Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

This motion relates to the bugging by ASIS of the Timor-Leste cabinet deliberations during treaty negotiations in 2004 between the Australian government and the government of Timor-Leste. Let's be very clear: this bugging was conducted specifically to give Australia an unfair advantage during those negotiations, and, as it transpired, we did get an unfair advantage during those negotiations. That unfair advantage that was achieved by the blatant cheating tactic of bugging the Timor-Leste cabinet decisions ended up in the theft of billions of dollars by Australia from one of our closest geographic neighbours, in Timor-Leste, one of the most economically disadvantaged countries in the world and one of the newest countries in the world—a country that could have well used those billions of dollars to provide better health outcomes for its people and to build resilient infrastructure for its people, but who we ripped off shamelessly and mercilessly for our own commercial advantage. And I will argue later in this speech that there were other advantages gained by Australia and Australians as well as commercial advantages.

As Senator Patrick said, many of the people of Timor-Leste have suffered so badly. Historically, so many of their ancestors actually fought and died for Australia and in Australia's interests in wars in the last century. The fact that we would have acted towards them with such utter bastardry is one of the more shameful chapters in our country's story. There have been many shameful chapters in Australia's story, from colonisation and invasion of Europeans, through the stolen generations, a range of other terrible occurrences and, more recently, the way we've treated refugees and people seeking asylum, but this disgrace sits very comfortably in that list of shameful chapters in our country's story.

There is very little doubt in my mind that the instigation and parts of the commission of the bugging of the Timor-Leste cabinet deliberations by the Australian government were unlawful under Australian law, and those matters should be tested—I accept that—and the motion proposed by Senator Patrick would assist with the testing of that assertion. We should also be able to hear from people like Mr Downer, Mr Irvine and Mr Warner, and the inquiry proposed by Senator Patrick in the motion we are currently debating would also assist with hearing from those people. They could help us shine some light on what happened back when that bugging was authorised and allow us to shine a little bit of the disinfectant of sunlight on those events.

I want to make it clear that what I'm about to say next is no adverse reflection on the terms of this motion or its proposer. I completely understand what Senator Patrick is attempting to achieve here and I totally support him in that. But there are other matters relating to those treaty negotiations that also deserve a fuller inquiry and more investigation, and I would argue that, in the absence of the government taking those steps, it would be appropriate for the Senate to consider those matters. Certainly, the surveillance of the Timor-Leste government during negotiations should be considered, and these terms would assist in that. Other matters that deserve scrutiny include the relationships between the Australian government and the corporate interests which benefited from the terms of the treaty and benefited from agreements and contracts associated with the treaty, and that is particularly in regard to the helium that was under the Timor strait—

Senator Patrick interjecting—

And I'll take Senator Patrick's interjection—'just an inert gas', he says. I suspect he knows as well as I do that helium is an incredibly important strategic element for Australia. Time won't permit me to go into the full ins and outs of the way helium was, and wasn't, covered by that treaty. But those are certainly matters that deserve further inquiry, as do the actions of the Australian government in cases relevant to the treaty in international tribunals and courts, including those in the International Court of Justice which are referred to in Senator Patrick's motion. We also need to better understand whether the terms of the treaty aligned with Australia's strategic and economic interests. I think that goes to matters including the way helium was, and wasn't, dealt with by this treaty and also to other matters such as the relationships between people who were involved in senior Australian government positions at the time, including Mr Downer, and the corporate interests that profited so massively from the terms of this treaty.

Another matter which needs to be further understood is, in fact, the decision of the Australian government to charge Mr Bernard Collaery and Witness K under the National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 and the circumstances around that, because—and I've made this point previously to this chamber—there is just no chance that that was a decision made in the public interest; that was a political decision. That decision to charge Mr Collaery and Witness K had to be made by the Attorney-General. And, in the public interest, the Attorney-General should have decided not to charge Mr Collaery and not to charge Witness K because, in fact, Bernard Collaery and Witness K are Australian patriots of the highest order. We should have stamped some medals for them, not charged them under laws that relate to Australia's national security.

This has been a sordid and disgraceful chapter from start to finish. I genuinely believe that, if the truth came out, careers and reputations would be destroyed or, at the very least, highly compromised, but that is not a reason for the truth not to come out. We owe it not just to the people of Timor-Leste and the Timor-Leste government but also to the Australian people to inquire into the truth of these matters because the truth is important. Whether or not the bugging of the Timor-Leste cabinet deliberations was lawful under Australian law is absolutely critical because it is in the public interest that the Australian people have confidence in the intelligence agencies that are created and overseen by this parliament—

An honourable senator interjecting—

I will take that interjection as well: overseen in a very marginal way by this parliament and certainly, operationally, overseen to nowhere near the extent that they should be by this parliament. And I make the point that the PJCIS—which, I understand, was Labor's preferred committee for this inquiry—not only is unable to conduct it under the terms Senator Patrick has outlined but is also a closed shop, peopled only by senators and MPs representing the major parties in this place. The crossbench is explicitly ruled out of the people who can make up that committee. I won't go into the history, but there has been at least one exception to that.

Let's be clear about what this inquiry would allow us to do. It would allow us to advance our understanding of what went on at that time—of what went on in 2004, when we colluded to steal and conspired to steal from one of our closest neighbours and one of the poorer countries in the world. And it is not only we as a country who benefited financially from that; I suspect there was significant personal benefit for some of the players. Those matters ought to be inquired into, and they ought to be able to be understood. For those reasons and many, many more, the Australian Greens will be supporting the motion put forward by Senator Patrick.