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

International human rights has always been an issue for Australia, which is why we have played an active role in advocating for social justice and human rights, particularly within our sphere of influence. In 1948, Australia was one of the key architects in defining and drafting the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and I pay regard to the great work of Dr Herbert Vere Evatt in the development of this declaration.

Significantly, this year also marks the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. As the House is aware, I have spoken on many occasions about the issue of human rights in our region, drawing attention to human rights abuses, particularly as they occur in Vietnam. The majority of Vietnamese families in my electorate came to Australia as refugees following the fall of Saigon in 1975. They are model citizens in their adopted country, playing an active role in all areas of community life including charitable works. But what they have never done is turn their backs on their culture, their traditions and, importantly, their care for the wellbeing of the people of Vietnam. This is why the reported instances of human rights abuses in Vietnam so painfully impact on Vietnamese Australians. Clearly the people of Vietnam deserve better.

I make no apology for being critical of Vietnam over what I see to be a very poor record in respect of human rights. My position has never been based on malice or prejudice but, rather, has been born out of a sense of frustration given Vietnam's extraordinary potential for substantial economic development as well as its ability to play a significant role in world affairs. However, these potentials cannot be properly attained without Vietnam first recognising the dignity of its own people.

As of 12 November this year, Vietnam realised one of its long-held ambitions when it gained a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council. Being a member of the council should not be viewed as just a position of prestige but rather as a position which requires a country to make a significant contribution to the betterment of human rights across the globe. A government occupying such a position and not making adequate provision to ensure the adequate protection of human rights of its own people would be hypocritical in the extreme. In this motion I mention three cases: the arrest of the 14 Vietnamese Catholics, the incarceration of Nguyen Phuong Uyen and Dinh Nguyen Kha and the mistreatment of three trade union officials. All these people were treated unjustly. These activists did nothing wrong; they courageously stood up for the rights and liberties of Vietnamese people.

More recently, the enactment of decree 72 demonstrates the extreme lengths to which the regime is prepared to go to suppress freedom of speech. These cases are indicative of the approach of the Vietnamese government to human rights. They are indicative of the approach of a government more concerned about criticism than about advancing the true welfare of its own people. I consider the last Australian-Vietnamese human rights dialogue—which a friend, the federal member for Werriwa, who is present in the chamber now, attended and which was held in Canberra earlier this year—to be a positive advance in addressing the issue of human rights in Vietnam. It is just another step on a long road that we must commit to staying on for the long haul.

In moving this motion I call on the Australian government to continue pressing the Vietnamese regime to honour the international commitments which it so freely entered into when it became a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and a member of the United Nations. I also encourage the government to continue its bilateral and multilateral discussions with Vietnam, particularly on our concerns about human rights. In considering funding under Australia's overseas development aid program I honestly believe we should ensure that our assistance to Vietnam is directed to promoting human rights and advancing the rule of law. Our aid should have clear and measurable outcomes because, after all, we need to see progress. We owe it to the people of Vietnam to stay on the course of human rights reform.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion. I thank the member for raising this issue. I have always respected the sovereign right of any country to govern itself and to administer its law. But there are fundamental things that apply to all people. They are based on human rights and the entitlements which should always be considered in the context of political structures. Particularly when you become a member of a significant organisation within the United Nations you are obliged, in deliberating on and debating human rights issues, not to seem at variance with international covenants and the commitment to human rights.

International Human Rights Day is on 10 December, which this year marks the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. It is important that we use this time to celebrate how far we have travelled while considering the challenges that still lie before us. Just last month the Socialist Republic of Vietnam gained a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council and signed the United Nations convention against torture. However, it is important that we draw the House's attention to a number of continuous violations in Vietnam.

In January this year, a group of Vietnamese Christians were arrested for protesting in support of land rights, freedom of religion and the release of previously convicted activists. One of those arrested was a Catholic online blogger, Paulus Le Son. He was accused of participating in training with Viet Tan, a U.S.-based pro-democracy organisation to establish democracy and reform in Vietnam through peaceful and political means. Within the construct of human rights it is important that there be a high degree of freedom of expression and speech which allows people to put forward their concerns when they feel that they may be repressed or that they are being denied their fundamental rights in key areas.

Le Son and others were also accused of circulating a petition to free prominent legal rights activist Cu Huy Ha Vu, a prominent human rights defender who was imprisoned for seven years in April 2011. All of the 14 accused denied these charges; however, the Vietnamese court found them guilty and now they are serving sentences varying in length between three and 13 years. Additionally, there are other activities occurring, because Nguyen Phuong Uyen and Dinh Nguyen Kha were charged under article 88 of the Vietnamese Penal Code for distributing leaflets protesting against China's claims to the Paracel and Spratly islands in the South China Sea. And finally, trade union organiser Do Thi Minh Hanh was imprisoned for national security charges relating to her involvement in organising workers at a shoe factory.

Many of those elements we take for granted and make assumptions that they are universally applied. But when you take responsibility of being involved in a significant human rights committee then there is a need to reflect inwardly on your own practices. As Australians we have a responsibility to encourage the Vietnamese government to honour its obligations as a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We also have an obligation to encourage strong consideration of human rights in Vietnam when we fund overseas aid to various countries, in this instance Vietnam.

One of the issues that often surprises me when I look at sovereign nations who participate in United Nations forums is when they deviate from those very principles that were hard fought for, when UN conventions to which numerous countries are signatories are overlooked, where people's rights are denied and where citizens are imprisoned within their structures without due course to a fair trial or a fair hearing. I do acknowledge, as I said at the beginning, every sovereign nation having its own right to make those decisions. However, as a member of the United Nations we also have a responsibility to raise concerns in respect of the breach of human rights and it is important that we do so. I thank the member for Fowler for proposing today's private member's motion and I support it.

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

I too am pleased to speak on this private member's motion by the member for Fowler and endorse the member for Hasluck's comments with respect to us urging the Vietnamese government to honour its obligations as a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In terms of the ongoing persecution of those that seek to exercise their rights in a democracy and being rightfully able to do so, the issue has been raised quite powerfully in this place and in other places by the member during his period of time as member for Fowler.

When one seeks to be recognised as a fully democratic nation, the actions of stymieing, stifling or quashing protests about your government or system of government lead parliaments from around the world to ask the question about that particular government. That is a very serious charge to make, but, unfortunately, given the number of representations that we have received collectively from all over Australia and particularly from the very large Vietnamese diaspora that lives in our community, makes a life in our community and has contributed so substantially to our community, it behoves us to continue to raise these ongoing abuses of human rights and seek to pressure the Vietnamese government. We suggest that there is a better way forward in managing protest than quashing it and dealing with it as they have been doing, particularly with the celebrated cases that have been raised, and which I will re-emphasise briefly here.

When you have 14 Vietnamese Catholics, who include the high-profile blogger Paulus Le Son and are basically sentenced to prison terms ranging from three to 13 years in what is called a 'subversion' case when they were merely protesting, then you have got to ask a question about the government of the country. The defendants were arrested in 2011 as a crackdown on Vietnamese youth activists who were accused of being critical of the Vietnamese government in calling for greater democracy and human rights, and that does not warrant jail sentences. A number of the defendants are members of Redemptorist group in the Roman Catholic Church, which has been engaged in community service and lobbying, and talking about land seizures and corruption. To see young Vietnamese being condemned and sentenced to jail for carrying out protests is very troubling in terms of not only a human rights trend but a trend that has been evident for some time in Vietnam.

One case that concerns many members of the local Vietnamese community in Holt—and one that I have mentioned, along with the member for Fowler—is the case of Nguyen Phuong Uyen and Dinh Nguyen Kha, who were charged under article 88. I have had representations from Mr Tien Dung Kieu, the president of Vietnamese TV on Channel 31. He came to speak to me and raised his concerns about human rights abuse and this one in particular. Whilst Mr Tien welcomes the decision by the appeals court in August 2013 to free 21-year-old Nguyen Phuong Uyen, who was serving a six-year jail term for alleged subversion, he is disappointed that Uyen's co-defendant, 25-year-old computer technician Dinh Nguyen Kah, was not released and has only had his eight-year sentence cut in half. Again, this is two young people exercising their democratic right and they are in prison.

The other incident that has been discussed in this place is the incident that occurred in February 2010 when labour activists Doan Huy Chuong, Do Thi Minh Hanh and Nguyen Haong Quoc Hung were detained for organising workers at a shoe factory. This was basically about circulating a demand for workers, who were on strike because of their company's arbitrary payment policies and manager's abusive behaviour. These people were put in prison. There are questions about the validity of the trial that was conducted because they were denied a lawyer and the Vietnamese government prevented them from speaking in their own defence during the proceedings. That is not a free and open court.

In the light of this particular hearing, Mr Doan and Ms Hanh were sentenced to seven years prison. Mr Hung was sentenced to nine years. What we are hearing from various representative organisations is that in prison they have been subjected to deplorable treatment. In addition to prolonged periods of solitary confinement they have each been repeatedly beaten. As a result, we understand that Ms Hahn is now deaf in one ear and Mr Doan has lost the use of one hand. All three suffer from rashes and liver problems, the result of poor food and sleeping conditions. That treatment is deplorable. No reasonable, responsible democratic government can undertake these actions. I again commend the member for Fowler for raising these issues of concern. We perhaps do have to look at the way in which our aid is provided if we are providing aid to a government that treats its citizens in such a deplorable manner.

Debate adjourned.