Bring them all home

IF YOU are relieved by the suggestion from the Howard Government that it has cut a deal with the Bush Administration to return home Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks by Christmas, then spare a thought for about 180 other Australian citizens, including high-profile cases such as Schapelle Corby and the Bali Nine, who are languishing in overseas prisons, and in some cases facing the death penalty.

Hicks can count himself lucky that he is an exemplar of the power of lobbying. The campaign to return Hicks to Australia has been so successful because it has started to hurt the Howard Government politically.

That is the only reason Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock and Prime Minister John Howard have jumped on the Hicks bandwagon.

But if one considers the facts in the Hicks case then there is no reason why other individuals such as convicted drug smugglers Corby and the Bali Nine should not also be allowed to serve their sentences in Australian prisons.

And Melbourne man Van Nguyen, who was hanged for drug trafficking in Singapore in 2005, could have been returned to Australia and still be alive today.

What Corby, the Bali Nine, Van Nguyen and many others have in common with Hicks is that they are facing and, in some cases, have been found guilty of serious criminal offences, the punishment for which is a lengthy term of imprisonment or the death penalty.

Like Hicks, Corby, the Bali Nine and Van Nguyen, many of these prisoners are subject to legal processes which, by the exacting standards of fairness and the rights of the accused we apply in this country, could be described as less than satisfactory.

In common with Hicks, who is being held in physically and psychologically inhumane conditions at Guantanamo Bay, Corby and the Bali Nine are being held in the notoriously tough Indonesian jail system.

Just as Hicks has family and friends in Australia desperate to see him return to this country, Corby and the Bali Nine similarly have strong family ties to Australia. There was also strong community and family support in Melbourne for Van Nguyen.

So why haven't our politicians been fighting for the return to Australia of Corby and the Bali Nine – or fought in Van Nguyen's case – on similar terms to those agreed with the Americans about Hicks?

In the case of Van Nguyen, there is no doubt Howard and Downer lobbied their Singaporean counterparts hard not to execute him. But why didn't they try to reach an agreement with the Singapore Government about allowing this 25-year-old to serve any prison sentence back in Melbourne?

As a prominent Melbourne barrister Peter Vickery QC has noted, despite the fact high level and strong legal advice was given to the Howard Government that it had the power to demand the extradition of Van Nguyen, Justice Minister Chris Ellison and Ruddock were intransigent and refused to alter their chosen course, offering no rational reason for doing so.

In the cases of Corby and the Bali Nine, campaigns by their families and supporters to allow them to return to Australia have fallen on deaf ears.

The Hicks campaign has attracted former prime ministers, church leaders, judges, politicians and community support from across the political spectrum, and that is why the Howard Government has acted to remove it as a potential negative in the lead-up to the federal election.

Now is the time for this same group of Australians to press our politicians to ensure that similar arrangements as those made with the Americans for Hicks should be reached with other countries such as Indonesia, Singapore, China, and Thailand where Australian prisoners are in as invidious a position as Hicks.

In many cases prisoner exchange treaties with other countries have been talked about or are being negotiated – but it is all taking far too long. If it's good enough in the case of Hicks, why not everybody else?

Newshawk: http://www.napnt.org
Pubdate: Tues, 20 Feb 2007
Source: The Courier Mail (Australia -Web)
Reporter: Greg Barns
Website: http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/