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

My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General, Senator Ludwig. Is the minister aware of reports that the convicted terrorist, David Hicks, has entered into an agreement with Random House for the publication of a memoir, Guantanamo: My Journey? What steps has the government taken either under clause 2d of the plea agreement between Hicks and the United States of America, by which Hicks assigned to the Australian government any profits which he might make from the publication of such a memoir, or under section 152 of the Proceeds of Crime Act, to recover those profits from Hicks?

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

I thank Senator Brandis for his question. As he has pointed out, in October Random House Australia released the personal memoir of David Hicks, Guantanamo: My Journey. The Attorney-General is aware of the comments made by the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, that Mr Hicks is in breach of his pre-trial agreement. Senator Brandis should of course know better than to advocate that the Attorney-General pre-empt the outcome of an independent investigation by law enforcement agencies. Senator Brandis would be aware from reports that that is a matter that is currently being investigated by law enforcement agencies.

The Australian Federal Police is making further inquiries to enable it to determine whether and what action is to be taken in relation to this matter. A decision to commence literary proceeds action under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is at the discretion of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions following an investigation by the Australian Federal Police, as Senator Brandis would well know. On that basis, it is not appropriate to comment on the likelihood of future legal proceedings.

On the part of the question in relation to the pre-trial agreement, the Attorney-General is of course aware of the pre-trial agreement between Mr Hicks and the United States. One of the clauses in the pre-trial agreement dealt, as I think Senator Brandis has pointed out, with any profits Mr Hicks received in connection with any publication of information relating to this illegal conduct. It is envisaged that the enforcement of this provision—(Time expired)

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. If the Director of Public Prosecutions fails to initiate proceedings under section 152 of the Proceeds of Crime Act to recover such profits from Hicks, will the Attorney-General exercise his power under section 8 of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act to direct the Director of Public Prosecutions to bring an application to recover them?

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

I thank Senator Brandis for his question. Again Senator Brandis is well ahead of the game in respect of this. He was well ahead of the game with his question trying to receive an answer well in advance of the law enforcement agencies investigating the matter, and he has now put himself right out there well before the Director of Public Prosecutions might be able to come to a concluded view on this matter. I would suggest that Senator Brandis exercise caution in this area and wait for the matter to be investigated by law enforcement agencies and, similarly, wait for the Director of Public Prosecutions to come to a concluded view on this matter. As Senator Brandis knows very well, it would be inappropriate for either me on behalf of the Attorney-General or the Attorney-General himself to pre-empt any decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions on this matter. As I said in answering Senator Brandis’ first question—and it is worth going back to that for the record—it was envisaged that the enforcement of this provision—(Time expired)

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

Mr President, I ask a second supplementary question. Minister, why has the government failed to act promptly to take all legal avenues available to it to deprive Hicks of the profits he stands to make from selling the story of his involvement in—

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Just wait a minute, Senator Brandis. You are entitled to be heard in silence. If senators wish to debate it, they can debate it at the end of question time.

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

terrorist activities that may have placed the lives of Australian soldiers at risk? Is the Attorney-General’s failure to act promptly not yet another example of the indifference, complacency and contempt which have become the trademark of the Gillard government?

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

It is unfortunate that Senator Brandis has now descended into a critique of his own poor question. We have provided to the Senate and to Senator Brandis, in relation to both the primary question and the first supplementary question, an answer that underpins the fact that the Australian Federal Police are investigating the matter. I am sure Senator Brandis is not calling on them to finalise their investigation without properly conducting one. I am sure Senator Brandis would agree that the procedures that are undertaken by the Federal Police are undertaken appropriately and concluded appropriately and that proper advice is provided to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. I am sure Senator Brandis would not want that truncated in any way that would cause a mishandling of the matter, particularly given his comments. I would reject his comments in his supplementary question. They are outrageous, they are incorrect and they do not go to the substance of the matter. They have merely been made to provide— (Time expired)