Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a member of federal parliament I feel I have made a commitment to publicly condemning blatant violations of basic human rights. In moving this motion I sought to bring attention to atrocities that are currently occurring in Vietnam against freedom and justice. Though we may call Vietnam our South-East Asian neighbour and our valued trading partner, I for one am appalled that there are more than 400 people currently incarcerated in Vietnam for exercising their fundamental human rights. I refer to people whose only crime is to support political groups not recognised by the state, to criticise government policy or to call for democracy. Today I wish to highlight some recent cases of this.

In Vietnam in recent years there have been a growing number of individuals and activist groups openly voicing their opposition to the government. In response, the Communist regime has been attempting to silence this dissent through imprisonment. The arrest of those advocates of human rights and those seeking democracy is arbitrary, and their trials have been unjust. Beginning in summer 2010, the Vietnamese government embarked on one of the biggest crackdowns on dissidents, specifically targeting land rights activists, most of whom belong to the Mennonite Church, in the Mekong River Delta region. Among those arrested I specifically refer to the seven people I referred to in my notice of motion.

The story of these people is appalling. All seven are members of the Cattle Shed Congregation of the Mennonite Church, the name of which refers to the fact that they have to practice their religion in a cattle shed. In what can only be seen as a severe miscarriage of justice, these seven individuals were detained and held incommunicado from July 2010 until their trial on 30 May 2011 without access to legal counsel or access to their families. When the accused were finally brought before the People's Court of Ben Tre, the hearing, which lasted less than one day, was closed to the public, the defence had limited access to the evidence against their clients and all requests for foreign diplomats to attend the proceedings were denied. To further compound these shocking circumstances, the lawyer Huynh Van Dong, who was appearing for two of the defendants, was ejected from the courtroom during the argument stage of the case. Following the trial, Huynh Van Dong said that the court itself had violated the law from the very beginning. He claimed that any statements that he made in the court room on behalf of his clients were cut off by the judges—in other words, he was effectively silenced.

Due to their association with Viet Tan, a pro-democracy organisation, the seven were charged under article 79 of the Vietnamese penal code, which cited their attempt to overthrow the socialist government. They were accused of the following so-called criminal acts: attending a seminar on non-violent protests, publishing signs concerning Vietnamese ownership of the Paracel and Spratly Islands and organising farmers to protest against corruption. These activities are hardly objectionable by any reasonable standard, and each of them is acceptable and fully within the framework of international law. Collectively they were sentenced to 33 years of imprisonment and 28 years of house arrest. Article 79 of the Vietnamese penal code is vague. It does not distinguish between violent acts endangering national security and peaceful political advocacy. It appears to me that the Vietnamese government has exploited this and in doing so has violated numerous articles of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, both of which apply in Vietnam as they are a signatory. To any reasonable person, the action of these seven standing up against corruption, seeking to avail themselves of constitutional rights, could hardly be seen to be criminal but rather the actions of a true patriot. They have been faithful to their religious ideals. They have been selflessly serving their communities. They rightly claim that the communist authorities in Vietnam are using the penal code to rationalise human rights abuses and the silencing of peaceful opposition. In any objective sense the Vietnamese government has failed in every way to prove that these seven people engaged in a single illegal act under international law and therefore the enforcement of article 79 of the code in this manner simply punishes the individuals for exercising their rights to freedom of association, freedom of assembly and participation in national affairs.

I assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that as Australian parliamentarians we are not alone in our concern about Vietnam's arbitrary detention and conviction of innocent individuals who are fighting for freedom and justice. Human rights groups, elected officials and foreign embassies all around the world have criticised the regime and its actions. In another case of Vietnamese suppression a 50-year-old novelist and journalist, Tran Khai Thanh Thuy, was recently deported to the United States on humanitarian grounds following fierce pressure from the United States State Department and strong backing of Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez. Thuy had been sentenced to 3½ years imprisonment earlier that year on assault charge. The charge had been found to be a complete fabrication and an excuse by the government to arrest Thuy for her involvement in the pro-democratic movement, particularly her association with Viet Tan. Thuy's case is a landmark and it is the first time international pressure has been successful in affecting the actions of the Vietnamese government. As a signatory to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, Vietnam has willingly agreed to grant its citizens the rights of freedom, particularly freedom of association.

As a trading partner and an aid donor, I believe Australia has a right to demand that Vietnam abide by its international legal obligations. On numerous occasions I have drawn the parliament's attention to the ongoing human rights abuses in Vietnam. Recently I spoke about three people who were jailed for nine years for organising a strike at a shoe factory in pursuit of fair wages and conditions. I have also spoken about the legal scholar, Cu Huy Ha Vu, jailed for seven years for initiating legal action in respect of a Chinese mining project and challenging the constitutional validity of a prohibition order against class actions.

We do not need to chronicle the human rights abuses; we need to see genuine progress. Positive outcomes can be achieved when pressure is placed on the Vietnamese government, as in the release of Tran Khai Thanh Thuy. This case is evidence that when we work in conjunction with the international community and put full pressure on the Vietnamese government we can work towards ending these atrocities. At the very minimum Australia, along with the international community, should demand that the undertakings given by the Vietnamese government in signing the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights be honoured. As I say, that should be seen as an absolute minimum.

As you are aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, in my electorate I have the good fortune to represent a large number of Vietnamese people. Since the fall of Saigon some 36 years ago Australia has received 200,000 Vietnamese refugees. To Vietnamese people, this is still very real. We are not talking about something in a distant land; or about something in their immediate past, but their families and their welfare.

We have taken a leading role within our region in pursuing human rights and we should be proud of that. We have taken a leading role in developing trade in countries such as Vietnam. Again, that is something we should be proud of. In doing that, we need to go further. We should now be demanding of those countries that sign for whatever reason, trade based or otherwise, the International Convention for Civil and Political Rights that not only the spirit of that convention be upheld but each and every one of its articles, as they apply to its people—that is, in respect of the freedoms associated with the application of those conventions—also be honoured. It is not too much to ask that we, along with our international colleagues, work collectively to ensure that progress is made in improving human rights in Vietnam.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take this opportunity to protest against the abuse by the government of Vietnam of human rights and the outrageous treatment of human rights activists, dissidents and supporters of a democratic Vietnam. It was certainly the case that when the detail of this motion was distributed I immediately sought the opportunity to speak. I believe that I am on the record in this place as being very strongly on the side of a free and democratic Vietnam. I thank my friends from the WA Vietnamese community: Peter Le, the president; Dai Nguyen, the vice-president; the committee, as well as my friends in Viet Tan, the Vietnam Reform Party; and the master of the Vietnamese temple, the venerable Thich Phuoc Nhon.

I am particularly keen to participate because of my personal link in this matter. I say that because I worshipped with the members of the Cow Shed congregation of the Mennonite Church on Sunday, 9 January this year, and met with the friends and family of the seven people named in this motion. I sang with the members of the church and I prayed with them on that day. In speaking with the members of the church, we spoke of five of those mentioned in the motion: Pastor Khai; Evangelist Nguyen Chi Thanh; and followers Pham Van Thong, Nguyen Thanh Tam and Pham Ngoc Hoa. All were in jail at the time of my visit to the flooded Chuong Bo Church in Saigon.

It is tragic that there were arrests and now sentencing, on 30 May 2011, of the seven activists. It is in fact an indictment of the Vietnamese system of government and justice system that they should be able to be convicted of a charge of attempting to overthrow the people's administration when what they did was to support open and accountable government, support human rights and act as patriots of a free and independent Vietnam. That is what they did when they chose to advocate for democratic reform; engage in non-violent protests to prepare and distribute materials affirming Vietnamese sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands; petition the state for redress on behalf of local landowners; and engage in peaceful advocacy for social justice.

When I think of how these courageous people suffer for an excellent cause, I think back to that morning I spent with their family and friends. I will not name who was there in the church on that day, because I know that what I have said in the past here is read by the Vietnamese Ministry for Foreign Affairs and I do not want to put them at any more risk than they have already endured. However, there is not a day that goes by when I do not think of the Cow Shed Church and its members. I think of their fearlessness, their courage and their determination in the face of a government determined to maintain power, using security forces that amount to one officer for every 10 families in Vietnam. There is little doubt that those who choose to resist risk a great deal for their cause and their faith. Pastor Duong Kim Khai was evicted from his home where the congregation had met and had to move to the cow shed. So when I think of the wooden framed shed, with the palm tree frond roof and the flaps of silver insulation on the side and of the wooden plank that his wife has to sleep on it reminds me that there are big problems in Vietnam. It reminds me that the country is not democratic and that many people are oppressed by this regime.

I recall how I got to the church that day after changing transport on many occasions just to avoid being followed. Yet for me that was just one morning, whereas for those who are still there it is their life and that breaks my heart. I therefore fully support the view expressed in this motion that the authorities of Vietnam use legal processes to rationalise human rights abuse and to silence peaceful opposition. We call on the federal government to use the full weight of their diplomatic relations with Vietnam to lobby for substantial reform in human rights and basic freedoms in accordance with the provisions of the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights, to which both Australia and Vietnam are parties. It is, however, right that I take this opportunity to speak more widely of religious freedom in Vietnam. From my two visits to Vietnam I am committed to the view that there is no religious freedom in Vietnam. If you want to worship you can do so, but you must provide the list of your congregation members to the authorities. You must also provide the names of anyone who visits your church or temple. Your minister must also be registered. So if you do all that, along with ensuring that any sermons are not critical of the government and that you fly the flag of the state in front of your church, then you can carry on. But I do not call that freedom of religion; that is just state controlled religion, and it is not what we would accept here in Australia.

On the matter of religious freedom in Vietnam, as part of my visit to Vietnam in January this year I had two meetings that I specifically wanted to achieve. I wanted to visit the Roman Catholic priest in Hue, Father Ly, and I wanted to visit the Most Venerable Thich Quang Do in Saigon, both of whom I have previously spoken about in the parliament, as has the member for Fowler. Father Ly, who was born in 1947, has spent more than 15 years in jail for his belief in freedom of speech and freedom of religion. He is a man committed to peaceful and non-violent protest. Father Ly has been speaking about and taking action for democracy and religious freedom for many years. Since 1977 he has been harassed, arrested, brutalised and jailed for his activities.

On 8 April 2006, a group of dissidents signed the Manifesto on Freedom and Democracy for Vietnam. The manifesto calls for a multiparty state in Vietnam and that group became known as Bloc 8406, named for the date they signed the manifesto. It calls for democracy, and Father Ly was a founding member for Bloc 8406. In September of that year, Father Ly was also involved in the establishment of the Vietnam Progression Party. For his courage and commitment to democracy and for his support of Bloc 8406, Father Ly was jailed for eight years on 30 March 2007. He had been arrested on 19 February after a raid by security police in the Catholic Archdiocese of Hue. Father Ly is a courageous and honourable man who has made great sacrifices for his beliefs. He has spent many years in jail. He has spent many years being harassed and brutalised by an oppressive regime. After suffering a stroke, he was released from jail and remains under house arrest in Hue.

My meeting with Father Ly was scheduled for 7 January 2011. On 6 January, in Hanoi, I met the Deputy Director-General of the Vietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Mr Hoang Chi Trung said that if I attempted to visit Father Ly in Hue they could not guarantee my safety, which I took to mean I would be arrested and probably deported. Mr Trung also made reference to my support of what he called a 'terrorist organisation', the Viet Tan. In speaking of Father Ly, it was clear that the view of the deputy director-general was that any suggestion by Father Ly or others of establishing opposition parties or opposition bodies outside of state affiliation or agencies constituted a direct threat to national security. In this case, rather than risk deportation, I decided to go to Saigon and attempt to meet with the Most Venerable Thich Quang Do on 8 January.

After being picked up in a taxi by two of the Most Venerable's followers, we drove into the suburbs of Saigon followed by security force officers. Despite being followed, we arrived at the Thanh Minh temple and were not stopped by the plain clothes security officers across the road. So in that regard I am grateful to the government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam for allowing that meeting to take place. In that meeting, the Most Venerable Thich Quang Do stated that nothing had changed in the last 30 years. He said that in Vietnam you must bow down to the communists and follow their orders. He said that in Vietnam, there is one police officer or security person for every 10 families and that while it was bad in Saigon, with security police ruling each district, it was worse in the country, where the security forces could oppress the local people extremely and easily, monitoring or stopping meetings taking place. Life in the country was already bad because people did not have enough food to eat.

Thich Quang Do also said to me that he and his supporters were always followed wherever they went and therefore he rarely went out other than for medical reasons, normally. It was clear on my arrival that plain clothes security personnel were across the laneway from the temple. He also said that he had never been charged, tried or convicted of any crime but he has been verbally told that he is under house arrest. But they are careful to ensure that there is no hard evidence of this abuse of his human rights.

In speaking about the situation in Vietnam, he said that the communists rule for themselves and they will never give up or share the power in Vietnam. He said they sell the country to China and reap the profits themselves as a small ruling elite. He said that many had died at the hands of the communists but another very important problem is the bribes and corruption. Corruption takes place from the local offices all the way up to the top officials.

It is certainly the case that when you look at what takes place in Vietnam, despite the assertions made by the ruling party in the country, there is a long way to go before there will be religious freedom. There is oppression that takes place across the whole spectrum, in religion as well as democracy—the oppression of the Montagnards, the Mennonite followers, the dissident Catholics, the dissident Buddhists. There is oppression everywhere and there is very little reform. So it is right that we talk about it in this place. We hope that the government will take it forward and continue to apply pressure, and apply more pressure, on the government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to pursue dramatic reforms of human rights and freedoms via our diplomatic relations with that country.

Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Fowler for his motion and the member for Cowan for his words tonight. The motion that we are speaking to highlights the importance of Human Rights Day and details the difficult circumstances faced by many of the world's human rights defenders. I note the member has a particular focus on the situation in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, where the human rights situation continues to be dire in terms of freedoms of speech, press, assembly, movement and association and where political activists, unionists and human rights defenders continue to be arrested, detained and subjected to unfair trials in addition to lengthy periods of incarceration.

On 30 May this year, seven activists in Ben Tre were jailed for 'attempting to overthrow the people's administration' by engaging in such activities as attending courses on non-violent protest and assisting victims of government corruption. Human Rights Watch has called for the release of a number of corruption-busting human rights lawyers and legal defenders who have been arbitrarily arrested, detained, disbarred and pressured not to represent political or religious activists. Human Rights Watch has also noted in its country summary:

Vietnam, which served as the chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 2010, demonstrated little respect for core principles in the … (ASEAN) Charter to "strengthen democracy" and "protect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms."

Earlier this year Amnesty International called for the release of Vi Duc Hoi, who was given an eight-year prison sentence for posting articles on the internet calling for democracy.

It is for reasons like these that the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade has commenced an inquiry into Australia's annual human rights dialogues with Vietnam and China. One of the main aims of the inquiry will be to ascertain whether Australian parliamentarians might have an expanded role in these dialogues.

Of course, as the member for Fowler has noted in his motion, instances of suppression of freedom of speech and of democratic participation are not confined to Vietnam and China. It is important that we continue to speak up for the benefit of human rights and democracy defenders in Burma, Iran, Syria, Bahrain, Pakistan, Western Sahara, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, Russia and other countries and that, to use Aung San Suu Kyi's words, we use our liberty to promote theirs.

In 2008 one of my favourite poets, Seamus Heaney, reflected on the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in an essay called The Poetic Redress, in which he wrote, inter alia:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

In the boldness and buoyancy of these words there are echoes of many of the great foundational texts of western civilisation, from Sophocles' "wonders of man" chorus through Christ's Sermon on the Mount on up to the American Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man. So even if this First Article cannot guarantee what it declares, if its writ cannot be made to run in China or Zimbabwe or Guantanamo, it nevertheless gestures so confidently towards what human beings desire that it fortifies a conviction that the desirable can in fact be realised.

…   …   …

Since it was framed, the Declaration has succeeded in creating an international moral consensus. It is always there as a means of highlighting abuse if not always as a remedy: it exists instead in the moral imagination as an equivalent of the gold standard in the monetary system. The articulation of its tenets has made them into world currency of a negotiable sort. Even if its Articles are ignored or flouted—in many cases by governments who have signed up to them—it provides a worldwide amplification system for "the still, small voice".

…   …   …

Flouted though the Articles have been and continue to be, their vulnerability should perhaps be regarded as an earnest of their ultimate value. If, for example, an effort were to be made to enforce them by the exercise of military power—as in the effort to enforce "democracy" on Iraq—it would not only end in failure but would discredit utterly the very concept of human rights. They would be stigmatised as the attributes of an imperium rather than an inherent endowment of the species.

It is this vulnerable yet spiritually inviolate quality which makes them attractive not only to the wronged and the oppressed of the Earth, but to writers and poets as well. The Universal Declaration is not a sure-fire panacea for the world's ills; it is more geared to effect what I once called "the redress of poetry" than to intervene like a superpower. This idea of redress I discovered first in Simone Weil's book, Gravity and Grace, where she observes that if we know the way society is unbalanced, we must do what we can to add weight to the lighter side of the scale. The Universal Declaration, it seems to me, adds this kind of weight and contributes thereby to the maintenance of an equilibrium—never entirely achieved—between the rights and wrongs.

I thank the member for Fowler for once again reminding us of this international moral consensus and adding weight and buoyancy to the lighter side of the scale.

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

Like my colleagues who have spoken before me, can I congratulate the member for Fowler for bringing this matter forward. Unlike the member for Fowler, I have few Vietnamese living in my electorate and have, over a long period of time, taken a personal interest in these issues—only contained from the time I fulfilled ministerial responsibilities and was not free to speak beyond my portfolio responsibilities. But I must say that I was very impressed with the member for Cowan's comments about his activist role in relation to Vietnam. It reminded me of the time in which I visited Vietnam myself as a backbencher seeking the release of Vho Dey Thong, who was held in what was euphemistically known as the Hanoi Hilton. We were, I might say, able to secure his release. I do not know that it was all my efforts; it may have had something to do with someone well known to the member for Fremantle, the former foreign minister, Senator Evans, who I know took the matter up forcibly as well.

I command the member for Fremantle in relation to her comments tonight because they enabled us to focus on one area of the parliament—that is, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and its Human Rights Subcommittee, which has had an opportunity to hear recently from a number of Vietnamese representatives about what was happening in Vietnam and inviting us to play a more active role. I might say that I particularly asked them after those hearings to obtain some information about what the international bodies are doing in relation to this matter—organisations like the United Nations Human Rights Council, who often opine on matters even relevant here in Australia. I wondered how active they were as part of the broader international community in taking these matters forward.

For my own part, I was for a long time associated with the Australian committee for a free Vietnam. I played a part in many debates about this matter of human rights in Vietnam since 1976, when the Communist Party came to power. I, like many, hoped in 1986, when they started to embark upon certain economic reforms, that we would see some change in their modus operandi. It is the case that the government has fostered economic growth and there has been some increase in standard of living. But it has also been accompanied by allegations of corruption and disputes over access to resources, particularly land, and we have seen a situation where the oppressive banning of political parties as well as trade unions and human rights organisations continues. The fact is that Vietnamese law has discriminated very significantly against religious groups, which are required to register. The adherents and some unregistered groups have been subjected to harassment and house arrest and detention. We have heard mention of that in relation to Protestant religious groups, the Roman Catholic Church and the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, of which my friend Thich Quang Do in Canberra is very much associated.

I too read with great alarm the reports of what has happened to the seven people who have recently been convicted in a closed one-day trial. That is obviously what prompted this motion. I hope that the parliament will continue to take an interest in these matters. I would like to see the government play an active role in these matters, although I suspect that the member may not get what he seeks from the government. But I am sure, in the bilateral dialogues and in the human rights dialogues which the former government initiated, this would be a matter that people would want to see raised. I hope, through the monitoring of the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, we can play a part in ensuring that those matters are addressed very positively when that dialogue occurs. I thank the honourable member for raising the matter. I am sure his constituents will very much appreciate the effort that he has put in. (Time expired)

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, 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.