As we are going to hear tonight, the human rights position in Vietnam is disgraceful. There is no freedom of expression. Persons espousing unacceptable views find themselves arrested immediately and imprisoned for punishment and indoctrination, for long periods.

The persecution of religious groups is only an example. These are especially significant groups because they are critical to society , and also they can be easily monitored. If a priest or monk is imprisoned, this is known about. But countless other more anonymous Vietnamese are being incarcerated without the rest of the world being informed.

What can we do? Unfortunately Australia’s response has not been adequate. The efforts of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in particular are derisory. One is left with the impression that its officers do not care sufficiently. We are told that protests are made and that there are "useful" discussions, but to large extent these are merely an excuse for a lack of fortitude.

Likewise, there are concerns at the absence of firmness of the Commonwealth Government. Its criticisms of abuses of human rights are only taken to a certain level, and thereafter there is a disinclination to be more resolute, a kind of moral cowardice.

One of the first things to be done now is for the Australian Parliament to follow the lead of the European Parliament. Last month the European Parliament formally called for the release of all prisoners of conscience, for an end to religious persecution, for the Ambassadors of the member States to investigate these matters and for a Delegation to visit Vietnam to meet religious leaders of all confessions, and especially those who have been imprisoned.

In carefully measured terms the European Parliament also called upon Vietnam to guarantee to all Vietnamese both freedom of religion and freedom of assembly.

Australia has so far been remarkable remiss. The Australian Government and Australian diplomats ought to have been organising regular visits to prisoners of conscience to monitor their conditions. Such international intervention offers a measure of protection. Totalitarian governments such as Vietnam are deterred when they know that acts of oppression are being monitored and publicised around the world. Even more important is the question of overseas aid. Australia regularly provides many millions of dollars in voluntary aid to Vietnam. There is every reason why in future all such aid should be subject to strict conditions in regard to human rights. In the absence of a radical improvement, there must be an immediate and effective deterrent. In other words, in the absence of a radical improvement, aid should be withheld totally. As noted, any improvement must be radical. Totalitarian governments lie systematically, and Vietnam is a striking example of false propaganda. If one believed the official statements of the Vietnamese government one would be lulled into regarding Vietnam as a most enlightened democracy, rather than the regressive regime that it is. Apart from anything else, why should Australian taxpayers make continuous large donations to repressive regimes? Official words of complaint or criticisms by other governments are one thing. They are necessary, and they make an impact. But their effect may be slow or even marginal. One thing that all totalitarian regimes understand however is the withholding of money, the withholding of financial aid. The withholding of financial aid is by far the most effective weapon of all. What is the minimum on which one should insist? Quite simply, the total removal of all restraints on freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Neither on principle nor for practical reasons is there any scope for compromise or delay.

The Vietnamese community expects that until there is complete freedom of expression and religion, all financial aid to Vietnam must stop.

Ian Spry, QC.*