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

I am disappointed that there are currently so few senators from the government in the chamber because I consider it to be an absolute indictment on this government that we are considering something as significant as this disallowance motion at the 11th hour on the last day of sitting. It is yet another disgraceful example of the government taking their hands off the wheel and not managing the business that is before this Senate that we are now dealing with this matter.

I draw the chamber’s attention to the fact that it was the government that changed the order of the business yesterday and today. It is the government that wished to gag this Senate chamber and ram through the telecommunications legislation. Such was their intent to do so that they forgot—and, I repeat, they forgot—that there was a disallowance motion on the table that needed to be addressed today.

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Kroger, I need to interrupt you for a moment. The Senate needs to be informed as to whether you are withdrawing the motion or moving it.

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

I am withdrawing the motion.

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Kroger, you need leave to make a statement.

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In a moment, Senator Kroger, I will ask you to seek leave to withdraw the disallowance notice, but before leave is granted, does any other senator wish to take over the disallowance motion from Senator Kroger?

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to standing order 78(3), I do object to the withdrawal of business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 proposing this disallowance, and I ask that the notice stand in my name. I move:

That the Extradition (United Arab Emirates) Regulations 2010, as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2010 No. 36 and made under the Extradition Act 1988, be disallowed.

In a nutshell, this debate offers an opportunity for us to put our concerns on the record, and I would like to add my remarks to those of Senator Kroger. Our issues are partly the principles of the issues that are tied up in this extradition treaty, but also the poor governance in the way that the executive determines our treaties rather than the parliament. I have sat on the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties for a couple of years, as has Senator Kroger, and the joint standing committee raised serious concerns in the instance of this extradition treaty once the agreement had been signed. Now the parliament is confronted with it once it has been signed. Our concerns are very similar to Senator Kroger’s. I know that we had very similar correspondence as the minister was receiving. We are not satisfied at all with the statement that has just been tabled by Senator Lundy because it makes no material difference whatsoever to the way that the treaty will operate in practice. I am glad that Senator Kroger moved this disallowance motion; I am very disappointed that the opposition, at the 11th hour, will not be seeking to support it.

The Greens with the minister raised six key concerns with this treaty, most notably that Australia should not be signing extradition treaties with countries not party to important international covenants such as the Convention against Torture and the ICCPR. This treaty sets up a very dangerous and shameful precedent because all of the other 35 countries that we have extradition treaties with are parties to the Convention against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, so we are crossing a line with this one this afternoon with the UAE.

Many stakeholders have written to us on the human rights and justice concerns, and these should not be sacrificed in the name of strengthening a trading relationship. We have sought stronger provisions and not ministerial discretion. I have not had the opportunity to go through in detail the statement that Senator Lundy has just tabled, but I understand it does progress the debate somewhat. We were not seeking greater ministerial discretion; we were seeking a stronger treaty.

Other countries such as the UK have safeguards in their treaties with the UAE to protect the rights of their citizens. Quite a high profile High Court case in the United Kingdom ruled that the UK could not rely on diplomatic assurances from the UAE government that one particular individual would not be subject to torture or inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment as per article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. We have no such convention here in Australia and no such benchmarks to protect human rights in Australia or overseas because we have not yet implemented our obligations under the ICCPR into a bill of rights, and that was one of the more important failures of the Rudd-Gillard government thus far.

So the clauses that the government has inserted, the language that has been tabled by Senator Lundy, is certainly welcomed, but it results in no material change whatsoever to the treaty that is before us. Amnesty International’s 2008 report outlines the key risks from the UAE legal system, and this document makes for hair-raising reading: incommunicado detention without charge; torture; imprisonment for criticism of the government; cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment, including death by stoning; and abuse of migrant workers’ rights. The UAE has not signed and is not a signatory to the Convention against Torture or the ICCPR; nor are they a signatory to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights or the Convention of the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families.

We are about to sign an extradition treaty with the UAE which, for some reason, seems to be entirely content with these lapses. Pursuing stronger strategic partnerships with our friends in the Middle East should not come at the expense of our stance on human and civil rights. I will be, as I am sure Senator Kroger will be, pursuing these issues very strongly within the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, but, as I have taken this disallowance motion in my own name, I strongly commended it to the chamber.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Gillard government stands by its position that we do not want Australia to become a safe haven for criminals, that we take our international anticrime cooperation role seriously and that we are committed to maintaining our international obligations to protect human rights, nor would an Australian government extradite a person for conduct that was not a criminal offence in Australia. That is why we are opposing this disallowance. The UAE and Australia share a strong interest in a stable and secure Middle East and Gulf region and have a shared strategic view on regional security.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, this is an important matter and there is another important bill to be before the chamber. That being the case, I seek leave to move a motion to extend the hours of sitting today to allow completion of this matter and the next matter, on the bill. So I am seeking leave to move that motion.

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are about to conclude this matter, Senator Macdonald. However, you have sought that.

Leave not granted.

The Acting Deputy President:

I confirm that leave was granted for Senator Kroger to withdraw the notice.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Ludlam’s) be agreed to.