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

Almost 50 years ago, when speaking about freedom on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, Martin Luther King Jr changed the world when he declared: 'I have a dream.' I refer to Martin Luther King because he is a prime example of a courageous individual who enlivened the global consciousness with his vision of freedom and harmony. I find it incredible that people like him are brave enough to challenge governments and social norms, with the courage to stand up to fight for what is right. Through their efforts they have changed the world and made it a better place.

In recent years I have seen increasing numbers of young Vietnamese people demonstrate the same courage and conviction, young people who have challenged the Vietnamese government by demanding freedom and respect for human rights. Freedom of speech is not just a fundamental human right, it is also a vital component in any successful modern society. The human mind is an extraordinary thing, with a potential to achieve incredible things for our world. By restricting freedom of speech, the Vietnamese government is not only depriving people of their basic human right but is also limiting Vietnam's incredible potential to develop and prosper in today's global society.

I have on many occasions spoken about the alarming level of human rights abuses in Vietnam. Today, I would like to specifically refer to two young human rights activists, Nguyen Phuong Uyen and Dinh Nguyen Kha. These young activists were recently sentenced by the People's Court of Long An to imprisonment of six to eight years respectively, convicted under article 88 of the Vietnamese penal code for spreading information against the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

The two activists have been distributing leaflets in Ho Chi Minh City, protesting against China's claims to the Paracel and Spratly islands in the South China Sea. According to Human Rights Watch, the leaflets accuse the Vietnamese Communist Party of allowing China to exercise inappropriate influence over the country by occupying the islands, leasing forest lands and exploiting natural resources. The Vietnamese state media reported this as 'distorting the party and the policies of the states relating to religion and land and exhibiting a twisted viewpoint regarding the Spratly and Paracel islands and the borders between Vietnam and China'.

Though they were vilified by the Vietnamese government and the state media, the two activists have been described as heroes by the international community. Their courage to stand up for what they believe to be right is truly commendable. This is particularly so given the fact of their very young ages.

A very bright young woman, Nguyen Phuong Uyen, a 21-year-old student from Ho Chi Minh University of Food Industry, was arrested and taken to the police station on 14 October 2012 in the Tan Phu District. They did this without any notification to her parents or family. Eight days later her family were finally contacted and told that she had been transferred to the police at Long An province and charged under article 88 of the penal code. On 26 April this year, when Nguyen Phuong Uyen's mother visited her in prison, she saw her daughter covered in bruises. Phuong Uyen told her mother that she had been severely beaten while in detention.

According to the police, Dinh Nguyen Kha, a 25-year-old student from the Long An University of Economics and Industry, on 10 October 2012 together with Nguyen Phuong Uyen distributed anti-government leaflets at the An Suong overpass in Ho Chi Minh City. He was arrested on 11 October 2012. At his trial he made a statement I feel reflects the truth of the character of this young man. He said:

I am a patriot and I love my people. Always have and always will. I would never be against the people of Vietnam. What I'm against is the communist party.

Over the past three years, the Vietnamese community in my electorate have drawn my attention to the disturbing levels of human rights abuses in Vietnam.

This year alone at least 38 activists have been convicted of alleged anti-state activity. Earlier this year I spoke about the 14 human rights activists who were tried and convicted in January and handed sentences ranging from three to 13 years imprisonment for exercising their fundamental human right of freedom of expression.

In Australia, as in most democratic countries, the doctrine of separation of powers applies to ensure independence of our judiciary so judges and courts can act without fear or favour in the administration of justice. In Vietnam, however, there appears to be no clear division between the legislature, executive or judiciary as all administrative organs of government are ultimately under the direct oversight of the Communist Party. As Australians we believe that the protection of individual human rights is vital in our global efforts to achieve lasting peace, security, freedom and dignity for all. As Australians, our commitment to human rights is a reflection of our national values whereby a person's liberty and freedoms are respected.

The international community have strongly criticised the actions of the Vietnamese government. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have regularly released statements criticising human rights abuses in Vietnam. Recently the US embassy in Hanoi released a particularly strong statement exercising its concerns about the latest arrest of the two young activists in Ho Chi Minh City. Although Vietnam is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it is evident that the Vietnamese government and, indeed, the Vietnamese courts are denying human rights activists a fair trial.

As we speak today the ninth annual Australian Vietnamese human rights dialogue is taking place here in Canberra.

I believe that the human rights dialogue presents a great opportunity for appropriate representations to be made on such vital issues. I have written to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Bob Carr, and brought to his attention various cases of human rights abuses which should be raised during this dialogue. These cases include: the 14 activists who were sentenced on 8 January this year; Viet Khang, who was tried and convicted on 30 October 2012; Nguyen Van Hai, Ta Phong Tan and Phan Thanh Hai, who went to trial on 24 September 2012; and Nguyen Phuong Uyen and Dinh Nguyen Kha, the two activists who were sentenced on 16 May this year.

In March 2012 eight Hmong protesters were also sentenced to two years imprisonment for 'partaking in a separatist ethnic movement'. In February 2012 Pastor Nguyen Cong Chinh was sentenced to five years for 'distorting the domestic situation by criticising the government and the army in the foreign media'. In December 2011 Nguyen Van Lia, a 71-year-old who raised international awareness about the situation faced by fellow members of the Hoa Hao Buddhists was sentenced to five years imprisonment for 'distributing anti-government propaganda'.

Although Vietnam is a member of the United Nations and a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, these cases are evidence of the continuing human rights abuses in Vietnam and the country's failure to comply with their international obligations.

In the gallery today we have Joachim and Boa KhanhNguyen and representatives of Bloc 1706, all very proud Australians, active community members and passionate about the issue of freedom and human rights in Vietnam. While they look very strongly to the future they cannot forget the past or what the people of Vietnam currently suffer. I congratulate them and thank them for being here.

Earlier I referred to Martin Luther King, who awakened the world with his incredible vision of courage in standing up for change. Along with the Vietnamese community in Australia, I too have a dream. I dream: that the 90 million people living in Vietnam will have their fundamental human rights honoured by their government; that the heroes brave enough to speak up for what is right will be respected rather than vilified and thrown into prison; and that the Vietnamese government will comply with its international legal obligations and take its place among the advanced nations of the world. I join with my community in dreaming that one day soon freedom, democracy and human rights will be restored for the people of Vietnam.

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

I join with the member for Fowler to speak on this important matter. I know he has a long history in this place of speaking on behalf of the great and good cause of freedom in Vietnam. Freedom in Vietnam includes religious freedom and freedom of speech. Many of us would say, and all Vietnamese people in Australia, look forward to a day when there is true democracy in Vietnam, where anybody who raises even the possibility of an advancement beyond the single party state will not be committing a crime, where the Vietnamese government will be true to the covenants of human rights and democracy that it has signed but never adhered to.

From my two visits to Vietnam and my many talks with Vietnamese people within the electorate of Cowan, and from what I have seen on websites and blogs regarding matters to do with readers in Vietnam, the issues could probably be confined to three areas. That is, religious freedom, land rights and patriotism. I particularly want to mention this last area, which is involving so many of the bloggers and protests we have seen in Hanoi, Saigon and other places in Vietnam. It relates to Vietnamese people, who believe very strongly in their homeland—in their nation. They offer up their voices—whether it is through electronic means, protests or other means—to talk about what is in the best interests of their nation. Yet on so many occasions the Vietnamese government finds fault with that. It locks people up—jails them. It is particularly the case for Nguyen Phuong Uyen and Dinh Nguyen Kha. More recently, Kha's brother has been arrested, as well.

It is their patriotism—their belief in their country—that so often brings people into conflict with the Communist government in Vietnam. They raise things to do with the national interest. The Paracel Islands and the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea is something that a lot of Vietnamese people are concerned about. People find fault with the pandering, in many ways, of the Communist government to Beijing. They also find fault with the Chinese concessions—the bauxite mines—in the highlands, which are doing untold environmental damage.

People feel strongly about their country, and for that feeling—that patriotism and the national interests of Vietnam—people find themselves jailed. People are arrested on a regular basis. That is the reality of what is going on in Vietnam.

I have spoken on many occasions about the religious grievance. Again, the member for Fowler mentioned the young Catholic people that have been fairly recently sentenced and jailed in Vietnam. Often that is to do with land rights and the wish to be able to follow their religion without the controls of the state. As we know, in Vietnam people are free to practice religion—provided they have their leaders authorised and licensed by the state! I am being facetious, obviously, because that is no great freedom at all.

If a church is prepared to hand over its membership list to the state then they are free to practice. If they wish to hand over the list of names of people who attend regularly or who come and visit their church, temple or whatever, then they can practice their religion. But if people in Vietnam refuse to do those things—if they refuse to hand over those lists and if they refuse to do exactly as they are told by the state—then they run afoul of the state and they are persecuted by the state.

We have spoken before of the cowshed church in Saigon. I was fortunate enough to visit there back in, I think, the start of 2011, and I worshipped with the Mennonites in the Cow Shed Church. They were kicked out of the house church that they had because the local Communist authorities did not like what was being said or did not like the fact that that church did not provide a membership list to the state. They would not do as they were told and, as a consequence, they were kicked out. The pastor's wife—I saw her there on that day—suffered from mental illness but she were forced to live in that shed while the pastor is in jail. She was forced to live in that shed behind a curtain. The Mekong River had risen at the time of my visit so that we were knee-deep in its waters. The pastor's wife, who has unfortunately since died, was stuck there, suffering, without any support from the state. She was, amongst her fellows in the church, persecuted by that same state. That is the religious freedom that awaits those in Vietnam who refuse to do the bidding—who refuse to follow the orders—of the state.

The tragedy of Vietnam, as we know and as we see all the time in Australia, is that those that hail from Vietnam are highly successful in this country because the shackles of socialism and communism are taken off their backs. In this country, if they want to work hard, they can get the benefits of working hard. Back there, they have to do as they are told. The Communist Party impose restrictions on people economically, religiously and democratically. In doing that, they hold back a proud country of 88 million people. I can only imagine how successful Vietnam would be without the shackles of an oppressive state and the uncaring, self-motivated and self-serving Communist Party of Vietnam. I can only imagine how successful that country would be if they had the same conditions and opportunities that we have in this country, which Vietnamese Australians have thrived under.

They want the same opportunities. There needs to be a time in the future when article 88 of the Vietnamese constitution, the article that has caused so many people to be arrested and jailed, is taken off the backs of the Vietnamese people, when Vietnam becomes the country where the individual is valued and where, collectively, the success of the country is valued more than is currently the case. As we know, in all communist and socialist systems, the talk is very good at the start about looking after individuals, but, in the end, in every case, the reality is a self-serving organisation, such as the Vietnamese Communist Party, existing for the benefit of a small number of members. In the end, they are the ones looked after while the people do the bidding of the state.

I appreciate the opportunity that the member for Fowler has provided today to, again, let us look at what needs to change in Vietnam. I hope that through the ninth human rights dialogue some progress can be made. At the moment, it looks like progress is not being made. The arrest and beating of young activists, particularly Nguyen Phuong Uyen, is a tragedy that represents what the state of Vietnam is all about. I am sad and sorry that there has been no great progress in Vietnam, but we look forward to better days. Hopefully, through the dialogue we will see better days. Time will tell. I pay tribute to the brave Vietnamese people.

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am honoured today to speak on this private member's motion by the member for Fowler. He is a well-known campaigner for human rights in Vietnam. I read several of his speeches in preparation for this contribution today. I congratulate him on this motion. I also rise to express, in this place, and obviously from my perspective, the concerns of my local Vietnamese community in Holt about human rights abuses in Vietnam.

It is said, when you look at the official briefing papers, that Australia has enjoyed a strong bilateral relationship with Vietnam since the establishment of diplomatic relations in 1973. It is said that Australia is a leading study destination for Vietnamese students, with more than 23,000 student enrolments in Australian educational institutions and an estimated 10,000 students undertaking Australian education and training courses in Vietnam. This has apparently been aided by RMIT University beginning operations in 2001 in Vietnam as the first wholly owned foreign university in Vietnam. That is what is said.

In Australia, I am proud to say that we have a wonderful Vietnamese community of over 150,000 people. The DFAT briefing paper says the number is 210,000. Regardless of the number, it is a wonderful community that makes a significant contribution to our country. I believe it is the fourth largest in the world outside of Vietnam. Since 1975, Vietnamese migrants have made a profound contribution to Australia through their culture, their history and what they bring to this country. They are a proud people who are deeply concerned about their country. Whilst, again, it is said that Australia builds closer ties with Vietnam, many Vietnamese people in Australia are deeply concerned about the previous, past and ongoing human rights abuses in Vietnam.

The Vietnamese community that now calls Australia home enjoys the virtues of living in a democracy and universal human rights principles. They have freedom of expression. However, they desire that their relatives in their homeland enjoyed similar freedoms. Under the regime of the current Socialist Republic of Vietnam, such freedoms for many just do not exist. Instead, as we have heard from contributions from the member for Fowler and the other honourable member, the Vietnamese government continues to systematically suppress freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly.

I have heard about the ninth Australia-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue, which my colleague the member for Fowler participates in. Whilst that presents an opportunity, it does not stop us in this place speaking with one loud, powerful voice on behalf of the Vietnamese community in our electorates across the country. I, my Victorian state colleague, Luke Donnellan, the member for Narre Warren North—who has actually been to Vietnam-and obviously the member for Fowler and others consistently report, and will continue to report, to this parliament human rights abuses that continue in Vietnam. The Vietnamese government must be held accountable.

I would like to thank Mr Tien Dung Kieu, the President of Vietnamese TV on Channel 31, for coming personally into my office to talk about the human rights abuses that have occurred and are occurring in Vietnam. He specifically brought to my attention the two young Vietnamese activists who were recently arrested and sentenced for criticising the government. Imagine if we did that in this country—we would arrest just about everybody. In Vietnam, basically, if you criticise your government you are put in prison. That is unacceptable. It does not matter if it is a socialist republic; it is unacceptable.

As we have heard, last month student Nguyen Phuong Uyen and computer technician Dinh Nguyen Kha were convicted on subversion charges. It is interesting for young university students to be charged with subversion. According to the state media, that wonderfully free and august independent organisation, Nguyen Phuong Uyen and Dinh Nguyen Kha were arrested for handing out leaflets that:

… distort the Party and the State’s policies related to religion and land, and exhibit a twisted viewpoint regarding the Spratly and Paracel islands and the border land between Vietnam and China.

Those are two young university students. The state media—again, that independent organisation—accused the two of:

… calling and agitating people to protest against the Communist Party of Vietnam and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

As I said, in other democracies, if people were put people on trial for distributing leaflets critical of the government, you would have a revolution on your hands. I find it incredible, and I know that is mirrored by the Vietnamese community that is here today, my Vietnamese community. They feel very deeply about the fact that, after a one-day trial, in May 2013, Nguyen Phuong Uyen—a young university student—was given six years in prison, whilst Dinh Nguyen Kha received eight years following a one-day trial. A one-day trial—that is a system of justice in a country isn't it?

According to Human Rights Watch, Nguyen Phuong Uyen, 21, from Ham Thuan Bac district, Binh Thuan province, is a student-as I said—at the capital's university. The police arrested Uyen on 14 October 2012 in Tan Phu district, and took her to the police station in the Tan Phu district's Tay Thanh ward without informing her family. Imagine if, in this country, your son or daughter, for protesting legitimately, was taken away, and you were not told where they were. Phuong Uyen's family and friends launched an intensive search for her by making inquiries at the police station and alerting the public via non-state channels, including the BBC and Radio Free Asia. It was not until eight days later-eight days-that an officer at the Tay Thanh police station told Uyen's mother that she had been transferred to the police of Long An province. On 23 October 2012 the Long An police acknowledged that Phuong Uyen had been charged with 'conducting propaganda against the state'—that is what free speech gets you in Vietnam—under article 88 of the penal code. According to the indictment, Nguyen Phuong Uyen was officially arrested on 19 October 2012, leaving five days unaccounted for by officials. According to reports, Phuong Uyen's mother claims that on a visit on 26 April 2013, she saw many bruises on her daughter's neck, upper chest and arms. Her mother said that Phuong Uyen told her that in detention she was beaten and kicked severely in the stomach. It was only when she fainted that prison guards came in to stop the beating and took her to see a doctor. Human rights in Vietnam!

According to Human Rights Watch, Dinh Nguyen Kha was from the city of Tan An. On 10 October 2012, he allegedly dropped anti-government leaflets at the An Suong overpass in the capital. On 29 September 2012, the People's Court of Tan An City convicted and sentenced Dinh Nguyen Kha to two years in prison for 'intentionally dropping leaflets'. Don't hand out leaflets, because in Vietnam, particularly when they speak about freedom, they cause injury to others, according to the government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. He was also charged with terrorism under article 84—a very convenient article.

The Australian government must continue to strongly condemn these human rights abuses because they are nothing more than human rights abuses. On behalf of the Vietnamese community, we need to continue to raise these issues until the government changes its stance, until they treat their people with respect, until they afford their people the rights that Vietnamese people in this country have.

I also want to briefly raise in the time I have remaining the ongoing case of Father Thadeus Nguyen Van Ly, a Catholic priest who has been nominated for the 2013 Nobel Peace Prize by members of the US Congress Chris Smith and Zoe Lofgren. We know the story of Father Ly, but what you might not know is that in 2006 my state parliamentary colleague Luke Donnellan, the member for Narre Warren North, visited Father Ly in March 2006 to discuss his treatment at the hands of the authorities. After visiting Father Ly in Vietnam, Mr Donnellan—a member of the state government—was banned by the Vietnamese government from visiting Vietnam for five years. This action by the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to ban a Victorian member of parliament from visiting Vietnam is disappointing to say the least—and I am using diplomatic language. Mr Donnellan was standing up for the universal principles of protecting and defending human rights.

Thank you, again, member for Fowler for this motion. We will continue to raise these ongoing issues and ongoing abuses. Young university students in this country can protest without imprisonment, without being beaten and without being taken off the streets. This happens in Vietnam. The government cannot conduct discussions with Vietnam without continuing to raise these issues. As long as I am in this place, we will continue to do so.

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 I congratulate him on it. His motion states:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) on 16 May 2013 two young activists, Nguyen Phuong Uyen, age 21, and Dinh Nguyen Kha, age 25, were sentenced to six and eight years, respectively, in jail by the People’s Court of Long An province in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam;

(b) the two activists were arrested for distributing literature protesting against China’s claims to the Paracel and Spratly Islands in the South China Sea; and

(c) there are credible reports from various international agencies of continuing human rights violations in Vietnam which is evidenced by the high number of house detentions and imprisonment for people engaged in activities as basic as expressing views contrary to the Vietnamese Government’s position; and

(2) calls on the Australian Government to:

(a) refer the matters of Nguyen Phuong Uyen and Dinh Nguyen Kha, and other issues concerning human rights in Vietnam that have been raised in the Australian Parliament, to the next round of the Australia-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue; and

(b) continue to take appropriate steps to convey to the Vietnamese Government that Australia expects Vietnam to honour its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Although Vietnam's economy has made many great strides over recent years, its record on human rights remains extremely poor. Today the socialist government of Vietnam virtually suppresses all forms of political descent using a broad array of repressive measures. Freedom of expression and association and even public assembly are tightly controlled. Religious activists are harassed, intimidated and imprisoned. The criminal justice system lacks independence and operates under the direction of the government and the socialist communist party. Vietnam's authoritarian penal code prohibits public criticism of the government and the Vietnamese communist party. We know that in 2012 at least 40 people were known to have been convicted and sentenced to prison merely for peaceful dissent, an increase on the number from 2011. And in the first five months of this year we have seen more than 50 people convicted in political show trials, more than the number for the whole of 2012.

That brings us to the case of Nguyen Phuong Uyen and Dinh Nguyen Kha. Nguyen Phuong Uyen, at just 21 years of age, was a student at Ho Chi Minh University of Food Industry. The police arrested her on 14 October 2012 in Ho Chi Minh City and took her to the police station without even informing her family. Her family and friends then launched an extensive search for her by making inquiries of that very police station and alerting the public via non-state channels, including the BBC and Radio Free Asia. It was not until eight days after she had gone missing that an officer at that police station told her mother that she had actually been transferred to the police in Long An Province. On 23 October the Long An police acknowledged that she had been charged with 'conducting propaganda against the state' under article 88 of Vietnam's penal system. According to the indictment, Nguyen Phuong Uyen was officially arrested on 19 October, leaving five days during which here whereabouts were unaccounted for by officials. Her mother claims that on a visit on 26 April she saw many bruises on her daughter's neck, her upper chest and her arms. Her mother said that she told her that she was beaten and kicked severely in the stomach by guards in detention and that it was only when she fainted that the prison guards stopped the beating and took her to see a doctor.

Following these sentences, the Asia director of Human Rights Watch noted:

Putting people on trial for distributing leaflets critical of the government is ridiculous and shows the insecurity of the Vietnamese government …

Writing things that do not please the government is only a crime in a dictatorship. Vietnam should stop using politically-controlled courts to convict critics of the government.

The US embassy also issued a strong statement last month in light of these sentences handed down. It said:

We are concerned by a Vietnamese court's sentencing of Dinh Nguyen Kha to eight years in prison and Nguyen Phuong Uyen to six years in prison on subversion charges.

These convictions are part of a disturbing trend of Vietnamese authorities using charges under national security laws to imprison government critics for peacefully expressing their political views.

These actions are inconsistent with the right to freedom of expression and, thus, Vietnam's obligation under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and commitments reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

We call on the government to release prisoners of conscience and allow all Vietnamese to peacefully express their political views.

That is the message from the US embassy.

This is not the only case. I was very glad to hear the member for Holt raise the case of the Roman Catholic priest Nguyen Van Ly, also known as Father Thaddeus, who was detained for so-called spreading of propaganda against the state. What incentives are there currently for the Vietnamese socialist government to make changes to improve their human rights on record? It is all very well for us to come in here and make these well-intentioned motions, but we have to back it up with action. It is worthwhile noting that, as we are sitting here speaking in favour of this motion, our government is giving $160 million to the very same Vietnamese government that we are criticising to build a bridge across the Mekong River. I am sure this bridge will facilitate trade and economic growth in that region, but what message are we sending when our nation borrows $160 million that we do not have and gifts it to the Vietnamese government? How can that Vietnamese government take motions like this seriously when we are giving such generous gifts?

Of course, us gifting them $160 million to build up their heavy infrastructure leaves the Vietnamese government free to spend their money elsewhere. So it is no surprise that what we have seen over recent years is a massive increase in Vietnamese military spending. Vietnam already spends more on defence as a proportion of GDP than all its South-East Asian neighbours—of course, except Singapore—spend. In December 2011, Hanoi signed a contract with Russia's defence export agency for two additional Durapart Corvettes. This follows the acceptance of two of the last four patrol boats in October. Confirmation was provided by senior Vietnamese military officials in mid 2011 that Hanoi had ordered six Kilo class submarines for 2013 to 2016—and it has begun to take delivery—as well as ordering 12 Sukhoi Su-30MKK fighter aircraft. These Soviet-made advance fighter aircraft cost $30 million a pop. Rather than our government giving the Vietnamese government $160 million to build a bridge, why don’t we cut out the middleman and give them five Soviet fighter aircrafts instead? If we are going to be serious, we have to be a very loud voice against what the Vietnamese government is doing. Sometimes, with our foreign aid programs, we just cannot isolate the two.

In my remaining time, I would also like to commend the comments from the member for Cowan, who commented on the enormous contribution that the Vietnamese community have made to Australia through their entrepreneurial culture. To get the best economic advancement for that country, the socialist government of Vietnam must protect human rights and it must guarantee freedom of speech. If it can release the entrepreneurial spirit that we have seen from the Vietnamese community, the country of Vietnam has a great future. It will not do that while it continues to suppress human rights, while it continues to suppress free speech and while it continues to suppress religious liberty. We owe it to the people of Vietnam and to our local Vietnamese community to use our voice as loudly as we can to express our outrage against these violations by the Vietnamese government.

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

I am very pleased to speak on this motion, which I seconded with the member for Fowler. I congratulate the member for Fowler for moving it and also for his longstanding advocacy for the cause of human rights in Vietnam. It is a matter very close to his heart, as it is to mine and to the hearts of many members across the House.

This motion refers to some individual cases—and these are very concerning individual cases—the case of Nguyen Phuong Uyen, who is aged 21, and the case of Dinh Nguyen Kha, who is aged 25, who have been sentenced to six and eight years respectively. These are very substantial times in prison. This motion is useful because it uses these cases as examples of what is happening in Vietnam. Obviously, by expressing concern about these cases—and we are doing so very strongly—we are using these cases as examples of what is happening in Vietnam more generally.

When you look at the sentences for these two young people, and they are very substantial sentences, it is worth looking at what crimes they are alleged to have committed. They have glued on to a tree trunk a slogan: 'Long An's patriot youths struggle for freedom and human rights'. On a wall they have glued a flag with the slogan '1890 to 1920 – National Flag of Great Vietnam'. They have publicised pictures and pamphlets calling into question the actions of the government and the Communist Party of Vietnam. These are things for which no-one should be imprisoned for even a day let alone six or eight years. These are people who are going about their business exercising their right to freedom of expression, which every single human being should hold. It is a right that the Vietnam government has previously recognised. Vietnam is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 19 states:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

It is a very clear statement of the rights of the people of Vietnam, which the government of Vietnam has recognised by signing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

These two cases are concerning and deeply disturbing. It is appropriate that this motion be considered today, because the Australia-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue is underway today. And it is appropriate that this House expresses this very strong view on this day so that the government of Vietnam can be under no illusions just how concerned members of the Australian Parliament are not only about these two cases but about the human rights of Vietnamese people up and down Vietnam.

Dozens of activists have been jailed since there was a crackdown on freedom of expression, in late 2009. Most people would, I think, correctly reach the conclusion that the government of Vietnam was very concerned about events in the Middle East—the Arab Spring—as one-party states were around the world. They were concerned that the sorts of examples we were seeing in the countries of the Middle East would spread.

There are various ways you can deal with things like that. Unfortunately, it appears the government of Vietnam has chosen to deal with that threat, from their point of view, by not liberalising and not making things better, but by making things worse. That is something we cannot abide.

It is true to say, and it should be recognised, that the government of Vietnam has over recent years introduced some economic reforms. They are good economic reforms. They have unleashed the power of the market and entrepreneurism, to a certain degree, and the Vietnamese economy and people have benefited from this. But that is nowhere near enough. If you are going to liberalise the economy you need to liberalise society as well.

This is not to say that the Australian government would dictate to the government of Vietnam how it should run its country and how it should do its business. But it is right that the Australian Parliament very strongly expresses the view that the human rights of the people of Vietnam should be protected, promoted and enhanced. We need to do this not because it is our right, but because it is our obligation, because the people of Vietnam need somebody to speak on their behalf. The people of Vietnam need somebody to speak up for them, and here in this home of democracy in Australia it is perfectly appropriate that we do so. We have done so before. Motions have been moved in the House before by the member for Fowler, by me and by other honourable members. Back in 2006, I think, we signed a declaration—and I remember the member for Fowler signing it with me—in support of human rights in Vietnam. We organised this in support of the efforts of the pro-democracy group in Vietnam. That pro-democracy group is represented here in the parliament today in the form of representatives of Block 1706, and I recognise their attendance here today: Joachim, Boa Khanh, and the other members of the delegation. They are standing up and have been very strong advocates for the human rights of people in Vietnam, as have those elsewhere, who I recognise today, who could not be in the chamber today. I am referring to other Vietnamese Australians who have very strongly stood up for the rights of Vietnamese people.

That is one thing about the Vietnamese community in Australia: the member opposite correctly referred to the spirit of entrepreneurism and the contribution made by Vietnamese Australians to our country. That is all true and appropriate. The member for Hughes is right to acknowledge that. But the other thing about the Vietnamese community in Australia is that they have not forgotten their brothers and sisters left in Vietnam and they have been, almost universally, in my experience, dedicated to ensuring that their human rights are not forgotten.

Next week, there will be a celebration of the seventh anniversary of bloc 1706. I will be attending and the member for Fowler will be attending, as we have done in the past, because it is important that people in Vietnam putting human rights on the agenda do receive that support and encouragement. At some of those dinners in the past there have been telephone links to human rights activists in Vietnam, where we have personally provided encouragement to priests and others in Vietnam who have been expressing support for their human rights.

These days, it is much harder to suppress people. It is much harder to deny people information through the information revolution. Today, 31 million people use the internet in Vietnam, compared to two million in 2000. The authorities are actively promoting the internet to support economic development and trade—that is a good thing—but they are also determined to control online content and to crack down on those who use the internet to denounce corruption, social inequalities or the lack of freedom of expression. It is deeply concerning that Reporters Without Borders ranks in Vietnam 172nd out of 179 countries in its Press Freedom Index for 2011-12. Criminal penalties apply to authors, publications, websites and internet users who disseminate materials deemed to oppose the government, threaten national security, reveal state secrets or promote 'reactionary' ideas. The government blocks access to politically sensitive websites, requires internet cafe owners to monitor and store information about users' online activities, and subjects independent bloggers and online critics to harassment and pressure. I have seen examples of this repeatedly. So far in 2013, at least 46 activists have been convicted of anti-state activity and sentenced to often lengthy jail terms under what rights groups say are vaguely defined articles of the penal code, most of which are contained in article 88 of the Criminal Code, on 'anti-state propaganda', which carries prison terms of up to 20 years.

This is deeply concerning. I have met, as I said, many Vietnamese Australians who have been courageous in fighting for the cause of democracy in Vietnam, where some of them have suffered great hardship, time in prison and forcible separation from their loved ones, and they have continued that fight here in Australia. It is a fight which they will continue and which we will continue to support them in. As I say, it is right and appropriate that the government of Vietnam be under no illusions as to how strongly members of the Australian parliament feel about these matters.

I have said in the past at various functions that democracy will come to Vietnam—and it will. There is nothing more certain because it will eventually come to all nations. But it will only come because of the courage and tenacity of people who stand up for the rights of Vietnamese people.

Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Vietnam served as the chair of ASEAN in 2010 and has since demonstrated little respect for core principles in the ASEAN charter to strengthen democracy and protect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms. The economic advances of Asia in the last quarter-century have been nothing short of astounding. Since Doi Moi, or economic liberalisation, growth has been miraculous, lifting millions out of poverty. But lifting people out of poverty is not enough. Important is the way in which it is done. The world needs more good growth. This differentiation is widespread in economics, and the united opinion of commentators from Amartya Sen to Greg Mankiew is that the world needs more good growth, or conscientious capitalism. To guarantee further good growth and responsible growth cognisant of human rights and the benefits thereof, Australia should have a greater say.

This motion is all about getting this place to put responsibility before reticence. It is about standing up. We are talking about Asia—this is where we live. The people we are talking about here are our neighbours. To paraphrase former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, we must have an interest for selfless and selfish reasons. Our interest in issues in Vietnam goes beyond the altruistic; we have economic and security interests in the region. One half of the world's seaborne trade travels through the region surrounding the Paracel and Spratly Islands. Our parliament should mirror the concerns held by The Australian regarding China and its intention in the region, remembering that prudence is to look at processes and proceedings, not just pronouncements. This would mean asking more, and more difficult, questions of China and its desire to engage claimants to the disputed territories of the Paracel and Spratly Islands in bilateral dialogues. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. This speaks to our values.

As an Australian and a free person I am concerned. I cite the case of Nguyen Phuong Uyen and Dinh Nguyen Kha. Vietnam is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I call upon Vietnam to step up and honour their words and commitments. The time is now, and the opportunity is the Australia-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue.

Under the current constitution, the Communist Party of Vietnam is the only one allowed to rule, the operation of all the political parties being outlawed. This is the main problem in terms of political freedom. Other human rights issues concern freedom of association, freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I draw attention to Freedom House reports that a provincial court in Vietnam convicted 14 activists of 'subversion of authority', sentencing 13 of the activists to three to 13 years in prison and giving one activist a suspended sentence. The 14 activists, which include students, bloggers and citizen journalists were accused of having ties to the banned Viet Tan network and were tried together in a sham trial that lasted only two days. Most of the activists are Catholic, a group often persecuted in Vietnam, reflecting the government's poor record on religious freedom.

Freedom House is also concerned by reports that several of the family members and supporters of the activists who peacefully gathered outside the courthouse were harassed, assaulted and detained by police officers. This is the latest escalation in the government's persecution of free speech advocates. Le Quoq Quan, a blogger who was arrested on 27 December and subsequently began a hunger strike to protest his detention, has been denied visits from his family and lawyer.

Freedom of expression is severely curtailed in Vietnam, and the country is rated 'not free' in Freedom in the World 2012, Freedom of the Press 2012 and Freedom on the Net 2012. Harassment of cyber-activists has been on the rise since 2008, with the government engaging in a targeted campaign against critics, cracking down on blogs and social media, and harassing and detaining independent bloggers and their families. The government restricts religious practices through legislation, registration requirements, harassment and surveillance. A centrally directed police unit, A41, monitors groups the authorities consider religious extremists. Religious groups are required to register with the government and operate under government controlled management boards. The government bans any religious activity deemed to oppose national interests, harm national unity, cause public disorder or sow divisions.

Adherents of the same unregistered religious groups and religious activists campaigning for internationally guaranteed rights are harassed, arrested, imprisoned or placed under house arrest. In just January of this year police used tear gas and electric batons to disperse villagers from Dong Chiem parish, near Hanoi, who were trying to stop police from taking down a crucifix.

Australia should advocate for a conscientious capitalism. It is not beyond our right and duty to wish to see greater human rights and freedoms in Vietnam, but I urge all in this place to be conscious of the need for economic development—for it is true that, if we have nothing, it is easy to share. The pie needs to be grown. The greatest example of the liberating revelation of democratic capitalism is that today in the West the average person has a lifestyle that the wealthiest kings in Europe could only dream of a short time ago.

The two young activists were convicted of conducting propaganda against the state. They were convicted for handing out leaflets that distorted the party and the state's policy in relation to religion and land and exhibit a twisted viewpoint regarding the Spratly and Paracel Islands in the borderland between Vietnam and China. The conviction of these two young people shows the insecurity of the Vietnamese government, and acting in this way is akin to dictatorship. The police arrested Phuong Uyen and took her to the police station without informing her family. The family was not aware of where she was for eight days and only became aware of her whereabouts after searching for her and making a public search for her. Her family were eventually told of her detention at another police station—after over one week of worrying and searching. If these allegations took place as stated by her mother, this is in contravention of human rights and everything that the Australia-Vietnam human dialogue stands for. The Australia-Vietnam human rights dialogue is meant to demonstrate the maturity of Australia's relationship with Vietnam.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 13:21 to 13:40

It provides both countries with an opportunity for open, frank and constructive discussion about human rights issues. Previous dialogue has included freedom of expression and association. The dialogue provides an opportunity for Australia to raise a number of individual cases of human rights concern. It is now needed more than ever for this individual case to be discussed in the next round of the Australia-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue. Dinh Nguyen Kha, a student at university, was convicted of dropping 2,000 anti-government leaflets at an overpass in Ho Chi Minh City. Clearly, this was an act of peaceful demonstration. All people charged with an offence worldwide should be given access to lawyers and doctors. Keeping people behind closed doors only creates more speculation as to their maltreatment. There have been calls by international agencies to say that there is a need to put new pressures on the Vietnamese government, as there has been a worsening crackdown on dissent in the recent year. Whilst all other international intervention could be discussed in the future, it is important to effectively use the dialogue that we already have in place. If the claims that cracking down on dissent is worsening are true, these dialogues and open communication between our governments are needed more than ever.

If Australia believes that the protection and promotion of human rights is vital to global efforts to achieve lasting peace, security and dignity for all, then it is obvious that we need to voice our concern in regard to the arrest and detention of these two young activists. It should be strongly heard that there is an expectation that Vietnam honour its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Australians know the price of freedom. Freedom is not free, but it is a price that should not be paid in blood.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise today to raise awareness of the Vietnamese government's abuse of human rights, and I thank the member for Fowler for putting forward the motion with regard to human rights dialogue in Vietnam. I chair the Vietnamese Ministerial Consultative Committee with the member for Fowler. We recently had a meeting in Canberra where we heard from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Carr; the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Mr O'Connor; the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Mental Health Reform, Mr Butler and the Minister for Human Services, Senator McLucas. This is a regular issue that has been raised over the last few years.

In Queensland, there are more than 11,000 people whose country of birth was Vietnam. In my electorate, I have nearly 3,000 constituents who were born in Vietnam or who had parents born in Vietnam. This issue has regularly been raised with me, particularly because the Queensland community has been shaped so much by Vietnamese Australians. I am only going to mention this briefly because of time constraints. I do commend the motion put forward by the member for Fowler. As one of the convenors of Amnesty International, I got to take along a petition signed by many people—probably some in this room—to the Vietnamese Embassy to raise some of the concerns put forward by Vietnamese Australians, and all Australians who believe in justice for some of the goings on in Vietnam. I know that we will only change by engaging, and we have lots of opportunities as a nation, and through diplomacy, to make a change in Vietnam. I hope that it comes quickly.

I think it is the role of every Australian tourist who goes to Vietnam to raise this issue. Our economic power as tourists should be used to create change when we go to Vietnam. I know that it is difficult for the Vietnamese Australians because they have family members and contacts, and there can be pressure put to bear. As we have heard from many of the speakers previously, when you can receive 20 years in jail just for raising a legitimate concern, Vietnam is a long, long way from democracy. It will come, but it will only be through the advocacy of countries like Australia.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 13:45 to 16:00