When a writer uses parentheses to define a phrase or clarify a word in a sentence, is it appropriate also to use i.e. in the parentheses? That use seems redundant to me.
The example on Wiktionary uses brackets (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/i.e), and the at Answers.com all the examples show i.e. used in parenthetical expressions of some sort (bracket, comma or em-dash) (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_to_use_ie_in_a_sentence). So I would suggest it is probably a good idea, particularly if there is some doubt as to where the restatement ends and the rest of the sentence begins.
More than a few style guide recommend dropping such Latin abbreviations entirely suggesting "that is" instead of "i.e", "for example" where one might otherwise use "e.g.", and so on (not to say "etc.").
But if you are going to use them at all, putting them in parenthetical comments seems fine to me.
"id est" is an English language way (albeit from Latin) of writing a set of parentheses. They are not entirely interchangeable. But the main question, which is not being answered very well by the above, is that we do not need both within the same phrase, ex., a sentence should not have both, i.e., parentheses and id est. In other words the way NOT to write what I just state is that we do not need both within the same phrase, ex., a sentence should not have both (i.e., parentheses and id est).
This is a question of style, context and your intended audience. Generally, if the use of "i.e." in the parenthesis is redundant then don't include it. The following doesn't need "i.e.":
"...no historical estimates (estimates prepared prior to 1 February 2001) are available..."
I am struggling to think of a situation where "i.e." is absolutely necessary at all. I use "i.e." a lot in my writing, but I think in future I am going to assess whether they are necessary at all.