Skip to content Skip to main navigation


Charity and fundraising auctions for the Canberra community

We are paying our CM for this drivel.

By Thumper - 7 September 2005 68

From Hansard 17AUG04. I would suggest one, that this is a blatent waste of taxpayer’s money, and two, an irrelevant cheap shot at Australia and Iraq War involvment.

Mr Pratt’s comments are interesting as well but one must remember when he was arrested he wasn’t packing an RPG or an AK47 during a war in which Australia was involved.

[ED – Somewhat interesting debate reproduced from hansard below. Personally I think the Chief Minister’s right on this one. UPDATE: I’ve added my thoughts in full in the comments here]

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Environment and Minister for Community Affairs) (10.19): I will just speak just briefly in relation to the position that I have put around the quite illegal detention of Hicks and Habibi in Cuba by the Americans. It is simply outrageous and beyond defence, and it intrigues me that the Liberal Party seeks to defend that dreadful abuse of human rights that has been exhibited in the detention without charge for so long of two Australians. It is shameful that the Australian Government did not seek to intervene more strenuously to ensure that that dreadful abuse of the human rights of two Australians was not allowed to persist.
MR STANHOPE (continuing):
We can take some small comfort that some process is now moving, but the process is quite illegitimate and does not guarantee a fair trial, and that is what it is all about. Mr Pratt has rushed to judgment and has deemed Mr Hicks to be guilty of an offence that he has not been charged with. I assume the sub judice rule does not apply to courts or judicial process in other countries. It might be an interesting point. Standing in this place and simply assuming that Mr Hicks is guilty certainly offends the sub judice rule, but I do not know whether it applies internationally.
I find it ironic in the extreme that anybody would defend that sort of singular abuse of human rights and legal process and presumptions in relation to freedom, the issue of habeas corpus. I know Mr Stefaniak understands these things and must be offended that the rule of habeas corpus simply has no application. It is ironic that the Liberal Party defends that abuse of civil liberties, human rights, that total disregard for habeas corpus and for the rule of law and everything we stand for in this nation in relation to the rule of law. It is also ironic that Mr Pratt leads the charge on behalf of the Liberal Party. When Mr Pratt was arrested for spying and was detained-
Mr Smyth: On a point of order-
MR STANHOPE: He was arrested for spying.
Mr Pratt: On a point of order. The Chief Minister might be best placed if he was to use the term “allegedly spying”.
MR STANHOPE: Mr Pratt makes my point. Mr Pratt was not arrested for spying, Mr Pratt was arrested for allegedly spying. Mr Hicks was not arrested for allegedly anything. It is interesting. Mr Pratt was not arrested for spying, he was arrested, in Mr Pratt’s words, for allegedly spying. When it comes to Mr Hicks it does not matter, you do not even need to charge him, you can just arrest him. Not only do you just arrest him, you then kidnap him and transport him across the world.
When it comes to Mr Pratt being arrested for spying and detained by the Serbians, it is a different issue. It is one rule for Mr Pratt and the Liberals, another rule for Mr Hicks. So, how funny, how ironic that Mr Pratt rails in this place for five minutes about the guilt of Mr Hicks, who has not even been charged, and when I say, “But, Mr Pratt, do you not remember when you were arrested for spying, you did not like being detained,”Mr Pratt jumps up and takes a point of order. He says, “I was not arrested for spying, I was arrested for allegedly spying. Get the terminology right.”So when Mr Pratt was arrested for spying and then dobbed on his mates in order to achieve his release-
Mr Pratt: On a point of order. The point of order is about the definition that the Chief Minister was using, not what I was arrested for.
MR SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
Mr Pratt: It is so.
MR SPEAKER: It is not a point of order.

What’s Your opinion?

Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
68 Responses to
We are paying our CM for this drivel.
Thumper 7:49 am 08 Sep 05


it would also not be a very good career move for a young captain to come out and put up a argument for someone who was caught on the side of the taliban.

Legal arguments or not, Hicks put himself in a place where he must have known that if he was caught he was going to be in big trouble. And he has admitted that he was training with the taliban, an organisation that has no qualms about blowing its own people up, let alone others.

In his defence I would say that the Yanks should either charge him with something, or let him go. However, I would suggest that they return him whence he came. Back to Afghanistan, not Australia.

I wonder if the mercenary law can be applied to Hicks? Any legal eagles out there can tell us?

johnboy 11:57 pm 07 Sep 05

Bear in mind that three US Military prosecutor have refused to even be involved in the prosecution of Hicks.

Think about that for a second. A man in a situation so screwy that US Military prosecutors, and not one but three, refuse to take up the argument against him.

Ever heard of a case where three prosecutors turned down the gig because they thought the process was that far up the creek?

b2 11:53 pm 07 Sep 05

i totally agree with you, JB. and the CM for that matter

johnboy 10:47 pm 07 Sep 05

Sorry guys but I think you’re totally wrong.

This is an issue because it demonstrates why the Local Libs are unfit for any office.

Hicks committed no crime in australia, afghanistan, or the USA, that’s why they had to invent a special kangaroo court just for him.

He’s not being held as a POW, if he was he would have been released at the end of hostilities.

The CM points out that Mr. Pratt gets very upset when people don’t put “Alleged” in front of his alleged spying activities.

And yet David Hicks is still waiting to be found guilty of anything in a proper court.

Politicians advocating locking up those they dislike for no other reason should be the first against the wall. They’re a greater threat to our society than any number of terrorists.

This is a local issue that the alternative government holds these views.

I take my hat off to the Chief Minister for exposing these revolting views on the part of the Canberra Liberals.

terubo 10:16 pm 07 Sep 05

Channelvision have inadvertently forgotten to schedule an international current affairs program, in their otherwise scintillating line-up. Take note, Mr Eye.

Samuel Gordon-Stewar 6:25 pm 07 Sep 05

Occasioanlly I feel like volunteering the CM to be the first cab off the rank at my new annual “Remove the voice box and hands” festival…wouldn’t have to hear from him then.

If he stopped making non-ACT comments while we are paying him then I wouldn’t want him in my imaginary festival…

Mr Evil 5:16 pm 07 Sep 05

Yep, I’m sick to death of hearing about Hicks and Habib: they are both shitheads who deserve the third eye treatment. I wish the Marines would come and take Terry Hicks off our hands too!

I thought it was funny when Habib said that he was in Pakistan to set up a cleaning company. I can imagine what sort of ‘cleaning’ company it was going to be – “Uncle Habib’s Christian Infidel Dog Cleaning Co”!

Thumper 4:58 pm 07 Sep 05

I should also add that Mr Pratt’s comments near the end, although justified, are a bit like a school child argument.

“Did so!”

“Did not!”

etc etc etc.

In fact both seem to become rather childish. And then the Speaker jumps in, and it starts again.

These people run out Territory….


Thumper 4:55 pm 07 Sep 05

Anyway, the Hicks Habib issue is irrelevant. Can we ask for a refund from our taxes for this?

Thumper 4:55 pm 07 Sep 05

No roads to make, oh sorry, the GDE, but he must have some footpaths to dig up and some bicycle lanes to paint green.

And on Hicks and Habib, they went there, they were caught with the wrong people at the wrong time, what are we supposed to believe?

That they were simply on holidays? They were framed by the yanks, who really don’t have time for insignificant stuff like that.

One thing I can say with certainty is that Mr Hicks is extremely lucky not to have worn a third eye, measuring the standard 5.56mm, in his forehead.

simto 4:46 pm 07 Sep 05

It does rather strike one that he has a little too much free time on his hands, doesn’t it?

Maybe we should work out ways to start making his life a little busier…

bonfire 4:24 pm 07 Sep 05

well i dont know how to break it to comrade stanhope but when you pick up a gun the rules change.

he is a prisoner of war effectively.

articles 3 and 4 of the geneva convention permit his captivity.

i think we should all be glad that there is a place these blokes can rot until the gloabal jihad subsides.

hasnt stanhope got a road to mend somewhere ?

Thumper 3:58 pm 07 Sep 05


That is its context. He simply started talking about it.

Whether he is right or wrong is not the point. What is its relevance to the ACT?

Well, none….

Mr Evil 3:51 pm 07 Sep 05

Yep, that has a lot to do with the ACT. Thanks Comrade.

Interesting that someone ‘allegedly’ so interested in justice was recently supporting an attempt to have Doogan removed from her job!

Smackbang 3:50 pm 07 Sep 05

It is difficult to judge whether it is irrelevant when it is quoted out of context.

1 2 3 5

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | |

Search across the site