Death penalty stance hurts Aust credibility: Brennan
By Jennifer Macey
Posted 3 hours 2 minutes ago
Updated 2 hours 16 minutes ago
The former chief justice of the Australian High Court, Sir Gerard Brennan, has criticised both major parties for their policies on the death penalty.
Sir Gerard says if the Government and Opposition believe the Bali nine should be spared the firing squad, they should not support the death penalty for the Bali bombers.
Sir Gerard also singled out the anti-terrorism laws and the preventive detention orders for criticism in a speech he gave to the Law and Justice Foundation's Justice Awards dinner in Sydney last night.
Sir Gerard said the Coalition and Labor are sending mixed messages on the death penalty.
"We cannot declare the execution of Australians to be barbaric and the execution of Indonesians to be acceptable," he said.
"Yet that now seems to be bipartisan policy. Principle is sacrificed for political advantage."
Sir Gerard says Australia's stance on the death penalty for the Bali bombers is jeopardising the nation's international credibility.
"A country which speaks about such an important issue with a forked tongue can hardly lay claim to the rule of law, and it forfeits its credibility in the international forum," he said.
Sir Gerard was the chief justice of the Australian High Court from 1995 to 1998.
Last night, he nominated some of the thornier law and justice issues that he feels are not getting enough public attention in this election campaign.
He criticised the legislation that empowers ASIO and the Australian Federal Police to detain and interrogate someone without charge.
"There should be an effective mechanism to safeguard personal liberty, but the anti-terrorism laws vest the power to interfere with a person's liberty in the executive branch of Government, which controls the procedure," he said.
"Those laws deny natural justice to the person which is the subject of the power."
Sir Gerard targeted the preventive detention orders for similar criticism, and highlighted the case of Dr Mohamed Haneef, who was held for 12 days without charge.
"The sad experience of the Haneef case has eroded public confidence in the agencies entrusted to safeguard public security," he said.
Rule of law denied
Sir Gerard said to exclude access to the courts is to deny the rule of law, and the anti-terrorism laws give the Government unaccountable powers.
"Perhaps they might reflect on Pastor Niemoller's lament in Hitler's Germany," he said.
"'They came first for the communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a communist.
"'Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew.
"'Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
"'Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
"'Then they came for me, and by that time, no-one was left to speak up.'"
Sir Gerard concluded by saying issues of injustice against people like David Hicks and Dr Haneef were glaringly absent from the current election campaign.
"It is, I suppose, inevitable that an election campaign should be pitched at the majority and that the protection of the few against injustices would not be an election issue," he said.
"Ultimately, political rhetoric about the rule of law may be exposed to be as genuine as the electoral kissing of babies."