Page 4236 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 16 November 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That brings us to the final and perhaps most significant argument against the death penalty: the state should not have the power of life and death over its citizens. This argument places as fundamental the human rights that inform our way of life. This argument states that human rights are not conditional, are not selective and cannot be commodified. I am aware that proponents of the death penalty would argue that murderers and terrorists forfeit their human rights when they take another’s life, that by violating their social contract with the state they are therefore voluntarily subjecting themselves to the laws of the state, knowing that their own human rights and freedom in life are forfeited by their actions. Clearly, however, the state should always observe the most fundamental human right, the right for human life.
A punishment cannot ever fit the crime. Even the most violent or destructive of crimes cannot be made good by the execution of the person responsible. To do so only perpetuates a cycle of violence and cheapens life to a transaction within the legal system. Imposing the death penalty is the calculated and premeditated murder of that individual. This action brutalises those involved in the execution and, more significantly, brutalises the state.
The pending execution of Van Nguyen reminds us of that. The Singaporean criminal justice system is brutal and barbaric. Singapore’s 73-year-old executioner has put to death more than 850 people and in one day has hanged 18 men. Even in light of this brutality, the federal government remains unwilling to pressure governments in our region, including Singapore, to abolish the mandatory penalty of death for trafficking offences. Again the Prime Minister has failed to state unequivocally his opposition to the death penalty. I note that the foreign minister has written to the president and I note the letter in response that Mrs Dunne read out in this place earlier. I am aware that some pressure has been imposed; I will leave it at that.
It is encouraging that Australians have backed the movement to see clemency for Van Nguyen. It is even more encouraging that a petition from the ACT Assembly opposing Van’s sentence was circulated and sent to Singapore’s president and cabinet. As a community opposed to this sad human tragedy, no less could have been expected. As Justice Kirby stated on Australia’s accession to the second optional protocol in 1990, we have:
… set ourselves upon a path to a higher form of civilisation. It is one committed to fundamental human rights. Such rights inhere in the dignity of each human being. When we deny them we diminish ourselves. We become part of the violence world.
The Prime Minister’s statements, or lack thereof, on the death penalty are out of step with international human rights standards. These are standards that bind Australia by principle. His statements have altered Australia’s principled opposition to the death penalty and have diminished Australia’s moral authority on the international stage. Even when it comes to terrorists, the issue of the death penalty should be defined by the same principled opposition that defines our broader opposition to the death penalty. To advocate the death penalty only weakens international human rights standards and we are at a time and in a climate when these standards should be of the utmost priority. I urge all members in this place to go on the record and confirm their unwavering abhorrence at the use of the death penalty in any circumstance, without equivocation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .