Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1)

congratulates Mr Liu Xiaobo for having been awarded the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize;

(2)

notes that:

(a)

Mr Liu was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for ‘his long and non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China’;

(b)

on 23 December 2009 Mr Liu was tried for ‘inciting subversion of state power’, and on 25 December 2009 sentenced to eleven years’ imprisonment and two years’ deprivation of political rights;

(c)

Mr Liu was tried in the context of his advocacy for the petition known as ‘Charter 08’ which was initially signed by 350 Chinese intellectuals and human rights activists; and

(d)

‘Charter 08’ calls for 19 changes to improve human rights in China, including an independent legal system, freedom of association and the elimination of one-party rule;

(3)

calls for Mr Liu to be released and his sentence repealed; and

(4)

supports the right of Chinese citizens to call for political reform, greater protection of human rights and democratisation in their country.

The winner of the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize, Liu Xiaobo, is currently serving an 11-year prison sentence for ‘incitement to subvert state power’, having been sentenced on 25 December 2009. The main reason charges were brought against him was his support for Charter 08, a citizens’ manifesto created to mark the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and conceived as a Chinese version of the famous Czech Charter 77, which was presented by former President Vaclav Havel as a freedom charter for the Czech Republic and which was instrumental in people in Eastern Europe achieving their freedom. Charter 08 states:

… the Chinese people, who have endured human rights disasters and uncountable struggles across these years—

of Communist rule—

now include many who see clearly that freedom, equality, and human rights are universal values of humankind and that democracy and constitutional government are the fundamental framework for protecting these values.

This is not the first time Mr Liu has been imprisoned for his ideas. When Chinese student protests began in the spring of 1989—protests that would come to a head at Tiananmen Square—Mr Liu, then a visiting scholar at Columbia University, had the courage to fly back to Beijing to join the students and counsel them in non-violent protest. For this, the Chinese government called him a ‘black hand’ and imprisoned him for 18 months. In 1995, after writing essays that criticized the Chinese government, Mr Liu was sentenced to three years of ‘re-education through labour’. When he was released in 1999 the government built a sentry station next to his home and his phone calls and internet connections were tapped. In January 2005, following the death of former Chinese premier Zhao Ziyang, who had shown sympathy to protesters in the student demonstration in 1989, Liu was immediately put under house arrest for two weeks.

Despite constant harassment by the authorities, Liu Xiaobo is not driven by hatred of the regime. On the day of his most recent trial, Mr Xiaobo stated:

I have no enemies, and no hatred. None of the police who have monitored, arrested and interrogated me, the prosecutors who prosecuted me, or the judges who sentence me, are my enemies. While I’m unable to accept your surveillance, arrest, prosecution or sentencing, I respect your professions and personalities … For hatred is corrosive of a person’s wisdom and conscience; the mentality of enmity can poison a nation’s spirit, instigate brutal life and death struggles, destroy a society’s tolerance and humanity, and block a nation’s progress to freedom and democracy. I hope therefore to be able to transcend my personal vicissitudes in understanding the development of the state and changes in society, to counter the hostility of the regime with the best of intentions, and defuse hate with love.

No wonder the Chinese government fear such a man, who can put things so positively and who can feel no hatred in the middle of such imprisonment. Mr Xiaobo is one of the most articulate of China’s political prisoners and now certainly the best known, but he is far from alone in being persecuted for his political views. According to the US Congressional-Executive Commission on China, 1,383 political prisoners are known to be detained or imprisoned as of July 2010. One of them is a Catholic bishop. Can you imagine any other regime imprisoning a Catholic bishop?

But that is not the total figure. The US Department of State’s Human Rights Report on China estimates that ‘tens of thousands of political prisoners’, including religious prisoners, remain incarcerated. Who are some of these people? There is Wang Bingzhang, a long-time democracy activist serving a life sentence in solitary confinement. There is Shi Tao, a journalist serving a 10-year sentence for passing along notes of an editorial meeting to a US based website. There is Hu Jia, an activist serving a three-year sentence for writing essays critical of the Communist Party in the run-up to the Olympics. And of course there is Gao Zhisheng, the famous human rights lawyer who has defended so many of these Chinese human rights activists, who simply disappeared in 2009. Leading Chinese doctors, HIV activists and many people who simply draw attention to the unpleasantness in their own country, such as a father who complained about food poisoning his three-year old, have been jailed as political prisoners. They serve their terms in an archipelago of labour camps scattered across China called Laogai. According to the Laogai Research Foundation, there are at least 909 of these camps, with the low-end estimate putting the number of prisoners at 250,000 and the high-end estimate putting it at five million.

Let people not say that they do not know about the Chinese prison camp system as being like the gulags they used to have in the Soviet Union. Let people not say that they do not know about the detention and imprisonment of people who are deprived of their human rights in China. It is there for all to see. Many Australians understandably want to do business and trade with China—an entirely reasonable idea—but it should not be done while turning a blind eye to China’s human rights abuses.

Liu Xiaobo is not a danger to China. He only wants to be a positive influence in his country. As the Dalai Lama said recently:

In his movement—

Liu is—

not toppling the government but trying to bring more openness, accountability.

Likewise, the Norwegian Nobel Committee’s decision to award the peace prize to Mr Liu is not an attack on China; rather, it is an affirmation that the world believes the Chinese people deserve better, that they should have the same freedoms and rights that we in Australia, and indeed most countries in the world, take for granted.

Soon after the announcement that Liu Xiaobo would receive the Nobel Peace Prize a letter was circulated, signed by more than 300 Chinese scholars, activists and lawyers, applauding Mr Liu Xiaobo. I think it is very counterproductive to China’s interests that the regime in Beijing has written to all countries that would normally turn up to the Nobel Prize, which is due on 10 December, and demanded that we kowtow to them and not participate in the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony for the first Chinese scholar to be awarded it. It is a terrible shame that this pressure is being exerted and, of course, it will be ignored. It is counterproductive to China’s interests to make such demands on countries. All the countries that have received such pressure will be there. No country would surrender its sovereignty to such threats, including, I am sure, Australia.

I am not sure that the prize will be awarded. It seems there will be a ceremony but, since Mr Liu is incarcerated and will not be released and his wife and brothers have been arrested as well, there will be no-one to receive the prize. It will be a stinging indictment of the regime in Beijing that a man who is committed to nonviolence, a man who calls for constitutional change according to the Chinese constitution, a man who has such support amongst Chinese intellectuals, will not be there to receive it.

China should join the mainstream of humanity by embracing universal values—

the open letter from the 300 Chinese intellectuals said.

Such is the only route to becoming a ‘great nation’ that is capable of playing a positive and responsible role on the world stage.

Through the award of the Nobel Peace Prize we can see that the world agrees. We call on the government in Beijing to release Mr Liu Xiaobo, let him receive his award, and let China develop and peacefully rise with political developments matching their economic progress.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion of the member for Melbourne Ports seconded?

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am particularly pleased to join with my friend and colleague the honourable member for Melbourne Ports in supporting this very important private member’s motion which is currently before the House. This motion congratulates Mr Liu Xiaobo on being awarded the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize and then notes that he was awarded that prize for his long and non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China. It also highlights the fact that in 2009 Mr Liu was tried for inciting subversion of state power and on Christmas Day last year was sentenced to 11 years imprisonment and two years deprivation of political rights. He was tried in the context of his advocacy for the petition known as Charter 08, which was initially signed by 350 Chinese intellectuals and human rights activists. Charter 08 calls for 19 changes to improve human rights in China, including an independent legal system, freedom of association and the elimination of one-party rule. The motion also calls for Mr Liu to be released and to have his sentence repealed and supports the right of Chinese citizens to call for political reform, greater protection of human rights and democratisation in their country.

In 2010 China seeks to be a good international citizen. Clearly, it is making economic progress that would make the rest of the world somewhat envious, and yet associated with this new economic power is a responsibility—a responsibility to be a good world citizen. In 2010 we expect that good world citizens observe certain fundamental human rights. The fact that the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to Mr Liu is an objective recognition that this person is someone who really is an icon, who ought to be put on a pedestal, who ought to be respected by the whole world whether or not one necessarily agrees with all of the stances that he has taken in relation to all issues.

If China is seeking to be good international citizen and not an international thug of the first order then it ought to recognise that even though the Chinese totalitarian, dictatorial, oppressive government does not agree with Mr Liu at least Mr Liu represents a strain of thought—possibly even a majority strain of thought—even in communist China itself, which says that in 2010 the communist Chinese have to do better than they have previously. Just because someone lives in mainland China, that does not mean that a person has no rights. Just because a person happens to possess citizenship of the People’s Republic of China, that does not mean that that person is a less worthy individual than another person who enjoys citizenship of another country. Just because someone happens to be of Chinese ethnicity living within the Chinese mainland, that does not mean that that person forfeits his or her fundamental rights as a citizen or as a human being.

I think that the Chinese set their cause back a thousand years every time they take the kind of mindless, unacceptable, antidemocratic, authoritarian, disgusting approach that they have taken to Mr Liu. Mr Liu is not going to be allowed, either himself or by proxy, to accept the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize. I think that all honourable members and, I believe, most citizens of most countries in the world would see that the Chinese have once again overstepped the mark.

We see that with respect to Taiwan. They are denying that country’s democracy and they are denying the fact that Taiwan has a vigorous parliamentary system which is the envy of many countries in Asia. We also know that China denies the right of free determination to the Tibetan people. Tibet is a country under occupation. In 1949, Tibet was invaded by the Chinese communists and is, in fact, occupied. A system of cultural genocide is going on in Tibet. The aim of the Chinese government is to make Tibetans a minority in their own land. The Chinese government will not negotiate with His Holiness the Dalai Lama with respect to human rights or with respect to the preservation of Tibetan culture, Tibetan language or the Tibetan ethos in that country.

So China has very few runs on the board. China is being thuggish with respect to the Taiwanese and it is being thuggish with respect to the Tibetans. But one would think that, in mainland China itself, it would respect a person like Mr Liu Xiaobo, who has been recognised as a person worthy of receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. His Holiness the Dalai Lama was a previous recipient of that prize. Many other people who are perceived as icons and role models for the world have been awarded this prize. It is not something that people seek to receive, but it is an objective recognition of the quality of a person’s contribution to human rights.

Mr Liu was awarded that prize, so what are the Chinese doing? The Chinese are continuing to lock him up, the Chinese have arrested Mr Liu’s wife and the Chinese are refusing to allow Mr Liu’s family to travel to receive the award on his behalf. Frankly, the Chinese are forfeiting any right or expectation they might have to be recognised as a civilised nation in the community of nations around the world.

The Chinese are, I think, appalling in their approach to Mr Liu, they are appalling in their approach to the Dalai Lama and they are appalling in their approach to the Taiwanese. The Chinese deny basic human rights to ordinary, decent people who reside within their borders. Even if Mr Liu has breached the laws of China as perceived by the government of communist China then, once he has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, why will the Chinese authorities not allow him to travel to receive that prize? If the Chinese had nothing to hide, they would say that they disagree with Mr Liu Xiaobo, they would say that they were appalled by his stand in China, they would say that they disagree with the points that he asserts and they would say that the action he has taken against the Chinese dictatorship is quite inappropriate, but—if they were a country open to criticism, the way most other countries in the world are open to criticism—they would cop it on the chin. They would say that they disagree with Mr Liu Xiaobo but that they respect his right to articulate a position which is different from theirs.

Is that the approach of the Chinese communists? No. Are they interested in human rights? No. Are they interested in bringing their minorities into the mainstream? No. Are they interested in economic achievement by people who do not support the regime? No. Are they interested in encouraging freedom of expression for people who might not agree with what the government is saying? No.

In conclusion, I reiterate that Mr Liu Xiaobo has been locked up because he disagrees with an oppressive, dictatorial, authoritarian regime—a regime which has no right to exist in 2010. If the Chinese authorities had any legitimacy at all, they would not be locking up Mr Liu Xiaobo and they would not be preventing him from going to receive his Nobel Peace Price. Instead, they would be saying, ‘We disagree with this man but we respect his right to differ.’ It is a tragedy. The Chinese stand condemned and I ask them to reconsider their appalling conduct.

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have always viewed the challenges facing China with a sense of awe. Since the great opening of the Chinese economy in 1978, China’s economic achievements have been nothing short of remarkable. Rapid economic growth has improved the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of Chinese. According to the World Bank, China’s per person GDP rose from US$524 in 1980 to US$6,200 in 2010—a twelvefold increase. And this is in 2005 dollars, so the figures do not take account of inflation. Over the same period, the share of the Chinese population living in extreme poverty—below $1.25 a day—fell from 84 per cent to 16 per cent, while the share of the population living below $2 a day fell from 98 per cent to 36 per cent. In The End of History, Jeffrey Sachs wrote:

China is likely to be the first of the great poverty-stricken countries of the twentieth century to end poverty in the twenty-first century.

He also pointed out:

By the year 2050, it is reasonable to suppose that China will reach around half of the Western European income average, restoring China’s relative position at the start of the industrial era.

In addition, the level of general education has been greatly improved since 1990. Average adult education levels were less than five years in 1982 but over seven years in 2000. In 1982, 232 million Chinese people were illiterate. In 2000, the figure was 85 million. The Chinese economic reforms have transformed lives. Men and women, farmers, factory workers and service workers all prospered in a social environment which now permitted the accumulation of individual wealth.

This brings me to Liu Xiaobo. Born on 28 December 1955 in the north-eastern city of Changchun, Liu Xiaobo has long been a passionate man of letters. He was in Beijing in 1989 when the ongoing student demonstrations of the era grew to encompass much of Beijing’s civil society. Liu has been an intellectual leader. For him, the Tiananmen Square protest and resulting crackdown was a deeply formative experience. Released from prison 20 months later, he wrote:

My eyes were opened by 4 June and the death of the martyrs and now, every time I open my mouth, I ask myself if I am worthy of them.

That was over 20 years ago. To the present day Liu has remained an unceasing advocate for democratic reform, never losing his passion for truth and justice or his demand for the state to recognise human rights. His deeply poignant writing, with its overwhelming commitment to the commonality of all humanity, must rank amongst the most heart-moving of literary protests. In spite of long periods of detention he never faltered in his humanity or love for others. His recent trial statement was dedicated to his wife, Liu Xia, while his Nobel Prize was dedicated to the ‘lost souls’ of Tiananmen Square.

As the new China emerges it desperately needs Liu Xiaobo. It needs his courage to speak truth to power; it needs his advocacy on behalf of the dispossessed; it needs him to argue for an independent legal system, freedom of association and for citizens’ rights. China is a big country, and its future is best assured by trusting and relying upon its greatest strength, its more than one billion people. China faces many tough issues, not least of which is uneven progress and rising inequality. Brave spokespeople like Nobel Prize winner Liu Xiaobo are the key to the emergence of a civil society that will only serve to strengthen China. It is a tragic mistake for the government to intimidate and attempt to silence those whose concern is to articulate the needs of the people.

Due to the great number of shared interests that China and Australia have in common I believe it is appropriate to speak to motions such as this. As I have outlined, the Chinese government has shown real commitment and real results when delivering lasting economic reform, all to the benefit of ordinary Chinese citizens. But as the case of Liu shows, there is scope for other issues of reform to be raised and aired. I fear that no-one benefits if China’s reforms stop at the economy. Speaking at Peking University in 2008, the present foreign minister said:

A true friend is one who can be a zhengyou, that is a partner who sees beyond immediate benefit to the broader and firm basis for continuing, profound and sincere friendship.

As a member of a party formed to represent the workers of Australia, I speak in the same spirit as the foreign minister spoke to Chinese students. I am proud to second this motion honouring such a courageous advocate, a man who has committed his life to improving the lot of the people of China and to doing so entirely through non-violent means. (Time expired)

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great privilege to speak to the motion on Liu Xiaobo moved by the member for Melbourne Ports. I congratulate the government and the member for Melbourne Ports on putting forward such an important motion.

With all our political traditions, we can all take something from Liu. For me, I take out of the life of Liu and his Nobel Peace Prize the triumph of the individual against the state—that ongoing force in human history of the individual challenging the unquestioned power of the state. Charter 08 calls for 19 changes to improve human rights in China, including an independent legal system, freedom of association and the elimination of one-party rule. That is the same challenge that has faced many people throughout our own history, and it is of course something this place should be a beacon for upholding and supporting. It is good to see a man of Liu’s character receive this award. We must speak up and stand up for those people who are oppressed, who are unable to speak, who are imprisoned, in their quest for freedom and human rights. The Australian parliament of course does serve as a source of hope and inspiration to so many around the world.

Being jailed for 11 years for producing such a charter, which calls for 19 changes to improve human rights in China, is a hideous thing—being jailed for peaceful protest seeking progress for the human race. That is why it is so important for us here today to support such a man. Often in this House I question the role of individuals and the role they play, but intellectuals do have an important role to play in our world. When you look at Liu’s life and examine his intellectual traditions, he even studies the same intellectual traditions that underpin many of the things that I believe in—and I refer to Nietzsche. Liu was an advocate of the individual in Chinese universities in his earlier year, standing up in a society dominated by the collectivist tradition for the role of the individual in his society. The member for Fraser quite beautifully spoke about the ‘lost souls’ that Liu represents in the Chinese state.

Australia has played a role in Liu Xiaobo’s life over many years; indeed, in the Tiananmen Square massacre Liu sought refuge in an Australian embassy but had the courage and the bravery to leave that safe haven that Australia provided and go back to his people to continue his ongoing quest to gain, in a constitutional way, better conditions and liberty for the Chinese people.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee praised Liu for his long and non-violent struggle—that is very important—for fundamental human rights in China. The committee has long believed that there is a close connection between human rights and peace. It is important to note that Liu has been a peaceful protester; that he has sought to improve his society only through that which can be obtained through proper mechanisms and through the rule of law. At his recent trial he gave a great quote, which I would like to read here today:

Freedom of expression is the basis of human rights, the source of humanity and the mother of truth. To block freedom of speech is to trample on human rights, to strangle humanity and to suppress the truth. I do not feel guilty for following my constitutional right to freedom of expression, for fulfilling my social responsibility as a Chinese citizen. Even if accused of it, I would have no complaints.

It is beautiful language even when translated into English—one can only wonder how it sounds in Chinese. However, it is the same hope that is expressed by so many people in human history: to seek a better life for themselves and their fellow man and to seek limitations on state power, which has been such a great tradition in the West.

I know that there are plans to publish selections of his writings in the future and I will be one of those seeking out those writings to add to my collection of documents of liberty from our world. Those writings will stand alongside Czechoslovakia’s Charter 77, the Declaration of Independence, Milton’s works and all of those key documents from human history that have formed the ongoing tradition of seeking to limit the power of the state over the individual. In Liu we see that same quest and that same peaceful protest for the betterment of humankind. It is our role, as a parliament that is dominated by freedom of expression, human rights and the betterment of the human race, to support all of those who seek liberty in such a noble and powerful way as Liu has done in China.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National 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.