Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Ellison. American historian Professor Alfred McCoy says that Guantanamo Bay is a place specifically designed to psychologically break detainees. Does the minister agree that the prolonged use of solitary confinement and sensory deprivation qualifies as torture? Why is David Hicks still there, 4½ years after his arrest?

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

I can tell the Senate that, when I visited the United States in the last fortnight, I raised the issue of Mr Hicks with the United States attorney-general, as I have done on previous visits to that country. I reinforced Australia’s earnest desire that Mr Hicks be brought before the military commission as soon as possible. Of course, we have an appeal pending in the United States in relation to the validity of the military commission in question. That has been ongoing now for some time. It is the case of Hamdan v Rumsfeld, as I recall. The attorney-general of the United States indicated to me very clearly that it was their view that a decision should be handed down as soon as possible. I understood that that could well be in the very near future. It certainly was his desire that that be dealt with as quickly as possible.

But it is a matter, after all, before the courts in United States. Like this country, the executive does not have the ability or power to interfere with the way the courts conduct their business, and quite rightly so. The US authorities and their attorney-general indicated to me that, in their opinion, it was something that should be dealt with as soon as possible. In relation to Mr Hicks and his situation in Guantanamo Bay, I understand that consular officials visited him on 8 June this year. He was found to be well and in good spirits. Indeed, he has been visited on 16 occasions over the period of time he has been in detention there.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who by?

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

Consular officials have visited Mr Hicks. We have also had Australian authorities visiting him. He is not in solitary confinement.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think you have been misled if you are saying 16 visits by consular officials.

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

There have been 16 visits involving consular officials and Australian authorities.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You had better get that checked out.

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

Mr President, if Senator Faulkner wants to cavil with the point of 16 visits, I will check on that. But that is my clear—

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Faulkner interjecting—

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Faulkner, if you have a question you can ask it in the normal fashion, not by interjecting across the chamber.

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

I can say there have been 16 visits to Mr Hicks by consular officials and/or Australian officials. I do not see that there is any difference in that. If Senator Faulkner thinks that Australian authorities are in the business of subjugating Australian citizens, he ought to apologise to them, because I can say right now that, in anything that our agencies are involved in, they look to the interests of Australian citizens as well as the task they have at hand. To indicate that a consular visit is in some way different to a visit from someone from an Australian authority is by implication saying that they are not fulfilling the same standard of duty that a consular visit would. I totally reject that, and he should be ashamed of himself.

Let us get back to the issue at hand. Mr Hicks is not in solitary confinement. We have been monitoring his welfare closely. When he was last visited on 8 June he was found to be in good spirits and well. We will continue to monitor his position. We will continue to represent to the United States government that this should come on as soon as possible. But you have to remember that it is legal proceedings in the United States that are preventing the military commission from taking the proceedings before it. That application was brought by others in Guantanamo Bay. (Time expired)

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask the minister to define what he means by David Hicks not being in solitary confinement. Minister, there have been three suicides recently at Guantanamo Bay. Professor McCoy says that this system of total psychological torture is designed to break down every detainee. It is designed to produce a state of hopelessness and despair that leads in this case to suicides. The International Red Cross, the United Nations Committee against Torture and even the FBI now say that America is torturing detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Why is your government allowing its great and powerful friend to torture Australian citizens?

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

I completely reject that. My previous answer outlined very clearly the approach of the Australian government to this matter. We have had 16 consular visits to Mr Hicks—and I stress consular visits. We have actively monitored his welfare. We have not found any evidence whatsoever that he has been the subject of torture and, of course, we as a nation totally reject torture being used in any situation. Could I say that, in relation to this matter, we have taken particular care and attention to ensure that Mr Hicks’s interests are looked after. The reason why he is not before the military commission is not of the making of the US government or the Australian government; it is because proceedings have been brought in the courts in the United States in the case of Hamdan v Rumsfeld.