CCL whole web
powered by Google ©
Home About Us Issues Events NSWCCL
Issues
» ASIO
» Double Jeopardy
    » generally
    » in NSW
    » in Australia
» Gun Court
» Music Copyright
» Prisons
» Same sex issues
» Senate Reform
» Short sentences
» Sniffer Dogs
» Transsexuality
» more issues...

PM calls for debate on death penalty

(Melbourne, 8 August 2003) In the wake of the sentencing of convicted Bali bomber Amrozi, the Australian Prime Minister has called for a national debate on the re-introduction of the death penalty. Reiterating that he does not personally support the death penalty, Mr Howard suggested that the death penalty “could be raised by state opposition parties as an election issue” (Sydney Morning Herald 9/8/03).


The PM could protect us from the death penalty

By floating the idea that State Liberal opposition parties use the death penalty as a re-election policy (SMH 9/8/03), Prime Minister Howard has signalled a dangerous attack on our civil liberties and the most fundamental of our human rights: the right to life.

Mr Howard is correct to say that he does not have the power to impose the death penalty in a State such as Victoria. But what he fails to mention is that he does have the power to stop any State or Territory from re-introducing the death penalty.

In 1991, Australia acceded to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (‘OP2’). OP2 commits Australia to abolishing the death penalty. So the re-introduction of the death penalty in any State or Territory would violate international law and further tarnish our international reputation.

Since 1983, the High Court of Australia has consistently held that the Federal Parliament can override States to uphold our international obligations. In 1983 that power was used to protect the Franklin River in Tasmania. In the 1990s Paul Keating used this power to override anti-gay laws in Tasmania. If Mr Howard is willing, this same power can be used again to protect all Australians from the re-introduction of the death penalty by the States or Territories.

In fact, Mr Howard does not even have to wait for the States or Territories to make the first move. The Federal Parliament already possesses all the necessary constitutional powers to pass legislation incorporating into Australian law the protections offered by OP2.

The Prime Minister is correct to say that the law can get it wrong – just ask Lindy Chamberlain or WA’s John Button. And the NSW Premier is correct to say that, when it comes to the death penalty, a mistake is irreversible. The PM has the power to protect all Australians from the irreversible errors of law that will, on his own admission, inevitably result from a re-introduction of the death penalty in Australia.

If Mr Howard really believes that the death penalty is wrong, then he should act now to prevent its re-introduction and to protect the civil liberties of all Australians.

Michael Walton & David Leung
UNSW Council for Civil Liberties

UNSWCCL can be contacted by email


Back to top
Please read our Privacy Statement
Last Updated: Sunday, 18 July, 2004
  © 2004 UNSW Council for Civil Liberties website feedback
The views expressed by UNSWCCL do not represent the views of either NSWCCL or The University of New South Wales.