Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of Senator Steele-John, I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 November 2020:

The reassessment of the Australia-Hong Kong Free Trade Agreement (A-HKFTA), with particular reference to:

(a) the appropriateness of the A-HKFTA given the passage and imposition of China's national security law in Hong Kong;

(b) whether Hong Kong still enjoys the high degree of autonomy valued by Australia through the 'One Country, Two Systems' framework;

(c) ongoing human rights abuses and repression in Hong Kong; and

(d) any other related matters.

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] Last year the Liberal, Nationals and Labor parties voted together to pass legislation that implemented the Australia-Hong Kong Free Trade Agreement. They did this in the shadow of a most serious crackdown in Hong Kong, over strong objections from civil society and the union movement. It's worth recalling the situation at the time. China's President Xi had just said of Hong Kong protesters, 'Anyone attempting to split China in any part of the country will end in crushed bones and shattered limbs.' We had witnessed brutal months of crackdown on dissent as the people of Hong Kong called for things that we take for granted here in Australia—things as basic as universal suffrage. Protesters had faced antidemocratic emergency powers to ban face masks. They had faced tear gas and live bullets from police. Thousands had been arrested, with children as young as 12 among those convicted. At JSCOT's inquiry into the treaty, the ACTU said:

Given the escalating events taking place in Hong Kong at the moment, the ACTU calls on the government to wait until the situation is resolved before proceeding with the enabling legislation of the Australia-Hong Kong Free Trade Agreement.

They went on:

We feel it's important that we show solidarity with the protesters, and our support for human rights, civil society and the rule of law in Hong Kong, before we decide on how to proceed with a free trade agreement.

Hong Kong activists called on MPs to do something very simple: they were asking parliament to consider human rights and not to proceed with the FTA at a time when they were being violently suppressed. Hong Kong Watch said in its submission:

In light of the erosion of freedoms and the rule of law in Hong Kong which are important pillars for Australian businesses, it is therefore imperative for the … government to take action to ensure adequate consideration of human rights issues during future trade agreement negotiations and to include human rights protection clauses in the Australia-Hong Kong Free Trade Agreement, including suspension clauses to suspend an agreement if core human rights standards are not met and backed by an effective enforcement mechanism through Parliamentary scrutiny and monitoring of human rights compliance by both parties to the trade agreement.

The response of the major parties to these concerns and abuses occurring in Hong Kong at the time was to push the ratifying legislation through the parliament. They even refused Greens' amendments that would have delayed the implementation of the agreement by at least one year to allow us to monitor the situation as it developed. Indeed, they insisted that the implementation of the FTA would, in fact, strengthen Hong Kong's autonomous status within the one country, two systems framework. If you now navigate to the FTA section of the DFAT home page, the government still confidently tells browsers that the deal:

…reaffirms the value Australia places on the high degree of autonomy enjoyed by Hong Kong through the "One Country, Two Systems" framework.

Since the passage of the legislation last year, however, the situation in Hong Kong has become even bleaker. A few months ago, the Chinese government endorsed and adopted the national security law for Hong Kong, the most aggressive assault on Hong Kong people's freedoms since the transfer of sovereignty in 1997. Governments around the world, including Australia, strongly criticised the law as fundamentally undermining the one country, two systems principle and in breach of legally-binding declarations such as the joint declaration signed by China and the United Kingdom.

The passage and implementation of the law marks the end of many of Hong Kong's unique freedoms. It prohibits activities that the Chinese government deem to be crimes of secession, subversion and terrorism and those they consider to be collusion with a foreign power or force. These so-called crimes are poorly defined and open to interpretation. The law is devastating to Hong Kong's human rights protections. It is creating specialised secret security agencies. It denies rights to a fair trial. It provides sweeping new police powers and weakens judicial oversight as it, in turn, increases restraints on civil society and the media. In practice, it means that the people of Hong Kong face long jail terms for things as simple as owning banners that authorities do not like or chanting slogans that are deemed to be inappropriate. Hong Kong's teachers, too, are on tenterhooks. They've been advised that they need to educate students about the new law so that children understand 'the importance of national security'. Books in schools and libraries are being reviewed as we speak to make sure that they do not violate these new laws.

Of course, the whole purpose of the national security law is to stymie dissent. Since the law came into effect, Hong Kong authorities have arrested people for wearing T-shirts and making tweets that are seen to be advocating for independence. They have asserted the right to prosecute critics abroad. They have barred pro-democracy candidates from legislative elections and postponed those elections by more than a year.

In response to the national security law the Morrison government suspended Australia's extradition treaty with Hong Kong. The Greens welcomed that move at the time. We were also pleased that the government finally decided to extend visas for some Hong Kongers—although we were disappointed that these actions did not go further and urged them in this regard. We need more than just extension schemes for some visa categories. What we need is protection for all those in Hong Kong who are at risk of persecution because of the new laws, on top of our existing humanitarian quotas. That has to be made very clear—that this would be on top of our existing humanitarian quotas. And we need a clear statement that so-called crimes like illegal assembly will be exempt from the character test.

The Greens are also calling on the Morrison government to consider further steps in relation to this serious change in Hong Kong's status. In seeking to refer the Australia-Hong Kong Free Trade Agreement to a Senate committee we are merely asking the government and the ALP to review the deal in light of the changed circumstances. At the very least, we hope you will agree that this parliament should be given the opportunity to examine whether Hong Kong's status continues to be significantly autonomous to merit this agreement. We therefore urge you to support this referral.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor is deeply dismayed about the Chinese government's imposition of national security legislation in Hong Kong which directly undermines the one country, two systems arrangement. This legislation has curtailed the city's rights and freedoms. Just this week we've seen reports of prominent democracy activists, including Andy Li, being arrested for attempting to flee to Taiwan. We expect Beijing to honour its commitments to the international community and to the people of Hong Kong. In opposing this motion, Labor strongly believes that it is in our national interest to signal our support for one country, two systems; uphold the international rules based order, including through a robust trading system and regional economic engagement; and provide certainty and transparency for all Australian businesses operating in Hong Kong.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australia-Hong Kong Free Trade Agreement provides certainty and transparency for Australian businesses trading and investing in Hong Kong. To terminate the agreement would remove that certainty of the operating environment in doing business with and in Hong Kong. Australia supports a rules based system that provides recourse for Australian businesses and investors. The Australian government has clearly and consistently expressed our deep concern regarding Beijing's decision to impose a national security law in Hong Kong.

Question negatived.