Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I rise on behalf of the opposition to support the motion put forward by Senator Brown relating to the current situation in Tibet. It is indeed very disturbing that events have degenerated to this point. There are reports of up to 80 deaths, of serious injuries and of numbers of arrests occurring. Some reports, unconfirmed—and that is an aspect of this upheaval which makes it difficult to know what is going on; the lack of information and the lack of communication, as Senator Brown has said—indicate a number of arrests are continuing to be carried out.

These are the largest protests to have occurred in Tibet since the pro-independence demonstrations of 1989, which of course resulted in the implementation of martial law over the area. We are very concerned by the images and the reports out of Lhasa over the weekend. The opposition leader, Dr Nelson, has made his views very clear on this matter and has said quite clearly—and it is an observation I support—that the Prime Minister must protest against this crackdown on activists in Tibet when he visits China next month. I have read the words of the Prime Minister at his press conference today. I asked a question myself of Senator Evans in the chamber here this afternoon about whether the Prime Minister would specifically raise these matters on his very imminent visit to China—it would seem to be propitiously timed in at least that regard. I am not reassured that we received a clear enough answer to those questions, and it is very important that the opportunity is taken at the time it becomes available. Given, of course, the Prime Minister’s much vaunted expertise in Sino matters, it would be indeed very important for him to exercise that expertise on this visit.

The protests themselves, we understand, began around 10 March when hundreds of Buddhist monks marched in Lhasa calling for an end to religious restrictions and the release of imprisoned colleagues. That date itself marked the anniversary of an earlier and failed uprising against Chinese rule in the late 1950s which marked the point at which the Dalai Lama left Tibet and went to India. At stake, as Senator Brown observed, is one of the rights which so many peoples of the world take for granted but which so many more are unable to even contemplate. That, expressed under the universal charter of human rights, in article 20, is that everyone has the right of peaceful assembly and association. It is no small right held as an enjoyment by many but in this case clearly not.

We support the comments made by Foreign Minister Smith in calling for the Chinese government and authorities to act with restraint and for those protesting to be allowed to demonstrate peacefully. We would also acknowledge that it is also about peaceful demonstrations both overseas and here in Australia. At the same time, I do understand the levels of frustration and anguish which may have led to some of these activities, particularly as communications fail and people are unable to determine the health and safety of members of their family and we are unable to be provided with perhaps accurate reports of events. So I reiterate my comment that I really do hope that the Prime Minister will raise these latest events specifically with President Hu Jintao during his upcoming visit to China and, as he noted in his remarks this morning, will raise Australia’s other human rights concerns.

It is worth noting that the eyes of the entire world are focused on China in 2008. The Chinese government, in hosting the Olympics, finds itself under the world’s spotlight—not just under the world’s sporting spotlight. I have gleaned from certain statements and observations that have been made in recent times that they are aware of that. In my most recent visit to China in 2007 as part of the Australia-China Human Rights Dialogue, it was quite obvious to me that the focus on China was a matter of no small moment, so approaches to these events will be closely observed—there is absolutely no doubting that. That has already been raised in public discussions.

It is also important to note for the record that, internationally, very serious concerns about the approach to these recent events in Tibet have been raised by both the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, and her counterpart in Britain, David Miliband, both of whom have made observations about how the protests should be dealt with. They strongly urged restraint and urged all sides to refrain from the exercise of violence. They are admonitions importantly made.

I want to take the opportunity to make a few comments about the previous government’s engagement on human rights issues with China, which were of course based around the Australia-China Human Rights Dialogue, which was initiated over 10 years ago now. There have been 11 dialogues, if I recall correctly. They had become very important forums for exchanges on human rights and for identifying areas where Australia could help China to pursue the implementation of internationally regarded human rights standards.

I know that there are sceptics about the human rights dialogues—and probably more than one in the chamber right now. But what I had the opportunity to observe—and members of the opposition were also invited to participate on those dialogues and did on occasions—were the advances in the approach, the attitude and the relationship between our two countries in these discussions on issues that we regard as fundamental in relation to human rights, whether they be child labour, matters around the treatment of Falun Gong, the exercise of the death penalty or a whole range of other issues. It is no secret that those key aspects were discussed. We had also backed that previously with the Human Rights Technical Cooperation Program, which the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission takes very seriously. It makes very significant endeavours in a range of areas in China to address practical aspects of human rights training including helping Chinese organisations make reforms to their laws and practices, particularly in relation to women and children, and to ethnic and minority rights. That did include Tibet. One of the human rights dialogues of which I was not a member included a field visit to Tibet. I understand that there are also critics of those exercises, but I think the engagement side of that process was a very important part of the dialogues.

I say quite seriously that I did see change over five or six years. It had become a very valuable process. I am not sure whether there has been an indication from the current government that they intend to continue with the dialogues—not just those in China, because there are of course several others.

The dialogues did make progress. For example, in some provinces the Human Rights Technical Cooperation Program has led to the passing of anti domestic violence laws, which were previously unknown and not contemplated either. It also led to the distribution of ‘know your rights’ pamphlets that were distributed to prisons, and even to a series of model UN human rights councils that introduced students in universities across China to international human rights norms and UN processes.

I hope that, as we continue to watch events in Tibet, we can have in the back of our minds that we have made some progress in regard to that level of engagement with China, but that we can also urge the Chinese government to deal appropriately with these events and urge Prime Minister Rudd to most emphatically and specifically take these matters up during his visit. (Time expired)