Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the report of the delegation of the Australian Election Observer Group to the Constituent Assembly Election in Nepal on 10 April 2008. May I also acknowledge the presence of His Excellency Mr Yogendra Dhakal, the Nepalese Ambassador to Australia. Namaste. From the perspectives of stability, prosperity, peace and democracy in our region, this is an incredibly important election, and I feel privileged to have led the Australian observer delegation to Nepal to observe it. Nepal is a country not greatly different in size to Australia, with about 27 million people, and is blessed like us with some of the world’s most spectacular natural resources. Historically, in more recent times, Nepal has been either a British colony or an absolute monarchy but over the course of the 1990s was able to hold three multiparty elections. At the same time, though, it is true to say that unrest over economic issues and the ongoing role of the monarchy sparked an insurgency led by the Maoists, which is said to have resulted in about 13,000 deaths over the last decade.

This election flows from the peace agreement concluded between the Maoists and the Nepalese government in late 2006—a peace agreement that included a ceasefire between the warring parties and agreement to conduct an election for a constituent assembly. After some postponements of that election over the course of the last year in particular, there was a final agreement reached between the Maoists and the Nepalese government which finally cleared the path for that election to take place in April. Australia was one of 12 or so countries, as well as the European Union, that was sent to observe that election under the auspices of UNMIN and the Nepalese electoral commission. There were also a number of non-government organisations—notably the Carter Centre, the National Democratic Institute, ANFREL and a range of other organisations from Asia. In all, there were over 900 international observers and about 90,000 domestic observers accredited and trained by the electoral commission.

The Australian group broke into four teams and was able to observe over 90 booths on the day. I will quote quickly from the statement issued by that group shortly after returning to Australia:

The Australian teams observed no apparent restriction on the ability to vote at the booths visited by the teams. Indeed, in many booths, votes were cast with obvious enthusiasm. Booths observed by the teams were staffed and attended by effective and dedicated polling officials and national observers. The Australian teams observed no significant or systematic abuses or malpractice in the voting process. The group’s assessment is that voters at the booths observed by the Australian teams were able to exercise their right to vote in a free and fair manner.

Given the background to this election, it was a very successful election indeed. In spite of a ban on vehicle traffic, including bicycles, on the day, turnout was over 60 per cent—a turnout that puts the American presidential elections to shame. In spite of very serious concerns about violence and intimidation that might have taken place on polling day, the election was, in the circumstances, conducted peacefully. There were also very notable and perhaps surprising results, given the estimation made by pundits, in that the Maoists won a pretty handsome victory. I am happy to also say that one-third of the new constituent assembly members are women.

The constituent assembly has already met, the monarchy has been abolished—again, beating Australia to that—and the constituent assembly now has two years to agree on a new system for democratic elections to take place after that time. This is a new beginning for Nepal. It is true that there are still many challenges, such as the decommissioning of the Maoist militia and its integration with the Nepal army, ongoing unrest in the Terai and—most importantly—endemic poverty. Nepal is one of the 10 poorest countries in the world. But Nepal has wonderful opportunities as well. Stability and peace should see tourism blossom. Its natural assets present huge potential in hydropower.

In closing, I thank my fellow delegation members, particularly the member for Bowman and Dr Chris Drury from the Electoral Commission, as well as the staff from the Australian embassy—Ambassador Graeme Lade, Elizabeth Morris, Kumudh Gurung, Rajesh Tuladhar, Peter Morris and Angela Tierney. We wish the Nepalese constituent assembly all the very best.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would also like to endorse those words on the tabling of the report on the constituent assembly election held on 10 April in Nepal. I also acknowledge the presence of the Nepalese Ambassador to Australia and his first secretary and also the many Nepalese Australians who are watching from home on what is a very important two weeks in Nepal’s history. In adding to the words of the member for Port Adelaide, I would only go back a little further in history to point out the extraordinary path to democracy that Nepal has taken. Many would realise that Nepal is flanked on its two major borders by two superpowers—excusing Bhutan, who also shares a border with Nepal. Effectively, the struggle between those two nations has shaped so much of Nepal’s history, and their determination not only to remain independent but also to strive towards democracy is something that needs to be remarked upon in this House. It goes back to a constant struggle between the king and the attempt to have a people’s movement. That has fluctuated a number of times, including a non-party arrangement for nearly 30 years between 1959 and 1989. Also, in 2001, the very tragic moment that the world would be aware of led to further tumult in the royalty. At the same time, from 1996 onwards, the Maoist movement—the Communist Party of Nepal—cost 12,000 Nepalese lives in their struggle to make Nepal a republic.

The lesson for all of us here is that democracies take different paths on their journeys, and those journeys are never over. But Nepal in particular is a lesson for the international community that there is no one simple formula for democracy. That is a lesson for the major powers involved in democracy and governance around the world. Nepal is a classic example. We saw not only significant concessions made to the parties to bring them to the table, but also significant nervousness about whether that was the prudent thing to do. With the external parties—the observer missions and UNMIN itself—and the Nepalese Election Commissioner, who took significant risks, even though there were two false starts last year, ultimately it transpired that this extraordinarily successful election exceeded everyone’s expectations.

When you visit a country just prior to an election there is always that trepidation and that uncertainty. Coupled with that was a complete misunderstanding in the general sentiment of how the people of Nepal would vote. The result was a complete shock to almost every election observer, even those who had been aware of Nepalese politics for decades. There was concern at having a 23-point agreement and a seven-party arrangement after the comprehensive peace accord of November 2006, but in the end it all pulled together. There was uncertainty around cantonment of the Maoist rebels, of confining to barracks the Nepalese army, and whether that agreement would hold. In the end it was a number of groups: the armed police force; the Nepalese police, who are unarmed; the volunteer police; and of course the huge number of observers both from within Nepal and from overseas who were able to see this complex transaction occur almost without a hitch. We note that one candidate and a small number of election helpers were killed in the days leading up to the election. But the big picture across those 75 districts—some of the most remote and beautiful parts of the world—was the overt and obvious enthusiasm to vote. For anyone coming from a democracy to see that enthusiasm is really encouraging.

For Nepal the future is that they now have a people’s constituency that can have parliamentary functions and also design a new constitution for the country. The transition, with the completion of the royalty’s reign last week, will, hopefully, remain a smooth one. The unexpected result does now mean that there are some potential coalition and multiparty arrangements that will occur between the Communist Party Maoists, the United Marxist Leninists and the Nepal Congress Party, which has a long history of democratisation in Nepal. That is all before us and the world will be watching as Nepal enters a new stage of its democratic path, a new stage in its relationship with Australia, and it is one that everyone in this chamber will support.