Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Hansard source

In relation to this matter, the Anti-terrorism Bill 2004 was considered by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. In that case it was recommended—I think it was recommendation VIII of the committee’s report on the bill—that there be a deletion of the subsections that would have the effect of restricting commercial exploitation by persons who have committed offences triable by a military commission. During consideration of the bill at that time, the government made it clear that it did not support the recommendation that references to US military commissions be removed from the act.

The government continues to believe that the provisions are appropriate. The government believes that this matter has been canvassed previously by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and that it is a relatively straightforward question. The government believes that the amendments enacted to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 which were contained in the Anti-terrorism Act 2004 are reasonable amendments. They ensure that persons who have committed an offence or who may in future be subject to a military commission offence can be prevented from profiting from the proceeds derived from their activities. This has been canvassed. The lawyers acting on behalf of Mr Hicks have filed a claim in the Federal Court of Australia in relation to David Hicks’s case. The government believes that the proposed reasons for the referral could seek to address issues that are now before the courts and that it would be inappropriate to progress an inquiry in the terms proposed. For those reasons, the government believes that this matter should not be referred to the committee as proposed.

As I have said at question time and in other places, the government continues to press the United States authorities for the trial of David Hicks. It has done so for a lengthy period of time and will continue to do so. In this particular case, however, the matter has been dealt with by a Senate committee before, and we have the situation of the legal proceedings which I have mentioned. For those reasons, the government will be opposing Senator Nettle’s motion to amend the report—and that is what leave was given for. I think it is a fairly straightforward matter in relation to the reference. The David Hicks matter, of course, is not a simple one; it is a very difficult and complex one, and we have acknowledged that.