Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes the release on 28 March 2011 of an Amnesty International report entitled Death Sentences and Executions 2010 and that:

(a) over the last 10 years, 31 countries have abolished the death sentence in practice or in law; and

(b) in December 2010:

(i) the United Nations General Assembly adopted its third resolution on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty; and

(ii) 23 countries had carried out executions in 2010 compared to 19 countries in 2009; and

(2) recommits to its bi-partisan condemnation of the death penalty across the world.

I have always opposed the death penalty. It is ineffective as a deterrent and it is ethically wrong. Amnesty International released its latest report, Death Sentences and Executions 2010, on 28 March 2011. Since 1977 Amnesty's work in relation to the universal abolition of the death penalty has expanded. Over 30 years later, from the original 16 countries, the number of countries which have abolished it now 139. That is in no small measure due to the work of Amnesty International.

When the United Nations General Assembly adopted its third resolution on a moratorium on the death penalty in December 2010, there were more countries supporting the resolution than ever before—139 voted for it, 41 voted against it and there were 35 abstentions. It is those countries that voted against the resolution, and those who abstained, that we must continue to lobby, as appropriate, to abolish this inhumane practice.

According to the report at least 23 countries are known to have carried out judicial executions in 2010 and there were at least 527 known executions. While several countries do make their figures known, it is difficult to establish the exact figures as these are regarded as 'state secrets'. At least 2,024 new death sentences were known to have been imposed in 67 countries in 2010. On the figures available to Amnesty there were at least 17,833 people under sentence of death. Of those countries which retain the death penalty, the explanation provided is that it is only used for the most serious of crimes. Of course, that is a matter of definition based on the culture and history of those countries. For example, we are all aware that some countries impose the death sentence for drug offences which in other countries carry a sentence of imprisonment. In some cases the imposition of the death penalty is mandatory for such offences. Other countries impose the death sentence for sexual relations between consenting adults, homosexuality, blasphemy, adultery and prostitution. Other countries use this penalty to silence dissent and political opposition.

Of course, another aspect of this barbaric practice is the lack of due process in the judicial proceedings leading to the imposition of the death penalty in some countries. The Amnesty report provides examples of little or no fairness in the courts prior to sentence, including confessions extracted under torture. There is a clear prohibition in international law on the use of the death penalty against juveniles, yet Amnesty has documented cases in which people under 18 years of age have been sentenced to death. I particularly noticed in the report, in Annex II, the list of abolitionist and retentionist countries as at 31 December 2010. Australia is, of course, amongst the two-thirds of the world that has abolished the death penalty in law or in practice. It is very satisfactory that it was the Labor government which introduced the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Torture Prohibition and Death Penalty Abolition) Bill, which effectively extends the prohibition of the death penalty in Australia to every state and territory and ensures that it cannot be reintroduced. It is a matter of great pride that this legislation was supported by all parties of the parliament. I call on the House to recommit to the bipartisan condemnation of the death penalty and ask that we all continue to work to ensure its abolition across the world.

It is worth reiterating past experiences in England to elaborate the point that we are making here this evening. We can all remember the cases of the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and the Maguire Seven in England. Those people were convicted in each of the cases and, if the death penalty had been in operation in the United Kingdom at that time, would have been subject to the death penalty. It took many years of agitation on behalf of their supporters, in terms of inquiries that took place, to eventually establish the fact that in a number of cases police had lied and those lies had led to the conviction of people. Their convictions were found to be unsafe and unsatisfactory. If the death penalty had been in existence, many of those people would have been executed, not released many years later. For various reasons, mistakes are made. In one of those cases there was a misdiagnosis in relation to the use of soap and the use of powder to do with bombs. (Time expired)

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Geoff Lyons (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am certainly pleased to rise in support of the motion that was moved by the member for Banks this evening. It occurs to me that last evening on the Gold Coast a police officer, in the line of duty, was unfortunately shot in the head by an armed robber. That police officer still fights for his life in hospital as we speak. My mind turns to another heinous crime. In 1965, during an escape from Pentridge prison, a prison officer, George Hodson, who was 41, was shot dead by Ronald Ryan. Ronald Ryan was the last person executed in Australia under the death penalty.

In both of those instances, the one last evening and in the case of the last person executed in Australia, a heinous crime was committed—a crime which many in the community would feel justified the use of the death penalty. The reality is, though, that even in 1965 and in the subsequent years that led to that final execution, there was, from deep within the Australian psyche, a well of public sentiment that said that we do not believe that the death penalty is the right way to punish people, even when someone commits the most heinous crime.

In many respects, the central thrust of the Amnesty International report is that its work against the death penalty flows from the belief that the death penalty is cruel, inhuman, degrading and an affront to the right of life. When I read those words I reflected on the fact that, in many respects, it is that exact concern that for many in the community would spur their desire to see people executed. That really reinforces to me the fundamental hypocrisy about the death penalty. I believe that in society, whether it is in the nation of Australia or with people globally, there is the recognition that engaging in that kind of conduct—be it state sanctioned, negligence or recklessness by criminals—is of the same colour and of the same ilk. In that respect, I am certainly pleased to support in this chamber the motion that we remain steadfastly opposed to the death penalty. It is not because I believe that the rights of those punished should be lifted to the same level as those of the victims but rather because the way in which the death penalty demeans all of us causes me primary concern.

In that respect, I applaud the work of Amnesty International in publishing this report. Amnesty International has seen, since it first commenced campaigning for the abolition of the death penalty in 1977, growth from 16 countries abolishing capital punishment to 139 countries abolishing the death penalty in law or in practice. The reality is that, of course, there is still more work to be done. I would hope that those in the chamber this evening and those who support this particular motion, as well as those abroad who are with us in spirit on this motion, recognise that the ultimate goal is the abolition of the death penalty across the world. There are still some 58 countries that are classified as retentionist and far fewer still use it. Over the years we have seen the growth of feeling that the death penalty does not in any way, shape or form reflect the spirit of the countries or the people of the countries that have either abolished it in law or in practice.

In December last year the UN General Assembly adopted its third resolution on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, with more UN member states supporting the resolution than ever before. The resolution was adopted with 109 votes in favour, 41 against and 35 abstentions. The reality is that many countries that still use the death penalty use it in a manner which is not even consistent with the most basic benchmark threshold of punishment for the most serious crimes. With around 17,000 people sentenced to death I urge all of those who support the abolition of the death penalty to recognise that we make ourselves better—we make our societies better—by punishing through other means those who have committed these heinous crimes, and recognise that the sanctity of life must be upheld, and that we must not debase ourselves by trying to— (Time expired)

Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a plane flight recently I read a legal thriller by John Grisham called The Confession, about a man who had committed the vicious rape and murder of a high school cheerleader nine years earlier. In the novel an innocent young African-American man who has been convicted of the murder now only has four days before his death sentence is carried out. The real murderer, now suffering from an inoperable brain tumour, decides to confess. By the time he manages to persuade the authorities that he really is the murderer by leading them to the buried body the young African-American man has already been executed. As is often the case in real life, there was no happy ending to this story.

I wish the only time an innocent person was executed was in a novel or a movie. The reality, however, is that it has happened all too often throughout history and wherever the death penalty exists. The reality is that it continues to happen. In Western Australia we have had a number of cases of murder convictions being overturned when the innocent persons had already spent many years in prison. It is fortunate we no longer have the death penalty, or the compensation for a wrongful conviction would have gone uncollected.

If ever I need a grim reminder of those gory days I only need to walk around the corner from my electorate office to the old Fremantle prison and see the small dark chamber where people were hanged. Hangings at Fremantle prison would take place at 8 am on Monday mornings. The condemned would be woken at 5.30 am, showered, transferred to the condemned cell, given the services of a spiritual adviser and offered a glass of whisky. On leaving the condemned cell they would be taken to the gallows. Usually, only 60 seconds elapsed before the trap was pulled. The last execution was that of Eric Edgar Cooke, on 26 October 1964. Cooke had been convicted on only one count of murder but evidence and his confession suggest he had committed many, many more, including those for which other people had already been convicted.

Of course, even when the correct person is convicted of a serious offence the death penalty is abhorrent, for the many reasons that have been spoken of in this place. I noted in a speech on 22 February 2010:

The death penalty is an act that decreases the store of human dignity. It is a practice that has no social justification, for all the evidence indicates that it does not function as a deterrent, and ... it is not right that our system of justice function as an instrument of vengeance.

I was speaking on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Torture Prohibition and Death Penalty Abolition) Bill. It was a matter of great pride for me and many other Australians when the federal parliament passed this law last year with multipartisan support, making it impossible for the death penalty to be reintroduced at the state and territory level.

Of course this was an incorporation, into domestic law, of our international legal obligations under the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aimed at the abolition of the death penalty. When speaking on that bill I also referred to Indonesia and acknowledged that it takes very seriously offences involving drugs and wishes to ensure that a strong message is sent to the community that dealing in drugs will not be tolerated. I noted that it is possible to be tough on crime and drugs without imposing the death penalty, which is a fundamental violation of the right to life. This is demonstrated by the fact that the international criminal tribunals which try and punish the most serious crimes possible—genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity—do not have the death penalty. The arrest of General Ratko Mladic by Serbian authorities last Thursday will enable justice to finally be done for the atrocities committed in Sarajevo and Srebrenica. Yet whatever his fate within the judicial process, Mr Mladic will not receive a death sentence. And that is appropriate. As US Supreme Court Justice William Brennan once said:

The state does not honour the victim by emulating his murderer.

I made a statement last week welcoming the Indonesian Supreme Court's decision to overturn Scott Rush's death sentence, in which I noted the important progress made by Indonesia in strengthening democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law in the past decade. As noted in Amnesty International's report on Death sentences and executions 2010, the trend throughout the world is for increased abolition of the death penalty in practice or in law. It is, however, shocking that only last year China executed thousands of people for a wide range of crimes that included non-violent offences, and after proceedings that did not meet international fair trial standards. This is a matter that I trust is traversed in Australia's regular human rights dialogue with China.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Amnesty International on its 50th anniversary and for the incredible work it does to advance the cause of human rights throughout the world. I also want to thank and pay tribute to the member for Banks for bringing this important motion regarding the death penalty to the parliament and to thank all of the members who are speaking in support of this motion.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to have this opportunity to commend my colleague the member for Banks, to warmly support the remarks of the member for Fremantle and to support the remarks of my colleague Mr Ciobo about the importance of this motion.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this motion because, as a long-standing member of Amnesty International, I know that this is one of its core interests and one which I am particularly pleased to support. I am delighted to see that they have focused on this interest in the way they have.

I have before me the report of Amnesty International, Death sentences and executions 2010. It notes that this is the occasion that Amnesty International is able to draw attention to this particular issue of executions. It also notes that after the creation of Amnesty International in 1961, it began sending appeals to prevent executions of prisoners of conscience. Then, over time, its work on the death penalty expanded. Recognising that as a punishment the death penalty is cruel, inhuman and degrading and an affront to the right to life, Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception.

I am pleased, as a member of Amnesty, to be able to support that statement very strongly. I am delighted, also, to note that somebody whom I had some adverse comments to make about, in terms of their priorities, the chair of the Human Rights Council of the United Nations, made some remarks on the universal abolition of the death penalty, as early as December 2009. I am glad to see that she was taking this matter up because I think it deserves priority. When marking the 20th anniversary of the death penalty optional protocol, she said:

I am opposed to the death penalty in all cases.

I hold this position for a number of reasons: these include the fundamental nature of the right to life; the unacceptable risk of executing innocent people by mistake; the absence of proof that the death penalty serves as a deterrent; and what is, to my mind, the inappropriately vengeful character of the sentence.

It is important to note some of the observations that have been made. The member for Fremantle highlighted the fact that China executed more people than the rest of the world put together when it carried out executions involving more than 1,000 people. I found that an astonishing figure. Closest to it was Iran with 252, North Korea with 60, Yemen with 53 and, regrettably, the United States of America with 46. When President Bush Sr visited Australia I was glad that the parliament, through the Parliamentary Amnesty Group, saw fit to raise this matter with him. I am sorry that things have not changed.

Amnesty's report also notes that four countries in the G20 executed people in 2010—China, Japan, Saudi Arabia and the United States—that 23 countries carried out executions, that 58 countries are classified as retentionist, with fewer than half of them actually executing people in 2010, and that 138 inmates sentenced to death in the United States of America had been exonerated since 1973. It makes note of the methods used, including beheading, electrocution, hanging, lethal injection and shooting.

I note that the honourable member for Fowler is going to follow me in the debate. No doubt he will make mention of Scott Rush, an Australian sentenced to death in Indonesia. Like him, I am glad that that sentence has been commuted. It would have been a real tragedy if it had occurred.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too thank the member for Banks for bringing this motion before us this evening. Everyone who has participated in this debate so far has spoken on other occasions that I can recall on the issue of the death penalty. Capital punishment, the death penalty, is the most cruel, inhumane and irreversible form of punishment that there can be. It is an absolute affront to those of us who stand for human rights.

In 1977, when Amnesty International started its campaign against the death penalty, there were, as I understand it, only 16 abolitionist countries. Now, little more than 30 years later, 139 countries are abolitionist. In the last 10 years alone, more than 30 countries have abolished laws or practices with respect to the death penalty. I applaud everybody who has been involved in that and I congratulate those countries for taking a responsible position on human rights.

My involvement in the issue of capital punishment started almost five years ago, not long after my by-election, when I had a chance encounter, meeting with the parents of Scott Rush. Scott Rush is one of the Bali Nine. He was arrested at Denpasar airport carrying a large quantity of drugs. He was a drug mule; there is no doubt about it. His father had tipped off the Federal Police about what his son was up to in an attempt to stop his son's life of crime. What his father did not understand, of course, was that if you got caught overseas, particularly in Bali, it would mean the death sentence. Together with Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan, Scott was, until very recently, on death row at Kerobokan Prison.

As a matter of fact, about five or six weeks ago my wife, Bernadette, and I went to Kerobokan Prison to see all the Australian prisoners on death row. I have to say that as a parent it struck me that, but for the grace of God, it could have been any of our kids over there—and they were kids. Scott Rush was 17 when he was apprehended carrying his quantity of drugs. Certainly it was misguided and certainly it was criminal activity, but at the end of the day he is someone's child. Visiting the prison left me with all the feelings experienced by a parent in this circumstance. I would not like to have to leave my child in Kerobokan Prison waiting for a final verdict to be made.

Fortunately for Scott Rush, his final judicial review was handed down a couple of weeks ago. By a majority vote by the bench of two to one his execution was commuted to life imprisonment. Sukumaran and Chan are still waiting for judgment to be made in respect of their judicial review. I felt I shared a common bond with Lee and Christine Rush: the unreserved love that we have for our kids regardless of what they have done. Since our visit, Scott has fortunately had his sentence commuted. I hope and pray that that occurs for Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan as well.

I am proud of the fact that, in this country, Gough Whitlam in 1973 took the steps federally to abolish the death penalty. In 1990 Australia signed the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Australia voted in the United Nations General Assembly resolution calling for a global moratorium on the death penalty in 2007. Australia co-sponsors the resolution for human rights and calls for all nations to abolish capital punishment.

As time is rapidly running out, I would like to leave you with the words of Chief Justice of the Constitution Court in South Africa, Ismael Mahomed. He said that the death penalty:

… is the ultimate and the most incomparably extreme form of punishment … It is the last, the most devastating and the most irreversible recourse of the criminal law involving … the planned and calculated termination of life itself; the destruction of the greatest and most precious gift which is bestowed on all humankind.

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The former President of Poland, the late Lech Kaczynski, once a fighter against the repressive Soviet puppet government in his country through the trade union movement, warned that countries that give up the death penalty award an unimaginable advantage to the criminal over his victim—the advantage of life over death. In Australia in 1973, the death penalty was abolished for federal offences and, in 2010, the former Rudd government passed laws that prevented the death penalty from being reintroduced by any state or territory in Australia.

I know that the death penalty has not been used as a punishment in this country since 1967 but, in effectively removing the capability for the nation or any of the states to reintroduce that penalty, I say that this parliament gave an unimaginable advantage to the criminal over the victim. I also say that this House of Representatives, in doing that and in supporting a motion such as the one before us today, fails to live up to its name. To be truly representative on this issue we would adhere to the views of the general public on this issue instead of the views of Amnesty International or the United Nations.

One poll I found on the question of support or opposition to the death penalty was conducted less than a decade ago and was specifically regarding terrorism. In August 2003, Newspoll conducted an extensive survey in which respondents were asked whether they were in favour or against the introduction of the death penalty in Australia for people who were found guilty of committing major acts of terrorism. The result was that 56 per cent of respondents supported the death penalty in those circumstances, as opposed to only 36 per cent against.

I may be a minority in this place when I say that I too support the death penalty for terrorists and for those found guilty of the most heinous of crimes—the murder of a child, particularly when it involves rape or the murder of an elderly person or a person with disabilities, again particularly when it involves rape. I may be a minority in this place when I say that, but I can tell you that it is not a minority view in the electorate at large. That fact is acknowledged by even the Australian Coalition Against the Death Penalty, which admits on its website that there are recent polls showing that 70 per cent of Australians support capital punishment for heinous crimes.

I turn now to one case that I believe fully warrants the death penalty: the vicious murder of Zahra Baker, a young girl originally from Giru in my electorate of Dawson. According to a staff member at a Giru day care centre: 'Zahra seemed very happy. She always came in with a smile on her face. She was at preschool then and was diagnosed with cancer. She went away for treatment. She was a very happy, determined little girl. She was willing to give anything a go.' She was a little girl struck down with cancer at a young age. She went through chemotherapy and all the horrors that that involves, and she lost a leg to that terrible disease. Zahra moved with her father and stepmother to America—a terrible move given what transpired. But, in the darkness, the shining light may be that true justice can be served, given that the crime occurred in North Carolina, where the death penalty is still an option.

The tiny body of Zahra Baker now lies scattered across the woodlands and in the creeks in a small North Carolina town. The autopsy on her remains found that two different cutting instruments were used to dismember this little girl's body, and her skull has never been found. I will not speak about that matter in greater detail and I will not point out potential suspects, although that is something that is readily available through the media. What I will say, though, is that if the police are able to find her killer and prove guilt in a court of law, and all the information is pointing to that conclusion, then I say that the death penalty would be the only just penalty to fit the seriousness of that crime against that young girl.

Some people may reel from that statement but, in our protected world here in Canberra, we are not exposed to the great evils out there, and I suppose it would be the same for a Hollywood actor. In his book Mindhunter, a former FBI serial profiler, John Douglas, talked about the actor Scott Glenn coming to see him to do research for a character he played in Silence of the Lambs. Douglas recounted: 'Glenn was a pretty liberal guy who had strong feelings on rehabilitation, redemption and the fundamental goodness of people.' Douglas showed him crime scene photos and let him listen to recordings of killers torturing their victims. Douglas wrote: 'I made him listen to one of two teenage girls in Los Angeles being tortured to death in the back of a van by two thrill-seeking killers who had recently been let out of prison. Glenn said that after seeing and hearing what he did in my office that he could no longer oppose the death penalty.'

I want to talk about deterrence. Repeated empirical evidence suggests that capital punishment has had a deterrent effect. That is proven. I make no apologies for supporting the victim over the criminal.

Laurie Ferguson (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In responding to the previous speaker, I note that one of the areas where he would allow the death penalty is the heinous crime of killing young people. It is worth noting that part of the horrendous capital punishment reality of this world is that there are 19 states in the United States which execute people under 18 years old; and since 1999, nations including China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United States and Yemen have executed under-18-year-olds. The member talked of things being beyond the realm—that we can convict people when it is certain that the case is proven. It is worth noting on that front, as was indicated by an earlier speaker, that in the United States alone 138 inmates on death row have been exonerated. I do not think there is any certainty in this matter.

I join previous speakers in saluting Amnesty International in its 50th year for its action with regard to capital punishment. That was not one of its original aims; it was focused very much on political prisoners. But, over the course of time, it went on to the situations of prisoners' families, the nature of court procedures and areas such as capital punishment. Obviously, as other speakers have indicated, there are a few nations on this earth which are particularly prominent with regard to execution. China stands out. The numbers are so large that no-one is certain of the realities. Iran, which conducts stoning for sexual offences, which in the last fortnight is debating whether somebody will be blinded for theft, is another prominent one. I want to talk about the United States, not because it is the worst but because we perhaps have more information about some of the realities there due to its open media. It is worth noting not only that capital punishment is wrong morally but also that there are real questions as to the lottery of life that capital punishment involves. Afro Americans constitute 12 per cent of the population of the United States but 41 per cent of the people on death row are Afro American.

Debate interrupted.