Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the motion moved by the member for Calwell. I am sure that she knows that we will have to agree to disagree on this particular motion. Depending on who you speak to, Hicks is either a poor unfortunate soul who went off the rails—who left suburban Adelaide and his young family and tried his luck in the foothills of Afghanistan in the middle of a war whilst immersing himself in Islamic theory and was simply caught in the wrong place at the wrong time in a post September 11 world—or a murderous terrorist who trained in secret terrorist camps with the sole intention of killing ‘heretic’ Westerners.

However, that aside, like most Australians, I want Mr Hicks charged and I want him to be punished for any actions that have promoted terrorism. He has a right to respond to the serious allegations against him through judicial proceedings. I do not, however, support the notion that we should bring Hicks home at any cost. It should be pointed out that the Attorney-General, the foreign minister and the Prime Minister have at all times discussed with their American counterparts the need to have Hicks charged. The government has welcomed the initial step in the military commission proceedings which brings Mr Hicks closer to trial. They are very serious charges: attempted murder in violation of the laws of war and providing material support for terrorism. The moment we succumb to the ceaseless cries for ‘justice’ for Hicks, we are effectively seeking his return to Australia without having the serious allegations against him tested. Provided there is no additional appeal by Hicks—unlike his legal team’s appeals, which have contributed to the delays in hearing the case—he will be brought to trial before the military commission. Let us not forget that Hicks’s legal team, through its appeals, has also contributed to the seemingly long time of Hicks’s detention in Guantanamo Bay.

The member for Calwell talks about retrospective legislation in this motion. She follows the lead of her Victorian colleague the member for Wills, who has suggested that Hicks should simply be brought home at any cost, with little thought of the practical consequences of such a move. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions has given advice that Mr Hicks cannot be prosecuted in Australia. There is no avenue for charging Mr Hicks under Australian law unless the relevant charges are made to operate retrospectively. The government is advised by the USA that the charges announced recently against Mr Hicks are not retrospective.

I suggest that members opposite might ponder more deeply the threat of international terrorism and the fact that Mr Hicks himself was to be tried before a military commission in Guantanamo Bay on charges of conspiracy to commit war crimes, attempted murder by an unprivileged belligerent and aiding the enemy before imploring the government to get Mr Hicks home at any cost. These are very serious charges indeed.

Australia has seen firsthand the effects of the evils of terrorism in the modern age. We saw its brutality on 11 September 2001 with the mass murder of innocents who had simply arrived for at their workplace for the day. We saw it again in Bali on 12 October 2002. As a nation we were scarred by these tragic events which were carried out by the evil perpetrators of misguided and perverse acts of terrorism against innocent civilians.

The great problem I have in pulling out all stops to support Mr Hicks is the fact that we are dealing with an individual who has acknowledged training with al-Qaeda and rejoined al-Qaeda even after the September 11 attacks in the USA. Reports in the press on the weekend stated that Mr Hicks is the subject of a new investigation by the Indian government over his attacks on their armed forces in Kashmir.

Whilst the Australian government is of the view that Mr Hicks should be brought to trial as soon as possible by continuing to press for Mr Hicks’s case to be dealt with expeditiously and fairly, I have little intention of doing anything more for an Australian who has trained in al-Qaeda camps with the intention of killing Westerners. I therefore oppose the motion moved by the member for Calwell.

See this speech in context