Debate in Australian Senate about Scott Parkin Case : Houston Indymedia

From: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/dailys/ds130905.pdf as transcribed in: http://margokingston.typepad.com/harry_version_2/2005/09/julian_burnside.html#comments

Questions on Parkin extracted from yesterday's Senate Hansard:

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Mr Scott Parkin
Senator STOTT DESPOJA (2.44 pm)- My question is addressed to Senator Ellison, the Minister representing the Attorney-General. I ask the minister if he can outline to the chamber the reasons for the revocation of Mr Scott Parkin's visa? I also ask the government if there is any evidence that the government is aware of that Mr Parkin has acted in any way contrary to the laws of Australia while he has been in Australia.

Can the government clarify whether Mr Parkin's visa was revoked on the basis of character requirements or on the basis of national security concerns? I also ask the government to advise the chamber as to when the government will inform Mr Scott Parkin and his lawyers of the decision on and the rationale behind the visa cancellation?

Senator ELLISON-Some of these questions are of course immigration questions. Insofar as they relate to the Attorney-General's portfolio, I can advise that ASIO did not oppose Mr Parkin's visa at the time of application. However, ASIO's understanding of his intentions has changed while he has been in Australia.

ASIO is responsible, of course, for protecting the community from security threats and all forms of politically motivated violence, including violent protest activity.

ASIO's assessment of Mr Parkin has been made in accordance with the provisions and requirements of the ASIO Act and has not been influenced by any recent or prospective changes to Australia's counter-terrorism legislation. ASIO makes security assessments independently on the basis of all the information available at the time. In that regard, foreign governments cannot influence ASIO assessments. Mr Parkin's current visa status is a matter for the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. I understand he is able to take legal proceedings to test the awfulness of decisions that have been made. Insofar as the remainder of Senator Stott Despoja's question relates to immigration, I will take that on notice.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA-I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I thank the minister for his answer and clarify that I asked him in his capacity as Minister representing the Attorney-General because the Attorney-General has been handling this matter in spite of the immigration issues. When will Scott Parkin and his lawyers be advised of the reasons for the visa cancellation? Given the minister's response that Mr Parkin can challenge the visa cancellation, are reports true today from Mr Parkin's lawyers that he is being pressured by the immigration department in order to leave earlier and that he should 'sign away his rights'- that is, the right to challenge the visa cancellation - and he will be able to leave the country sooner? Is it correct that the immigration department has been putting that pressure on Mr Parkin and his lawyers?

Senator ELLISON-I am not aware of any pressure being exerted by the department of immigration. I will take that matter up with the minister, but I am not aware of that. In relation to the other matters, I will take those on notice. The department did receive an adverse security assessment relating to Mr Parkin. In relation to reasons for the decision, I understand that any adverse security assessment is a matter for the Attorney-General and I am not able to comment on that.

[snip]

Mr Scott Parkin
Senator NETTLE (2.52 pm)-My question is to Senator Ellison, the Minister representing the Attorney-General and is about Mr Scott Parkin. Is it true that Mr Parkin's security clearance has been revoked since he arrived in Australia as a result of his participation in protests? Is this the first time that a peace activist has been detained at the behest of ASIO? And will the minister reveal what Mr Parkin has done, or what ASIO believes he planned to do, that has led to him being considered a threat to our national security? What is the adverse assessment that the minister mentioned? Or is the government claiming that it is in the interests of the Australian public not to know why a peace activist has been arrested and deported? Why has the adverse assessment not been given at this stage to Mr Parkin or his lawyers?

Senator ELLISON-As I said earlier, ASIO did not initially oppose Mr Parkin's visa at the time of application and, as I said earlier, there was a change in the assessment in relation to two matters after it became apparent that Mr Parkin's intentions had changed whilst he was in Australia. As I said earlier, ASIO is responsible for the protection of Australia's security, and that includes protecting the Australian community from forms of politically motivated violence. Of course, that includes violent protest activity. There was an adverse security assessment made; that was made on 8 September, I understand. Migration law requires that any temporary visa held by a person who is the subject of an adverse security assessment must be cancelled. Mr Parkin was located by Immigration officials in Melbourne on 10 September and his visa was cancelled. As I said earlier, adverse security assessments are a matter for the Attorney-General and I cannot comment on them publicly. I will convey your question to the Attorney-General. If there is anything further he can add, I will convey that but, I might point out, anyone without a lawful right to remain in Australia must be detained and removed as soon as reasonably practicable, and that is immigration law. In relation to the question that Senator Nettle has raised, it was largely similar to that asked by Senator Stott Despoja. As I said earlier, if there is anything else that I can advise the Senate of, I will do so.

Senator NETTLE-Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The Attorney-General has said that the security assessment has been made upon matters relating to protest activity. Given that I attended the protest held in Sydney at the Opera House on 30 August as did Mr Parkin, does this mean that ASIO considers me also to be a threat to national security? Can we take Mr Parkin's detention and pending deportation as an indication that the government would detain Australian peace activists if they had the laws to do so?

And would the government deport me if they could?

Senator ELLISON-Can I say that we all know that, in order to be here, you have to be an Australian citizen and you do not deport Australian citizens, as Senator Nettle is.

Senator Carr-Don't you! A new policy has been announced-that we don't deport Australian citizens!

The PRESIDENT-Order!

Senator ELLISON-Senator Carr might find that quite funny, but we know - Senator Carr interjecting -

The PRESIDENT-Senator Carr!

Senator ELLISON-what the law is and I can say that - Senator Carr interjecting -

The PRESIDENT-Senator Carr, come to order!

Senator ELLISON-the suggestion by Senator Nettle is a farcical one.

[snip]

Mr Scott Parkin

Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Australia) (3.25 pm)-I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Justice and Customs (Senator Ellison) to a question without notice asked by Senator Stott Despoja today relating to the detention of Mr Scott Parkin.

I wanted to hear from this government today the reasons behind the revocation of Mr Parkin's visa. Even if the government were going to say that there were valid security or intelligence reasons why the chamber could not hear the exact reasons for this man's visa being cancelled, I was hoping that the government and the minister would at least explain to the chamber when Mr Parkin and his lawyers - he has a number of lawyers, including Julian Burnside, a distinguished and prominent Australian citizen; as I am sure you would be aware, Mr Deputy President-are going to find out what exactly Mr Parkin has done wrong. As honourable senators may be aware, he was arrested on Saturday in a Melbourne cafe and his visa -which had been granted for a six-month period, so he was not here under false pretences or on illegal grounds - was subsequently cancelled. He was detained in a Melbourne custody centre at a cost to himself of at least $130 a day, not to mention that he was in solitary confinement.

When is the government going to tell us why this man has been detained and is about to be deported and the reasons for the decision to cancel his visa? At first we heard that maybe it had something to do with the character requirements in relation to visas. That is something we are familiar with, although the criteria seem to be somewhat ambiguous at times. Then we heard it was because of an adverse security assessment, so again I asked the government, the minister in particular and the Attorney-General specifically what the grounds were for this and when the information was provided to the government that suggested there was some kind of security threat or adverse assessment of Mr Parkin. I also asked what that assessment related to - whether it was to do with his so-called peaceful activities and activism in this country or with running peace activism workshops. That does not sound too scary to me.

Having said that, if the government has information that this man has acted in a way that is contrary to our laws, if there is any evidence that he has broken the laws while he has been in Australia - and I suggest that none of that evidence has been presented to the minister, if it is even available-then it should bring it forward, show us, convince us. But it should not have this lack of scrutiny, transparency and accountability, because it begs the question of what accountability there is with our current laws in relation to counterterrorism, let alone what assessment or what accountability provisions there will be with the new legislation. As I said, I am quite comfortable for the government to say: `We're sorry; we can't tell you the exact reasons for this man's detention.' But I tell you what: I do not want to live in a society where the lawyer defending the man cannot even find out what his client is accused of and the man himself is not aware of why he has been detained, put in solitary confinement, charged for it and is about to be deported.

In question time today another senator asked whether this was setting a precedent for Australian citizens who may be peaceful activists. Some of us in this chamber do go to the odd protest on occasion and do have protest tendencies when an issue is strong. The government said, `This isn't setting a precedent for Australian citizens, because we do not deport them.' I have news for you, Mr Deputy President: unfortunately we have a couple of cases that prove that very wrong. I do not mean to make light of those cases, because this is a dangerous precedent. People in this place and in the community and media may say. `Hang on. He was a US citizen. He's an activist. Was he up to no good?

We don't really know.' But it is the slippery slope. If we let this go unacknowledged, without question, scrutiny or some accountability from government, it will only be a matter of time before it happens to someone else in this place or in this country.

So I still want to know: when will the lawyers find out? When will Mr Parkin know? Is he going to be charged? Why is he in solitary confinement? When did the report come in? Who prompted that report? When was information received? Was it an organisation or an individual that prompted a new assessment? And why did ASIO grant the visa in the first place if they had reason to suspect that there was a problem? I suggest that this is part of a government agenda and part of political pressure from another country and I defy the government to come in here and not just say that it is not but explain exactly what is going on. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.