Hon Judi Moylan

SPEECH BY HON KIM BEAZLEY (Brand-Leader of the Opposition): MR NGUYEN TUONG VAN

MR NGUYEN TUONG VAN Speech Mr BEAZLEY (Brand—Leader of the Opposition) (3.12 p.m.)—by leave—I move: (1) That the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia calls upon the Government of the Republic of Singapore to spare the life of Mr Nguyen Tuong Van, an Australian citizen who has been convicted of a capital offence in the Republic of Singapore. (2) That this Parliament’s request to the Government of the Republic of Singapore is mindful of the following: (a) the provisions of the Singapore Constitution which provide for acts of mercy in such cases; (b) the fact that Mr Nguyen has cooperated fully with the Singapore authorities and the Australian Federal Police authorities concerning all relevant matters relating to his conviction; and (c) certain mitigating personal circumstances surrounding Mr Nguyen. (3) This Parliament requests the Speaker of the House of Representatives to convey this motion to the Speaker of the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore and for the Prime Minister to convey this motion to the Government of the Republic of Singapore. I thank the government, as well as the House, for allowing me to move this motion and I anticipate that the government will support it. In my remarks, I want to pay tribute to the fact that ministers and the Prime Minister have worked hard on this issue over what now seems to be a very long period. We have joined them on occasions where we could when we have visited Singapore and met with ministers. I know that the shadow minister for foreign affairs has repeatedly made efforts in this regard and has himself actively communicated with the legal representatives of the family concerned. This is a terribly sad case. The only people who will benefit from the death of this poor young man will be those who have exploited him so miserably for their financial gain—evil traffickers who profit from the misery of others. With the death of this young Australian—should that occur—there is every likelihood that their criminal activities will go unpunished. We acknowledge that drug trafficking is a serious offence and we accept that the Singaporean government has the right and responsibility to protect its people and administer its laws. The relationship between our two countries is important. Mr Nguyen Tuong Van’s cooperation with the authorities in relation to drug traffickers who move heroin throughout South-East Asia is of benefit to both Singapore and Australia. There is a groundswell of Australian public opinion that finds it difficult to accept the severity of the sentence for Mr Nguyen’s offence. The facts are: he is 24 years old with no prior convictions; he has already served more than two years in prison and has been on death row for 12 months; he has never denied his guilt; he admitted his crime immediately; he was a courier only, caught in an amateurish attempt to bring 400 grams of heroin back to Australia; he has helped the AFP for the last two years; and investigations are continuing into the masterminds behind his criminal activity. This is of course an operational matter and cannot be publicly analysed, but let me repeat that Mr Nguyen has cooperated fully with the police, providing details about those who recruited him and organised his trip in December 2002. Mr Nguyen’s contrition and willingness to help police triggers article 22P of the Singapore Constitution, which allows the granting of mercy where the accused has admitted guilt and cooperated with the authorities. If granted a reprieve, the alternative penalty of 20 years imprisonment is obviously substantial. He is remorseful; he is sorry. The main reason he committed the crime was to pay off his twin brother’s debts. Like many refugees, his life has been a struggle. His mother fled Vietnam by boat, arriving in a Thai refugee camp with her newborn twin sons. After settling in Australia, she learned English, learned a trade and brought up her sons single-handedly. Her son Van did well at school, played sport, worked at night to help support the family and began tertiary studies in business. His lawyers maintain that their client had drifted into bad company and that, until then, he had been a model son and student. I call upon the parliament to lend its weight to the campaign to save the young man—a young man who has undoubtedly made a serious mistake but does not deserve to die for it, a young man whose family is suffering the unbearable anguish of the prospect of their son and brother going to the gallows. There has already been a concerted campaign through diplomatic channels, and I pay tribute again to the representations made by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who have appealed directly to the Singapore government. Appeals for clemency have also been made by the Governor-General, church leaders, members of parliament on both sides of the House and advocacy groups. Most heartbreaking have been the calls for mercy from the young Australian’s mother—a grief and sorrow shared by all of us who are parents—and his loyal, loving friends fighting to save the life of their old schoolmate. I am asking parliament today to support them; I am sure that parliament will. I end where I started off: by thanking the government for making time available for this motion. Interjection The SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded? Interjection Mr Rudd—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.