Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

This is an opportunity for the Australian Democrats to also place on record our preferred mechanism for the handling of the Dr Mohamed Haneef inquiry. Like the Labor Party, we support the notion of an independent inquiry. That may be a judicial inquiry, which would probably be the strongest and most appropriate way to proceed. Having said that, in the early days of concerns emerging as to how this inquiry would proceed, we suggested that an appropriate channel for investigation or an appropriate independent authority would be the Ombudsman, recognising of course that the Ombudsman has the opportunity to operate as a law enforcement ombudsman and can investigate the policies, procedures and processes of the AFP. Obviously I note Senator Ludwig’s comments on the AFP investigation.

In relation to the broader issue of the functioning, appropriateness or success or otherwise of the operation of the antiterrorism laws that we have in this country, as I have made clear today with the notice I have given of the terms of reference for a proposed Senate select committee, the Democrats feel strongly that there is very good reason for a comprehensive analysis of the broad-ranging antiterrorism laws looking at how they function, how they are working and how they interact with reference to various rights and roles in the community. We are very much in favour of a cross-party Senate inquiry into the broader issue of the legislation, not specifically the Haneef case. I think that Dr Haneef’s case is worthy of an independent judicial inquiry—hence my concerns about the Greens’s proposed Senate inquiry into the Haneef case. I certainly think it is a good backup call, but I also feel very strongly that this is something that needs to be independently examined and I am not quite sure that politicians are the best people to do it. In fact, I am fairly confident that it would not be the most appropriate thing for us to do that.

In relation to the amendment before us, which obviously draws on the use and operation of the antiterrorism laws, I certainly understand and share the concerns that Senator Nettle has outlined. The Democrats will support this amendment, but I think that there are a couple of points that have been well made. In relation to the process, I do not particularly have a problem with people seeking to make broader amendments to legislation even if the legislation before us deals with a specific or other issue. As Senator Ludwig made clear, it is not procedurally incorrect; it is the right of any legislator to do that if they choose. It is a great opportunity. A lot of the amendments—including my own, I acknowledge—were circulated and tabled only today. I do not think that was the case for the government, but certainly the non-government parties circulated their amendments during the debate today. Possibly it would have been opportune to have examined this amendment earlier, simply because I think there are potential ramifications of this amendment that I may not be aware of. We have not had an opportunity to fully explore the effect of this particular amendment; although, as I said, from what I have heard from Senator Nettle, I certainly support its intent.

I am also wondering if this process adequately addresses some or indeed all of the concerns that the Democrats have about the handling of the Haneef case or those concerns that have been articulated by Senator Nettle for the Greens. For example, were ASIO powers involved also, not just those of the AFP? There are obviously some issues that have not been made public and that we cannot address in the chamber. I certainly appreciate Senator Nettle’s canny use of the Senate today in order to bring to the attention of the parliament and the community the issue of detention, ongoing detention and detention without charge and the impact they have on some basic civil liberties and human rights. I think a lot of Australians share those concerns. I am not sure if today is the day that we are going to resolve those concerns—hence my preference for a committee—but, on behalf of the Democrats, I will support Senator Nettle’s intent and thus this amendment before us, although I suspect the numbers are not in Senator Nettle’s favour.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Nettle’s) be agreed to.