Penny Wright (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by Senator Ludwig, on behalf of the Attorney-General, in response to my question.

My question was regarding the fact that, last November, the United Nations Human Rights Committee sought a response from the Australian government to a complaint made on behalf of Mr David Hicks in relation to his incarceration at Guantanamo Bay and the plea agreement that saw his return to Australia. Under the committee's procedural rules, the government was required to respond within six months of the making of that complaint. Indeed, the government did not respond within that time and indicated that it would take at least a further three months. That response was due in May. The government indicated it would be responding within three months. Three months has now expired and there has still not been a response to the complaint.

The explanation given by the Australian government at the time of indicating that they would take longer than was ordinarily required under the rules was that they needed to fully address the issues and consult with the stakeholders. I asked the government what the issues were and who the stakeholders were that they needed to consult with, given that they are now well and truly outside the required period for offering a response to that complaint.

The government was either unable or unwilling—I was not able to hear from Senator Ludwig who those stakeholders were. I am concerned, as are the Greens. This is a serious matter involving the United Nations Human Rights Committee. There are clear protocols about Australia's role in relation to this committee, as a state party to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The procedure for responding to complaints is binding on Australia. There is a concern that the government is either not taking the complaint seriously enough or perhaps showing a lack of respect for the committee's procedures.

What adds to my concern, and that of the Greens is that, since the complaint was lodged, is that the government has indeed had sufficient time and resources to commence new legal proceedings against Mr Hicks in order to seize profits from his recently published book, which documents his experiences. His experiences caused quite a deal of disquiet among the Australian public at the time that he was undergoing incarceration for seven years in the United States. So, although the government has been able to substantially deal with these legal proceedings, it has not apparently had time to respond to the complaint to the United Nations committee about a breach of his human rights.

My question to Senator Ludwig on behalf of the Attorney-General was: what are the government's priorities? There is a concern that the government are more concerned about stopping Mr Hicks from profiteering from his book. The reasons for that are not clear to us. Or are they more concerned about not responding within the time to the United Nations or curbing his ability to speak out about the role of the former government in his incarceration and the plea agreement? That was an incident at a time in Australia's history where an Australian citizen was, in the view of many people, essentially abandoned in terms of Australia's adherence to the Australian rule of law and was then brought back to Australia under a plea agreement, which is the subject of this complaint.

We are not satisfied with the answer that was given and we would be interested in better understanding the position of the Australian government as to the delay in responding to the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

Question agreed to.