Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

On this motion, Senator Nettle, you do have our support. It is a matter of principle that bills can and should be referred from the Senate to committees in the way that you have asked for. The content of the bill is another matter, but in principle we would normally support these references. I think this reference is even more important because of a couple of issues that really do warrant a remark.

This marks the fifth anniversary of Mr David Hicks’s custody. Five years is an extraordinarily long time for anyone to serve in custody, particularly when there has been no charge, no trial and no conviction. The Howard government have abdicated the rule of law. The Howard government are opposing this reference. Why? Because they want to hide behind their culpability for their appalling treatment of Mr David Hicks. Whether this bill will help Mr David Hicks, the opposition does not know, but the purpose of the inquiry is a reasonable request for the government to agree to. On a day when the government have referred a ridiculous number of bills to committees, it really is astonishing that they seek to oppose this one.

The government have sacrificed one of their own citizens to a military commission process. If you take a look at the Supreme Court ruling that Senator Nettle has looked at, you see that we do actually have a bit of a window here that the government could act upon. There are currently, as I understand it, no charges laid under the new military commissions process. The government have asserted that Mr Hicks cannot be returned to Australia because he cannot be prosecuted here. I think that really does not stand up. That is the point now, given this window. The government would have liked that window to close, but it is still open.

Senior US legal officials have made it very clear that they do not require prosecution at home to release detainees from Guantanamo Bay. So there are no charges and no requirement by US officials. Therefore, the impediment is this government; it is not the US. This is an issue that the Australian government can resolve. Australian laws are more than adequate now to deal with any security risks that the government might think Mr Hicks poses. If Mr Hicks is assessed to pose a security risk to the community, I would be astonished to think that after the last five years you have not patched up all the holes in our security laws to such an extent that there would not be a gap. I would be keen to know if you think there is a gap in our security laws. Over the last number of years there certainly has not seemed to be one.

I am not one for generally suggesting ways or means, but there seem to be sufficient laws available to deal with any assessed security risk that Mr Hicks may pose if released into Australian custody. There are control orders that can monitor a person’s movement, but, as I said, I do not like to suggest these types of solutions. This is a government that can come up with a solution if it puts its mind to it. On that note, the opposition supports the reference of the Removal of Recognition of US Military Commissions (David Hicks) Bill 2006 to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.