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

My question is to Senator Ludwig, the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Can the minister inform the Senate what the government is doing to ensure public confidence in Australia’s counterterrorism arrangements following the case of Dr Haneef?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Kirk. I know she continues to have a strong interest in this matter. Before the election the government committed to holding an independent judicial inquiry into the case of Dr Haneef. The Attorney-General announced this morning that we are honouring that commitment by establishing such an inquiry. I am pleased that the government has announced that the independent inquiry will be conducted by former New South Wales Supreme Court judge the Hon. John Clarke QC. The government is committed to establishing the facts and ensuring public confidence in Australia’s counterterrorism arrangements and an independent inquiry is required. Australia’s security agencies operate at a high standard, but Australians are entitled to be reassured that their security agencies individually and collectively function as effectively as they possibly can. Australians deserve to be confident that our antiterrorism laws are being appropriately enforced.

The Clarke inquiry will provide an opportunity to obtain a factual account of the matter from an experienced and independent former judicial officer. Mr Clarke will conduct a rigorous and independent inquiry that will enable us to assess the lessons to be learnt from the Haneef case and to consider any potential improvements to how our security and law enforcement agencies work and cooperate in terrorism matters. In addition, Mr Clarke has indicated that he will ensure there are opportunities for public input into the inquiry, including by advertising for submissions and conducting public forums on the operation of our counterterrorism laws and arrangements.

Unlike the opposition, the Rudd government believes that playing politics with national security is irresponsible and completely counterproductive. Quite simply, Australians are entitled to know what really happened in the Haneef case. I see that the opposition have taken the position that the inquiry into the Haneef case should be conducted by the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. The problem, of course, with that proposal is that the commission is only able to investigate corruption; it cannot investigate non-corruption issues. It is also unable to look at all of the agencies involved in the Haneef case. That is the way the opposition set up the commission under statute when they were in government. It is surprising then that the opposition do not seem to understand the nature of the body that they in fact set up.

The government has asked for the Clarke inquiry to report by 30 September 2008. Mr Clarke has been asked to present a report that can be made public, which, if necessary, may be supplemented by a confidential report. The establishment of the Clarke inquiry will enable all the information about the Haneef case to be properly assessed in an independent manner and for considered recommendations to be made. It delivers on a further election commitment of the Rudd government. I am also advised today that the AFP welcomes the Dr Haneef inquiry. Its press release of Thursday, 13 March 2008 indicates:

Australian Federal Police (AFP) Commissioner Mick Keelty today welcomed the announcement by the Attorney-General Robert McClelland of a judicial inquiry into the investigation of Dr Mohamed Haneef.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is directed to Senator Ludwig, the Minister representing the Attorney-General. I refer the honourable senator to the answer he has just given. Can he confirm that Mr McClelland, in his press conference this morning announcing the inquiry, has said that the inquiry would not examine the flow of intelligence from overseas security agencies? If, as the minister has just told the Senate, Australians are entitled to know ‘what really happened’ and if the purpose of the inquiry is, as the minister has just said, to enable all of the information to be properly assessed, why has the government specifically withheld from the inquiry a potentially important evidentiary source?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can take the Liberals to the press release that was issued today which sets out, firstly, that former New South Wales Supreme Court judge the Hon. John Clarke QC will head a judicial inquiry into the case of Dr Mohamed Haneef—something that the opposition did not do. The establishment of the Clarke inquiry is, as the press release says, an important step in ensuring public confidence in Australia’s counterterrorism measures—something again which the opposition when they were in government could not do and did not do. The Clarke inquiry will enable interested parties who want to make submissions to the inquiry to have their say, establish the facts of the matter and the case, and make appropriate recommendations—something again which the Liberals did not do. They did not establish an inquiry. They did not want to establish the facts of the matter. They did not want to have a judicial inquiry where you have someone of the standard of Mr Clarke looking into this matter. That is something that the Liberals did not do.

The Clarke inquiry will examine and report on—and I can take the opposition to the terms of reference—(a) the arrest, detention, charging, prosecution and release of Dr Haneef, the cancellation of his Australian visa and the issuing of a criminal justice stay certificate; (b) the administrative and operational procedures and arrangements of the Commonwealth and its agencies relevant to these matters—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order in relation to relevance. The minister was asked a very specific question by Senator Brandis and it was in relation to evidence from overseas intelligence sources. We do not need the minister to read out the press release verbatim. It was a specific question.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: clearly Senator Ludwig was directly referring to the material that he was asked about. He was being very direct in giving information that was absolutely on the question.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I asked the minister to confirm whether or not the Attorney-General had, in his press conference this morning, made a statement. I went on to inquire of him why it was that the government was withholding from the inquiry potentially the most important evidentiary source. Neither of those questions has been addressed.

Alan Ferguson (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Previous presidents—in having set the precedent—have allowed ministers a fair amount of latitude in answering questions. Senator Ludwig was talking in general terms about the question that was asked, but I would remind him of the question.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy interjecting—

Alan Ferguson (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy, I do not need any help. I remind Senator Ludwig of the question.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can take the opposition to the terms of reference, but, first of all, I can indicate that I was not at the press conference. I did not hear what transpired at the press conference. If there was anything that came out of the conference, I can go back to the Attorney-General and ask him whether there was anything more in it in respect of this specific question that the opposition have raised. What I think they do need to understand—with all respect—is that there is a balance between ensuring that we protect the national security interests and ensuring that we get to the bottom of these matters. The terms of reference, which I have been referring to, directly assist in that matter. Of course, it does answer more broadly the issue that the opposition have raised in relation to the specific matter. As I have said, I am happy to inquire further and see what the Attorney-General can assist with in respect of that matter.

It is worth understanding—at least from the opposition’s perspective—that in relation to effectiveness of cooperation, coordination and interoperability between the Commonwealth agencies and with state law enforcement agencies relating to these matters, and having regard to (a), (b) and (c), any deficiencies in the relevant laws or administrative and operational procedures and arrangements of the Commonwealth and its agencies, including agencies and inter-agency communication protocols and guidelines, they are the terms of reference that have been provided for this inquiry by the former New South Wales Supreme Court judge and would assist in providing the answer to the opposition in respect of that matter.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, if this inquiry is a serious inquiry and not a political stunt, why has the government chosen to withdraw from the inquiry the full powers of a royal commission?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I can say is that the opposition should take the advice of Senator Birmingham, who was reported this morning as saying:

If an inquiry is required to ensure that faith is maintained in the community, then that is important.

It is important to have an inquiry into this matter—something that the opposition did not undertake to do. We are delivering the election commitment of having a judicial inquiry into this matter, having gone out many times and requested that that be undertaken. The opposition—when they were in government—did not provide an answer, and refused to have an inquiry into this matter, full stop. What we are now doing is delivering on our election commitment to ensure that there is a judicial inquiry. It will be handled very well by the former New South Wales Supreme Court judge. It will be able to look into these matters; it will be able to ensure— (Time expired)