Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate—

(a)

notes the statement in Lhasa on 21 June 2008 by Tibet’s Communist Party Secretary General Zhang Qing Li, that ‘we will certainly be able to totally smash the splittist schemes of the Dalai Lama clique’;

(b)

calls on the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Smith) to ascertain if Mr Li was reflecting the policy of the People’s Republic of China and, if so, how that policy is being carried into effect; and

(c)

asks the Minister to find out how many Tibetan citizens, arrested since violence erupted in Lhasa in March 2008, remain in custody and, as of 23 June 2008, how many have been brought to trial.

This motion asks the Minister for Foreign Affairs for an explanation from the Tibet Communist Party about its claim that it will ‘totally smash the Dalai Lama clique’.

Question put.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—It is possible that the opposition will also be making a statement on the same matter. The government is concerned that this complex policy issue cannot be reduced to a three-paragraph motion. In the motion Senator Brown asked whether comments by the Communist Party secretary in Tibet reflected Chinese government policy. The simple answer to that is that yes, they do, but of course the issue is much more complex than that.

Senators are aware that China sees the question of Tibet as an issue of national and political survival. It considers the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government in exile as separatists bent on undermining the central government’s sovereignty. It does not recognise the issue as one of ethnicity, religion or human rights. I think senators are also aware of the Tibetan grievances which go to restrictions on Tibetans’ religious, civil and political rights, adequate protection of their cultural and environmental heritage and ongoing patriotic re-education, which requires the denunciation of the Dalai Lama. They also have grievances about the lack of access to some of the economic benefits flowing from increased investment in Tibetan areas.

That is that background, but I want to just briefly turn to the issues raised in the motion—the situation on the ground and the status of the detainees. I do this to explain why the government has voted as it has on this particular motion because, as I have said so many times, these motions on foreign policy are a blunt instrument. I have expressed, over many years—and I think all senators know this—my concerns about this manner of dealing with such motions and I do not want, in any way, the view of the government to be misinterpreted in relation to this particular motion. The hard reality is that we do not have a good picture of what has happened since March and what is happening on the ground now. That is why we have urged China to allow access to Tibet for independent observers, journalists and diplomats, including our own ambassador. We have signalled our concerns about reports of ongoing detentions of monks and nuns, lack of access to judicial process and ongoing patriotic re-education. It is difficult to provide a clear picture of the numbers of detainees. We have heard from the official Chinese media that 30 people were found guilty and sentenced in April on charges including arson, robbery and attacks against the state in relation to the unrest in March. A further 12 were sentenced this week on similar charges—116 remain in custody awaiting trial and 1,157 have been arrested. I can say to the Senate that we have instructed our mission in Beijing to seek clarification of these numbers, though we expect the results to be very similar to those carried by the official Chinese press.

In conclusion, Australia has a strong record of raising human rights concerns, including in Tibet. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs are both on record raising these issues with the highest levels of the Chinese government. We engage China through our human rights dialogue and on an ongoing basis through diplomatic channels in Beijing and Canberra, most recently on 11 June in Canberra, and in Beijing on 12 June. As I have said, we have signalled our strong support for the continuation of talks between China’s government and the Dalai Lama’s representatives. In communicating our position, we recognise the importance of keeping our channels of communication open with the government in China while, at the same time, delivering a very clear message about our concerns in relation to these issues. I thank the Senate for the leave to make this statement.

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

by leave—In addition to the remarks made by the minister, I want to indicate to the chamber that in some ways the opposition does share concerns expressed by the minister about the use of the process of notices of motion, on matters as serious as this, as a relatively blunt instrument. The difficulty we have is distilling the very complex issues, both diplomatically and in human rights terms, into a single motion that comes before this chamber for one vote, no matter what the clauses say, no matter what the clauses seek.

The chamber has previously had an opportunity to discuss in debate the recent violence perpetrated on the people in Tibet and to raise concerns through that process. As an opposition and, indeed, as a chamber, we obviously share very significant concerns about the restrictions imposed on the people of Tibet, particularly in relation to freedom of religion and belief. It would be preferable to have adequate access to information about recent events in Tibet. It would be preferable to be able to deal in a more comprehensive fashion with our concerns, but the process of the motion in this context does not necessarily allow that. I know that a number of members in this chamber in recent times have had the honour and privilege of meeting with His Holiness the Dalai Lama on his recent visit to Australia and hearing at first hand some of the concerns that he has raised with the Australian community. We also have, because of the nature of our democracy, the opportunity to discuss those and talk about them publicly and raise them with the representatives of China in this country. I am sure many people do. I know that my colleagues, Andrew Robb, the member for Goldstein, and Dr Nelson, the Leader of the Opposition, have also taken up those opportunities. Indeed, Dr Nelson took up the opportunity to meet with His Holiness the Dalai Lama, on his most recent visit.

It is important that we consider in depth these issues and examine the challenges that dealing with them in a single motion presents, and I share some of the concerns that Senator Faulkner has raised in his remarks. I thank the chamber for the opportunity to place these brief remarks on the record.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—The contribution from both the government and the opposition is right off course. There has been objection in the past to motions being voted on here without full debate, calling on overseas governments to do something. But this motion does not do that. It calls on the Minister for Foreign Affairs to get information from China on two matters. The first matter is a statement by the Secretary General of the Tibetan Communist Party, Zhang Qing Li, that, ‘We will certainly be able to totally smash the splittist schemes of the Dalai Lama clique.’ That comment was made when his total sham of the Olympic torch through Lhasa was being staged by the communist government in Beijing last Saturday.

The second thing was to ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs to find out how many Tibetan citizens are still under arrest but have not been brought to trial since March. Senator Faulkner, on behalf of the government, said he could answer both those questions. Senator Payne seemed satisfied that, as the government indicated, we should do anything we can to avoid approaching the communist authorities in Beijing to answer these questions. That is the function of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and it is not only the right but the responsibility of this Senate to, through the government, seek information about matters of great interest to the Australian people. The comments indicating the potential assassination of the Dalai Lama went right around the world. Australians are interested to know whether that is government policy. Senator Faulkner said, ‘Well, it is China’s policy.’ That is an assumption by the Australian government which may well be disputed by the authorities in Beijing. We should have the gumption in government to approach Beijing to get the answer to both those questions. It shows obsequiousness and tremulousness from both the government and the opposition that they have not supported this motion seeking that information from Beijing.