Linda Kirk (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Ellison, the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Is the minister aware that this weekend marks five years in custody without trial or conviction for Australian man Mr David Hicks? Can the minister explain why the Prime Minister has been so callous as to let an Australian rot in a foreign jail without trial for half of the life of his government? Now that coalition backbenchers have joined the calls of every state and territory Attorney-General, the UK Attorney-General, the UK Lord Chancellor, a former High Court judge and many other eminent Australians, will the government ask the United States to release Mr Hicks into Australian custody so that he can be dealt with under our laws?

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

This is a matter which, of course, the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General have been working on assiduously for some time. They have been making strong representations to the United States and telling the United States that Australia believes that this man should be brought to trial as soon as possible. I understand that the Attorney-General in a recent visit to the United States conveyed that sentiment personally to the Attorney-General of the United States. I also understand that the Attorney-General met with Terry Hicks, the father of David Hicks, recently in Adelaide and discussed the situation with him. The family raised a number of issues with the Attorney-General. He sought advice on the conditions of Mr Hicks’s detention from US authorities as a result of that and that is being pursued.

Throughout all of this, going back to when I visited Washington some years ago, we have made it very clear to the United States that this man should be brought to trial. He was charged and as a result of an appeal, Hamdan v Rumsfeld, those proceedings were stayed. The consequential decision in Hamdan v Rumsfeld necessitated a change in the regulations to the military commission that is dealing with Mr Hicks. We understand that Mr Hicks will be charged under these new arrangements and we have indicated in the strongest possible terms that all of the safeguards and concessions that we obtained previously will be applied and we received those assurances.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Banking and Financial Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He’s been in jail longer than the war has lasted in Iraq.

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

Order! Senator Sherry, shouting across the chamber is disorderly.

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

The counterterrorism laws that we have in Australia today were not in place at the time of the alleged activities of Mr Hicks. We have made it very clear that, if he were to be returned to Australia, he could not be tried accordingly. We have treated this matter seriously. I reject totally that the Prime Minister has been callous in his approach. I reiterate that the Attorney-General met with David Hicks’s father recently. On, I think, some 17 occasions, Australian officials have visited Mr Hicks. In relation to his welfare, there have been two formal investigations carried out by United States authorities and, of course, we will continue to address any request for assistance from his counsel. Major Mori was here in Australia recently, we understand in relation to the conduct of Mr Hicks’s defence, and we stand ready to assist should a mutual assistance request be made to us in relation to any evidence that is sought.

Linda Kirk (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Why is the government so weak and lacking in compassion in standing up for the rights of Australians? Why can’t David Hicks be returned to Australia immediately and, if he is assessed to be posing a risk to the community, control orders could be used to monitor his movements? Isn’t this a fairer process than keeping him locked forever without trial in Guantanamo Bay?

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

Senator Kirk’s supplementary question implies that the government is content to leave David Hicks over there in custody without trial forever. That is totally untrue. We are making it very clear that Australia believes that this man should be brought to trial and we are saying to the United States that that should be done as soon as possible. He has been there for a lengthy period of time. There have been court proceedings which have necessitated a delay in the proceedings of the charges. He was previously charged on three serious counts in relation to his alleged activities and we believe that the military commission is an appropriate way to deal with him, but he should be brought to trial as soon as possible.