Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I return to the debate that occurred last night about whether or not the Senate should have an inquiry into the detention and release of Dr Mohamed Haneef. The Greens are proposing this Senate inquiry because we, like others, have watched the case of Dr Haneef unfold before our eyes in the last few weeks and months, and we have had significant concerns about the way in which the laws have been implemented in that case. We have also had concerns about the commentary that has gone with that, particularly that which has been put forward by senior government ministers in relation to this matter, and about the conduct of the ministers involved.

The Greens proposal sets out quite broad terms of reference for a Senate inquiry, which will enable us to look at the role of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Mr Andrews; the role of other ministers, such as the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister; the investigation carried out by the Federal Police; and the decisions taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions. It also will allow us to look at the international impact on Australia of the government’s handling of the case of Dr Haneef. So it is quite wide ranging. We attempted not to limit it, because there are a range of issues that have been brought up by this case of Dr Haneef.

I spoke briefly last night about some of these issues and about how we saw the case of Dr Haneef unfold, with the events in London and Glasgow and then the link to Australia. I spoke about the Daily Telegraph newspaper in my home state, which had a photograph of one of the Gold Coast hospital doctors questioned as part of this investigation and a great big headline saying, ‘The enemy within’. The photograph was of an Indian-born and trained doctor who was working in the public hospital system in a Gold Coast hospital. So there was a very strong message sent out to the community through media, government ministers and public commentary at the time about the seriousness of this particular issue.

I was also saying last night that the detention of Dr Haneef was the first instance we have seen of the use of powers given to the Federal Police in 2004 under the terrorism laws—the ability to hold somebody indefinitely without charge. The court has to approve the extensions of time along the way, but the law allows for somebody to be held continuously and indefinitely on the issue until they are charged. As I said last night, that is an absolutely extraordinary departure from the way in which the criminal justice system has operated in this country and in comparable Western democracies all around the world.

When that legislation was introduced into the parliament, there was some discussion about how long people could be held. It was an issue that, understandably, people in the community were very concerned about. So we were asking questions about how long somebody was likely to be held under the power that in 2004 was being proposed for the Australian Federal Police. The person answering questions on behalf of the government was a representative from the Attorney-General’s Department, Mr Geoff McDonald, who is the Assistant Secretary of the Security Law Branch. He told the Senate inquiry that it would be extraordinary if somebody were held for as long as 24 hours, which was what was being suggested as a possibility. He said that the courts would consider 16 hours to be a reasonable period of time and that that was a precedent that had been set in the Victorian courts. The courts considered 16 hours to be a reasonable period of time. So that was the message that was sent to the parliament when the government was saying to us, ‘Give extraordinary powers to the Australian Federal Police in order to be able to hold somebody indefinitely without charge.’ Understandably, I was concerned about how long people might be held, and the answer we got from the government was that in an extraordinary circumstance somebody might be held for 24 hours.

What we saw in the case of Dr Haneef was the first instance of these laws being used. The first time they were used by the Australian Federal Police, Dr Haneef was held for 12 days—over 200 hours. The parliament had been told that it would be extraordinary if somebody were held for 24 hours; Dr Haneef was held for 12 days. I think that that by itself is a reason for having a Senate inquiry into the terrorism laws and the way in which they were used in the case of Dr Haneef—because the parliament was told, when we asked questions about how long somebody would be held, that it would be extraordinary if someone were held for 24 hours, and yet the first time the government used these extraordinary powers, which they were given with the support of the opposition, it was to hold somebody for 12 days. So there are matters we need to look into. Was the parliament misled about how these powers were intended to be used? If we do not have a Senate inquiry, we will be unable to look into this matter and all the implications of the case of Dr Haneef. That is one in particular that I can point to, but there are others as well.

As I said, I think that that on its own warrants us looking into how these terrorism laws were used in the case of Dr Haneef, but in the case of Dr Haneef we have other issues which do not necessarily relate just to what our terrorism laws are. They relate to the implementation of those laws by the Australian Federal Police, by the Director of Public Prosecutions and, indeed, by the immigration minister, Mr Andrews. There were mistakes made, and people have acknowledged that—although it is a little unclear who made the mistakes. Was it the DPP? Was it the Australian Federal Police? Was it Scotland Yard? There was a lot of blame going around and not a lot of responsibility, but everyone acknowledges that mistakes were made. That is the kind of thing that we need to understand: how and why did that occur? Were the Australian Federal Police operating under such pressure from the federal government to come up with a charge for Dr Haneef that we saw pressure put on people in that working environment and mistakes made by the Federal Police or by others? We do not know the answers to those questions and, until we have an inquiry, we are unable to determine the answers to those questions.

It needs to be a public inquiry because we have seen public confidence in the government’s ability to handle these matters fall dramatically as a result of the case of Dr Haneef. We need to have a public inquiry, not an internal investigation by the Federal Police, although that may be warranted as well. It needs to be a public inquiry so that people can understand. I would have thought that public confidence in the government’s ability to handle the issue of terrorism was something the government itself would want. I would have thought that it would be something the government, the opposition and others in here would support. We need to have that.

I recognise that there have been calls for a number of different types of inquiry. The Premier of Queensland, Mr Beattie, said we should have a Senate inquiry. That is what the Greens are proposing here today. Others have suggested a judicial inquiry. I think there is merit in the idea of having a judicial inquiry, but we are not able to make that happen. We are able to make a Senate inquiry happen, and that is the opportunity that, on behalf of the Greens, I am presenting to the parliament today.

I am saying to members of parliament: this is an important issue. Do you want the public to have confidence in the government’s ability to deal with issues relating to terrorism? Do you recognise that that has been shaken, if not dismantled, through this case of Dr Haneef? Here is an opportunity for us to look into that matter, for us to determine what mistakes were made, how mistakes were made, why mistakes were made and what changes need to be made to the legislation because of the case of Dr Haneef. A range of matters need to be inquired into here, and that is why the Australian Greens are proposing this.

I want to touch on a couple of issues. I want to touch on the amendment that Senator Bartlett has proposed in relation to this proposal that I am putting forward. I am quite happy to accept Senator Bartlett’s amendment. It goes to the issue of the power of the immigration minister to cancel somebody’s visa. I am quite happy to accept that amendment Senator Bartlett is proposing because I do think we need to look into this matter. This goes to the conduct of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Kevin Andrews, at the time. Everyone will remember—I certainly remember; I was here in Canberra on the day—when the Brisbane magistrate looked at the evidence against Dr Haneef, made the decision that it was not strong enough for him to be refused bail and granted him bail. It was within an hour and a half that the immigration minister held a press conference to tell people that he had cancelled Dr Haneef’s visa and that Dr Haneef would not be free to live in Australia whilst investigations continued. No, he would be put into immigration detention in Villawood.

We need to look at this matter. That is an extraordinary power that is given to the immigration minister of the day: under section 501 the minister can cancel somebody’s visa on character grounds. The Greens opposed that when that was brought into this parliament. We are on record saying that we did not think that was appropriate. But it is even less appropriate in this case, because we saw what Mr Andrews, the immigration minister, did: he cancelled the visa before Dr Haneef had his day in court. I understand that the immigration minister cancels around six visas a week on character grounds. I have concerns about that as well. But Dr Haneef’s visa was cancelled before he even had his day in court. Those other six visas a week which the immigration minister cancels relate to cases where a person has been convicted of a crime, and then subsequently he makes the decision to cancel their visa. I have issues with that because I think it is double jeopardy: if you have served your time, you should not be punished again. But in the case of Dr Haneef he went even further: he cancelled Dr Haneef’s visa before he had even had his day in court.

So there are significant issues that need to be explored, not only around the existence of that power of the immigration minister but also around the way in which it was exercised in this case, and they need to be explored by the parliament. They are not matters that can just be left to a judicial realm. We need to understand what influences, what pressure, the immigration minister was put under. I do not know. We need to understand that so that we can recognise how the laws that this parliament passes are being used, misused or abused—whatever it may be—by the government of the day. We need to have an inquiry into that so we can understand the implications of the laws we are passing here and the implications they have on the lives of ordinary people. I do not want to see any more people go through the experience Dr Haneef went through.

I am not able to say what all of the circumstances were in relation to Dr Haneef, but I am able to say that I think we have seen in the exercise of the terrorism laws, firstly, a concern about the broadness of those terrorism laws such that they can encapsulate innocent people. Whether or not that is the case here I do not know, but they are so broad that innocent people can be caught up in them. I think we have also seen significant problems in the way in which those terrorism and migration laws were implemented by the Federal Police, by the DPP, by the minister for immigration and, importantly, by the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister, who made substantial comments about this matter in the media whilst it was still before the court, continuing to try to smear the reputation of Dr Haneef. Many of those comments have caused, and continue to cause, concern for people in the community.

I met on Monday with a range of very senior Indian doctors who work in hospitals in Sydney. They talked with me about what they are hearing from their colleagues and what they themselves are experiencing in terms of discrimination in their workplaces as a result of the case of Dr Haneef. The immigration minister should be coming out and saying, ‘We value the role that overseas trained doctors bring to the public health system in this country.’ That is what the immigration minister should be doing. Rather than ordering a review into ASIO checks of all the doctors and claiming that we now have evidence that overseas trained doctors are linked with terrorism, which is what the immigration minister did on Sunday, he should be making a clear statement about the value that overseas trained doctors bring to the public health system in this country.

So there are a range of matters that we need to look into. The legal profession has been at the forefront of highlighting what those issues are and what those concerns are. This is an opportunity, through a Senate inquiry, for us to look at the range of matters that have been brought to light through the case of Dr Haneef. They do not deal just with the terror laws; they look at immigration matters, the implementation of the laws and the involvement of government ministers in the decision making in the case of Dr Haneef. We have had calls from all sections of the community for us to have an inquiry into this matter, and this is the opportunity. This is the occasion when we can say: ‘Yes, it’s an important matter. Yes, we think it needs to be looked into. There are lessons that need to be learned from this.’ That is the opportunity that the Greens present to the parliament this morning. I urge all senators to support us in having an inquiry into this very important matter.