Joanna Gash (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister update the House on progress in the United States military commission trial of David Hicks?

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Gilmore for her question. Members will be aware that earlier today the arraignment in the new military commission trial of David Hicks took place. As members will also be aware, David Hicks pleaded guilty to the overall charge of providing material support for terrorism. In particular, he pleaded guilty to specification 1 of the charge. The specification of the charge to which David Hicks has pleaded guilty as outlined in the charge sheet was:

... a person subject to trial by military commission as an alien unlawful enemy combatant, did, in or around Afghanistan, from in or about December 2000 through in or about December 2001, intentionally provide material support or resources to an international terrorist organization engaged in hostilities against the United States, namely al Qaeda, which the accused knew to be ... an organisation that engaged ... in terrorism ...

That is the charge to which Mr Hicks specifically pleaded guilty. I am informed that he pleaded not guilty to the second specification of the charge.

The government remains concerned at the length of time that has passed before reaching this point; however, the government does welcome the progress towards resolution of Hicks’s case. It has always been our view that Hicks should face justice, but we have been very concerned about the time that it has taken. I understand that the military commission judge has requested that the parties file an agreed stipulation of facts on 27 March, United States time. The full military commission will then consider the guilty plea, the stipulation of facts and a statement from David Hicks before determining a sentence.

I note that, should the military commission impose a custodial sentence, Australia and the United States have an arrangement in place under which Mr Hicks can apply to serve the remainder of any sentence imposed in Australia, subject to the agreement of all parties. The timing and details therefore of any arrangements for Mr David Hicks’s return to Australia are not clear. Given that the military commission has yet to finalise proceedings, I do not propose to make any further comment.