Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

It was the government that, having changed the order of business, forgot that this disallowance motion needed to be dealt with. I would like to point out that it was the government that asked me to postpone this motion to the first day of sitting next year so that they had more time to deal with the many issues and concerns that have been raised. So it was the government who were seeking another two months to deal with the issues that they needed time to consider. What we have witnessed in the last 24 hours—which I have to say has been an extraordinary time—is the most frantic and frenzied level of activity to address the concerns and issues that have been raised over some considerable time so that this could be dealt with.

This disallowance motion was moved two months ago. The issues and concerns raised at that time which led to my moving this motion were there long before that. As early as April this year the Foreign Minister, the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister had received reams of correspondence and communication, letters and applications from various Australians expressing their concerns about the regulations. I regret to say that all those communications and applications went unheeded. It was because of that that I sought to move the disallowance motion so that it could be addressed in a formal way. We have now reached a situation where the government have finally  turned their attention to this, albeit somewhat latently, and have addressed many of the concerns that have been raised.

In tabling the disallowance motion, my primary concern has always been the implications it would have for Australian citizens. In considering an extradition treaty with any country, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that the criminal justice process is based upon strong human rights protections. When considering a treaty with a country that governs under a very different judicial system to the domestic law in Australia, it is even more important to ensure that appropriate safeguards and protections are put in place.

The bilateral relationship that Australia and the UAE share is a very important one and, along with the primary interests and concerns about the human rights of Australian citizens, the relationship has been central to the coalition’s consideration of this issue. Fundamentally, the UAE and Australia strongly support a quest for the stability and security of the Middle East region. It is the No. 1 primary concern. In addition to that, our bilateral relationship is underpinned by a strong trade and economic relationship, which is a very effective and important one. Some 50,000 Australians travel to and visit the UAE each year, and that has been a continuing benefit to both our countries.

I am satisfied that the document that has just been tabled by the government and incorporated into Hansard has addressed some of the issues that have been raised by me and others over the last few months. This document provides a stronger framework for an Attorney-General in considering an extradition treaty and, I hope, for all Attorney-Generals in the future. It provides further consideration of circumstances where there are substantial grounds to believe that a person whose extradition is requested would be in danger of being subjected to torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment and where such extradition would breach the person’s rights in accordance with Australia’s international non-refoulment obligations. I am satisfied that the document does provide an appropriate and strengthened framework for the consideration of the extradition treaty.