Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I seek to take note of the bilateral category 2(e), the treaty between the government of Australia and the People’s Republic of China on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. As with all of the treaties that are listed here—there are five in this category and another three in other categories—this treaty gets referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. That gives the public an opportunity to have input into those matters.

This is a treaty with the People’s Republic of China. It is worth taking the opportunity, in passing, to remind the multitudes listening at the moment that there is currently an examination by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties of another pair of treaties seeking to enable uranium sales to China. I remind those members of the public who have an interest in it to explore that further or participate via a submission if they so desire.

This particular treaty, though, goes to mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. As is usually the case, I do not want to prejudge the whole thing here before it has been examined in detail by the treaties committee, but I do want to take the opportunity to highlight a couple of aspects. The general practice of enabling mutual assistance between countries in connection with investigations, prosecutions and proceedings relating to criminal matters is relatively widespread. It is not the only way in which Australia and other countries can cooperate with each other in investigating serious crime via mutual assistance, but there are a range of benefits to having a treaty. When you have a treaty, at least you have some certainty and some specific obligations contained within the treaty rather than much more of a non-treaty, free-flowing, less enforceable and less clear cut and transparent arrangement. In that sense, it is easy to see why a treaty may be more beneficial than a more ad hoc approach.

This debate does nonetheless provide the opportunity to explore a couple of the issues in there. The treaty, among other things, obliges the requested party to refuse to provide assistance with criminal investigations if the request relates to the prosecution or punishment of a person for an offence that is regarded by the requested party as a political offence. With respect to the People’s Republic of China, there is a fairly wide definition of what might constitute a political offence and there are certainly a number of examples of people who are able to be deemed in our Western eyes, if you like, as being charged with or under criminal investigation for political offences because they are seen as being enemies or opponents of the Chinese regime. It is not necessarily seen that way from the Chinese government’s point of view, where such people can sometimes be seen from their perspective as common criminals.

There has been a lot of focus and debate in this parliament in recent times on very serious allegations of extraordinarily horrendous human rights abuses being carried out towards Falun Gong practitioners, for example. In most people’s views I think they would come under other aspects of this treaty that deal with not providing assistance if there are substantial grounds for believing the request has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of that person’s race, sex, religion, nationality or political opinions. Again, whilst that would clearly be the case with regard to some of the undoubtedly established persecution of Falun Gong practitioners, prodemocracy advocates and people seeking greater autonomy for Tibet, in seeing some of the statements that are made by the Chinese government, they certainly do not appear from their perspective to be being punished or prosecuted for those reasons.

This treaty does, as it should, have scope for a request for assistance to be refused where the provision of assistance may result in the death penalty being imposed. It is pleasing to see that in there because China executes more people than every other country put together, at least in official terms. But we have seen with the case of the Bali nine that there are very much grey areas about how that sort of arrangement and that sort of clause is interpreted. I have not been convinced that those grey areas have been clarified any further. I think this treaty provides an opportunity, given the record of the Chinese government with regard to some human rights issues and certainly with regard to executions, for that issue to be further explored. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.