Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Attorney-General and relates to interlocutory matters and matters incidental to the proceedings of the Commonwealth v Collaery. During the proceedings, Mr Collaery subpoenaed documents from the oil and gas producer Woodside. In response, the Attorney-General sought first access to Woodside's return to subpoena on the basis that their documents could contain matters related to national security. How is it possible that an energy company such as Woodside could be in possession of documents that could contain matters related to national security? Or is this simply the Attorney further abusing the NSI Act?

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Patrick for some advance advice of his question. While obviously I cannot—and will not—disclose national security information, what I can say in response to Senator Patrick's question is that the NSI Act provides a framework for how national information is disclosed and protected in legal proceedings. It seeks to balance the need to protect national security information with the principle of open justice. Importantly, what protections are put in place are ultimately a matter for the court.

With respect to the senator's specific question, I can advise that the Commonwealth made an application to the court seeking early access to any documents produced by Woodside Petroleum in response to the subpoena dated 2 March 2020. The subpoena called for Woodside to produce documents relating to its dealing with the Commonwealth in relation to negotiations between Australia and Timor-Leste in respect of revenue-sharing arrangements under the CMATS Treaty. Given the nature of the information sought by the subpoena, documents produced by Woodside might have included national security information, the definition of which can include international relations, which in turn includes economic relations with foreign governments.

It was appropriate for the Attorney-General to have an opportunity to consider whether to issue a certificate under the act or whether any other form of application or claim ought to be made in relation to any documents produced by Woodside. This was a precautionary approach. It's not uncommon where documents might reveal interaction with the Commonwealth. The application was allowed by the court. Ultimately I would note to the chamber and to Senator Patrick that the Commonwealth did not seek any protection orders and the documents were provided to the parties.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Patrick, a supplementary question?

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that answer, Minister. Was the Attorney-General's interest in the Woodside documents centred on a concern that they would reveal knowledge of a fraud on Timor-Leste in relation to the giveaway of Timor's helium assets to Woodside and ConocoPhillips?

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I absolutely don't accept the premise of Senator Patrick's question, and I refer the senator to my first answer.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Patrick, a final supplementary question?

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the Attorney aware of claims that Timor's helium, a highly valuable commodity, was wrongly characterised as waste in the production-sharing contracts and therefore lost to Timor-Leste but a nice profit for Woodside? Is that the dirty secret that is being concealed?

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, I absolutely do not accept the premise of the question from Senator Patrick, and I refer him to my first answer.