Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice, upon notice, on 3 March 2011:

(1)When the Minister decided on 12 November 2009 that Mr Charles Zentai be extradited to the Republic of Hungary, was the Minister aware of any of the following information that had been provided to the Commonwealth Attorney General's Department and the Minister's office:

(a) that the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) had advised the Australian Federal Police (AFP) that there was no evidence to support a charge against Mr Zentai of a war crime (or any other crime);

(b) that the DPP and the AFP had therefore decided not to prosecute Mr Zentai for the alleged war crime, although if there had been sufficient evidence to support a charge, (which there was not) it would have been open to the Australian authorities to charge Mr Zentai and have him tried in Australia, rather than extradite him;

(c) that the Republic of Hungary only wanted Mr Zentai to be extradited to Hungary for interrogation, as no charge has been laid against him.

(2) If the Minister was aware of all or any of that information: (a) what information was he aware of; and (b) did he give consideration to it before making his extradition determination; if so, what were his reasons for deciding that an Australian citizen, Mr Zentai, be extradited to Hungary.

(3) If the Minister was not aware of any or some of that information before he made the decision to extradite Mr Zentai, was he made aware of it after the decision of Federal Court Justice McKerracher in December 2010; if so, why did the Minister authorise an appeal against Justice McKerracher's decision that had set aside the Minister's determination to extradite Mr Zentai.

(4) Has the Minister ever suggested to the Hungarian authorities that they conduct their 'investigation' and/or 'interrogation' of Mr Zentai in Australia; if so, what was the Republic of Hungary's response; if not, why has the Minister not made that suggestion to the Republic of Hungary, having regard to the age and health of Mr Zentai, the fact that the Hungarian authorities have said they only want him for interrogation and the fact that Mr Zentai has stated that he is prepared to cooperate with investigators and is prepared to answer questions on oath.

(5) To date:

(a)what has been the total cost to the Commonwealth Government (including departmental personnel time and cost) in seeking to extradite Mr Zentai; and

(b)what is the estimated further cost of pursuing the appeal against the decision of Justice McKerracher.

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

The Minister for Justice has provided the following answer to the honourable senator ' s question:

(1) As set out in the judgment of His Honour Justice McKerracher in Zentai v Honourable Brendan O'Connor (No 3) [2010] FCA 691, prior to making a surrender determination in respect of Mr Zentai, the Minister was provided with a submission (annexing relevant documentation) prepared by the Attorney-General's Department. The submission discussed advice provided by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to the Australian Federal Police on evidentiary issues relating to the allegations against Mr Zentai and also discussed the basis on which the Republic of Hungary sought Mr Zentai's extradition. As the issues raised by Senator Boyce are the subject of proceedings currently before the Full Court of the Federal Court, it is not appropriate to comment further.

(2) The submission prepared by the Attorney-General's Department referred to in response to Question (1) above was before the Minister at the time he determined that Mr Zentai was to be surrendered to Hungary to face prosecution for a war crime. In view of the issues raised in current litigation in this matter, it is not appropriate to comment further.

(3) The decision of Mr Justice McKerracher of 2 July 2010 raises significant and complex issues for the administration of Australia's extradition scheme. It is appropriate that an appeal be pursued.

(4) The Republic of Hungary made a formal request under the Treaty on Extradition between Australia and the Republic of Hungary for the extradition of Mr Zentai to face prosecution for a war crime. Australia has an obligation to consider that request in accordance with the Treaty and the Extradition Act 1988.

(5) (a) The approximate cost to the Commonwealth of litigation in the matter of Mr Zentai's extradition to date is $455,000 (including GST and disbursements). These include costs of approximately $247, 000 incurred in earlier proceedings instituted by Mr Zentai challenging various aspects of the extradition process, including the constitutionality of the Extradition Act 1988. Mr Zentai was unsuccessful in those proceedings. The Australian Central Authority for extradition in the Attorney-General's Department does not maintain records of the time particular officers spend on particular matters. (b) It would be inappropriate to provide an estimate of the costs of the current appeal proceedings in circumstances where the proceedings are ongoing and at a relatively early stage.