David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The media has been full recently, and for good reason, of the conflict in Ukraine, with Russia's illegal and unjustifiable invasion of its neighbour. We have seen the pushback by Ukrainian forces—and people welcome that—and the counterattacks they have conducted. But it's important to remember that that is not the only place where these kinds of actions are occurring.

In our region, Myanmar is facing a very similar situation, where the civilian population is being oppressed by its own military. The military had a coup to get rid of a democratically elected government—who, in fact, won in a landslide—and the military have sought to entrench their own power and to eliminate any dissent to that. Despite that—despite the overwhelming military force which is being applied—the National Unity Government and the ethnic armed forces, which have fought for some years in Myanmar, have actually made good progress in holding their own. The Special Advisory Council for Myanmar, an independent group of former United Nations human rights experts, estimate that the National Unity Government and the resistance organisations now have effective control over some 52 per cent of Myanmar's territory. They've said that the Myanmar military can claim to have stable control over only about 17 per cent.

So, on the one hand, we should be celebrating that, because that's actually a fantastic outcome for a civilian population supported by some of the ethnic armed groups. But the reality on the ground for people is still stark. The Special Advisory Council note that the regime, which is unable to govern in the majority of the country, is reduced to being an occupying military force. What does that mean for people? It means that it has stepped up its atrocities, including arbitrary torture and killing of civilians, massacres, burning people alive, extrajudicial killing of resistance detainees and using civilians as human shields, as well as air and artillery strikes on residential areas, looting and burning of houses, and acts of sexual violence.

Just in the last week, we have seen the decapitation of a teacher in one of the areas held by NUG forces, where the military can interdict and have air strikes and send forces in to act and then withdraw. We've seen that. We've recently seen seven young students killed in a helicopter attack in a Buddhist monastery. The UN has documented some 260 attacks on schools and educational personnel, according to the UN Human Rights Committee. Just in the last week, a Myanmar military air attack killed 80 people at a celebration—predominantly civilians, musicians and people associated with one of the political groups there.

So there is a pattern of behaviour, and what we see in summary is that, to date, some 2,356 civilians have been executed extrajudicially by the regime, 91 of those being under the age of 14 and a further 209 being between the ages of 15 and 19. Some 12,655 have been illegally arrested, and four democracy activists, including a member of parliament, were given capital punishment and executed in July. Some 1.3 million people have been displaced and, because of the regime's interdiction and control of World Food Programme and other aid which tries to get over the borders, many of those people are facing starvation. The UN special rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar stresses that there are human rights abuses and war crimes being conducted on a daily basis.

So there are several requests. The first is that the government look to continue allowing those people from Myanmar who are in Australia to remain but also look at how we can increase the opportunity for people who are sheltering in third countries, like Thailand or Mizoram state, to come to Australia until their country is safe to return to. Second, with things like the ASEAN Military Medicine Conference, which it appears the regime's military are going attend at this stage, ASEAN should take the step of saying that they will not accept anyone from the regime attending those sorts of conferences. Third, the junta is talking of having an election in August 2023 and is putting that forward as a way to end the conflict and gain some legitimacy. But that would entrench the military under the old 2008 constitution, whereas the democratically elected National Unity Government and the ethnic groups have developed a federal democracy charter, and the international community should be clearly recognising that any election must be under that charter.

I wish also to cover quickly some areas here in Australia where abandoning the rule of law and crushing dissent also occur. People would have seen in the media recently the saga of Andrew Thorburn and Essendon, and I want to quickly cover the legality and principle issues of this. Most people will know the story. Thorburn was forced to resign very quickly, within two days, and, in his own words, it became clear to him that his personal Christian faith was 'not tolerated or permitted in the public square, at least by some and perhaps by many'. This wasn't on the basis of his personal words or actions; it was because of an association with an Anglican church. Some media reports are saying that the church had controversial views.

The majority of mainstream churches and, I would argue, many mosques and temples are pro life. They believe we should protect the unborn and they believe in the traditional view of marriage and concepts of gender. That is actually quite mainstream around the world, and here in Australia it was perfectly legal to hold those views—in fact, under law, it's still legal to hold those views—yet the Premier of Victoria said:

Those views are absolutely appalling, I don't support those views, that kind of intolerance, that kind of hatred, bigotry. It's just wrong.

Were Essendon's actions legal? Australia is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which comes from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it makes it unlawful to discriminate against people in a range of clauses.

Legal experts have highlighted that it's unlawful to discriminate against a person not only because of their religious belief under the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act 2010 but also because of their personal association with, for example, a church under section 6 of the act. It's not a defence to say that Mr Thorburn agreed to step down. An ultimatum from the club to do so would amount to a constructive dismissal, and a person cannot consent to discrimination against them. So there are, even in our law, legal barriers to what actions Essendon and other groups who have a similar view take. That's because Australia has signed up to international obligations, such as the ICCPR.

Under article 2 we undertake to respect and to ensure to all individuals the rights of the country without distinction, such as race, colour et cetera, including religion. Article 18 says: 'Everyone shall have the freedom of thought, conscience and religion.' This includes the 'freedom to have or adopt the religion or belief of their choice individually or in community'. Article 19 says: 'Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.' Article 22 says everyone shall have the right to the freedom of association with others. Article 27, which perhaps is relevant after the last census, says, 'In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist,' which you could now classify the Christian church as, members of such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with other members, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion.

So, the principle: why should we care? We should care because it's the basis of an open, plural society for these freedoms to exist. In fact, Justices Mason and Brennan of the Australian High Court said that religious freedom is actually the paradigm freedom; the essence of a free society. It's important also to recognise that the things we value in our open and plural society, such as these freedoms, actually have their roots in Christianity, in the church. The American philosopher Larry Siedentop presents very cogent arguments and is one of many who identifies that the roots of liberalism and the belief in individual freedom were actually pioneered by the Christian thinkers of the Middle Ages. It was the philosophers and canon lawyers from the church—not the Renaissance humanists—who laid the foundation for liberal democracy in the West. We should continue to value that if we want an open and free society.

Senate adjourned at 22 : 01