In the News
17 March 2010
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (7:17 PM) —I rise tonight to support the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Bill 2010. The bill is important and does a number of things that I think many in this place would agree are worthy. However, I do want to address some of the points made by the member for Brisbane. In his remarks he made a number of important points about this bill and the lead-up to this bill. However, he did speak about the member for Kooyong and his motives.
I am glad that he raised the member for Kooyong in relation to the development of this piece of legislation before us tonight, because for a member in this chamber to label the member for Kooyong’s proposal for bill for a national security legislation monitor as a political stunt would be doing the member for Kooyong a great disservice. He is a passionate believer in this particular bill, and in what this bill means, and I think all members of this House know that. So I think it is unfortunate for the member for Brisbane to accuse the member for Kooyong of engaging in some sort of political chicanery in something that he is passionate about.
There is no doubt that, when the member for Kooyong attempted to introduce and speak on the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Laws Bill 2008, the actions of the government and the Leader of the House in gagging the member for Kooyong were extremely unfortunate. There is no doubt today, looking at the provisions of this bill we are examining tonight, that if it were not for the member for Kooyong introducing that earlier bill, and attempting to push this very important and worthy cause, we may not now be facing this worthy development in legislation in Australia today.
In examining what this bill provides for, it comes with a series of amendments which the opposition supports. The amendments make the bill resemble the member for Kooyong’s bill in almost every regard. I just want to make that clear to the member for Brisbane: the amendments almost make this bill identical to the member for Kooyong’s Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Laws Bill 2008. So I think to assign some sort of ill motive to the member for Kooyong in developing or speaking on this bill is poor indeed.
These amendments are important because the other point that the member for Brisbane made was that, in appointing a national security monitor, independence was one of the most important concepts. The key difference between the government’s original bill and the bill that was proposed by the coalition and the member for Kooyong was the notion of independence. It was one of the things that the member for Kooyong was particularly keen to ensure was in the final legislation. That is why we can support this bill now—independence is the hallmark of the monitor in the current bill before the House.
Having a monitor subject to the direction of any executive would lead to bad outcomes. I think having a monitor responsible to the Prime Minister or having any ad hoc inquiry subject to prime ministerial approval would be a weak outcome. Therefore, the amendments that have been proposed do give genuine independence to the monitor, and that is significant in what we are proposing.
What we are talking about in this legislation is having a monitor on laws that seek to limit the freedoms and the rights of citizens. The parliament has taken the view in recent times that, due to the dramatic security and other threats to the ongoing stability of Australia from terrorism, we should limit the rights of citizens in our country. That is something that we would only do in the most extreme circumstances, where the most extreme threats were faced. It is something that I think most of the Australian public has been willing to accept and accede to as long as parliament takes those measures appropriately and has oversight and monitoring of those powers.
There has been no experience of how these new developments in international terrorism and international antiterror laws will play out in the long term in relation to civil liberties, citizens’ rights and ongoing issues of government having too much power or authority over the individual or an individual’s life. The United Kingdom created an office of an independent reviewer of terrorism laws some time ago with that very view in mind. That was the motivation of the member for Kooyong, taking inspiration from the United Kingdom, to put forward a bill that would ensure that we have some monitoring and some safeguard against laws that may well be used aggressively in the future. So, as we progress through this period where terrorism is a major threat in world terms, we do need to constantly monitor and assess the efficacy and adequacy of and the need for laws such as security and terror laws in Australia. That is what the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Bill 2010 attempts to do and establish. It is our answer to the UK legislation.
The standing function of the monitor will be to review the operation, effectiveness and implications of the counterterrorism and national security legislation. The monitor will have to report findings and recommendations to the Prime Minister on an annual basis, which of course is a worthy objective. I do want to endorse what the member for Brisbane said about bipartisanship in relation to this bill. Regardless of who is in government, I think it is important that the Leader of the Opposition be consulted in relation to who the monitor is and who the appointment is. Bipartisanship in relation to these matters is something that is worthy and that is to be lauded and it is a good objective of this bill.
The bill provides for the appointment of the monitor and prescribes the functions and framework for reviewing the relevant legislation. The bill also provides the monitor with the power to compel a witness to take an oath or an affirmation that the evidence given will be true. Further, the monitor has the power to hold both public and private hearings, which I think is another important feature of this bill—that indeed there is the capacity for public hearings—and to compel the production of documents and things. This is supported by criminal offences for conduct in the nature of contempt. Again, obviously the monitor will require certain powers in this regard.
The fundamental difference between the bill as presented in its initial form and the bill as amended following the urgings of the coalition is that we were strongly of the view that, if you have a reviewer, it is important that you strongly support the apparatus of an independent reviewer of terrorism laws. I do think that if you had your so-called independent reviewer set up as a bureaucrat or in a similar vein as with other agencies, you would of course not have that independence. So it is very important that this amended legislation provides for that. I think it is worthy that they have allowed for an independent monitor to be in place.
In concluding, I do not want to speak for a long time on this bill tonight, because it is a worthy bill. I do want to say that the member for Kooyong’s motives are that he has followed this issue for some time, both in the United Kingdom and here, and he is well known as a person who has a passion for these issues. In relation to national security legislation it is important that we do have ongoing monitoring of the efficacy, the adequacy and the ongoing development of these laws and how they impact upon citizens in Australia. Having an independent monitor—I stress the word ‘independent’—as we as a coalition urged the government to do is a worthy and laudable objective. With the amendments, this is a bill that we can support.
17 March 2010
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (9:47 AM) —I rise this morning to bring awareness of motor neurone disease in Australia. Motor neurone disease is a devastating neurological illness that affects around 1,400 people across Australia. Of course, motor neurone disease is the name given to a group of diseases in which the nerve cells controlling the muscles that enable us to move around, speak, swallow and breath fail to work normally. With no nerves to activate them, the muscles gradually weaken and waste. The patterns of weakness and the rate of progression vary from person to person. I rise this morning in particular to note the case of Vanessa Khan in my electorate, in the suburb of Bella Vista. This family was hit by motor neurone disease in July 2009 and it was a mere eight months from the diagnosis to the death of Mrs Khan—a very tragic situation. I want to congratulate the courage of her daughter, Jemila Khan, and her husband, Marcus Khan, who have become passionate advocates for the cause of motor neurone disease in Australia. I want to join them in their advocacy today.
I note that federal funding does exist for various elements of motor neurone disease, including research into what causes it and what can be done about it. It was first discovered in 1869 and there is still no known cause and no known cure for this devastating disease and treatment options are very limited. I had the unfortunate experience of seeing Vanessa deteriorate on a monthly basis and it was quite horrific to note the marked deterioration and loss of control of bodily functions from her diagnosis to her death, which severely affected and impacted her family. The Motor Neurone Disease Australia network comprises six associations and it is there to research and develop a potential cure. Some of the needs they describe that are pressing in Australia today include things like early diagnosis; early access to MND associations for information; support and referral to services; early intervention, which of course in so many cases often reduces the overall service needs; flexible and timely respite for carers; urgent response; and regular review. I note that timeliness is the key here in so many ways in treatment options for people.
Many famous people of course have, unfortunately, lived with or died from motor neurone disease, including Australian athletics coach Percy Cerutty, painter Pro Hart, mathematician, physicist and author Professor Stephen Hawking and even Mao Zedong. Within Australia today each week 10 people are diagnosed with motor neurone disease, and 1,400 people are estimated to have it at any given time.
I want to record my sympathy for the Khan family. Their suffering was our community suffering. Vanessa was a notable figure within the Bella Vista community, working for charity groups and giving of her time freely to so many. At her funeral many neighbours, friends, families and community groups recognised her efforts. I want to encourage the government to do everything that it can to fund motor neurone disease research in Australia.
16 March 2010
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (8:50 PM) —I rise tonight to speak on behalf of the hundreds of residents of Rouse Hill in my electorate of Mitchell who were threatened by yet another government failure in New South Wales. Last week more than a hundred residents rallied at Sunningdale Place in Rouse Hill after receiving letters from the New South Wales Department of Planning which were sent to residents in streets like Spring Mill Avenue, Glen Abbey Street, Sunningdale Place, Greensborough Avenue, Pinehurst Avenue, Green Hills Drive and Clower Avenue asking to make their properties available for soil testing and survey work. This letter raised immediate fears that the residents would have their properties compulsorily acquired by the state government. Attached to this letter was a brochure that outlined a new transport corridor which would go through their houses. Indeed, the transport corridor would also go through the local school, Rouse Hill Public School. The transport corridor proposed by the New South Wales Department of Planning would also go through a preschool. This caused immense concern and distress to residents of Rouse Hill. Immediately on becoming aware of this proposal, I went out to meet with those residents. There were hundreds of them gathering in the streets of Rouse Hill. Some of them, including many mothers, said to me that they had not slept in many nights as they had moved to this area of Rouse Hill because of its great family values. The area is just seven or eight years old and many of the houses have been there less time than that. My electorate of Mitchell has the most number of couples with dependent children in Australia, according to the census. It is a very homogenous society.
So, when the New South Wales state government proposes to put a transport corridor right through the houses and the local school, this understandably causes great consternation and concern. A rally was held on Monday morning, where a further 200 to 300 residents turned up at Rouse Hill Public School. Being here in Canberra, I was unable to attend. Channel 9 news, who turned up to cover the story, then went to see Tony Kelly, who is the Minister for Planning in the New South Wales government. Minister Kelly outlined to Channel 9 that there had been a mistake in the placement of the corridor through houses and through the local primary school—a departmental error that would be rectified urgently. Once again we see in New South Wales an example of government failure—incompetence and mismanagement—threatening livelihoods and the ability of people to get ahead in New South Wales.
It is now Tuesday close of business and there has still been no written apology to the landowners and property owners in Rouse Hill. It is because of a government error—we are advised through Channel 9—that these properties were under threat. Their values are now in question because of this serious bungle by the New South Wales Department of Planning. It is outrageous for the government not to have apologised. It is outrageous for the government not to have immediately moved to correct that error and provide certainty to the residents and landowners in Rouse Hill. I rise here tonight to call urgently on the New South Wales state government to remove from its websites any reference to this incorrect transport corridor and immediately write and apologise to the landowners in my electorate.
I have risen in this chamber before to speak about property rights in New South Wales. I remind the House about the episode of the landowner in Parramatta who was to have his business and property compulsorily acquired by the council and who took his case to the High Court. He won his case in the High Court. One week later, the New South Wales state government changed the law in New South Wales and enabled the council to compulsorily acquire his property.
The callous and lax attitude of the New South Wales state government to property owners’ rights in New South Wales must be stopped. It is completely outrageous. I want to record my thanks to the residents who brought this to my attention and to David Catt, the editor of the Rouse Hill Times, who has been invaluable in highlighting the errors that the state government has made. I call specifically on the New South Wales state government to formally apologise to each and every property owner and to provide them with certainty about their land values and their property rights going forward.
Monday, March 15
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (8.28 pm)—I rise in this parliament today to use the time allotted to me to speak about the myth, the legend and the grievance of Harry ‘Breaker’ Morant and his compatriots who were executed under British courts martial about 108 years ago in the Boer War.
Today in the Petitions Committee of the parliament we had the opportunity to examine these matters. We had witnesses who were direct descendants of the fellows who were executed and we had expert witnesses all speaking in relation to a petition brought before the House recently. I will briefly read the key requests of that petition.
The petitioners are asking the House to make representations to the British Crown and seek a review of the convictions and sentences of Morant, Handcock and Witton, seek a British Crown pardon for Morant, Handcock and Witton with respect to the offences of which they were convicted and seek commutation of the death sentences imposed on Morant and Handcock.
That is a serious set of requests from people who have explored, researched and thoroughly delved into this controversial and often difficult issue for historians and people alike. However, I want to rise tonight to record my sympathy for these petitioners and my sympathy for some form of redress of the events that happened 108 years ago in South Africa.
On 26 February 1902, Morant and Handcock were convicted under a British courts martial system for killing Boer prisoners and consequently sentenced to death. They faced a firing squad on 27 February. George Witton, who was convicted of the same crime, had his death sentence commuted to life in prison. He was released from prison in 1905 without a pardon after the British House of Commons overturned his sentence. Witton subsequently released a controversial book in 1907 entitled Scapegoats of the Empire.
I want to come back to this notion shortly about a pardon and the British House of Commons overturning sentences. The questions I want to raise tonight include: how do we judge historical figures and their actions from our own contemporary values and morality? I believe that with any examination of our history we often have to look beyond our own preconceptions. We have to accept that what we have learned as myths or folklore might not pass a critical examination of the facts. We must also ask whether all of the facts are available to us—do we all know enough to judge a person? Are we indeed judging the conduct of someone according to their own standards or the standards of their time or our time?
I think in an examination of this issue the current debate regarding a pardon for Harry ‘Breaker’ Morant, Peter Handcock and George Witton stirs passion amongst many Australians one way or the other, throughout our community and my community of Mitchell. There is in my view serious and compelling evidence that some form of redress should be given all these years later to those men executed by the British.
In recent times the Australian Parliament has passed a law confirming that no state or territory can provide for the death penalty in this country, which I think is a proper and worthy piece of legislation. I think that we all stand united against the use of the death penalty in civilised society. Certainly in relation to the Defence Act 1903, which was passed into law shortly after this incident with Breaker Morant, the Australian government and the Australian parliament took the view
that no Australian could be executed without reference to the Governor-General and therefore the Prime Minister.
So since this incident there has not been a case of an Australian military service person being executed. The 1903 Defence Act was very important in preventing the deaths of many Australian service personnel in World War I, unlike the many soldiers from other countries, such as Ireland, Canada and indeed the United Kingdom, who were shot and executed for desertion and other matters that have subsequently been the subject of pardons from the British government in recent years.
Without going through all the background of the case itself, there are certainly some conflicts in relation to the facts. Today’s popular image of Breaker Morant is that of a charismatic figure, as portrayed by Edward Woodward in the film of the same name, Breaker Morant—an expert horseman, a soldier of the empire who was caught up in not only a conflict against a ruthless enemy in the Boers but also a conflict of orders and a conflict of morality in warfare. Certainly many people have said that the Boer War was one of the first examples of guerrilla warfare in Western experience.
Indeed, as a young officer in the Army Reserve myself, in the 1/15th Lancers, I know that troopers in my regiment were on their way to and from England and jumped ship and the joined the Boer War, without permission as well, so I certainly have a lot of sympathy for young Australian people in the theatre who were of course struggling with a very difficult war in which guerrilla tactics had become common, in which the Boers had obtained a supremacy over the English over a period of time and in which of course, as in all wars, there was brutality on both sides and much death and conflict.
What stands out about this case and where I think this comes into focus for the Australian parliament and indeed for us as a nation is that without any reference to the Australian government or any Australian legal process, the two men, Morant and Handcock, were executed by the British, without appeal. There has been much contention about the trial and many of the circumstances surrounding the trial. Since the Defence Act 1903, of course that has not been the case and so, looking back at the facts of this case, there are only three ways that pardons can be obtained at military law and they are as the result of the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy, by statutory pardon and by a term called condonation. The royal prerogative of mercy is of course a power vested in the Queen, and indeed in this petition that has been presented to us there is a request for the exercise of that power to overturn the convictions completely.
Some standards are applied to the granting of pardons. Those standards include that the responsible minister has to be satisfied that the convicted person was morally and technically innocent of the offence and there is no remaining avenue of appeal against conviction, or that the convicted person was morally and technically innocent of the offence and there are exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of the pardon, despite the failure to meet the first ground, taking into account the need to respect the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary.
Statutory pardons have been more common in the UK parliament. On 18 September 2006, the UK Secretary of State for Defence confirmed the UK government’s plan to seek statutory pardons for service personnel executed for a range of offences during the First World War. This has been the common mechanism to redress foreign powers’ complaints about the treatment of their soldiers by the British in the First World War. Indeed, many were executed by the British, even though there were well-documented cases of shell shock and other legitimate reasons that a person might have sought to leave a battlefield. The British pardoned a number of Irish, Canadian and British personnel.
A statutory pardon does not overturn the original conviction, which I think is important and significant in relation to this petition and this case. The parliament can issue the statutory pardon, but the conviction is not overturned. It will not rewrite the events of 108 years ago, but the stigma and dishonour of the original offence and execution will be removed.
The third avenue for a pardon is that of condonation, which is a military term. There is some argument that it could be applied in this case, as two of the people, Breaker Morant and Handcock, were let out of prison to fight against the Boers while they were on trial. That is what condonation relates to—if the subsequent activities of the person on charges ameliorate the original circumstances, whatever they might be.
It was compelling today to listen to the direct descendants of these men and hear all the different arguments for and against a pardon. I think there is something in this petition and there is something in this legend. All those years ago, these Australians, who were very low level in the military, were in one sense made scapegoats for a broader policy. There is no doubt that activities went on in the Boer War that were undesirable, unpleasant and, by modern standards, unacceptable. But I am certain they were not only performed by lieutenants Morant and Handcock of the Australian colonial forces. I am certain that there were other people who committed those acts and were not prosecuted. I am also certain that the last words of Breaker Morant, ‘Shoot straight, you bastards—don’t make a mess of it,’ will continue to echo across the era, because Great Britain did make a mess of the trial. And the fact that the trial was not conducted properly means there is an avenue for redress of those convictions.
The Federal Member for Mitchell, Alex Hawke, is encouraging parents to have a close look at and provide feedback for the draft National Curriculum.
Mr Hawke said the Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority had released the draft National Curriculum document covering the areas of English, Mathematics, History and Science.
The draft document is now available for public consultation and that input will help shape the final Curriculum, which will standardise the topics and requirements of teaching in all primary and secondary schools across the country.
"This is an extremely important document which will affect the ‘what’, the ‘when’, and the ‘how’ millions of our school children are to be taught across Australia," Mr Hawke said.
"Everyone concerned about our children’s future should have a look at the proposals and provide real-life feedback."
Mr Hawke said that while some aspects of the Curriculum, such as the greater emphasis on achieving practical literacy and numeracy, are welcome improvements there are concerns with the direction the Curriculum drafters chose to take in a number of other areas, such as history and science.
"People need to clearly tell those designing the Curriculum what they think our children should be taught," Mr Hawke said.
The draft National Curriculum documents are available at http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au and http://www.acara.edu.au/phase_1_-_the_australian_curriculum.html and parents and other members of the community can provide their feedback at http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au until the end of May.