuable partner of Australia both bilaterally and within the region in areas such as combating narcotics and other transnational crime and fighting terrorism.

Australia’s development cooperation program of approximately $81 million a year is making a real contribution to improving life for many Vietnamese, particularly the poor in struggling rural areas. We have also been pleased to see some encouraging signs of Vietnam’s willingness to listen to Australia’s concerns about human rights issues. However, sadly, the people of Vietnam do not enjoy the open and robust democratic processes, the liberty, the freedom of speech and belief, and the impartial rule of law that many countries take for granted. Thus I am very pleased to support this motion moved by the member for Mitchell.

While in 1982 Vietnam ratified the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, unfortunately Vietnam’s practices do not live up to this commitment. Article 18.1 of that convention affirms:

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

Article 19.2 affirms:

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

Freedom of religion and belief are fundamental to our human individuality. The exercise of these rights strengthens a community and needs to be guaranteed by government. Yet, despite its ratification of this convention, the totalitarian Vietnamese state is still intolerant of criticism and severely curtails the religious freedoms affirmed in that convention.

Human Rights Watch, in its May 2006 report, details cases of the Vietnamese government’s harassment of citizens with dissident views. As it reports:

... the one party state, dominated by the Vietnamese Communist Party, is intolerant of criticism. Media, political parties, religious organizations and labour unions are not allowed to exist without official sanction and oversight ...

Internal dissidents have been imprisoned on charges of espionage, as have activists calling for democracy. Religious leaders and their families have been harassed, including Catholic priests and Buddhist monks. The Asian Times reported in July this year police officials storming and demolishing a Mennonite church and arresting the pastor and a number of his congregation.

The Australian government and people are strongly committed to the wellbeing of Vietnam. We have shown that through our ongoing and increasing economic assistance. Yet human rights are an essential part of this wellbeing. It is important that fundamental human rights are respected; accordingly, I urge the Vietnamese government to uphold the principles it endorsed when it ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Julia Irwin (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to support the motion on Vietnam moved by the member for Mitchell. Like all the speakers on this side of the House in this debate, I have the privilege to represent a large community of people of Vietnamese origin in my electorate of Fowler. In my regular contact with various leading members of that community and ordinary individuals, I have come to know of their concerns for the people of their former homeland. When I speak to young Vietnamese Australians, they often express a kind of guilt that they live in a free and democratic country like Australia, while their relatives and friends are subjected to human rights abuses in Vietnam.

The motion notes a number of cases of religious leaders and journalists who have been detained or who have been subjected to severe restrictions in their movements and other forms of harassment. Many of these cases have been raised in this parliament by me and other members before but, as private members of this parliament, our concerns can be dismissed by the government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, just as that government can dismiss the voices of human rights advocates in Vietnam. But our voices today are directed to the Australian government and its role in advocating for human rights and democracy in Vietnam. I know that many members of the Vietnamese community in Australia were greatly disappointed that the Prime Minister did not make use of the opportunity of his recent visit to raise with the government of Vietnam the serious concerns for human rights in that country.

While the United States President George Bush and the Prime Minister of Canada spoke out on human rights issues, Australia’s Prime Minister did not raise these issues publicly. This came as a great disappointment to the Vietnamese community of Australia, which had raised its concerns with the Prime Minister at a meeting earlier in November here at Parliament House. At that meeting the Prime Minister told the Vietnamese community in Australia that he would raise Australia’s concerns about human rights abuses during his visit to Vietnam for the APEC conference. As this motion points out, Australia participates in an annual human rights dialogue with Vietnam. The Prime Minister’s failure to raise human rights issues during his visit to Vietnam for APEC sends a clear message to the government of Vietnam that Australia is not serious about human rights in Vietnam. While Australia’s Prime Minister enjoyed the hospitality of his Vietnamese hosts, journalists like Nguyen Khac Toan suffered the hospitality of B14 prison camp in Hang Dong Province. Nguyen Khac Toan, a veteran of the North Vietnamese Army, was imprisoned for 12 years in 2002 for organising petitions by retired military officers calling for democracy, social equality and an end to corruption.

Another political prisoner suffering the hospitality of B14 prison camp is Dr Pham Hong Son, who was detained in 2003 after he distributed an article he titled, ‘Hopeful Signs for Democracy in Vietnam’. I wonder if the Prime Minister saw any hopeful signs for democracy in Vietnam during his visit. Perhaps while enjoying the sights of the largest Buddha in Vietnam our Prime Minister might have spared a thought for the Most Venerable Thich Quang Do. As a leader of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, Thich Quang Do is no stranger to Vietnam’s prisons. He last served a sentence from 1995 to 1998 for the so-called offences of ‘sabotaging government policies’ and ‘damaging the interests of the state’. Since 2001 he has been under house arrest. A similar situation is suffered by Pastor Nguyen Cong Chinh, Vice President of the Mennonite Church.

The Prime Minister appears to have little concern for the fate of those brave souls who have spoken out in support of human rights in Vietnam. While the government of Vietnam tries to silence these advocates of democracy and human rights, Australia’s Prime Minister remains silent. Australia’s relationship with Vietnam should mature. Just as in our relationship with all countries we should not turn a blind eye to human rights abuses simply to achieve trade or other benefits from our relationship, so it should be in our relationship with Vietnam.

Alan Cadman (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What rubbish!

Julia Irwin (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You know it’s true.

Duncan Kerr (Denison, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! If members would refrain from interjecting, I would appreciate it.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on this private member’s motion on Vietnam introduced by the member for Mitchell. I welcome his comments, the comments of the Chief Government Whip, and those of the honourable member for Prospect. I listened to them with interest. I am deeply disappointed, though, that the member for Fowler would choose a motion like this to have a complete race to the bottom in political partisanship. It would have been far more sensible for this parliament to say something in a united way to the current regime in Vietnam about the way they treat certain sections of their population. The words I would use to describe the honourable member’s speech would be ‘ill-judged’. It is a shame.

A few weeks ago I had the pleasure of attending the mass and celebration that accompanied the 25th anniversary of the Vietnamese Catholic Church in Western Australia. In my electorate of Stirling, which I am privileged to represent, we have a large number of migrants from Vietnam who came here after the Vietnam War. They arrived in Western Australia seeking refuge after enduring extraordinarily dangerous sea crossings, not directly to the landmass of Australia but to points in between. They were granted refuge by the Fraser government. Many lost their lives on that voyage, but they were determined to do it to seek a better life. In Vietnam their government was denying its people what we consider to be basic freedoms. It continues to do that today.

Upon arrival here, though, the Vietnamese community made an enormous contribution to Stirling and to Australia at large. The success they have had as migrants was evident to me when I visited the Vietnamese Catholic community about a fortnight ago. I was also reminded at that function about the persecution that has been endured by people in Vietnam merely on the basis of their faith. The Vietnamese regime continues to repress its own people, particularly certain people of Christian or Buddhist faith. You have to ask yourself why. I cannot understand the frame of mind of a government that is scared of its people believing in something. This persecution is the basis for this motion today, and I again congratulate the member for Mitchell for bringing it before the House.

Australia and Vietnam enjoy a very good relationship, as was outlined by the Chief Government Whip. This relationship is based on trade, on a shared place in the region and on the very strong people-to-people links that we enjoy through our large Vietnamese community. But this friendship does not stop us being concerned about the human rights record of the Vietnamese regime. Indeed, I note that the Australian government has been at the absolute forefront of promoting human rights in Vietnam. We have established a regular dialogue with Vietnam about the subject, and this year the Vietnam-Australia Human Rights Technical Cooperation Program was commenced. That provides an opportunity for Vietnamese and Australian institutions to foster practical cooperation on human rights issues.

The Australian government also makes regular representations to the Vietnamese government about its citizens who are subject to arbitrary treatment and human rights abuse. This is a concern that is shared by many of our friends and allies and by international bodies such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. It is absolutely vital that the Vietnamese government observes its international obligations on human rights, and freedom of worship is a key right that is recognised by the international community. Sadly, the Vietnamese government continues to persecute members of independent churches, imposes controls on the internet and the press, restricts public gatherings and imprisons people for their religious or political views. It is the failure of the Vietnamese regime to recognise the right of freedom of worship that has led to the cases that have been outlined by the member for Mitchell in point (3) of this motion.

Sadly, we know that individuals who are targeted for persecution by the Vietnamese state are subject to the most appalling conditions. Police routinely arrest and detain people without written warrants. Reports have been received about solitary confinement of detainees in cramped, dark and unsanitary conditions; lack of access to medical care; and police beatings with electric shock batons. I hope this motion today will highlight the problem of human rights abuse in Vietnam—(Time expired)

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like the curate’s egg, this motion is good in parts. Parts (1) and (5), unfortunately, are largely government self-promotion. Any government could make similar comments about the maturing relationship between our country and Vietnam, the fact that there is $81 million worth of aid et cetera. Point (5) goes to support of democratic freedoms and, in particular, human rights dialogue with Vietnam—which was initiated, in fact, by the Keating government. These matters are par for the course for a government trying to put their approach. I do not really think they are pertinent in this motion.

Points (2), (3) and (4) definitely are pertinent. In fact, what was discussed previously was a much stronger motion about the situation of people in Vietnam. These are real people, real flesh and blood, people who have been imprisoned, people who are under house arrest—such as the journalist Nguyen Khac Toan, whom I spoke to about two weeks ago and prior to that a couple of months ago. He has a policeman standing right outside his house, just three metres from his front gate. Our conversation was abbreviated because the secret police in Vietnam use very sophisticated gear that they have brought in at a cost of more than half a million dollars to electronically intercept and flood those kinds of conversations involving people who are part of the civil and human rights movement in Vietnam called the April bloc, who, under immense pressure, are still spilling their blood and fighting the fight for true democracy and real rights in Vietnam.

As good as points (2) and (3) and (4) are, we actually should have a much tougher motion coming out of this House. I trust that we will be able to do that on a bipartisan basis in the future. Why? Look at the Hoa Hao Elder Mr Le Quang Liem. He leads about three million Hoa Hao Buddhists in Vietnam. I spoke to him just a couple of weeks ago. What he told me—and what other people fighting for a real life for all the people in Vietnam have said—is that they need support from outside. They not only need their voices to be heard on our radio stations and to be beamed around the world; they also need support from this parliament and from the Australian people—not mealy-mouthed support, not conditional support, not support which puts the thrust on a bit of self-promotion, but support which says this: the government of Vietnam is communist in nature and communist in practice; it is a dictatorship directed against the people of Vietnam.

All of the people mentioned in point (3) are not just individual cases, individual though they may be; they are emblematic of what it has cost the people of Vietnam because they lost the war in 1975. This is a people who suffered 1,000 years worth of occupation by the Chinese. This is a people who were occupied by the colonial power of the French but fought them and did away with them at the battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954. This is a people who then had an ongoing war which split their country to pieces, which saw people killed, massacred and imprisoned and the country defoliated. This is a people who, in the end, saw the liberty of so many constrained and the lives of so many foreshortened or simply taken away by the cruelty of this regime.

So we should not speak in an unconditional way about what is happening in Vietnam. It costs me and others in this parliament not one single drop of our own blood to say that we support those people in Vietnam. They are the ones who pay the price on a daily basis. The people here in Australia who escaped from Vietnam, from torture, from the pressures on their families, from imprisonment over long years—what do they want? They want it to be noted in this parliament that, when the Prime Minister went to Vietnam, he went to a memorial for our soldiers at Long Tan and a memorial for the North Vietnamese soldiers and for the Vietminh soldiers, but the ARVN soldiers, from South Vietnam, were not memorialised. I understand the diplomatic niceties in this, but it goes to the very heart of the way my constituents and the Vietnamese community in Australia think about this issue. I can support points (3), (4) and (5) in this motion, and I can accept the advertising and self-promotion, but we need to be as hard as we can be to condemn the Vietnamese government and support the movement for freedom and democratic rights. (Time expired)

Duncan Kerr (Denison, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.