Australia

Local hero succumbs to skin cancer

Max Hutchinson

Max Hutchinson was a Sydney boy, but he moved to Tasmania when he was 20, married a Burnie girl and never looked back. He fell in love in 1952, built a family and spent a lifetime supporting them and the Tasmanian community.

He spent hours under the sun as a member and Club Captain of the Burnie Surf Lifesaving Club. He was also State Surf Lifesaving Superintendent and was privileged to attend the 1956 Olympics as part of the demonstration team. Later in life, his passion for surf Lifesaving was taken up by several of his grandchildren.

When the family moved to Strahan, Max threw himself into community life of the small town. He was a stringer for the ABC, a Scout master, Captain of the Rural Fire Service and a member of the Strahan Marine Board.

After seeing how painful unamicable divorces can be for children, Max and his wife Beth, helped establish Roland Children’s Services to create contact centres for families going through separations. These centres provided safe places for children and their families to meet while going through problematic separations.

Its possible Max is most widely known for his work with Rotary and the Burnie Agricultural and Pastoral Society. He joined Rotary in 1971, becoming President of the Rotary Club of East Burnie from 1981-1982. He was Assistant District Governor from 1999-2000 and was awarded a Paul Harris fellow. Max has variously been Treasurer, President, Life Member and Patron of the show society since 1971.

Max was a man of faith and contributed to his church community too. He was a regular congregant at, St George’s, the Anglican church in which he was married. During the 1990’s he was a member of the Anglican Church in Tasmania’s Diocesan Council and Treasurer.

In 2008 he was awarded the OAM for services to Burnie through social-welfare, agricultural, service and business organisations.

He led an incredibly fulsome life, packed with adventure and laughter. He travelled around Australia and visited the UK, Europe, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Mexico and the USA. There wasn’t much he didn’t have a go at. He even went bungee jumping when he was in his 60’s.

He was an incredibly loving husband, supportive father, proud grandfather and great grandfather. He leaves behind his wife: Beth; three children: Douglas, Richard, Dianne;  grandchildren: David, Susan, Luke, Josh, Tess, Sarah and Emily; great grandchildren: Jordin, Jaylee, Layla, Fray, Koby, Harper, Jasper, and Brody; and his little companion Molly.

Max died from complications from metastatic skin cancer, a reminder of the impact of cumulative exposure to harmful UV rays. His funeral will be held on Thursday 19th March at 2pm at Vincent’s Parklands Chapel, 113 Bass Highway. It will also be livestreamed for those who are unable to attend.

Advertisement

Australian company arms Saudi government department responsible for gender based violence

This week, the 104 countries that have signed up to the Arms Trade Treaty will be gathering for their annual meeting in Geneva. This year, their discussions will focus on gender-based violence.

Both the ABC and the Guardian recently published photos of shipments of weapons systems from an Australian manufacturer being shipped directly to the government of Saudi Arabia. The weapons systems were sold to the Ministry of Interior, the government department responsible for quashing public dissent and women’s rights.

Picture of a package label departing Sydney Airport.

Label of item for shipping at Sydney International Airport (Photo supplied by Gulf Institute for Democracy and Human Rights)

This sale breeches our obligations under the international Arms Trade Treaty. The Arms Trade Treaty is supposed to stop the sale of weapons to countries responsible for significant human rights breeches.

The Ministry of Interior is in charge of the police, courts and prisons that are all responsible for gender-based violence. They are also largely responsible for implementing the guardianship system that requires women to obtain permission from a male guardian to travel abroad, obtain a passport, or be discharged from prison.

Australian advocates for women’s rights who were at the UN for negotiations of the Arms Trade Treaty were part of the effort include gender provisions in the treaty. The aim of the activists was to help gender based violence by ending the export of the weapons used to facilitate that violence.

Ray Acheson was a leader in those negotiations. She is the Director of the Reaching Critical Will campaign of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. They’ve been working on disarmament issues for over a century.

The legally binding clause of the treaty authorisation of exports must consider if they will “facilitate serious acts of gender-based violence.” Acheson said “Saudi Arabia is a known violator of women’s rights and LGBT rights. The risks of gender based violence inside Saudi Arabia are high.”

Indeed, a 2013 law supposed to reduce domestic abuse still allows male guardians to persistently abuse women. Male relatives are also able to bring legal claims against ‘disobedient’ female dependents who flee domestic violence. Human Rights Watch has documented cases where police have turned women away when they sought to report abuse.

Earlier this year, the male guardianship system returned to the Australian news when Rahaf al-Qunun’s attempted to flee to Australia, escaping her family due to fears for her life. The Ministry of Interior maintains an extensive intelligence network and special police force that has been used to prevent and punish such attempts to break free from the guardianship system.

Over the past twelve months, various elements of the Ministry of Interior have undertaken a campaign of arrests, imprisoning and torturing women’s human rights defenders. Women including Eman Al-Nafjan, Loujain al-Hathloul, Aziza al-Yousef and Samar Badawi were among a dozen leading activists arrested after the ban on women driving was lifted in May last year. Each of them were reportedly tortured while in custody.

The Saudi Arabian public prosecutor’s office had announced that the group undertook “coordinated activity to undermine the security, stability and social peace of the kingdom.” These security related charges could bring sentences of up to 20 years imprisonment. In reality, the women used social media to speak up about women’s rights in the country.

The UN Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women has called on the Saudi government to “ensure that women activists are able to exercise their right to freedom of expression and association” and that counter-terrorism law, the anti-cybercrime law and regulations for electronic publishing are not used to “abusively to criminalize women human rights defenders.”

The Australian Government needs to use this opportunity to re-examine its processes for authorising arms exports in accordance with the Arms Trade Treaty.

Where’s the Governor-General when you need him in a constitutional crisis?

Governor-General, Sir Peter Cosgrove AK MC

The power of the Governor-General is prescribed in the constitution and detailed in constitutional practice.  While the Governor-General customarily acts on the advice of relevant ministers communicated through the Federal Executive Council, there are times when the Governor-General can act without, or contrary to that advice. Overall, the Governor-General has the responsibility of  ensuring the execution and maintenance of the constitution.

The Coalition currently holds 76 seats in the lower house, the minimum number required to form government. Barnaby Joyce MP and Senators Fiona Nash and Matt Canavan, all of the National Party, currently have cases before the High Court to determine if their dual citizenship precludes them from holding federal office.

Section 44 of the constitution is worded to ensure no federal member is beholden to a foreign power. There may be some room for interpretation for individuals who unwittingly held dual citizenship with another country whose head of state is also Queen Elizabeth II. Can one truly be considered beholden to a foreign power if said power has the same head of state as Australia? However, there is no room for such interpretation when the dual citizenship is held with a country outside the Commonwealth. For example, the meaning of the constitution would be quite clear if someone were a dual national of Italy, as is Matt Canavan.

On the face of it however, all three members appear to be in breach of Section 44 of the constitution. Their eligibility to sit in parliament could not be subject to more serious questioning. Remaining in cabinet under such conditions is phenomenally irregular. However, the High Court is unlikely to make a decision before October. Then, if Barnaby Joyce is ineligible to hold office, his seat would likely be re-decided in a by-election.

In the mean time, could the government itself be considered unconstitutional? If Barnaby Joyce is ineligible then the Coalition only holds 75 seats in the lower house. It has been reported that when parliament next sits, if Joyce doesn’t refrain from voting, Labor will seek to have all votes deferred. Is this a basis on which the Governor-General can be assured of the Coalition’s ability to maintain government?

More broadly, in section 64, the constitution also states that no minister can hold office for any longer than three months without being elected to parliament. While common law protects the decisions made by those who thought they were acting out the duties of their rightful office, neither Joyce nor Nash have resigned from cabinet since learning of their predicament. As such, the decisions they make moving forward cannot fairly be interpreted as made while thinking they were performing duties of rightful office.

Given such a constitutional crisis, where is the Governor-General and what is he saying on the issues at play? At present, it seems the Prime Minister, and the government more broadly are waiting for the High Court to decide the fate of the suite of parliamentarians who have discovered they are dual citizens.  The High Court is unlikely to make a decision before October. However, especially considering the number of individuals who have not resigned, but retained their office and in some cases, cabinet positions, the time has come for greater oversight and employment of the responsibilities of the Governor-General.

Super department a bad sign for justice and the rule of law

Earlier today, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull announced the launch of a new ‘super department’ along the lines of the UK Home Office or the US Department of Homeland Security.

The move was not recommended by the recent review of the national security architecture by respectected Michael Le’Strange, was not endorsed by cabinet and has split the National Security Committee. The new department will capture the Australian Secret Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Federal Police, Border Force and the Department of Immigration. It will be headed by the Immigration Minister Peter Dutton.

Many commentators have argued the only reason to create such a department is political, providing Peter Dutton with additional power as a means of steering him away from a leaderahip challenge. Although the government has not stated what benefits such a department would bring to national security, the new department would presumably be responsible for strategic planning and coordination of the agencies in its purvue. This is most concerning. 

The Australian Federal Police has historically been under the remit of the Justice Minister with a strong relationship to the Attorney-General’s Department. The Australian Federal Police are not only used for counter-terrorism and border control activities. The AFP has personnel deployed on operations all over the globe including on peace support operations with the United Nations. They are a significant tool in Australia’s strategic investment in a rules based global order more closely aligned with the work of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Australian Defence Force.

On the other hand, Border Force and Australia’s immigration policies, particularly those relating to refugees and asylumn seekers, are broadly condemned as breaching international legal norms and human rights standards.

The AFP are the authority responsible for investigating and prosecuting such international crimes as war crimes, crimes against hanity and genocide when they fall under Australian jurisdiction. Each of these crimes is outlined under domestic legislation and has been included in the Criminal Code Act. Even though it is known that Australians have perpetrated these crimes while fighting with Da’esh in Iraq and Syria, no investigations of prosecutions have yet occurred. 

Indeed, rather than meeting our obligations to investigate and prosecute these crimes, Australia has supported impunity for sexual violence in armed conflict by revoking the citizenship of a key perpetrator known to have committed these crimes. That decision was made by the very man now given authority over all the agencies within thisnew department.

Amy Maguire has argued that Australia’s human rights obligations now need to be rechecked under the new departmental structure. I could not agree more.

Citizenship revoked

A few months ago, the Abbott government developed several proposals to strip Australian dual nationals of their citizenship should they join Daesh in the Middle East. They released a discussion paper which stated that “citizenship is a contract by which we all abide.” The paper talks about citizenship as a privilege that is “fundamentally linked to an ongoing commitment to Australia and participation in Australian society.”

First of all, citizenship is neither a privilege nor a contract. Citizenship is a right. Every human being has a right to statehood. Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that “everyone has the right to a nationality” and that “no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.” Arbitrarily depriving someone of their nationality engages consideration of a legitimate objective, proportionality and due process. Each of these three considerations is questionable in this context.

It surprised me that this whole discussion began on the 800th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta, a document credited with the beginning of a western tradition of human rights and limitations on state power. Australia has the only copy of the Magna Carta in the southern hemisphere and it is permanently displayed in Parliament House. The most famous passage contained in this historic document can be found in Chapter 39 and states that, “no free man shall be taken or imprisoned, or dispossessed or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we go or send against him except by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land.”

The right to citizenship is not one that can be revoked by Ministerial decree. This matter has been tested by courts in other jurisdictions. In 1958, in the Tropp v Dulles judgement, the United State Supreme Court stated “citizenship is not a licence that expires on misbehaviour… and the deprivation of citizenship is not a weapon that the government may use to express its displeasure at a citizen’s conduct, however reprehensible that conduct may be.” In that case, the Chief Justice, joined by Justices Black, Douglas and Whittaker concluded that “citizenship is not subject to the general powers of the National Government, and therefore cannot be divested in the exercise of those powers.”

In a recent article in The Conversation, Rayner Thwaites went beyond legal questions of the government’s proposals. He asked if revoking citizenship would be an effective “means of expressing moral opprobrium about terrorism?” I would argue that revoking citizenship is not a suitable means of addressing moral contempt of terrorism.

Captured women and children were treated as

Captured women and children were treated as “spoils of war”, the UN report said.
(Photo by AFP: Ahmad Al-Rubaye)

If an Australian citizen chooses to travel to Iraq or Syria and fight with Daesh and then chooses to return to Australia, they should be charged with the relevant criminal offences and prosecuted. Such offences could include treason, genocide and war crimes. In 2013, the Commonwealth Crimes Act was amended to update the definition of treason which could now cover acts undertaken by Australians fighting with Daesh in Syria or Iraq. The United Nations has suggested that Daesh is committing genocide against the Yazidi people. Genocide has been a crime in Australia since 2002, when the government finally passed the Genocide Convention Act of 1949.

There is also a vast body of evidence to suggest Daesh are committing a range of war crimes, or grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. A recent report by the Human Rights Council recorded the following acts which are defined as war crimes in the Rome Statue: murder, cruel or degrading treatment and torture; directing attacks against civilians or humanitarian workers; taking hostages; summary executions; rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution or forced pregnancy. The report documented particularly egregious violations against women and girls. As a result of this report, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has asked the Security Council to refer perpetrators to the International Criminal Court for further investigation and possible prosecutions.

In Australia, these acts are criminal offences under the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 (last updated in 2009) and the War Crimes Act 1945 (last updated in 2010). These two acts have been incorporated in Division 268 of the Criminal Code Act 1995. Under the principle of complementarity of the International Criminal Court, signatories to the Rome Statue have the obligation, if they are willing and able, to investigate and prosecute these crimes themselves. If such crimes have been committed by Australian citizens, we will certainly have the jurisdiction, and should show a willingness and ability to investigate and prosecute.

During the late 1980s, concern “that a significant number of persons who committed serious war crimes in Europe during World War II may have entered Australia and become Australian citizens or residents” gave rise to the establishment, in 1987, of the Special Investigations Unit. The unit investigated Nazi war crimes, and was later used in investigations of crimes in the Balkans. But there has been a “lack of political will to cover the necessary financial costs” and the unit no longer exists. When Australian soldiers were accused of unlawfully killing civilians in Afghanistan, the body of law used in their prosecution was not the Geneva Conventions, but civil law relating to duty of care.

A just response to Australians choosing to join Daesh, one that falls within the human rights framework and supports the rule of law, would be to find sufficient evidence, charge the individuals in question, and prosecute them. Justice would be much better served if the Australian Government mandated, maintained and supported the relevant institutions and units required for this task. This is particularly pertinent given Australia’s public stance against impunity for sexual and gender based violence in conflict and would certainly go some way to meeting our obligations under the suite of United Nations Security Council Resolutions on Women, Peace and Security and Australia’s National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security 2012-2018.

Australia Day awards

I could not be prouder to have Rosie Batty selected as the 2015 Australian of the Year. Last year, Rosie’s son, Luke Batty was playing in the cricket nets with his father. Without warning, his father smashed Luke on the back of the head with the cricket bat. When he fell to the ground, the father attacked him with a knife. Luke died in hospital the next day. Australia has watched Rosie Batty rise from this tragedy, at the press conference after Luke’s death, she said

Family violence happens to everybody. No matter how nice your house is, how intelligent you are. It can happen to anyone, and everyone.

She has tirelessly campaigned for greater awareness, and institutional responses to domestic violence. I’m certain I am not the only one who cries when she speaks about the issues; she has a profound voice. Now she is being recognised for her herculean efforts. I haven’t been this proud of our national awardees since Patrick McGorry was awarded the honour for his work on mental health.

Ben Roberts-Smith should be proud to have chaired a committee that selected, for the first time ever, four women for the Australian of the Year awards. It’s been a tough year for the recognition of women in Australia. We’ve seen cuts in funding to domestic violence and homelessness programs.We still have fewer women in federal cabinet than there are in Afghanistan. We’ve seen policies proposed that would lead to an increase in the real cost of a university degree for women. There’s been an increase in the gender pay gap and moves to force a reduction in the gender equity reporting requirements for employers. But Ben Roberts-Smith spoke a great truth at the awards ceremony

Rosie, Jackie, Drisana and Juliette remind us of the many ways in which women contribute to our nation — that women are a force for change, a voice for rights, influencers, educators and the heart of our communities.

It brings me great hope and joy that these four women have been recognised for their contribution to Australian society; their contribution and their leadership. Jackie French was awarded Senior Australian of the Year for her services to literacy; Drisana Levitzke-Gray was awarded Young Australian of the Year for campaigning for the rights of deaf people; and Juliette Wright was awarded Australia’s Local Hero for establishing a website that facilitates community members donating quality items to those in need, especially after a disaster.

Last year, the Prime Minister made the decision to revive part of the imperial honour system, appointing dames and knights, titles traditionally awarded for service to Queen and country. The first two awardees were the outgoing and incoming Governors General. Today he made an interesting announcement; awarding one of these knighthoods to none other than the Prince Philip, the Queen’s husband. There has been a great deal of discussion about the decision. Some people have protested based on personal attributes of the Prince, others have protested because he isn’t Australian. Today I read a very valid gender analysis of the decision. But I cannot think of a more bizarre choice merely on grounds of process. Giving Prince Philip an Australian knighthood seems to me to be a bit like choosing the principle as the pupil of the week, or perhaps the principle’s husband. It just doesn’t compute.

I was however heartened to read the list of OAM recipients from Far North Queensland recognised for their service to the indigenous community. The Medal of the Order of Australia is the category we see most people who have served the community, those who are recognised for voluntary service; not military service, or public service for which they have been otherwise recompensed, but the kind of service that truly comes from the heart, and gives in the best way possible. It is for this reason I love to see who has been awarded the OAM in communities around the nation. We hear so many dire stories from indigenous communities and so rarely hear of positive achievements, so it was especially good to hear indigenous people recognised for their service the community.