Senator LUDWIG (3:06 PM) —I move:

What we have clearly heard today in question time is that the government has said that it will investigate the case of an Iraqi man who is a former bodyguard of Saddam Hussein and who has been granted a visa to stay in Australia. This man unlawfully arrived in Australia about six years ago. The facts of that as reported are that it was through Indonesia, on a boat and with a false passport.

As the reports show, DIMIA originally rejected Mr al-Tekriti’s attempts to gain a protection visa, stating that they had serious reasons to believe that he may have committed certain acts in his former role in Iraq. That is where the story gets a bit hazy. The reports are also unclear. But it is clear that there is an onus on this government to come clean and explain to the Senate and the Australian people what in fact occurred, how it occurred, what they knew, whether there has been any investigation by the Australian Federal Police, whether there was any investigation at the time of his arrival of any criminal record, whether there was anything available to ascertain who he was and whether there were any outstanding allegations that needed to be met other than serious concerns. It is clear that what occurred post his arrival was that, in 2001, this matter came before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal where the person exercised his right to appeal. There is nothing untoward about that in itself. We know that he was then granted a protection visa, although it was in June this year. So there is the gap.

This is an immigration department that prides itself on getting it right, although its record, quite frankly, is abysmal. It has not got it right on many occasions. What it has also said in estimates to the opposition many times is that it does appeal these matters. It takes matters to the Federal Court and often to the High Court because it wants to make sure that it is right. In this instance, by October 2003, after the Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision in 2001, it seems that the matter was not progressed. We have some insight there. Senator Vanstone did not say that the department did not pursue the matter but that it was under Mr Ruddock’s ministership that it was not pursued. That is really a slight hospital pass to Mr Ruddock from Senator Vanstone. She says: ‘It’s not my fault. I didn’t do it. I wasn’t there. It was Mr Ruddock.’ But, of course, this is a department that has a bad record. As I think the newspaper reports show—and Premier Rann in South Australia has also commented on this matter—it does smell. It does require an explanation. There is something strange about the set of circumstances which has led to the newspaper reports that we see.

I should have prefaced my remarks by pointing out that in Australia Mr al-Tekriti is entitled, as he would be in other countries, to the presumption of innocence. But it does demand a clear explanation from this government as to what happened. When you look at ministerial oversight of this department by both Mr Ruddock and Senator Vanstone, you will see that we have had Cornelia Rau locked up for 10 months, we have had Vivian Solon deported, we have had people transported in vans from Woomera in South Australia for lengthy periods without proper rests and we have had reports into the problems that beset DIMIA. Here we have another one. There seems to be something strange about this case that requires or demands further and better particulars. That is what we do not have from the government. We have obfuscation again. (Time expired)