AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

Ms THOMPSON (Reynell) (11:54): I move:

That this house congratulates Amnesty International on its 50^th Anniversary on 28 May 2011.

Members would know that the iconic symbol of Amnesty International is a candle wrapped with barbed wire, an image that was inspired by an ancient proverb, 'Better to light a candle, than curse the darkness.' This month, Amnesty International celebrates its 50^th anniversary—five decades of human rights campaigning. Amnesty International is the world's largest human rights organisation. It is an organisation largely made up of voluntary members, and currently has approximately three million supporters across 150 countries, with over 100,000 supporters here in Australia.

Amnesty International was founded in 1961 by London barrister, Peter Benenson, who was outraged when he learnt of two Portuguese students who had been arrested after raising their glasses to toast freedom. This simple act led to their imprisonment, and their loss of freedom outraged Mr Benenson. He wrote an article for The Observer, titled 'The forgotten prisoners', calling on readers to join a mass letter-writing campaign to pressure governments to set such prisoners free. His appeal was reprinted in other papers across the world and turned out to be the genesis of Amnesty International.

In 1977, Amnesty International was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel committee based its selection on a number of factors, not the least of which was AI's apolitical stance. Amnesty International is renowned for its political and geographical impartiality. It seeks out injustice in the East, in the West and in developing nations. In fact, the organisation set out to follow Voltaire's famous philosophy, 'I may detest your ideas, but I am prepared to die for your right to express them.'

AI never engages in comparisons between countries, nor promotes one political system as superior to another. As most of my colleagues would no doubt be aware, Amnesty International's key areas of interest are:

protecting human rights and dignity;

protecting the rights of women, children, Indigenous people, minorities and refugees;

securing a prompt and fair trial for all political prisoners;

securing the release of prisoners of conscience—those imprisoned for non-violent expression of their views;

ending torture and the ill-treatment of prisoners and political objectors;

abolishing the death penalty;

promoting economic, social and cultural rights for marginalised communities;

promoting religious tolerance.

It is difficult to estimate how many prisoners of conscience have been released as a result of Amnesty International's campaigns. One study over a three-year period in the 1970s found that of the approximately 6,000 prisoners for whom AI was working at the time, 3,000 were released. There is every reason to believe Amnesty International continues to enjoy a similar success rate, if not a greater one, thanks to new technology that allows urgent appeals to reach supporters online without delay.

Emails now allow supporters the chance to contact political authorities speedily, and by alerting these authorities that the eyes of the world are watching their next moves there is a much stronger chance of release. Professor Luiz Basilio Rossi, a prisoner of conscience in Brazil, believes the AI campaign saved his life. He has said of the AI campaign:

I knew that my case had become public, I knew they could no longer kill me. Then the pressure on me decreased and conditions improved.

For all its successes, Amnesty International is the first to concede that there is still a great deal of work to be done to address human rights violations around the world. An Amnesty International report found that in 2009:

torture or ill-treatment took place in at least 111 countries;

unfair trials took place in at least 55 countries;

restriction on free speech occurred in 96 countries worldwide.

It was also reported that there were 48 countries with known prisoners of conscience, and 18 countries that continued to execute their citizens through stoning, electrocution and beheading.

The reports of Amnesty International relating to Australia also make interesting reading. As I said, no country escapes the eyes of Amnesty International. Looking at their 2006 report, it states:

While in Australia, Irene Kahn called on the Prime Minister to bring David Hicks home to face trial or be released as part of our ongoing campaign to protect the human rights of all detainees in the 'war on terror'. David has entered his fifth year in captivity at the US-run Guantánamo Bay prison facility without any prospect of a fair trial. Actions across the country, including public support by touring rock band U2, revealed a growing movement of Australians who oppose our government's failure to ensure a fair go for David Hicks. In just eight weeks you sent 30,000 emails to the Prime Minister.

As we all know, David Hicks was eventually released, although under very strange circumstances. That report from 2006 also states:

On the home front, we highlighted the extent to which Australia's recent anti-terror laws threatened to erode our human rights with a community survey that increased awareness of the issues. It is worrying that the issue of security continues to be used as a justification for eroding fundamental protection of hard-won human rights.

The report also stated:

We continued to demand that the Australian government develop an integrated national strategy to stop violence against women and our petition on this reached a total of more than 23,000 signatures during the 16 Days of Activism campaign, highlighting the strong community support for this issue.

It goes on to state:

More 440,000 women in Australia (or one in 20 women) were victims of violence in the last year, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics' Personal Safety Survey.

In that year Amnesty International also included campaigns against temporary protection visas and offshore processing of refugees. I think that report illustrates that not all Australians agree with Amnesty International's reports but they certainly provide a light to us to make us think about our own society and our own values in a country where we can freely express our views. The Australian report for 2010 contains some good news. It notes:

Australia will have a National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children in 2010. Five years ago, such a plan was not on our Federal Government's radar. This shows what we can achieve when we work together.

It also reports:

Aboriginal people in the northern Territory continue to suffer discrimination and voicelessness, and emerging policies, if adopted, will see them having to leave their traditional lands in order to access basic services.

The report goes on:

Detention facilities are overflowing on Christmas Island while the Australian Government plays politics with the rights of asylum seekers, And the government drags its feet on responding to calls for a Human Rights Act.

However, on the positive side the report states:

The Federal Government introduced new laws specifically prohibiting torture and ensuring that the death penalty cannot be reintroduced by state governments. This takes Australia closer to fully realising its obligations under the UN Convention against Torture and confirms its long-held opposition to the death penalty.

In looking at the pictures of the board of directors of Amnesty International in Australia, I noticed that, compared with many political organisations, there are many young members on that board. Presumably, that is reflected in Amnesty's membership in Australia. It is very heartening that, at a time when people are often joining organisations (whether they be political, local clubs and pressure groups of various sorts) in decreasing numbers, Amnesty International is an organisation that suits many people in Australia as a way of expressing their views. It is pleasing to see that so many people, particularly young people in Australia, are interested in having a debate on the issue of human rights and are interested in taking action to further the understanding of human rights and the respect for human rights both internationally and in Australia.

I know that there is still much to be done, but we can be grateful that an organisation such as Amnesty International exists to fight for the most vulnerable and oppressed in our world, to deter further human rights abuses and ultimately deliver a fairer and more secure world. I express my gratitude to Peter Benenson and his colleagues, who established so quickly such an important international organisation.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Pederick.