Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the House:

(1) notes:

(a) the execution in Indonesia by firing squad on 29 April 2015 of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, along with their fellow prisoners, Rodrigo Gularte, Silvester Nwolise, Okwuduli Oyatanze, Raheem Salami, Martin Anderson and Zainal Abidin, and expresses condolences to their families;

(b) the bipartisan commitment in Australia to see an end to the death penalty worldwide;

(c) that the evidence overwhelmingly shows that the death penalty is not a more effective deterrent than long term imprisonment;

(d) that the international trend is clearly away from the practice of the death penalty—in 1977 only 16 countries had abolished the death penalty, now 140 nations have banned the practice; and

(e) that Australia has the opportunity to influence further progress towards the worldwide abolition of the death penalty in its relationship with key regional and global partners; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) strengthen its efforts to advocate for an end to the death penalty wherever it still occurs; and

(b) ensure that Australia's international cooperation is structured to avoid to the extent possible, the potential that such cooperation could lead to a person receiving the death penalty.

It was gut-wrenching to have to take down the poster in my office window that said ' Keep H ope A live ' after the execution on 29 April of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran , along with their six fellow prisoners. Today I begin by offering my condolences to the families of Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan. I acknowledge that both men , having committed serious crimes , responded to their incarceration by showing remorse and by committing themselves to penance and rehabilitation, including through the assistance and comfort they gave to other prisoners in Indonesia. They showed the capacity that we all have to acknowledge fault and to make amends — a capacity that has its twin in the extension of forgiveness and mercy.

But today I also want to talk about the death penalty more broadly and I want to make the point that when you accept that the death penalty is wrong as a matter of principle you accept that the death penalty is wrong in all circumstances. On that basis the execution of Andrew and Myuran was not made wrong because of their rehabilitation or their work to assist fellow prisoners , it was not made wrong by Andrew's faith or Myuran's art — it was wrong because the death penalty is intrinsically wrong.

While o ur position on the death penalty in Australia is clear, it is important to recognise that as a nation we have a considerable prior history of applying that sentence in our laws. The death penalty remained a valid punishment in Western Australia until 1984, just 31 years ago. And there is evidence to suggest that a significant number of Australians do n o t necessarily regard the death penalty as a bad thing in some cases and in some countries. That is a challenge for those of us who believe that it is plainly and categorically wrong for the state to put a person to death. Such an act says that there are circumstances in which a person forfeits their life . If we sanction such a view in our laws, how can we say that is not a judgement that anyone could then make about another person?

The death penalty says that society is no better than the brutal response of 'an eye for an eye'. It says there is no such thing as redemption or rehabilitation. It says that our justice systems are infallible. All these statements are wrong—and so the death penalty is wrong.

The focus in Australia on the recent executions in Indonesia was an opportunity to remember that the fundamental inhumanity of putting a person to death continues to be overlooked by the governments of several countries with which we have close and important relations. The United States, for example, last year was fifth on the list of nations carrying out executions; the other countries in the top five were China, Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. I agree with the community sentiment—and with the government's approach to this issue—that says our bilateral relationship with any country will be affected by their practice of the death penalty, even when they are our friends, as Indonesia is and as are China and the United States. I commend the campaign launched last week by eight human rights organisations in Australia, including Amnesty International, called 'Australian government and the death penalty: a way forward'.

Finally, I note that all those executed in Indonesia were put to death for drug offences—and it is past time that we had a wide-ranging discussion in Australia about the way in which the criminalisation of drug use and addiction in fact creates the worst criminal aspects of drug trafficking. If drug addiction was treated as a health issue rather than as criminal behaviour, would we still have the profiteering, drug-pushing, violence and property crime; would we still have prisons full of people who are often sick and disadvantaged, and who through prison are often further alienated from the possibility of education and employment and further entrenched in a cycle of need, powerlessness and self-destruction? Human society, at its best, is capable of the most amazing good things. As individuals we run the full spectrum from saints to monsters and everything in between, but together we can identify and hold on to our best collective values, enshrine them in our laws, enable them to permeate throughout our culture as we make progress towards our better nature. In this vein I would like to conclude with some words written by Sarah Gill from UWA, published on Crikey:

… the final terrible weeks of Chan and Sukumaran [remind] us that freedom—and courage—comes in many different forms.

Incarcerated on the prison island of Nusakambangan, increasingly cut off from family, friends and the world at large, denied the freedom to speak, to argue their case, and denied, at the end, their very lives, the pair distilled their choices down to this: to love, to paint, to hope, to be generous, to embrace, to stand tall, to sing.

As for the rest of us, we'll probably continue to take our freedoms for granted. But while we might not agree on how to value a person's worth, we can be infinitely grateful we're free to decide, for ourselves, those we admire. For me, I'll be remembering the words of Nelson Mandela—'a saint is a sinner who keeps on trying'—and thinking of two Sydney boys who chose, under the worst of circumstances, to be the best of what remained to them.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, 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 Fremantle for proposing it and I welcome the opportunity to speak to it as the seconder. This parliament is at its best when there are matters such as those raised in this motion which we can all support. I thank the member for her interest and her campaigning on this issue—I do so in the context of her motion of condolence in relation to Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran. I add my condolences, personally, to their families. They live in the north-west of Sydney and are known to many people in my community. The fact that these were young men who committed a grievous criminal act can never justify their execution. It was an execution that proceeded notwithstanding the recognition, as I understand it, in Indonesia that if people are reformed there should be consequences of that, and that should have been taken into account in considering remission.

For me, these tragic events bring a time for renewal—renewal of our campaign to rid the earth of this heinous penalty by states. There has been significant change over a period of time—140 countries have now abolished the death penalty either in law or in practice. That is a significant change from 1977, when only 16 countries had done so. I am appalled that in a highly important state to us all, the United States, they continue to execute. I understand that the other countries that significantly execute large numbers of people include Iran, China, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. If we can get change in the United States, we may well be able to get change elsewhere.

The member for Fremantle in her observations referred to the recent statement by organisations such as Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, the Human Rights Law Centre, Reprieve, Australians Detained Abroad, Civil Liberties Australia, UnitingJustice and the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties. In their recommendations, there are suggestions as to the way in which government here in Australia can take a very much more proactive role—and I hope the Minister for Foreign Affairs had an opportunity to examine the suggestions, which are very full and complete, about the way in which we can replicate arrangements in the United Kingdom for taking a diplomatic lead on this issue.

For me, I welcome the fact that an increasing number of members of parliament are joining our group, Australian Parliamentarians against the Death Penalty. I thank them for doing so, but it is also a time for all members to remember that they can play a role. Many of us have the opportunity to travel abroad from time to time, to meet with other parliaments, to meet in parliamentary delegations, to meet delegations that are travelling here. I will use one example. I met with the Prime Minister of Vietnam when he came here to Australia and I raised the issue of the death penalty. While I cannot claim I was personally responsible, I am pleased that every time the matter seems to be raised they do at least reduce the number of offences for which they can execute people. I think there is a very, very important role that colleagues can play and I hope they will participate in our group, join it and actively take these matters up with other governments when they have the opportunity to do so.

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

I thank the member for Fremantle for bringing this motion forward. I am very happy to follow my friend the member for Berowra, the Father of the House and my co-convener of Australian Parliamentarians against the Death Penalty. By the way, next Friday will mark exactly one month since two Australian citizens, Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, along with six of their fellow prisoners in Indonesia, were executed. This was a tragic conclusion to 10 long years of pleas for mercy, not only from the men themselves but from their families, from the leadership of this country and from many Australian citizens—10 years during which these men demonstrated their rehabilitation and showed their genuine remorse and, quite frankly, a period which reminded everybody that the death penalty really has no place in the modern world.

On 29 April, all of our worst fears came to fruition with these executions. It was a moment some of us felt deflated, not only at the executions but at the pointlessness of our fight and that our pleas had not been heard. But I have to say, for the member for Berowra, the member for Fremantle and others, these feelings of being defeated did not last all that long. We became very much reinvigorated for the purpose and determined to fight to see an end to the death penalty in all our sphere of influence, not just in cases that involve Australians but in all cases.

The death penalty is simply wrong. I have fought against the death penalty throughout my political career. Coincidentally, I entered parliament in 2005, when the case of the Bali Nine began. I have been involved since its beginning. As a matter of fact, I met with Myuran Sukumaran, Andrew Chan, Scott Rush and their families when they were in Kerobokan Prison. I personally witnessed their successful rehabilitation in that prison. If anything, that should have been seen as an example of the success of Indonesia's correction system, proof that people can turn their lives around and make a positive contribution to society, even after going down such a dark path as they did.

Recently, together with my wife, I attended the funerals of Andrew and Myuran. They were held a day apart in Sydney. It was clear that their families, innocent of any crime, have been caused deep and abiding suffering by this extreme punishment. They have lived 10 years knowing that their sons, brothers or friends were on death row, 10 years of being haunted by the daily prospect of uncertainty. As a parent, as many in this place are, I know that, regardless of what our children do, nothing ever extinguishes or diminishes the love and the care that we have for them. This is probably the reason why more than 140 countries, including many in our region—and Indonesia's region, for that matter—have already abolished this most cruel and irreversible form of punishment.

The death penalty is an abuse of the most fundamental human right of all—that is, the right to life itself. Indonesia itself has long advocated on behalf of its own citizens held in foreign countries and as a matter of fact has been successful in sparing the lives of 210 Indonesian citizens. The hypocrisy is that Indonesia, to this day, continues to advocate for the lives of its own citizens while declining Australia's request for clemency.

Time and time again we learn from experts that capital punishment is not a deterrent for serious crime in today's society. No legal system is completely free from error and it is tragic to think that an unintentional error could be made that would cost somebody's life. I conclude with the words of the former Chief Justice of the South African Constitutional Court, Ismail Mahomed:

The death penalty sanctions the deliberate annihilation of life … It is the ultimate and the most incomparably extreme form of punishment … It is the last, the most devastating and the most irreversible recourse of the criminal law, involving as it necessarily does, the planned and calculated termination of life itself; the destruction of the greatest and most precious gift which is bestowed on all humankind …

Teresa Gambaro (Brisbane, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the motion. I thank the member for Fowler, the member for Fremantle for putting the motion on the Notice Paper, and also previous speakers—the member for Berowra and others—who have spoken to this motion. On 12 February this year, this parliament stood united in speaking to the joint motion from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the member for Sydney against the grave injustice that was looming at that time, with the pending executions of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran. In many ways it is tragic that it takes a true tragedy to unite us, but in speaking out against the death penalty, wherever it is still followed anywhere in the world, then united as parliamentarians we must be.

Tragically, Andrew and Myuran, along with six others prisoners, were executed on 29 April. The simple but chilling empty questions that we are all left with are these. How do the deaths of these men help anybody?

What message do their deaths send to anyone seeking redemption and wanting to make amends for wrongdoing? How can their deaths be justified under the notion that the death penalty provides a deterrent against such crimes, thereby protecting life through an act of violence in taking lives? And how do we provide comfort and solace to their families where there is none to be had in the face of such loss?

On 2 March this year, I spoke in the Federation Chamber on the plight of Andrew and Myuran and my belief that punishment by death is not the path to a better outcome in Indonesia, or for that matter anywhere in the world. There is no statistical evidence that deterrence through death works, in the same way that there is no meaningful evidence of whether the death penalty deters more than life imprisonment does. But, in considering the justification of deterrence, I again invite everyone to consider the contradiction that taking a life will actually save others.

The government implemented a sustained, high-level advocacy campaign to try to stay Andrew and Myuran's executions. Eleven written representations were sent to Indonesian counterparts from 7 January—from the Prime Minister, the Governor-General, the Attorney-General, the Minister for Justice and Minister Bishop. Both the Prime Minister and Minister Bishop wrote joint letters with our colleagues from the opposition and the Greens. More than 100 parliamentarians conveyed their position in a joint letter to the Indonesian ambassador, and I thank the member for Fremantle for organising that. In those representations, we reiterated our respect for Indonesia's sovereignty, while pointing out the special circumstances that warranted mercy. Indonesia was in no doubt about our position. In addition, the member for Berowra and the member for Fowler are co-convenors of the Australian Parliamentarians Against the Death Penalty group, which now has over 60 members.

As I said at the outset, there is strength in unity, and as parliamentarians we have come together to speak to the world to say that, wherever possible, we will not tolerate the death penalty. As parliamentarians of this great Parliament of Australia, we must remain united and we must condemn the death penalty, whatever country it still occurs in.

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

I take the opportunity to rise today to support the sentiments that have been expressed so far by my colleagues but also to add my voice to the growing global movement against the death penalty. I want to begin by thanking the member for Fremantle for bringing this motion to the House.

I express my condolences to the families and loved ones of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, the two Australians executed in Indonesia by firing squad on 29 April 2015. I also extend my sympathies to the families of the six other prisoners who were similarly executed alongside Andrew and Myuran.

The eight executed human beings did not deserve to die in this manner. As I said previously in this place some 10 years ago, when Australian Vang Nguyen was executed in Singapore, no-one has the right to take the life of another human being under any circumstances and in particular by state-sanctioned execution. In the wake of this tragedy and with regard to the continued practice of state-sanctioned killings in a number of countries, Australian parliamentarians have an opportunity to be an example of a strong bipartisan commitment supporting the global abolishment of the death penalty. In this vein, I would like to congratulate the member for Berowra and the member for Fowler, who co-convene the Australian Parliamentarians against the Death Penalty group. I have joined this group and I am very much committed to its aims and objectives. Our aim is to raise the issue of the death penalty in the media and in bilateral meetings, as well as parliament to parliament; to express opposition to the death penalty in meetings with ambassadors, elected officials and foreign dignitaries; and to converse with advisory groups and legal experts about approaches to end state-sanctioned killing worldwide.

In line with joining the parliamentary group, I take this opportunity today to express my strong opposition to the death penalty and to suggest some proposals Australia should adopt to see an end to the barbaric practice. One frequently mentioned argument against the death penalty is the lack of evidence supporting the claim that it effectively deters crime as opposed to other punishments. Professor Jeffrey Fagan, Professor of Law at Columbia University in the United States, who previously appeared as an expert witness for Andrew and Myuran, maintains that there is 'no credible scientific evidence that the death penalty deters criminal behaviour'. He argues that 'even when executions are frequent and well-publicised', as was the case with Andrew and Myuran's executions, 'there are no observable changes in crimes.' The absence of any scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of the death penalty compounds the more fundamental moral argument that state-sanctioned killing diminishes the value of human life. Simply put, it is never justified for the state to take human life.

There has been growing global support for this perspective, and it appears that we are on the right path. Whilst 100 countries around the world have the death penalty, only 21 continue to use capital punishment. And of those countries that continue to carry out executions, using the death penalty as a punishment for crime has decreased by more than a third in the last decade. There has been growing global support for this perspective, and it clearly appears that the debate today is in line with that support. Whilst 100 countries around the world have the death penalty, only 21 continue to use capital punishment. Of those countries that continue to carry out executions, using the death penalty as a punishment for crime has decreased by more than a third in the last decade, and that is indeed a welcome sign of perhaps heading towards the beginning of the abolition of the death penalty.

With the decline in use of the death penalty worldwide and the current global push to abolish the practice, it is time that parliamentarians around the world demand a moratorium on capital punishment. Parliamentarians for Global Action, a non-profit, nonpartisan international network of parliamentarians, established a global parliamentary platform for the abolition of the death penalty. Their aim is to support the individual initiatives of parliamentarians worldwide and to launch and coordinate targeted actions in selected countries, as well as bring awareness to the issue. As a parliament, I think that we ought to support the efforts of the PGA and that we should use every opportunity we have, certainly in our parliamentary duties, to raise awareness, especially with colleagues in our regional neighbourhood, because I think that is the best way to begin this dialogue and to pursue the abolition of capital punishment.

Ann Sudmalis (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Many of us in this House have received emails asking for our opinion about this issue and asking how we feel about this issue—including emails from parents who have been affected by people dealing drugs. There are two sides to this argument. I hear both sides clearly, and I know that it means a great deal to these people. But at no time should the death penalty ever be on the table for any person.

This particular case brought the passions of the Australian people to the fore in the media, and for all people from all sides of government. These two men did change their lives and they did express remorse for what they did. There has to be something in the system that says, 'If you change, and if you accept that you did the wrong thing, there is some chance of forgiveness to some extent'. They could have stayed in jail for that period of time and continued to do the work that they were doing, and that would perhaps have been a better outcome. I think most people in Australia would have accepted that.

The fact that they lost their lives has made a big impact on people here. We do know that when you go to a nation you have follow the laws of the land, and any visitor to that nation knows that, if you traffic in drugs, the consequences are pretty serious. By the same token, it is not the best outcome to just say that you will lose your life. To have this going on for 10 years was extraordinarily difficult for all members of their families and their friends. It sort of said: 'Yes, maybe you will be forgiven. And maybe you will not.' The way it was brought to the public's attention was pretty devastating for everyone involved.

So it is pretty special to see both sides of the House being quite undivided on this. There are not that many occasions when this House works collegiately together, and this is certainly an issue that has brought us together on a very special issue. I think it is an issue that we should all look at in greater depth. It horrifies me that there are nations in the world where one of the consequences of being convicted of a crime is still beheading. It is of concern that life is held so cheaply when there is a chance a person will change the way they live and they way they look at life. So, yes, we know there are consequences, but this is not one of the best consequences that should happen. Our thoughts go to the families. Our thoughts also remain with the families of those who deal in drugs, because drugs are a scourge on our society. I am completely convinced that those who have anything to do with hard drugs are affecting our community very badly, and I think there should be considerable consequences.

Ice is something that there should be a heavy penalty for—not the death penalty, but that is in fact what happens to some of the people who take it. I am very concerned about that. We have to have consequences; people should know they are doing the wrong thing. My community is up in arms about ice. We have a number of very difficult circumstances.

I have lots of people in my community who wrote to me on this issue, from both sides of the spectrum. One was: 'For heaven's sakes, they should have got it over and done with years ago'. Others said, 'This should never have happened. This should never have been an outcome.' And others said, 'Drugs are a desperate and dangerous substance and we need to look very carefully at the way they interact with our people'.

I can only say that the death penalty is not the right avenue. We need to be more educative, more careful with our people. We need to make sure that our young people are well aware of what the consequences are when they travel or when they dabble in these substances. Thank you.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank all those who spoke—and most particularly the member for Gilmore, who has spoken so elegantly, without any notes. I would like to commend her for taking up the challenge to talk on this difficult subject that others seem to have been shying away from, which I think is a bit of a tragedy. I know we are all very busy in this place but I think this is one of the issues where we should be united as a voice against this terrible scourge of the death penalty.

The deaths of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, along with six other prisoners, are a tragedy. They are a tragedy for these young men, whose lives have ben cut so short. They are a tragedy for the families that they leave behind, families who will never get over this situation. But they are also a tragedy for justice. There is no justice in the death penalty. It is always an unjust response. This is not a debate about guilt or innocence. By their own submission, Andrew and Myuran were pretty stupid and thoughtless 21- and 23-year-olds when they committed an awful crime; a crime, as the member for Gilmore rightly points out, that is causing devastating harm in our community. And it would have caused untold damage to many other young Australians—not to members of the Indonesian community—and we do not shy away from the debate about the scourge of drugs. But they did not seek pardons for their actions. Members of this House, the Australian government and the Australian Labor Party did not seek pardon for their crimes; only clemency from the death penalty—a punishment that has now been carried out.

That punishment will have no impact on the problem of drug trafficking in Indonesia or indeed in Australia. Eleven years ago, I was actively pleading for the life of Van Tuong Nguyen—another naive, stupid young man who committed a terrible crime and paid the ultimate price; his life over at 25. Did his execution stop drug trafficking through Singapore? Did it catch the dealer using Van as a mule? Did it lead to actions taken against the drug syndicate who supplied the drugs to the Bali Nine? Has it stopped people taking drugs? The answer to all these questions is of course: no. Has the death penalty in any way changed people's behaviour? No, it has not. Have they learnt? Sadly, they have not. Have we changed? No, we have not. And more mothers have lost their sons.

I keep in constant contact with Kim Nguyen, who is a constituent of mine. This tragedy again has brought home to her the thoughtless act of the crime of killing her son. At the end of the day, that is what the death penalty is. Did it bring justice? Has it ensured we are tough on crime? Has 'tough on crime' become just a populist, political headline-grabbing thing? Isn't it something we should actually be dealing with? Shouldn't we be looking to the issues that will reduce the hideous taking of drugs in our community? Because the death penalty has not.

Reducing crime requires governments and justice systems to be tough on the causes of crime. To borrow the words of former Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls: 'The justice system is at its best when it functions as a positive intervention on the life of an offender; when it seeks to rehabilitate, prevent recidivism and help offenders become productive members of society.' Andrew and Myuran were examples of how Indonesia's justice system can be that positive intervention. They accepted their punishment, undertook to reform themselves and sought to reform others. That is actually the outcome that all justice systems should seek. Tragically, their executions undo that positive action and have not led to any criminal action being taken against the individuals who were supplying the drugs. Let us get to the heart of the problem.

But it is not just Indonesia where these tragedies occur; 16 countries around the world still use the death penalty, ineffective though it is. In the United States, seven states still use the death penalty. While it is a welcome fact that death sentences in 2014 were at the lowest rate since 1976, we must continue to urge all American governments to discontinue the use of the death penalty. According to Amnesty International, the murder rate in all non-death penalty states is lower than in the states where they have it. The threat of execution is unlikely to enter the minds of those acting under the influence of drugs or alcohol, those who are in the grip of fear or rage, those who are panicking while committing another crime, or those who are suffering from mental illness or impairment and do not understand the gravity of their crime. In the United States and other countries around the world, the death penalty is disproportionately used against the poor, ethnic and religious minorities, and people suffering mental illness.

If we have any hope of ever achieving the ideal equal justice systems across the world to make a lasting and permanent reduction in crime, then we need to end the death penalty in all countries. Nobody has said it better than Gandhi: 'An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind'.

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

by leave—I thank all those members who have contributed to this debate. I say again that this is the time in which we need to be focused on bringing these insidious practices to an end. We do not want to be in a situation where we see other Australians executed abroad. I must say, for my own part, I do not want to see a situation where people are executed abroad, full stop. There needs to be change.

I can remember when I was a young law student—and that was a few years ago—I was lectured in criminology. There were studies that were undertaken, even that long ago, which demonstrated that most offences for which people are sentenced to life—or, as it was previously, to death—were acts of passion unlikely to be influenced by the severity of the sentence. I think that those who look around the world and say, 'Well they got their just deserts; they deserved to be executed,' need to understand that execution there says something about the state that does it and, certainly, not about the individual that is involved. Sometimes these are matters that arise that are not premeditated but simply a result of some spontaneity, and the law, itself, is unlikely to deter them. I am very focused and believe that the parliament needs to play a very active role encouraging the Foreign Minister to lead on these issues abroad. But I encourage every member of parliament, when they are travelling abroad, to raise these matters well.

Debate adjourned.