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

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, it gives me great pleasure to present the committee's report on Australia's human rights dialogues with China and Vietnam.

Many submissions and witnesses to this inquiry expressed concern about the perceived lack of progress achieved by Australia's human rights dialogues so far, but overall the consensus in the community seems to be that it is constructive to be talking to other countries about Australia's perspective on human rights. This support notwithstanding, there were many suggestions made on how the dialogues could be improved, including taking steps to measure the effectiveness of the dialogues, actively engaging NGOs in the dialogue process, strengthening the participation of parliamentarians, and more detailed reporting of the dialogues.

In order to address the concerns about evaluating the effectiveness of the dialogues, the committee recommends that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade convene a panel of experts to consult widely in order to produce a report outlining a set of principles and aims for Australia's dialogues, as well as a set of benchmarks so that progress towards these aims can be effectively measured. That was a matter very much raised by a number of members of the committee—the inadequacy, or nonexistence in many cases, of benchmarks.

To increase the role of NGOs in the dialogues process, the committee makes two recommendations. Firstly, we recommend the construction of a human rights web portal to act as a central access point for all Australian government human rights information and activity. This web portal will also enable NGOs and other concerned groups and individuals to engage in an ongoing online interactive dialogue, and will allow them to receive more regular feedback on what happens in the dialogues. That is part of the problem we face: whilst there was widespread interest in this process by the diasporas of Vietnam in particular and, to a lesser extent, China, and from other communities that thought there should be dialogues with their own homelands, the wider response to the inquiry by the Australian public was not overwhelming. It is important that there is more information out there for people.

Secondly, as an additional way to engage NGOs in the dialogue process, the committee calls for biennial meetings between the participating agencies and interested NG0s, ethnic community groups and individuals devoted to discussion of the dialogues. We recommend that these meetings be held alternately in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne so as to make it easier for community groups with limited resources to participate. That is obviously very important. The committee has raised with the minister the lack of resources of members to participate in these dialogues, let alone the general public's lack of finance to play a role.

The committee also calls for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to provide prompt reports after each round of dialogue, and furthermore for the department to work to facilitate the participation of parliamentarians in the dialogues themselves. These two recommendations are crucial for strengthening parliamentary oversight of the dialogues.

In addition to the human rights web portal's obvious additional benefits of increasing the transparency and reporting on the dialogues, the committee also makes another recommendation to enhance the reporting of the dialogues. The committee recommends that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expand the reporting of the dialogues currently contained in its annual report to include at least a list of participants, the issues raised by each dialogue partner and a list of the key outcomes of the dialogues.

The community groups also suggested that Australia adopt bilateral dialogues with a number of other countries where there were concerns, including Malaysia, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Burma, Cambodia, Iran and Sri Lanka. The committee formed the view that it is an appropriate time to consider re-establishing its human rights dialogue with Iran as well as making representations to the Sri Lankan government to open a formal human rights dialogue. I note that the committee received many submissions and heard from many witnesses on that issue over the past year. In addition to establishing these dialogues, we think it is important to continually monitor and evaluate the human rights situations of the countries in Australia's region, including an assessment of whether Australia should adopt a human rights dialogue with these countries.

I would like to sincerely thank everyone who participated in this inquiry. One of the most pleasing aspects of this inquiry was the high level of participation by NG0s, ethnic community groups and concerned individuals. These groups and individuals have generously donated their time, effort and limited resources to make thoughtful submissions and to appear at public hearings to voice their support for, and concerns about, Australia's human rights dialogues.

I would also like to commend the secretariat for their work. This report was much agreed upon, virtually without any division. That reflects on the work done by the committee secretariat. I commend this report to the House.

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

I endorse the comments of the chair of the subcommittee and support the report that is before us. My approach will be somewhat different, but let me first thank the secretariat for their help and assistance in relation to this matter. We were asked to report on the effectiveness of Australia's human rights dialogues, particularly those with China and Vietnam. We did not get many submissions but, with respect to those that we did receive, you would have to ask yourself the question, 'Are the dialogues of any value at all?' The Australian Council for International Development said they were at risk of becoming ritualistic and an end in themselves. The International Commission of Jurists said they could be seen to legitimise or make respectable a particular government. The Australia Tibet Council voiced its concern over the 'Australian government's reliance on the annual human rights dialogue as the centrepiece of its efforts to improve China's human rights performance had not seen a tangible outcome'. The Vietnam Committee on Human Rights noted that, 'after almost a decade of implementation, the lack of human rights progress in Vietnam' raises serious questions about their relevance and impact. You have to ask yourself the question: were they really seen to be of any value when you have questions of that sort being asked?

The committee noted that it did not receive enough evidence to undertake an assessment as to whether there are measurable outcomes as a result of the human rights dialogue process and how effective it has been to date. I looked very carefully at the human rights dialogues and the discussion that occurred and was reported on, although I might say somewhat meagrely. One of the reasons the committee has recommended that it be enhanced is that there is not a great deal of information available about these matters. The NGOs that deal with them have had limited information. Even the reporting to the parliament has been somewhat meagre. I might say that when members of parliament are advised as to when these dialogues might be occurring, we are lucky to get several weeks' notice, even though there is a desire for members of parliament to participate in the process.

Where is this leading me? We have recommended that the dialogues continue. There is not much good sense in Australia berating governments abroad on human rights issues if it denies us an opportunity to talk about a range of other issues that are important bilaterally—and that is what tends to happen. I think there is some value in the way in which the dialogues enable us to progress human rights issues in a way of advocating for change and they certainly enables us to raise matters that we think are important bilaterally. It also helps to increase our knowledge about human rights issues when these matters are progressed and it helps in relation to broader debate.

I am one who has a very strong view that the parliamentary engagement in relation to the human rights dialogues has been something that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has been happy to see sidelined. But I think if we are going to have a useful advance, an engagement which brings members of parliament into the process would encourage change also in the countries we are talking to as to who they include in the processes. I happen to think that if members of parliament or members of the congresses—or whatever they call them in Vietnam and China—were to be engaged, you might find that they start to think about these issues domestically in a much more positive way.

How are we going to get this parliamentary involvement? At the moment what the government says is, 'If members of parliament want to be involved, let them find some philanthropic organisation that might agree to send them.' Or they say, 'You can use your parliamentary allowances, which we are just about to take away, and you can assume that that is the priority concern you have and therefore the one you should progress when you are spending them.' I think the rubber is hitting the road. The allowances that members have had to undertake some private travel are being stripped away. If members of parliament are going to be engaged in this process, the government have to take seriously the recommendations in this report about the way in which members can be involved. I would encourage them to take that up very seriously, because it could make a realistic difference as to the way in which these works are undertaken.(Time expired)

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

I move:

That the House take note of the report.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In accordance with standing order 39 the debate is adjourned. The resumption of debate will be made an order of the day for next sitting.