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

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) there are increasing reports of gross human rights violations in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (SRV) including evidence of continued house detention and imprisonment of notable human rights activists including, the Nobel Peace Prize nominee the Most Venerable Thich Quang Do, Patriarch of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, Reverend Nguyen Van Ly from the Vietnamese Catholic Church, Dr Nguyen Dan Que, Jurist Dr Cu Huy Ha Vu and the latest jailing without trial of Vo Minh Tri known as Viet Khang, a popular young peace songwriter; and

(b) since 2002, Australia and the SRV have had eight rounds of dialogue on human rights with no apparent results; and

(2) calls on the Australian Government to:

(a) establish and supervise a Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue group that would involve Members of Parliament and Senators, as well as the wider community;

(b) consider the issues of human rights in the SRV when allocating funding under Australia's overseas development aid program; and

(c) encourage a more ‘whole of government’ approach on bilateral and multilateral bases with the SRV, particularly where the issue of human rights is concerned.

As the member for Fowler I have often raised issues and concerns about the human rights situation in Vietnam. My stance on the human rights issues has been clear: I believe in a world where people's fundamental human rights are respected, and I have always shown great admiration for those who are brave enough to stand up for human rights.

Over the past eighteen months, since becoming the member for Fowler, I have often been approached by the Vietnamese community and asked to voice to this parliament their concerns about human rights. The major concern affecting almost one-quarter of my electorate is human rights in Vietnam. I have seen it as an honour and a privilege to represent them in this federal parliament on such an important issue.

Today I am joined by representatives of the Vietnamese Community in Australia management committee, by the Vietnamese media, by a number of Vietnamese organisations and by a number of other people who have also taken the decision to come to Canberra and attend this debate. I thank them for doing so.

I move this motion because I am concerned at the increasing reports of gross human rights violations in Vietnam. Although the Vietnamese government signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1982, there appears to have been little progress in the human rights situation in Vietnam. From many reports that I have received, the human rights situation has actually worsened.

Last Thursday, 24 May, Human Rights Watch said that four Catholic activists who were caught distributing pro-democracy leaflets were tried in the People's Court of Nghe An under article 88 of the Vietnamese Constitution, which deals with terrorism and propagations against the state.

In 2011, Vietnamese courts used this same provision to convict at least 10 bloggers and activists, including the legal advocate, Dr Cu Huy Ha Vu—whose son, Cu Huy Xuan Hiev, is in the gallery tonight—for expressing their views,. Also convicted were bloggers Vi Duc Hoi, Lu Van Bay, Ho Thi Bich Khuonq and Nguyen Ba Dang.

In March 2012, the People's Court of Nghe An convicted two other Catholic activists, Vo Thi Thu Thuy and Nguyen Van Thanh, under article 88. At least another 12 Catholic bloggers and activists, including the prominent bloggers Ta Phong Tan and Le Van Son, are at the moment in detention pending investigation and trial.

In April, Dr Nguyen Quoc Quan—a resident of California, no less—was also detained upon arriving at Tan Son Nhat International Airport in Saigon and charged under article 84 with 'terrorism'. Dr Nguyen is a long-time democracy activist and a member of Viet Tan.

Rightly we call Vietnam our South-East Asian neighbour and a most valued trading partner, but I for one am appalled at the number of 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 or to criticise government policy or to call for democracy itself—hardly a crime, according to our way of life.

It is very concerning that since 2002 Australia has held nine rounds of dialogue with Vietnam on human rights with no apparent result. As a trading partner and a significant aid donor, Australia has both a moral and a legal right to require Vietnam to abide by its international legal obligations. We do not need to chronicle the human rights abuses; what we need is to see genuine progress. We need to see positive outcomes through our relationship with Vietnam. At the very minimum, Australia, along with the international community, should require that the undertakings so freely given by the Vietnamese government in signing the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, simply be honoured.

In moving this motion, I call on the Australian government to review the current Human Rights Dialogue with Vietnam with a view to involving members of parliament and senators—not to carve out a specific role for parliamentarians but to ensure that there are positive outcomes that can be reported back to this parliament.

I am in the fortunate position of having being made aware of human rights abuses by the management committee of Vietnamese Community in Australia, by Colonel Vo Dai Ton, by Father Paul Van Chi and Father Francis, by Vietnam Sydney Radio, as well as by Viet Tan. These abuses are not made up; they concern real people—and very much so. As I indicated before, the son of one of the detainees is here tonight. These people and organisations have shown much passion for and commitment to improving the human rights situation in Vietnam. I would welcome their constructive input in future Australian-Vietnamese human rights dialogues.

I firmly believe that the government should consider the issue of human rights in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam when allocating funds under Australia's overseas development aid program. I believe that the government should encourage a whole-of-government approach on a bilateral and multilateral basis when dealing with Vietnam, particularly when there are concerns about human rights. I have always had a great respect and admiration for those who fight for and defend human rights. As the member for Fowler, I have been fortunate to have formed close friendships with some of these heroic men and women. Tonight I would like to mention two of them who have had a particular impact on me: Colonel Vo Dai Ton and Dr Tien Nguyen. Both of them were in the South Vietnamese Army, both of them endured the effects of their terms in re-education camps and both of them are making significant contributions now, in a positive way, to this country. They have contributed immensely in the field of human rights itself and also to the wider Australian community.

I would also like to acknowledge the contributions of Father Ly, who has spent a total of 15 years in prison since 1977 for his campaign for religious freedom, democracy and human rights. According to Human Rights Watch, Father Ly was sent back to prison at the end of July 2011 and sentenced to a further five years prison followed by five years of probation. There are great concerns for Father Ly's health, as he suffered three strokes whilst in solitary confinement in prison in 2009 and also has a brain tumour. I have had the opportunity to speak to Father Ly in the past through the assistance of Vietnam Sydney Radio and I greatly admire his dedication to human rights. He is a genuine Vietnamese patriot.

In March this year I paid tribute to the families of human rights defenders—the husbands, the wives, the mothers, the fathers and the children of these brave men and women who remain incredibly affected not only because of the denial of their human rights but also because they have been let down by a legal system which fails to honour fairness and equity for those who speak out. Whilst it is important to acknowledge human rights defenders, it is equally important to acknowledge their families and the hardships they endure in supporting their loved ones.

The Vietnamese people are some of the most courageous, capable and generous people I have ever met. Three decades ago they showed immense courage in leaving their home in search of a better life for their families. Those who have settled in Australia have shown great capacity in what they have been able to achieve. Vietnamese people have also shown great generosity, contributing widely to the Australian community—not just sharing with us their food and cultural festivities but also being proactive when it comes to helping fellow Australians in need. For example, the fundraising efforts that followed the devastation of the Queensland floods demonstrated the extent of the generosity of the Vietnamese community.

A good friend of mine, Dr Vinh Binh Lieu, told me of an old Vietnamese saying which loosely translates as 'when you eat the fruit of the tree, have regard to those who planted the seed'. He told me that, over the past 37 years, Australia has provided protection and support to so many Vietnamese families when they were vulnerable and in need. Now, seeing fellow Australians in difficulty, they see it as their responsibility as a community to give back. Together the Vietnamese community of south-west Sydney raised more than $450,000 for the Queensland Flood Appeal. Clearly the generosity and compassion of the Vietnamese community is extraordinary. Their commitment to this country is extraordinary.

I believe the big challenge for the Vietnamese government is to look at its people as the most valuable asset and resource it has. To date, it would appear that the Vietnamese government has had neither the faith nor the courage to do so. This brings me back to my motion. By overseeing a Vietnamese human rights dialogue involving members of parliament, senators and the wider community we can more regularly and appropriately discuss human rights issues in Vietnam. I believe that there should be more opportunities for community groups such as the VCA to raise human rights concerns directly with the Australian government. Further, by addressing human rights issues when allocating funding under Australia's overseas development aid program, we are emphasising the importance of human rights to the Australian government, which is also why we should be pressing the Vietnamese regime to honour international commitments they have freely entered into.

As a democratic country we have the freedom to express our views, criticise our governments and practise our religions. Despite whatever differences we may have in this place, the recognition of an individual's rights is what unites us. Australia has 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 neighbouring countries such as Vietnam. Again, that is something we should be proud of.

In doing so, we need to go further. More than simply mouthing the words, we should be requiring those countries that sign the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights to not only honour the convention for trade purposes but honour each and every one of its articles, particularly those that apply to people and their freedoms. I speak not to be destructive—I recognise that the war devastated Vietnam enough—but out of compassion. As I have regularly said, Vietnam has great potential to achieve much in the modern world. However, to achieve this and to achieve proper international recognition, the first step is to show a genuine respect for the fundamental human rights of its own people.

I thank the Vietnamese Community in Australia and their community leaders. I thank Federal President Phong Nguyen, New South Wales President Thanh Nguyen, ACT President Cong Le and the rest of their committee. I also thank Father Francis, Father Paul Van Chi, Viet Tan, Vietnam Sydney Radio, Colonel Vo Dai Ton and the many constituents who have raised these issues directly with me and requested their attention in the parliament. The love that Vietnamese Australians have for their traditional homeland, and their desire for a brighter future for Vietnam, is truly inspiring. I look forward to a future for Vietnam in which the fundamental human rights of its people are both honoured and respected. I commend the motion to the House.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

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

I second the motion. I thank the member for Fowler for moving this very important resolution. He may not thank me entirely because I will take up aspects of what he has had to say about the way in which the government has been dealing with this issue in the dialogue that does occur on human rights issues between Australia and Vietnam. As I am the deputy chair of the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, I continue to have an interest in these matters and I put that very directly.

My interest is not new. It goes back almost to the first of the Vietnamese who came to Australia through our refugee resettlement program, people whom I supported as they came and needed help and assistance. When Ian McPhee was Minister for Immigration, he asked me to go and work with Dick Klugman who was then the member for Prospect in relation to some of those settlement issues. Over a period of time I continued to have an interest in the way in which Vietnam was evolving. There was a unique committee of which I was patron for a number of years, the Australian committee for a free Vietnam. I remember many of those with whom I was engaged. A young lady who served on the refugee resettlement advisory committee for me was Kathryn Nguyen, who eventually went to the United States. Therese, or Kim Noc Dong, who I have known over many years, was actively involved. There were a number of Canadian members of parliament as well as Professor Steven Young, who provided a leadership role in the United States. I remained associated with the Australian committee for a free Vietnam until I became a minister and it was appropriate that some of my colleagues took on that continuing role.

I was interested that mention was made of Colonel Vo Dai Ton. He is a very significant personage because he decided, after having spoken on the need for freedom in Vietnam over a number of years, that he should go back and encourage people to strive for freedom. He was identified after entering Vietnam through Laos, if I remember correctly. In the late 1980s or early 1990s, Greg Sheridan, a writer for the Australian newspaper, asked me when I was visiting Vietnam whether I would take up the case of Colonel Vo Dai Ton, who had been imprisoned in what was colloquially known as the Hanoi Hilton. I see a lot of nodding in the gallery. Numbers of representations were made. I would like to take the credit, but I am not sure that I am deserving of the credit, although I was given some for the fact that I made representations at that time, but the Australian government—I think through Gareth Evans—was equally and actively involved on Colonel Vo Dai Ton's part.

My comments today are in the context of what is happening in Vietnam now. I have continued to maintain a strong interest in the community, notwithstanding the fact there are some but not all that many Vietnamese living in my electorate of Berowra. They would be very welcome in the electorate of Berowra, let me say, but it is not the case.

The passing of the Most Venerable Thich Phuoc Hue, who had been the leader of the Vietnamese Buddhist church in Australia, was tragic. He had had the refugee experience and was very much aware of it. Only two weeks ago, along with the member for Werriwa as the chairman of the Human Rights Subcommittee, of which I am a member and deputy chair, I had the opportunity to meet with a protestor outside of this House. That was Mr Truong Quoc Viet from the Block 4806 movement who was raising issues about land rights in Vietnam of behalf of his family, friends and community—not land rights in the sense that we understand it but the expropriation of their property without just compensation.

Human rights in Vietnam remain an issue of concern. Numbers of us in this House have been associated with Amnesty International. Their report for this year regales the harsh repression of dissidents, which they say continues with severe restrictions on freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly. It goes on to say:

Critics of government policies were targeted, including social and political activists. At least nine dissident trials took place with 20 defendants. Vaguely worded provisions of the 1990 Penal Code were used to, in effect, criminalize peaceful political and social dissent—

something that we take very much for granted here in Australia. It goes on—

The government continue to censor the internet …

Dozens of prisoners of conscience remained in prison. Religious and ethnic groups perceived to be opposing the government continue to face human rights violations. …

Severe restrictions on freedom of expression continue. The vaguely worded provisions of the 1999 penal code were used to criminalise dissent. Article 78 speaks of 'aiming to overthrow the state', whatever that means. Article 88 speaks of 'conducting propaganda against the state', whatever that means. Nine dissident trials of 20 defendants that are taking place remain of very considerable concern. There have been more than 18 individuals who have been arrested and many remain in pre-trial detention. Land ownership disputes continue between local authorities. Ethnic and religious minorities have to register before being able to own property and access education, health care and other services. Local security forces hold power to approve registration and thus hold great threat over individuals. The Montagnards in the Central Highlands and the Hmong in the Northern Highlands are victims of ongoing discrimination, beatings, harassment and torture. Mobile trials have been conducted, with more than 350 Montagnards sentenced to long prison terms since 2001 for crimes like demonstrating and attempting to flee the country, and attending prayers.

This is an appalling record that has been documented by Amnesty International. But mention is made in this resolution of a number of activists who remain under house arrest or in prison, such as the Most Venerable Thich Quang Do. I know of Thich Quang Do through my good friend the Venerable Thich Quang Ba, who continues his presence here around the parliament to apprise us of the concern for the United Buddhist Community. The Venerable Thich Quang Do remains under house arrest. He has been in prison for the last 30 years on a variety of charges. He has been released and re-arrested. He has been an advocate for religious freedom, democracy and human rights, and he was named in 2008 as the patriarch of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam. That continues to be banned by the government; it has been outlawed since 1981. The government has declared that it does not exist and that it is illegal, and monks, nuns and followers continue to experience harassment and surveillance.

It is not just his experience; he is a person of very considerable note and has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. A quote says:

One single party cannot possibly represent more than 80 million Vietnamese people. We must have a multiparty system that gives the people wide representation. To solve all these problems and injustices, we must work together for pluralism, democracy and human rights. Freedom of expression is especially important, for without this freedom, how can people voice their grievances and express their opinions to their rulers?

Mention is made of Reverend Nguyen Van Ly, re-arrested on 25 July while on sick leave from prison because of a stroke and a brain tumour. He is aged 64 and serving an eight-year sentence, having been arrested in 2007. The sentence was for conducting propaganda against the state. He has spent 17 years in prison due to his advocacy for human rights and freedom of expression. Equally, when you look at Dr Nguyen Dan Que, Dr Cu Hy Ha Vu and Mr Viet Khang, you see why we need to remain interested in these issues.

The member for Fowler, who spoke on this matter initially, raised the issue of Australia's aid program. It is a very significant program of $150 million planned for 2012-13. The only reference to support for human rights in our aid program is under the heading 'Vietnam human rights technical cooperation phase 4', and that does help to develop practical strategies to promote human rights in Vietnam. But when you look at the wide range of other activities in which we are engaged, I think it is important to reflect on how much influence we might have if we were prepared to engage vigorously in relation to these matters. Regrettably, while the dialogues occur and were designed to avoid a deterioration in bilateral relations, they were also designed to give us an opportunity to express our views on these issues with some determination. I would have to say that if members of parliament were actively included in these discussions I suspect the outcome would be very different. Instead of, after the event, asking the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to come before the Human Rights Commission and try to explain what issues they have raised and what sort of responses they may have had and to get some semblance of whether or not we have been able to influence anything, we would have members of parliament, possibly from the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee of Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, involved in those discussions.

The committee has, on a number of occasions, suggested to the government that that level of engagement should occur, and the government says that it is welcome. It even wrote to me as the deputy chair and asked whether I would like to go, provided I found money for my fares and could get myself there. I said that I did not think that was really appropriate and that we ought to be included. I wrote off to the foreign minister again and I got a response, saying, 'Maybe you should get the parliament to take money away from other parliamentary programs to give this one priority.' I imagine these delegations do not go without the government committing itself to the expenditure of sending the officers from the Department of Foreign Affairs Trade and others whom they have invited to participate. I do not imagine that they say to the department of foreign affairs' officials, 'Would you like to go to Vietnam as part of the delegation, and would you like to pay your own fares?' Thank you very much! I thank the member for Fowler for raising these matters because I think his colleagues are not serious or they have been conned by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, who think that this is not a priority for them and that maybe they can get somebody else to pick up the funding for them.

It may be benign and I may be misinterpreting it, but let me just make the point that the member for Fowler raises these issues very seriously. I commend him for doing so, and I think that this motion is very significant because it bells the cat about the government's willingness to have members of this parliament who are interested discuss and push human rights concerns and so make a difference. I thank the member for Fowler for giving me the opportunity to make these remarks. I hope I have not damaged him in the eyes of his colleagues. I hope those who are listening here will support him very fully and that maybe, next time we go back to Vietnam, rather than when they come here—and we can get there relatively easily—members of parliament will be included in the delegation and able to make the case that you want to hear made strongly on behalf of the people of Australia.

Laurie Ferguson (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commend the VCA for raising this matter. I commend the member for Fowler for bringing it before the House. What happens in this parliament and within this government with regard to Vietnam is extremely crucial because there is an attitude among many of our Asian neighbours that one does not interfere in the internal affairs of other member nations of ASEAN: that human rights is not essentially the province of the ASEAN group of countries as a whole. So what this country does is important, and it is right and proper that we do come to these matters today. Amnesty International, in discussing its three prisoners of conscience, said of Vietnam:

Harsh repression of dissidents continued, with severe restrictions on freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly.

Human Rights Watch equally talked of the Vietnamese government's human rights record remaining 'very weak' and said:

The government suppresses virtually all forms of political dissent—

Areas of concern include forcing prisoners to work while they are in jail, drug addiction, a judiciary that is not independent and the very wide ranging provisions and articles in the criminal code which mean that essentially any dissidence, criticisms or divergence from the government is basically a criminal act. They construe anyone advocating democracy in the country as propagandistic, against the national interest and treacherous.

I associate myself with the remarks of the member who spoke previously and who is, as he noted, the deputy chair of the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. When he speaks of government, I speak of governments, because the issues he spoke of should have been dealt with by a variety of Labor and Liberal governments—it has not emerged just this week. But I agree with him that if we are going to be serious about the human rights dialogues then the attendance of members of the human rights subcommittee should be financed, even though it does appear that public servants who are very persuasive with various ministers feel that it would be the end of Western civilisation if any MPs were in Vietnam for oversight.

During the inquiry that the subcommittee has conducted, it has been clear—without pre-judging the final outcomes—from members of the Vietnamese community that they have significant issues with the way in which dialogues with Vietnam operate. They have called for wider involvement of non-government organisations and civil society groups from this country. They have spoken of there being little transparency in Australia's human rights dialogues, primarily due to poor reporting. They have questioned the consultation with groups before and after meetings. They have spoken of a lack of monitoring and evaluation of outcomes from human rights dialogues. It is quite clear that the reporting back is insufficient. It is quite clear that not enough groups are engaged in discussions about the way that dialogues operate.

The Australian overseas development program of $150 million is significant to Vietnam and is one of our larger international efforts. There should be some changes made by DFAT to the way it operates. There is a balance—we cannot dictate to countries exactly how they will operate in regard to foreign aid—but we are supplying the money and, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs said recently about Papua New Guinea, the questions of human rights, democracy and judicial practices should be relevant. The dialogue with Vietnam that we have spoken about since 2002—there have been nine rounds of it—could be perceived by many critics as not having gained very much.

I turn now to talk about a few of the prisoners of conscience. Cu Huy Ha Vu has been signalled as a particularly relevant person because he comes from a family that has been associated with the regime. Some of his forebears were regarded as revolutionary heroes. He has been jailed for interviews with foreign media, as though that is something that people should be jailed for. His main efforts have been on the subject of bauxite mining and the confiscation of lands that were owned by people who fought the French. Nguyen Dan Que has been incarcerated, once again under the wide provisions of Vietnamese law, because he allegedly advocated the overthrow of the government. As many people have detailed, Father Nguyen Van Ly was jailed for 17 years for activities construed as spreading propaganda.

I associate myself very much with the previous speakers. I have been active, as have some of the other members, around Amnesty International's endeavours on this front and in the broader efforts by the VCA to put create some interest in this country in human rights in Vietnam. I commend the motion.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Fowler and to support the comments made by the members for Berowra and Werriwa. As this motion notes, there have been increasing reports of human rights violations in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, including evidence of continued house detention and the imprisonment of notable human rights activists including the Nobel Peace Prize nominee the Most Venerable Thich Quang Do, the Reverend Nguyen Van Ly of the Vietnamese Catholic Church, Dr Nguyen Dan Que, the legal scholar Dr Cu Huy Ha Vu and, most recently, the jailing without trial of Vo Minh Tri—known as Viet Khang—a popular young peace activist. Wherever human rights abuses are taking place it is our obligation to raise our voices in protest. These ongoing reports of human rights violations are of particular concern to the nearly 200,000 Australians of Vietnamese ancestry. I would take this opportunity to note the outstanding success of many in our Vietnamese community, who I know are represented in the gallery here tonight. This success has arisen through their entrepreneurial spirit backed by a willingness for hard work and sacrifice with a strong emphasis on family and a belief in democracy. I congratulate them.

This motion calls on the Australian government to consider the issues of human rights in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam when allocating funding under Australia's overseas development aid program. It is all very nice for members of this government to come into this chamber with this motion and call on the very same government to consider issues of human rights violations when allocating funding under the overseas aid development program; however this motion shows that the government is trying to walk both sides of the street.

This motion misleads Australia's Vietnamese community, which has actively sought to highlight human rights abuses of the Communist regime currently ruling the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. While the motion calls on Australia to consider the issues of human rights violations when allocating funding, it is worth noting that the current government has given out the single largest aid donation in South-East Asia to the Vietnamese government—$160 million to build a bridge over the Mekong River. At the same time, this Labor government cannot find money to fund vital infrastructure projects in Western Sydney and elsewhere throughout the nation. When this motion notes that since 2002 Australia and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam have had eight rounds of dialogue on human rights with no apparent results, why are we freely handing over $160 million to build a bridge? What message does that send?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw to your attention to an article published by the Communist Party of Vietnam's online newspaper. Here is the print-out—complete with the hammer and sickle and a picture of Uncle Ho—praising the Labor government for handing over $160 million of Australian taxpayers' money to build a bridge over the Mekong River in Dong Thap province. That is advertising which money cannot buy. According to the 'About Us' page on the website, the Communist Party of Vietnam's official newspaper:

Effectuates far-reaching dissemination of Marxism-Leninism and Ho Chi Minh Thought,

Stores classic works of Karl Marx … and Vladimir Lenin,

And—

Resolutely, actively and convincingly struggles against arguments and activities of hostile forces aiming to sabotage national revolution.

Simply, the very same publication which praises the Australian donation excuses the human rights violations currently ongoing in Vietnam. I suggest that this is very poor use of our foreign aid. We are getting very little return for our $160 million investment.

Further, handing over this aid money to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam in this way for the heavy infrastructure frees up that government to spend on other things. It is noteworthy that in February 2010 Vietnam revealed plans to buy six new Russian-built submarines and 12 Sukhoi SU-30 fighter-bombers at a cost of US$4.2 billion. In August 2010, Vietnam took delivery of the first of four new heavily armed Russian built Stealth Frigates costing $700 million, and it is now midway through acquiring 12 new 500-tonne Russian designed fast missile boats. This comes at a time when our Labor government has reduced our defence spending to the lowest level since 1938.

I support this motion, but the Vietnamese community know that our current government is walking both sides of the street, praising the Vietnamese government and handing out these generous donations while at the same time raising human rights violations back have. (Time expired)

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of this motion which raises some very important issues about the question of our ongoing relationship with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and important human rights issues which have been spoken about by a number of members already. It is clear that there is an ongoing journey towards democracy in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and that it still has an awfully long way to go. It is also clear that many good Vietnamese citizens have suffered at the hands of the authorities for engaging in activities which in a democracy such as ours would be seen as being the normal rights of a citizen. It is clear from some of the examples given by the member for Werriwa, for example, that the circumstances of some of these individuals are quite horrific and in need of further investigation and certainly of international protest.

When we go, though, to the detail of the motion, I do have to pick up on one point for a start. I was a bit disappointed by some of the more partisan political points made by the member for Hughes during the debate. The human rights dialogues we are talking about—and we are now up to round 9—did not all occur in the last four years, and I note that my friend the member for Berowra has nodded accordingly. The fact is that human rights in Vietnam have been an ongoing issue. There have been difficulties with progressing it; there are concerns, and those concerns need to be looked at. But I think we ought to say that there is a process and that it was there under previous governments as well as under this government, and, if there are problems with those processes, they are problems we all have responsibility for. The question really is: where do we go in future?

I note the motion's points about the need for a wider dialogue, and I was particularly interested in some of the comments about the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and what they have heard so far in their inquiry about what changes might be able to be made to ensure that a more open and viable dialogue can be brought forward. I know, from the point of view of having been a minister in a government, that how the circumstances around how you progress human rights issues in an international situation are often quite difficult. In dealing with the authorities in Vietnam on one occasion as a minister I was very pleased with the support that was given the Australian authorities on returning the remains of Vietnam veterans who had been killed during the Vietnam War.

I know that some of the issues that have been raised are incredibly serious. When we look to the question of how we develop a dialogue into the future, when we look to some of the concerns about ensuring that the dialogue is real and takes into account the concerns of expatriate communities who still have loved ones in the home country and when we look at trying to ensure that Vietnam develops into a country that we can all be proud of to call our friend in the international community, there is much more that needs to be done. I certainly support some of the options that have been mentioned around beefing up the human rights dialogue in order to ensure that there is more public support and political involvement. But I also say that engaging in a human rights dialogue is a difficult process, because you raise issues publically while trying also to get movement in a privately, and you really have to look at that over time. As we look to the future, I think there is much more that needs to be done.

On the aid program: I do not think it helps to get political about those sorts of questions. If we wanted to get political, we might talk about what level of aid projects and support there has been over the years and the question of what the budget once was versus what it is now. If we want to go to the question about particular projects and the best way to progress human rights dialogue with a country while supporting aid projects, we also have to understand it is a very multifaceted approach that needs to be taken to ensure that you achieve outcomes. Sometimes aid projects of the nature we have been talking about which are supported by the home country are sometimes the best way to go forward. What we do need to do is to make sure we put pressure on the Vietnamese authorities around the need to continue to progress down a track to a more open, vibrant and eventually democratic society. We need to understand that those who put their lives on the line in support of democratic rights, in support of human rights, need to be supported not only at home but also abroad. I commend those who have brought this motion forward and I commend those who continue to fight for freedom in that country.

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

This is the 14th time that I have spoken with regard to Vietnam and human rights in that country. I do that because I have a large Vietnamese community in the electorate of Cowan and I have been to the country twice. During my visits I have had the honour of meeting with pro-democracy activists and particularly the family members of detained activists. I have been inspired by the dedication that these people have to the cause of freedom and the courage that they display in pursuing that cause.

When I look at the names of activists on this motion I am very pleased to say that I have had the honour of meeting Thich Quang Do and of speaking to Father Ly on the telephone as well, but not the others, I am afraid to say. When I was in Saigon at the start of last year, to get to see Thich Quang Do it was quite onerous to be followed by security forces, but fortunately they allowed me to see him. Unfortunately, when I tried to see Father Ly in Hue I was prevented from doing so by the local officials.

Beyond those two great men who have done some great things for democracy and freedom in Vietnam, I would also mention Nguyen Dan Que, who was arrested not long after my last visit to Vietnam. I notice that he wrote at around the same time about the arrest of a US diplomat who tried to see Father Ly in Hue two days before I tried. Dr Nguyen Dan Que also called for mass demonstrations. At that time last year we were in the period of what has been called the 'Arab Spring' and it did give some hope to pro-democracy activists in Vietnam, but, unfortunately, not a whole lot of progress has been made there. Dr Nguyen Dan Que has unfortunately spent many years in jail as a result of his commitment to a truly democratic Vietnam and he remains in jail to this day.

Cu Huy Ha Vu is a very high profile activist that has fearlessly taunted the Communist Party leadership of Vietnam by attempting to charge the Prime Minister with an offence relating to the concessions to China for bauxite mines in the highlands. In September 2010 he effectively protested against the Prime Minister for his Determination No. 136, which strictly prohibited citizens from filing petitions and complaints against the Communist government. However, above all, he is known for his demands to repeal article 4 of the constitution of Vietnam, which places the Communist Party as the only body to lead the state and society. He was sentenced to seven years jail on 4 April 2011 for spreading anti-state propaganda.

Another human rights activist mentioned in this motion, Viet Khang, is a young songwriter who wrote two songs that objected to the crackdowns on protesters regarding Chinese incursions on the Paracel and Spratley Islands. For those of us who have a background or interest in Vietnamese human rights issues, it is a common theme for activists in the country to make a strong link between freedom of speech, freedom of religion and patriotism. It is my view that while the Communist Party sees itself at the centre of the state, these activists see the core of Vietnam as being the nation, comprised of the people, the culture and the territory. I believe that this is a fundamental issue and that such a difference generates a strong sense of cause across Vietnamese people in the homeland and around the world. I therefore suggest that opposition to the Communist Party rule is often manifested in terms of property and territory issues, resulting in religious based activism and patriotism.

Looking at the second part of this motion, I would say that Ambassador Alastair Cox and our embassy staff have been quite proud of their ability to raise human rights matters with the Vietnamese government, and I also understand that the human rights dialogue could involve the active participation of interested MPs and senators. I would welcome that with the appropriate backing from the government. With regard to development aid being linked to issues of human rights, I think that the government should pursue and investigate such options. However, if that involved stopping the support of the blind school that I visited in Saigon in 2009 then we should be very careful about that. I think that this government should focus on all our relations with Vietnam, upon the rights, freedoms and a wide participative democracy.

I also take this chance to remind the chamber that in 2009, the government feted the General Secretary of the Communist Party here in Canberra. He was treated in the same manner as a government leader or head of state, when he was neither. This should not happen again. I conclude for tonight by saying that Vietnam is being held back by a ruling elite that serves itself before the people. A truly democratic Vietnam would deliver a better Vietnam and a better life for Vietnamese people.

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

I would like to thank all the contributors to this debate, in particular the member for Fowler for this motion regarding human rights in Vietnam. I know this is a matter about which he has been very passionate for many years and, indeed, I had the pleasure of joining him outside Parliament House recently when we spoke to a group of people from the Vietnamese Community in Australia—some of whom are in the gallery tonight—as well as a courageous and determined young Vietnamese man, Truong Quoc Viet, who had travelled to Australia and camped alone in a small tent on the lawn outside parliament for a week to raise awareness of the human rights situation in his country. Truong was very keen for the Australian government to take note of the human rights situation when considering the delivery of foreign aid to Vietnam to ensure that it gets to the people it is intended to help—those living in poverty and facing threats to their liberty. He was also keen for Australian parliamentarians to become more involved in discussions regarding human rights taking place between Australia and Vietnam. Truong was encouraged to know that the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, of which I am a member and which is chaired by the member for Werriwa and of which the member for Berowra is deputy chair, is currently undertaking an inquiry into:

… the effectiveness of Australia's Human Rights Dialogues with China and Vietnam with particular reference to:

The subcommittee received submissions and heard evidence from a wide range of organisations, including, relevantly for this debate, the Vietnamese Community in Australia, the Committee to Protect Vietnamese Workers, the United Vietnamese Buddhist Congregation, Bloc 8406—Freedom and Democracy for Vietnam, the Prisoners of Conscience Fund, the Vietnam Committee on Human Rights & Que Me: Action for Democracy in Vietnam, and the Democratic Party of Vietnam.

There was also a submission sent from Hanoi from a Vietnamese attorney, Nguyen Van Dai, who had been imprisoned in Nam Ha prison for four years by the Vietnamese government, from March 2007 to March 2011. His submission, along with a number of others, suggested that Australia should attach its development aid to Vietnam's improvement in human rights and democracy, and that the degree of improvement in human rights should be assessed in a measurable way. He noted that examples of demonstrable improvements in human rights in Vietnam would include: the release of political prisoners and religious detainees; removal of house arrest of those already released; cessation of arrests and harassment by the government of Vietnam of those fighting for human rights and democracy; respect by the government of the rights of people to form and organise political parties and associations; the right of citizens to assemble; respect for the rights of free speech, free press, and allowing people to set up private newspapers; allowing the already-established parties to operate—for example, the Democratic Party and the Progressive Party—and respect for religious freedom.

It is reported by the Vietnamese Community in Australia, among others, that there are ongoing and severe violations of the rights of Montagnard Christian ethnic minorities from the northern and central highlands, Roman Catholics, people from the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, the Hoa Hao, Khmer Buddhists, and Cao Dai, as well as the human rights lawyers who defend these groups.

Submissions to the inquiry recommended that Australian aid include assistance to non-government organisations to assist organisations and individuals who are fighting for human rights and democracy in Vietnam, and improving access for ordinary people to information about their universal rights, and also that Australian officials make a point of visiting prisoners of conscience in Vietnam more often.

A number of submissions to the inquiry, including from the Committee to Protect Vietnamese Workers, recommended a significantly enhanced role for the parliament and NGOs, pre and post dialogues, as well as during the dialogue process itself, especially vis-a-vis parliamentarians, as well as improved reporting, monitoring and evaluation of the human rights outcomes of the dialogues.

The Vietnam Committee on Human Rights noted that the Australia-Vietnam dialogue 'can only be effective if it is a two-way process'. It is concerned that:

… Vietnam is using the dialogue, and other international initiatives, as a shield to deflect world scrutiny from its troubling human rights record.

I acknowledge the member for Fowler once again and welcome this debate here tonight as well as the inquiry being undertaken by the Human Rights Subcommittee into the effectiveness of the human rights dialogues, and I thank everyone who has contributed to these processes. I hope that eventually we will see significantly improved human rights outcomes for the courageous and peace-loving Vietnamese people.

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the motion regarding human rights abuses in Vietnam. In doing so, I would state from the outset that I do not believe that the motion has been raised with anything other than genuine concern as the member's primary motive. I do take the line, though, that Australians tend to take the high moral ground when dealing with other countries whereas we may not apply that to our own country. We, as a nation, can be very upfront in pointing out the shortcomings of other nations, but we can be very thin-skinned when the critique is pointed at us.

I will state at the outset that I have never been to Vietnam and have only spoken to a small number of people with Vietnamese heritage and contacts, and one of the things that this debate has shown me is that I do have a lot more work to do. But what we have here, as far as I am concerned, is a country which has only been around for some 40 years. Would we have appreciated other countries critiquing us in 1828 over the way we treated our convicts or, much less, how we treated the first inhabitants of this country? It is a long bow, I grant you, but I do believe that we should be careful. We, as a nation, criticise the Japanese for eating whale, but we will brook no such correspondence from countries who inform us that we are the only nation on the face of the earth which eats its own national symbols. We criticise India and tell them they should not have nuclear energy, but if they told us we were barbarians for eating beef we would look at them as if they had two heads.

I come from a multicultural city. Townsville is home to a huge number of races from all over the world. Our Cultural Fest started in 1994 with a couple of card tables and a Lions service club burger van. From this it has grown, under the stewardship of Dr Farvardin Daliri, a refugee himself, to a week-long festival of the most incredible food, colourful national costumes and fluid and passionate national dance, and the camaraderie of people pointing their children in the one direction. It is a truly joyous occasion.

I was part of the delegation from this House which met the politicians from the ASEAN delegation last week. We hosted politicians from Malaysia, Indonesia, Cambodia, Myanmar, Brunei, Singapore, the Philippines and Vietnam. They spoke highly of their work together to make a better Asia, to be more inclusive, to look after human rights, to raise the standards of debate and accountability, and to look after their people. I believe that they were honest in their approach.

If we look at things from a great distance, in isolation, we must be open to having the same game played by others. Vietnam is a great country and friend of Australia. We need to build bridges to open communication and commerce. I will also state my self-interest here: my brother, his wife and two children holidayed in Vietnam last year. They had a fantastic time, met a beautiful race of people and gloried in the culture of a peace-loving people.

As I said before, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is a young nation but one with a history and culture dating back to the Bronze Age. There are over 90 million people living in Vietnam and, sure, there are some very, very bad people there. But I would be willing to wager that the vast majority of the people in Vietnam want what we want in Australia—an education for their children, a job, and for their government to support them. Institutions such as James Cook University, the Australian Institute of Marine Science, the CSIRO and the coalition-backed Australian Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine can assist them in this endeavour and should be supported.

Again, I would like to stress that I do not believe that the member has proposed this motion for anything other than honourable intentions. And, again, I would like to suggest that the next time an Australian athlete is caught with a banned substance we do not automatically call foul and that, the next time another nation questions us over our treatment of people on Palm Island or in the Northern Territory or in Redfern, we appreciate that perception is neither right nor wrong—it just is.

Debate adjourned.