Senator Natasha Stott Despoja
Portfolio: Attorney Generals
Related: Attorney General & Justice
| Dated: 6 Oct 2005
Location: Parliament House - Canberra
|
Speech: Scott Parkin |
Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Australia) (1.12 p.m.)I rise on behalf of the Australian Democrats, as spokesperson for matters concerning the Attorney-General and foreign affairs, to support the motion before us. In the last 15 minutes I have become incredibly conscious of the basic and fundamental rights and freedoms that I think we as Australians, and those people who visit our country, should enjoy. I feel as though they have died away. My wrath, while directed so strongly at the government, today finds another home with the Labor opposition. It is extraordinary that any spokesperson would suggest that the Democrats apply for or get a briefing. There is no statutory obligation to inform or brief members of the cross benches on an issue of so-called national security such as this, on a security threat or indeed on an issue of national interest, which I believe this issue is. If we break this matter down to the basics, Senator Brown is asking for us to know as a parliamentthat is, as representatives of the people of Australiawhat happened. Why was Scott Parkin deported? The government and the opposition do not want to tell us that. I am the first to acknowledge that there is information and classified briefings that should not necessarily be available to all members of parliament or indeed to the community at large. I accept that. But even if you will not tell us, why wont you tell the person who was deported? That is the extraordinary thing here, and it amounts to an absolute abuse of basic human rights. People might disrespect or dismiss this issue because it does not involve an Australian citizen. But surely they still believe that the person at the heart of this scandal has the right to know why his visa was revoked or, if he does not, that perhaps his legal representatives have the right to know.
We have revoked a visa that was legally and appropriately obtained in the first place, as I understand it. We have arrested a man, thrown him into jail and into solitary confinement, deported him, given him a bill for the pleasure, failed to tell him why and then encouraged him, as I understand it, not to challenge the reasons for the revocation of that visathat is, the implication was, If you dont challenge this, youll be deported faster. Of course, at the time you would have presumed that leaving faster was not an unsatisfactory outcome, because if Mr Parkin had stayed any longer, albeit in solitary confinement, he would have incurred more costs and a higher bill. These are the circumstances with which we are dealing.
What strikes me about this is that it strikes at the heart of some basic freedoms and principles that we hold dearor at least I thought we did: that people would know what they were being arrested for, charged with if they are charged and detained for. I understand that we have made changes to laws in recent times and we all anticipate further changes to laws in the name of countering terrorisman objective with which we all agreebut the impact of those laws in terms of some of these basic freedoms and principles, civil rights and human rights, is going to be extraordinary, because if this does not even raise a whimper from Her Majestys opposition then we are in trouble, folks.
If the government do not want to tell me the specifics I will accept that, grudgingly, but I will accept it. If the government will not give me classified briefings on material, I do not like it but I accept it. But if they will not tell the lawyer and the individual who is being deported after getting a legal visa in the first place then something has gone wrong with our society.
This motion is basic and simple. It calls for an inquiry into these issues. It says:
That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional References Committee for inquiry and report:
All matters relating to the arrest and deportation of American citizen, Mr Scott Parkin.
That does not entail the disclosure of certain material and information if the government so chooses, and certainly it can be in camera. There is surely some information that senators can be given so that there is some understanding. The argument must be that, if we are going to make decisions on this and debate these issues, we deserve a little more information.
As to the issues of which committee and the process that has been pursued, I do not know if I am even going to dignify that with too much comment. Suffice to say, if the Labor Party are not happy with this committee, I certainly am happy to work with themand I am sure Senator Brown on behalf of the Greens would be tooto find an appropriate committee. I suspect that there are parliaments around the world that would find a committee. They would find a select committee or they would find a royal commission. They would do whatever has to be done in order to find out why we arrest, put in solitary confinement, deport and charge, financially speaking, a person at the heart of an issue like this and then fail to tell them and their lawyers why. I am all ready to hear the information; I am all ready to be convinced that there was an issue of a threat to national security. I am quite happy to listen to that information and presumably be satisfied by it, but what we have instead is a situation where we can pick and choose people, albeit from other countries, and deport them. We do not even have to let them inwe know thatbut once they get here legally we can deport them.
There is no evidence, no-one is charged with a crime and no evidence is provided of a crime having been committed. In fact, as I understand it, when Mr Parkin returned to America the FBI was not waiting for him at the doorstep or at the airport. So we have no evidence of what this man has done or is alleged to have done, except, as has been pointed out, what we must presume is a leak to our national daily paperon the front page, I might addthat suggests that he was going to do something
Interjection -
Senator Bob Brown interjecting
Continue
Senator STOTT DESPOJASenator Brown suggests that this is reminiscent of Salem and burning witches at the stake. I think it is more reminiscent of the futuristic film Minority Reportthat we are actually anticipating what people are going to do, even though we have no evidence that that was going to take place. In fact, we may arguably have evidence to the contrary.
I want an inquiry because I am not sure how else, as a citizen, let alone a legislator, I am going to be satisfied that we have not become some kind of Stasi land where people just disappear if we do not like what they are saying about us or our allies. I strongly recommend Anna Funders book, because it got a bit too close to the bone for me, especially in a period when we are talking about national ID cards and removing people and putting them in detention for up to 14 days without charge. Come on. We are seriously skating close to an erosion of civil liberties and human rights in this country like never before and if people are kidding themselves that we do not have a problem more fool them.
So when Senator Brown talks about talking to Australiansaverage punters, people who care about their community, their constitution, their politics or whatever; wherever people are on that spectrumit means that people are concerned. You listen to talkback radio, you get the e-mails
Interjection
Senator McGauranHave you once in this chamber acknowledged the war on terror?
Continue
Senator STOTT DESPOJAYes, I had a dear friend who died in it. How dare you.
Interjection
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Forshaw)Order, Senator Stott Despoja! I would ask you
Interjection
Senator McGauranThen you should
Interjection
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTSenator McGauran, cease interjecting.
Continue
Senator STOTT DESPOJASenator McGauran, will you apologise and withdraw?
Interjection
Senator McGauranThen dont say our
Interjection
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTOrder, Senator McGauran! Cease interjecting. Every other speaker in this debate has been heard in silence, and Senator Stott Despoja is entitled to
Interjection
Senator McGauranShe should
Interjection
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTOrder, Senator McGauran! Do not interrupt the chair while the chair is addressing the chamber.
Interjection
Senator Bob BrownMr Acting Deputy President, on the point of order: it would be appropriatethough I do not know whether he has the bigness to do itfor Senator McGauran to withdraw his distasteful remarks.
Interjection
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTSenator Brown, I do not recall precisely the remarks that Senator McGauran made, but he does recall them. I do not think that a point of order was actually raised, but I am happy to have the issue reviewed. Senator Stott Despoja has not asked for the remarks to be withdrawn, so I will rule there is no point of order.
Continue
Senator STOTT DESPOJAThank you. Perhaps the interjection epitomises the level of this debate. How dare anyone suggest that we do not care about terrorism or the war on terror! And especially, how dare Senator McGauran make those remarks when a close friend of mine was in the World Trade Centrebut Senator McGauran knows that. It makes me all the more determined to get justice, not revenge, and in the process not let terrorism change the lives of my fellow countrymen and countrywomen.
I do not want people to be under attack. I do not want terrorists to succeedof course not. But I do not want to lose the basic principles that I hold dear as a citizen. I genuinely believe that these rights are under attack, and any objective commentator recognises this. Of course we have to strike a balance. Of course we have to work together and be strong in the face of terrorism and fear. But we have to make clear that the things that we are fighting forthat we all agree are worth fighting forare protected, too.
I do not know Scott Parkin from a piece of wood. I know very little about this man. What I am asking for is information and enlightenment so I as a legislator can make an informed decision on this. I have not challenged our statutory obligations under the ASIO Act. I have not suggested that the information provided to the opposition is inadequate. I think the crossbenches have the right to that information, too. As I said in the intelligence services debate yesterday, one option put forward by the Democrats is that of extending the mandate and the compositionthat is, the number of representatives on the new joint standing committee on the intelligence servicesto include the crossbenches.
There are questions that we need to know the answers to. We need to know why ASIO made a security assessment of American peace activist Scott Parkin based on matters relating to politically motivated violence, including violent protest activity. Are there specific guidelines? We need to know what exactly constitutes, in the eyes of the Attorney-General and others, a violent protest activity. We need to know who makes the final judgment in that process. We need to know when the Attorney-General became aware that Mr Parkin represented a serious threat to Australian national security. We need to know if Mr Parkin has acted in any way contrary to Australian laws while he has been in Australia.
If Mr Parkin posed a serious threat to national security, why was he granted a visa? He was granted a visa. Senator Brown points out that it may have been longer in the processing than otherwise you would expect. But why was a visa granted to him and then revoked without explanation? I want to know who or what prompted initial serious concerns that Mr Parkin posed or constituted a serious threat to Australian national security. I want to know when this occurred. Surely this is not all classified information. Surely our Attorney-General can inform us of some of these things.
Senator Brown talks about a leak to the Australian newspaper. I am not suggesting that the journalist should give up their sourcenot at all. Most of us in this place would recognise the important role that journalists play. They need that trustthat relationshipbetween them and their sources, from wherever they may come. I am certainly not accusing anyone of being responsible for that leak. But I want to know how that informationmore information than I have been able to get my hands onended up in the newspaper.
In the current climate, the government acts with alacrity when they hear of a leak that may have sprung from government sourcesit may be journalists; it may be public servants. Look at their methods. Look at the extent that they have gone to to investigate certain complaints. We are at the point where we have two journalists, as I understand it, facing the consequenceswhich may involve prison timeof not revealing their sources. So why is the government so tardy in looking into this issue? I acknowledge that the Inspector-General of Security and Intelligence is looking into this issue, but that is not at the behestas I understand it, Senator Bob Brown, through you, Mr Acting Deputy Presidentof the government.
These are some of the questions that we have. If our laws currently as they are composed allow for this kind of unjust treatmentbecause until we have information to the contrary, it is unjust and un-Australian, to invoke that phraseto happen, then I do not know what is going to be acceptable and allowable under changes that are being considered. But I will not stand idly by while these changes take place or these kinds of methods are employed by government or anyone else.
Even if the opposition feel satisfied with that classified briefing to which they have been privy, I appeal to them and say that this is line in the sand stuff. Even if you feel that your leaders have enough information, this is the time when you as legislators need to acknowledge that we all need more information. We cannot stand by and let this kind of activity take place without challenge. The Democrats will be supporting the motion before us.
|
|
