Teresa Gambaro (Brisbane, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I seek leave to amend the private member's motion relating to Ukraine in the terms circulated to honourable members.

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

That this House:

(1) expresses its grave concerns regarding the situation in Ukraine, and in particular, the referendum held in Crimea on Sunday 16 March, which was not authorised by the Ukrainian Parliament and therefore cannot form the legitimate basis for any alteration of the status of Crimea;

(2) calls on the Russian government to respect Ukraine's sovereignty, withdraw its troops and keep open the channels for critical dialogue;

(3) calls on the Government of Ukraine to continue to exercise restraint in the face of provocation; and

(4) acknowledges the steps taken by the Australian Government in support of a peaceful resolution to the dispute.

The situation in Ukraine remains serious, with the potential for military confrontation. The decision by Crimean authorities to hold a referendum on the territory's future is deeply unhelpful. The Ukrainian government has been clear that the vote is a violation of the Ukrainian constitution. The vote was carried out with great haste, with little time for effective preparation and with no independent election observers. Australia has called on Russia to cease and desist from its blatantly aggressive actions against another sovereign nation—specifically, to stop actions in support of this flawed referendum, to withdraw its military forces in Ukraine back to their bases and to engage constructively with the government of Ukraine to map out a peaceful way forward that takes into account the safety and security of all Ukrainians.

Russia must respect international law.    Russia's actions violate Ukraine's sovereignty and are an attack on Ukraine's territorial integrity.    These actions are a clear violation of Russia's international legal obligations, including, most fundamentally, the UN Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force. These are not the actions of a responsible and senior member of the international community.

It is timely that I update the House on Australia's actions to date. The foreign minister, Julie Bishop, has been very strong in her actions to date. On 3 March, the Prime Minister announced the cancellation of the visit to Russia by the Minister for Trade and Investment and the visit to Australia by the secretary of Russia's security council. The foreign minister issued a media release on 2 March regarding the unacceptability of Russia's actions, stating clearly Australia's unequivocal support for Ukraine's territorial integrity and the importance of urgent dialogue to step back from this crisis.    The foreign minister has underlined those views, as has the Prime Minister, in media interviews and in parliament.

On 3 March the secretary of DFAT called in the Russian ambassador at the foreign minister's request to convey to him Australia's views in clear terms and ensure that those views are sent directly to the Russian government. Australia has addressed the issue in the United Nations Security Council, of which we are a member.

In addition, Minister Bishop, jointly with Minister Morrison, issued a media release on 5 March, announcing that Ukrainian nationals in Australia on visas that are due to expire and who may be affected by the unrest in Ukraine will be able to apply for an extension to their visas. Any United Nations Security Council action censuring Russia, including a resolution, requires agreement of the five permanent members of the council. Although Russia can oppose any proposal for the UNSC action, as we saw on Saturday, 15 March, Russia has been isolated in the UN Security Council. Australia is encouraging UN Secretary-General Ban to continue to exercise the role of his good offices.

The situation is clearly untenable, and the foreign minister has been working hard, particularly in relation to Australia's temporary position on the United Nations Security Council and closely with the United Kingdom and with other Security Council members, not only in relation to Ukraine but on other issues in the region as well that will have a great impact. There have been very productive discussions by the foreign minister with foreign minister William Hague and also with the British National Security Council. Particularly, the foreign minister has been working to learn about the EU's perspective on the United Kingdom, on Russia's intervention in the Ukraine and on the referendum.

There are some deeply flawed issues in this whole process—firstly, the way the referendum has been conducted, as I mentioned. There is no provision in the Ukrainian constitution for a regional referendum on the question of succession, so it is unconstitutional. Secondly, why are there Russian troops in Crimea? There is a suggestion that there is an enormous level of intimidation of the people by having those troops present at the same time as a referendum. There are many, many issues that need to be considered here.

There have been a number of international experts in this area—including Ali Amidi, who recently wrote an online piece about all of the arguments, legal and otherwise, that Russia has been putting forward. And I want to go through some of those. One of the legal arguments Russia has resorted to is that it is ready to exercise military intervention in the Ukraine in order to save the lives of ethnic Russian people in Crimea and the Ukraine. This was mentioned in a letter that was sent to the Russian parliament by Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials, who have also frequently had cause to emphasise this. But this argument is very, very flawed, because the ethnic Russian people living in Ukraine and Crimea are not considered Russian nationals. So Russia is not legally authorised to resort to saving citizens and trying to find a way to protect them. Also, these people are not facing the threat of discrimination, criminal acts against them or any other major risks that might provide legal grounds for that justification.

Another argument the Russians put out there is that they have to support the independence-seeking drive of the Crimean people and that it backs their bid to join Russia on the basis of humanitarian grounds. This is another argument that is extremely and deeply flawed. It is deeply flawed on the basis that humanitarian intervention has to be justified on the grounds that the people of a particular country are exposed to or are at serious risk of criminal acts or discrimination. And clearly that is not the case with the ethnic Russian people living in the Ukraine, who are not facing such a situation.

Russia has a third flawed argument in going in to launch military intervention in the Ukraine and Crimea on the invitation of the country's legal president at the moment, Mr Yanukovych. And the point is, can the president still be considered the legal president of the Ukraine government in the jargon of international law? There is a difference, as Mr Amidi points out, between a de facto and a de jour government. As a result, the interim government in Kiev is hardly considered the country's de facto government in international relations, and other states usually recognise de facto governments. Therefore, were the president the legal head of state, he would not be authorised to use foreign forces in order to divide his homeland and to accept the risk of the breakout of civil war and to ensure the risk of the possible massacre of citizens in his country.

I am very proud to be standing here on behalf of the Australian parliament to put this motion forward, and also on behalf of the many thousands of Ukrainians who live in our country and are in absolute fear of what is happening in their homeland and of what is happening to their loved ones and the families. The action taken by Russia is unacceptable, and the motion put before us here today outlines the unacceptability. The situation is a very fluid one. I support the foreign minister in her actions to date, and I hope that the opposition will join me in putting forward the motion today that clearly what has happened is a violation of the Ukrainian constitution and a violation of that country's sovereignty.

See this speech in context