Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Payne) to a question without notice asked by Senator Waters today relating to Mr Karm Gilespie, an Australian citizen imprisoned in China.

Karm Gilespie has just been sentenced to the death penalty, in Guangzhou, in China. Like many Australians, I was appalled to learn over the weekend that Karm Gilespie was sentenced to death last week. Even though Mr Gilespie has been detained in China since late 2013—some 6½ years—the Australian public only became aware of this case when the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court posted a notice on its website.

This is in stark contrast with other cases where Australians overseas face the death penalty—like the Bali Nine in Indonesia, for example. Australian media reported on that trial. Australians shared the pain of Andrew Chan's and Myuran Sukamaran's loved ones as they were sentenced to death and, sadly, executed on 29 April 2015. We campaigned for clemency and did what we could to support them during their time in prison. In the case of Karm Gilespie, the Australian public has been kept in the dark.

I spoke last week in this place about China's opaque and unjust judicial system, where the right to a fair trial doesn't exist. We've seen this time and time again. There is the case of Australian academic Dr Yang, who's been charged with espionage even though we haven't seen any evidence against him. Dr Yang's been held for long periods of isolation and there are serious concerns about his treatment. Then there are the Australians, permanent residents and their family members, who've been caught up in the crackdown against the Uighurs in China's Xinjiang province, which I also spoke about in this place last week. At least, in those cases, we've been aware of their detention and have been able to raise our concerns publicly, which is why the Australian government must let the public know when it first became aware of Mr Gilespie's arrest and at what levels and times his case has been raised with the Australian government.

While it's well and good to offer a private briefing to senators and MPs on consular matters—especially given that Senate estimates didn't occur in May—unless there's a genuine concern that it would further imperil an Australian citizen, it's not a substitute for providing this information to the Australian public. In Mr Gilespie's case, the softly-softly approach clearly has not worked. Furthermore, it's critical that we know how many more Australian citizens or permanent residents are stuck in jail in China and how many of them are at risk of facing the death penalty during this particularly difficult period in our relationship with China.

In my final few minutes, I'd like to move on to another troubling consular case in that region, that of Chau Van Kham. Mr Chau is a retired baker from Sydney, and today he'll be spending his 71st birthday in a remote prison in Vietnam. He was convicted of terrorism late last year and sentenced to 12 years in prison—all because of his affiliation and activities with an opposition political party. Mr Chau has not been accused of violence or attempted violence but was convicted regardless, following a 4½-hour trial. Vietnam is a one-party state that does not tolerate dissent. Mr Chau is currently one of more than 160 political prisoners in the country. He has not spoken to his wife or children since his arrest 18 months ago, and consular officials haven't been allowed to visit since January.

We call on the Australian government to redouble its efforts to free Mr Chau. We must demand that Vietnam release him on humanitarian grounds as an immediate priority, given his age, medical condition and risk of serious illness if he contracts coronavirus. Chau Van Kham should be at home with his family on his 71st birthday, not languishing in a Vietnamese prison.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Waters, before I put the question on your motion to take note, I just remind you that you really do need to speak about the answers you've taken note of. The latter part of your contribution wasn't that.

Question agreed to.