Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to seek answers from the Attorney-General regarding unprecedented actions he's taken in the few months since he's taken office. The Attorney-General has intervened in two key proceedings that were underway before Australia's independent judiciary, before the courts had delivered their decisions. He put an end to those independent processes that were on foot, with no adequate justification. One case was before the ACT Supreme Court and the other was before the High Court. Australians deserve answers as to why he has done this and whether the Attorney has confidence in Australia's independent judiciary.

The first matter was the case of Bernard Collaery, a matter that was before the ACT Supreme Court. The Attorney-General's unprecedented action in discontinuing proceedings against Mr Collaery for security related offences is extraordinary and unexplained. Mr Collaery was facing five criminal charges. On the first count, Mr Collaery was facing a conspiracy charge which alleged that he conspired with Witness K to communicate information on matters to the government of Timor-Leste that was prepared by, or on behalf of, ASIS. It's alleged the information came to the knowledge of Witness K by reason of him being, or having been, a staff member of ASIS and that the communication was not made under the ways that would have made it lawful under the Intelligence Services Act. The other four charges were counts of breaching section 39 of the Intelligence Services Act, with Mr Collaery facing allegations that he unlawfully communicated to journalists information that came to him by reason of him having entered into a contract agreement or arrangement with ASIS.

The independent Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, appearing in Senate estimates last October, was asked why the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions continued to prosecute the case against Mr Collaery. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions made clear that decisions about whether or not to prosecute were based on public interest and must not be influenced by factors such as possible political advantage or disadvantage to the government or personal feelings concerning the alleged offender or victim. She stated:

We continue to review matters, whether or not they're in the public interest, and we have determined, on the material known to us and the seriousness of the alleged conduct, that it remains in the public interest to proceed.

But, in July, just weeks after having been appointed, the Attorney-General announced that he was ending the prosecution against Mr Collaery under section 71 of the Judiciary Act. This was an extraordinary and unprecedented step. In fact, it's the only time in Australia's history that this power has been used.

At the most recent Senate estimates, the acting director of public prosecutions told the committee that the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions was never consulted about the decision to cease proceedings in the Collaery matter. Why, given all the indications from the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions that it was in the public interest to proceed, did the Attorney-General break with convention and cease this prosecution? What message does this send to people who might deal in Australia's secrets? Why has the Attorney-General chosen to intervene in this matter and not matters involving other whistleblowers? Was it because Mr Collaery was an attorney-general in the ACT Labor government? What does this decision say about the operability of the Intelligence Services Act?

See this speech in context