Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Australian Greens from moving the following motion:

That the Senate calls on the Attorney-General to provide to the parliament before question time today an explanation of his reasons for authorising ASIO raids on Timor-Leste legal counsel and a key witness for pending Permanent Court of Arbitration hearings in The Hague.

Mr Deputy President, as you would be aware, this is not something that the Greens do lightly. In fact, this is one of the very rare occasions in my entire Senate career when we have decided that it is important enough to actually have this matter dealt with and call on the Attorney-General to make a full explanation and statement. The reason it so important is that Minister Brandis is the highest law officer in the land and he has authorised intelligence agencies to raid the offices of legal counsel who are currently in proceedings in The Hague on a matter that is critically important to East Timor.

What is at stake here, as is being said in the media, is that never before has East Timor taken someone to this arbitration panel in The Hague. Never before has Australia been called to answer questions about spying in a forum such as that. But it is not just about a treaty; it is about the maritime boundary between Australia and East Timor, it is about billions of dollars in resources and it is about the resource-sharing deal that former Minister Downer and the government of the time struck and whether it is valid. It is a shocking thing that, as this negotiation is going on in The Hague, the Attorney-General in Australia authorises the raid on those legal offices.

I have seen the minister's statement trying to suggest that the two matters are unrelated, but it beggars belief that they are unrelated—that, 24 hours after the lawyer has virtually left the country to go and work with Timor-Leste in The Hague, we have the chief law officer in the land authorising a raid on that office to take documents from the office and, at the same time, we have a key witness in those proceedings having his passport taken away so that he cannot travel to provide evidence. What does that say in a nation like Australia? Who is next? Who else's passport is going to be suddenly taken from them in a raid so that they cannot go and do whatever they intended to do overseas?

There is no suggestion here that the whistleblower who was going to attend to give evidence in The Hague was in any way a threat to national security. This is about big companies, the power of those big companies over government, and the question of the extent to which the Australian government is acting in the commercial negotiations of a company in a situation such as occurred in East Timor. So that is why I think it is important that Minister Brandis be required to make a statement before question time as to why he authorised those raids and how they can be justified—if they can be, because this is about the commercial proceedings. At no stage was there any suggestion that the original bugging of the cabinet room in East Timor was anything other than to assist in the commercial deals that were being done at the time. It was not about national security, and it is still not about national security.

It is beyond belief that the timing of these raids has nothing to do with the negotiations going on in The Hague. If it can happen on this occasion, what else is Minister Brandis going to authorise for the agencies to go and raid legal chambers or individual homes and take someone's passport? This is important, and that is why I think it is critical that Minister Brandis be required to make that statement to the parliament today. I am sure it is of grave concern to most Australians when they wake up and hear that that has been authorised by Minister Brandis, and I think it is important that we get on the record from Minister Brandis, before question time today, exactly why he authorised the raid on those legal offices and took that passport away.