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

The Australian Democrats have maintained all along that the matter involving Dr Haneef is worthy of investigation. We do not believe, however, that the motion proposed by the Australian Greens is the best mechanism through which to have that inquiry. I understand the intent behind the motion moved by Senator Nettle and, as I have indicated repeatedly in this place over the last couple of days, we support an inquiry into the handling of the Haneef case, just as we support a broader and more comprehensive inquiry into the legislative framework for antiterrorism legislation in this country. We would support separate inquiries into the matter. We would support an inquiry into the Haneef case that is independent—it may be a judicial inquiry, as has been proposed by the opposition. Personally, I think that that is an appropriate way to proceed. Prior to the Labor Party’s suggestion of a judicial inquiry, I suggested an Ombudsman’s inquiry for similar reasons: because it should be independent, it should not be conducted by politicians and it should not be conducted—as you, Mr Acting Deputy President Barnett, pointed out—while there are matters before the courts. The Ombudsman has the capacity to operate as the Law Enforcement Ombudsman and therefore can investigate the practices, policies, procedures or processes—I am paraphrasing a bit broadly here—when it comes to the Australian Federal Police. I understand that the AFP has yet to come to grips with the scope and the broad mechanism of the powers that have been granted to it by the government. Certainly it is early days and obviously the Haneef case is the first test, as we keep hearing, of relatively recent antiterrorism law, but there are very good grounds for the Ombudsman to play that role. Having said that, we also support the judicial inquiry, for the reasons that have been outlined by the opposition.

Secondly, we support a separate inquiry into the antiterrorism legislation. I hear the concerns expressed by Senator Ludwig, or the rationale for the Labor Party’s decision to vote against the proposal today for a Senate select committee inquiry. Obviously I am disappointed. I think that, if the issue of time lines was a standout concern or reason for the opposition to oppose that motion, we could have quite happily negotiated or discussed a time line. But, having said that, that leaves me with the option of reintroducing the motion, or a comparable inquiry, after the election. To quote Senator Ludwig—and I know that he was not necessarily accusing me of this—this is not ‘playing politics with national security’. In fact, it was an attempt to do quite the opposite: to have an inquiry into legislation and the antiterrorism legislative framework away from—yes, in the light of—the Dr Haneef case. That is inevitable, given that it is the first test case. People keep referring to the 2005 antiterrorism laws, but there are laws preceding that that affected the Haneef case. We also do not know the extent of involvement of ASIO and its legislative powers in that case. There are a lot of issues there that are worthy of investigation but which cannot be investigated at this point of time and certainly not through the proposed fact-finding mission that the Greens have put forward today—it is a flawed mechanism, I am sorry to say. The AFP has advised that the investigation into Dr Haneef is continuing, meaning that most of the evidence that could be put to a Senate inquiry would be classified. I am not sure if the committee process would actually derive the kind of information that would satisfy senators. The fact-finding purpose or mission proposed by this reference would not necessarily allow the facts to emerge in any case.

Therefore, I still maintain that these matters would be better dealt with by a judicial inquiry with wide-ranging powers that would include the ability to compel interested persons, including ministers of course, to give evidence. A judicial inquiry, or indeed an inquiry by the Ombudsman, would allow for a truly independent consideration of the factual matters giving rise to the unsatisfactory outcome of the Haneef affair. As I said, I do not want politicians to be responsible for that particular inquiry. As Senator Ludwig has pointed out, there is precedent for a political or parliamentary inquiry into the facts after a judicial inquiry or a report comes down. There will still be an opportunity to look into those matters, but it is not appropriate to do so at this point.

Apart from this, I believe it is also clear from the Haneef affair that the extent of the broad-ranging powers that are granted to law enforcement and intelligence agencies has gone well beyond what was envisaged by the parliament. Certainly that has been evident in quotes from members of the bureaucracy and departmental comments and, indeed, comments made by government members themselves on the record in the committee inquiry. When the laws passed, I do not know if people actually envisaged the extent to which they would be used generally and maybe specifically in the first case. I do not think anyone really expected—or maybe they did—that a suspect could be held for almost a fortnight without charge. The nature of the charges levelled against Dr Haneef has made the public question, I believe, whether or not terrorism has been broadly defined. Hence, one of the objectives of the proposal for a Senate select committee inquiry is to examine some of these issues.

I acknowledge Senator Ludwig’s kind comments about the drafting of the proposal. I am pretty proud of it and do not think there are any errors or grammatical mistakes. Having said that, people can scrutinise it closely. My aim was to make the committee reference as balanced and objective as possible so that anyone of any political party in this place could bring their own views or perspectives to the committee and argue their case. I think there are strong grounds for it at this point, particularly in the light of the fact that we have passed more than 40 pieces—