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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Attorney-General (Senator Ludwig) to a question without notice asked by Senator Wright today relating to Mr David Hicks.

On the weekend there were more alarming revelations about the appalling treatment experienced by David Hicks and other inmates of Guantanamo Bay while they were detained by the United States. An article by Natalie O'Brien in the Sydney Morning Heralddetailed the forced administration of drugs—the sort of treatment we might expect to hear about in totalitarian regimes. But here we are speaking of the treatment of an Australian citizen held by one of our allies.

David Hicks has consistently claimed that he was mistreated during his 6½ years in Guantanamo. Evidence corroborating those claims was finally set to become public during the hearing of the Australian government's proceeds of crime action against him in July this year. However, the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions abandoned the case a week before it was due to proceed in the New South Wales Supreme Court and has stated that it would have been unable to satisfy the court that any admissions made by David Hicks at Guantanamo should be relied upon. This is likely to be because those admissions were made under coercion after long years of detention.

David Hicks ultimately made an Alford plea—a US plea that is not recognised in Australia—where a person can agree to evidence but not make admissions. As a result he was convicted of an offence—'providing material support for terrorism'—which was not even in existence at the time he was alleged to have committed it, in breach of the honoured convention against retrospective criminal offences. The other reason given by the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions for discontinuing the trial was that David Hicks had provided new evidence not previously available. In question time today, the Minister representing the Attorney-General was not willing to shed any light on what that new evidence comprised and what it was about that evidence that was sufficient to cause the abandonment of the case against David Hicks.

Natalie O'Brien's article indicates that new evidence from US authorities, including from a former Guantanamo guard and a respected New York attorney, Josh Dratel, was to be relied on by David Hicks in the proceeds of crime case and would have then been available on the public record. It would have been the first time to test allegations against David Hicks in a properly constituted court. According to the article, Mr Dratel has a top-secret security clearance from the US Department of Justice and has acted for a number of detainees, including David Hicks. He was apparently to give direct evidence of non-therapeutic drugging, which has been described by an army doctor, Major Remington Nevin, as inappropriate. Major Nevin has questioned whether use of an antimalarial drug called mefloquine had been motivated by its psychotic side effects. He has described the mass administration of the drug as being akin to 'pharmacologic waterboarding'. High dosages were apparently given to all detainees, including David Hicks, to stop the spread of malaria, but it was not given to staff brought into the centre from malaria endemic countries, and the evidence suggests that David Hicks was not suffering from malaria at the time. Anti-malaria drugs were used for experimental research by the CIA in the 1950s, according to research that has been obtained by the news outlet Truthout. The US Food and Drug Administration product guide says that this drug can cause mental health problems including anxiety, hallucinations, depression and unusual behaviour. It has been linked to brain injuries, suicidal and homicidal thoughts, depression and anxiety.

It is clear that this issue—the treatment of David Hicks and other detainees in Guantanamo Bay—will not go away. More and more information will come out as people who are concerned are willing to go on the public record. To uphold justice we must account for the past. To ensure that it does not happen again we must account for the past. In this case, to ensure justice, we need to address the festering questions about David Hicks's treatment while in Guantanamo, including the role played by both the US and the Australian governments in his treatment, trial and detention.

The current Australian government can no longer avoid this issue. Nothing short of an independent inquiry into David Hicks's detention, treatment and unfair trial will do, with particular regard given to the role played by the former Australian government, who stood by and allowed it to occur, despite the concerns raised consistently by credible legal commentators about the fairness of the process. We must know what happened to David Hicks so that we do not allow it to happen to other Australian citizens in the future.

Question agreed to.