Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for Isaacs, who in fact brings considerable legal expertise to this parliament and makes a most welcome addition; he has a lot of ability. Before the election the government committed to holding an independent judicial inquiry into the case of Dr Haneef. As I announced this morning, we are honouring that commitment by establishing an inquiry to be conducted by a former New South Wales Supreme Court judge, the Hon. John Clarke QC. An independent inquiry is needed to establish the facts to ensure public confidence in Australia’s counterterrorism arrangements.

I should say that since becoming Attorney-General I have formed the view that our agencies are operating to a high standard but that Australians are entitled to be assured that our national security agencies are functioning the best they possibly can be, in terms of both individual agency expertise and also collectively and cooperatively. I note that this has been recognised by at least some members of the opposition. For example, according to AAP this morning, Senator Birmingham has said that the nation needs to have faith in its security services. To quote the senator:

If an inquiry is required to ensure that faith is maintained in the community then that’s important.

With respect, he is absolutely right.

The Clarke inquiry will be an opportunity to obtain a factual account of the matter from an experienced and independent former judicial officer. Mr Clarke will conduct a rigorous and independent inquiry to enable informed consideration of the lessons to be learnt from the Haneef case and of any potential improvements to how our national security and law enforcement agencies work and cooperate in counterterrorism matters.

Mr Clarke has indicated he will conduct the inquiry in a way which ensures the protection of national security information, ongoing investigations and upcoming overseas trials. But he has also indicated he will ensure that there are opportunities for the public to input into the inquiry, including by advertising for submissions and conducting public forums on the operation of our counterterrorism laws and arrangements.

Australians are entitled to know what really happened in the Haneef case. I see the opposition has taken the position that the inquiry into the Haneef case should be conducted by the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. The problem with that proposal is that the commission is only able to investigate corruption; it cannot investigate non-corruption issues. It is also unable to look at all of the agencies that were involved in the Haneef matter. With respect to shadow ministers, such an inquiry would be totally inadequate. National security should be above politics, and I would hope and expect that all members would fully support the inquiry. I repeat: it is important to ensure faith in our security agencies after the Haneef matter and to ensure that our agencies are operating as effectively as they possibly can be, individually and collectively. The government has asked the Clarke inquiry to report by 30 September this year. Mr Clarke has been asked to present a report that can be made public and which, if necessary—because of national security considerations—may be supplemented by a confidential report.

In conclusion, the establishment of the Clarke inquiry will enable all the information about the Haneef case to be properly assessed in an independent manner and for the considered recommendations to be made to improve the functioning of our security agencies individually but, most importantly, collectively in the interests of a whole-of-government approach to national security.

See this speech in context