Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have spoken in the House on a number of occasions in relation to the plight of David Hicks and his incarceration in Guantanamo Bay. I put a notice of motion on the Notice Paper on 2 March 2006 which has not yet been discussed in the House. Yesterday, I had to update that notice of motion as a result of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in July 2006 that the United States military commission process was illegal and that the treatment of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay has been in violation of the Geneva conventions. It is a judgement that surprised a number of people but not those of us with a legal background who believe in proper processes when it comes to charging people.

Today, along with a number of my colleagues, both senators and members of the House of Representatives, I was fortunate to listen to Major Michael Mori, who spoke to us. He is the military lawyer who has been assigned to represent Mr Hicks. He took us through some of the trials and tribulations that Mr Hicks has had to go through. He also pointed out some of the problems with the military commission that the US government was proposing, one of which was that people did not have to give evidence; they could rely on paper evidence. That could produce grave injustices.

But today we saw an absurdity where, in the Australian newspaper, the Attorney-General, Mr Ruddock, has tried to compare the trial processes of David Hicks with the trial processes of the Sydney gang rapists on the basis that no-one complained that they were in custody for five years, whereas they are all complaining about Mr Hicks being incarcerated for five years. The Attorney-General made a disgraceful analogy, because there is no analogy. For one thing, David Hicks is not undergoing a fair process—and he should be undergoing a fair trial process, with the right to a fair trial instead of being in a kangaroo court—whereas the Sydney gang rapists went through a process.

The truth in the case of the Sydney gang rapists is that there was a committal for trial very shortly after their initial arrest and crime. The offences occurred in August-September 2000, the committal for trial was on 9 July 2001 and there was a trial between 19 November 2001 and 20 December 2001. There were, however, multiple cases and so they had to be tried, and there were appeals et cetera. But you were dealing with people who had charges laid against them and who were properly represented.

The best thing that Mr Hicks has going for him is Major Michael Mori. He is a passionate individual. He is someone who has been prepared to stand up, having been appointed by his military superiors. He has not been backward in criticising what has been a flawed process, and the United States Supreme Court has supported him. Major Michael Mori said of Mr Ruddock that Mr Ruddock ‘must be desperate’ in terms of his analogy. The article in the Australian continues:

‘There is no comparison,’ he said. ‘It is disappointing that the highest law enforcement officer in the country has moved away from the basic fundamental values involved in the criminal justice system.

I do not know what, if anything, Mr Hicks has done. What I am arguing is that he should be given a fair trial. That is what differentiates us from the terrorists. That is what civilised societies do. They do not produce kangaroo courts and bodgie tribunals to doctor particular outcomes. If the same thing was happening to American citizens, there would be outrage in America. But the interesting thing is that military commissions, under the presidential decree, cannot occur against US citizens.

Australian citizens are being treated as second-class citizens. We should have the same standards of justice for all combatants. That is what differentiates us, supposedly, from the other side. It seems to me that the only thing stopping Mr Hicks from being released is that this government knows that if he came back to Australia there would be nothing that he could be charged with. It is as a result of the lack of criminality in relation to the Australian jurisdiction that he is stuck in limbo in Guantanamo Bay with a bodgie process that still has to be thought through by the American congress. So there is going to be further delay. It is unacceptable—five years, currently no charges held against him and questionable in the future. He should be returned to Australia. If he has done something wrong then deal with him according to proper standards of law, not bodgie tribunals. (Time expired)