Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I listened, as I always do, with great care to what Senator Stott Despoja said. In this case I have to say, Senator, that you have not managed to convince me one iota. Look at her use of the word ‘so called’ in the ‘so-called’ war on terror. Is there a war on terror or is there not? Is the Western world faced with a threat from terror? Are not our soldiers fighting in various lands? Have not our citizens been killed? Yet Senator Stott Despoja referred to the ‘so-called’ war on terror. Get real, Senator Stott Despoja. We should strip away the inaccuracies in the senator’s motion and get to the truth of the matter. Should David Hicks be repatriated and set free or should he face trial on the very serious allegations against him? Those are the two choices that are before this chamber.

As the Attorney-General reminded us just last week, ‘The advice from the independent Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions is that Mr Hicks could not be prosecuted in Australia.’ In essence, in seeking the return of David Hicks, Senator Stott Despoja is arguing for him to be set free to avoid prosecution. That is essentially what the senator is arguing for. We should not mince words; that is precisely her position. I do not accept that, and I do not believe that the government does either.

What are these serious allegations against David Hicks? How quickly Senator Stott Despoja tried to dismiss them as so-called charges in a so-called war on terror. What are they? Charges have been sworn against him that whilst overseas he attempted murder in violation of the law of war and provided material support for terrorism. Let us step back from the emotion of the senator’s speech and examine the facts. It is alleged that David Hicks joined Lashkar-e-Taiba, which is listed as a terrorist body by the United Nations and proscribed as a terrorist organisation in Australian law. More importantly, it is alleged that David Hicks had trained with the terrorist body al-Qaeda and that he travelled to Afghanistan with a view to fighting against the United States and other coalition forces. Al-Qaeda is well known around the world for its appalling atrocities against all types of innocent people and, of course, for the dreadful and tragic events of 11 September 2001.

Let us not mince words, Senator Stott Despoja. It is alleged that David Hicks joined forces with those who have the declared aim of killing coalition soldiers. These allegations against David Hicks are very serious, but I agree that they are untested. I welcome the fact that charges have been sworn and that Mr David Hicks is now one step further towards a trial. The US military commission system contains a number of safeguards which the US believes will facilitate a full and fair trial. Senator Stott Despoja asserts in this chamber that the process is flawed because it allows the use of hearsay evidence. In this case, Senator Stott Despoja, if you care to listen to a response to your debate, I am advised that the rules of evidence are similar to those adopted and accepted in international criminal tribunals. I am advised that hearsay evidence may be admitted where it has probative value, but it must be excluded where the evidence is proved to be unreliable.

Senator Stott Despoja also asserts that detainees may be convicted on evidence obtained by coercion. Again, the senator ignores the fact that such evidence may only be used where it has probative value and may not be used where it may cause unfair prejudice to the defendant. The military judge has the discretion to decide whether this evidence can be used. These are complex legal issues that are not to be dismissed in the cavalier way in which the senator has tried to do it. It is a serious case. It is a matter for lawyers to look very closely at these issues. The issue is that Senator Stott Despoja wishes to bring back David Hicks—