John Madigan (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. The treaty on extradition between Australia and the People's Republic of China has recently been tabled in the Senate. Given that China is a country that does not respect the rule of law and given that the treaty allows for the transfer of Australian citizens to China on a simple request with no investigation by Australia as to the merit of the alleged charges, what safeguards are in place for those who are subject to such a simple, unchallenged request?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Senator Madigan, and might I thank you for the courtesy of the advance notice of this question that you gave my office. Australia signed an extradition treaty with China in 2007. Extradition treaties are common features of Australia's cooperation with international partners to combat transnational crime. Australia and China have a longstanding law enforcement relationship. The Australian government is progressing the implementation of the treaty. The treaty and the accompanying national interest analysis were tabled in parliament yesterday. The treaty will then be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties for consideration. That process, of course, will include public consultation. Following the consideration of the treaty by the committee, the committee will recommend whether the treaty should be ratified. How the government proceeds following any such recommendation by the committee is a matter for the government upon receiving the report from the committee.

Senator Madigan, I can tell you that the treaty does contain a range of human rights safeguards which specify that extradition must be refused in certain circumstances. In particular, the treaty provides that extradition must be refused where the person sought may be sentenced to death for the offence for which the extradition is requested. That is the standard practice of the Australian government in relation to extradition treaties. It is the practice of Australian governments of both political persuasions, I might say. We always put into extradition treaties a capital punishment or death penalty exclusion.

John Madigan (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. China continues to impose the death penalty. They refuse to disclose how many people are put to death, trials are often held in secret and the conviction rate hovers around 100 per cent. Given this totalitarian system and the fact that China only needs to provide an undertaking, how do you, as the Attorney-General, satisfy yourself that the human rights of Australian citizens will be upheld once they are in the hands of the Chinese government?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is an issue that does arise from time to time with countries with which Australia has an extradition agreement but that also have a death penalty provision. It is a matter I have dealt with in relation to countries other than China. The answer to your question is that the Attorney-General acts on advice. That advice comes, in particular, not only from my department but also from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. We apply the death penalty exclusion very, very scrupulously. If there is any risk at all, any possibility at all, that the observance of an extradition request could potentially result in the execution of the person, the subject of the request will be refused.

John Madigan (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. It still remains that China is a totalitarian one-party state that generally keeps its statistics secret in relation to what occurs behind courtroom doors and how many people are put to death. Given that Australia upholds the rule of law and due process, do you consider this treaty to be fundamentally inconsistent with Australia's core democratic values?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I do not. The reason I do not is that although Australia may have concerns about an aspect of the criminal law and the criminal justice system of another jurisdiction, and we do in relation to China and all death penalty countries, that does not mean that there is no useful role for international crime cooperation. In fact, if Australia refused to engage in international cooperation in the enforcement of the criminal law with any country because we had a misgiving about an aspect of their criminal justice system, our capacity to deal with transnational and cross-border crime would be very significantly curtailed. The way in which we deal with the issue, which you have very properly raised, is that we have exclusions, in particular, in the subject about which you are inquiring, a death penalty exclusion, which we enforce rigorously.