Bernard Collaery’s immediate ordeal is over. For four years he has been pursued by a vindictive government hellbent on punishing him not merely for helping, with Witness K, to expose the malignant crimes of the Howard government in Timor-Leste, but for trashing basic concepts of the rule of law to do so.
Collaery has borne the weight without bitterness, and always maintained his profound respect for the law. Recently he suggested, entirely against his own interests, that attorneys-general — and he’d been one himself in the ACT — should always be reluctant to ever no-bill prosecutions, given it amounted to political intervention in the prosecutorial process. But he and his legal team fought the efforts of Christian Porter and Michaelia Cash to prosecute him in secret, to use secret information against him, to block his efforts to defend himself — even to the extent of trying to prevent him from choosing his own lawyers.
The conduct of Porter and Cash and their lawyers — which amounted to a complete trashing of the requirement that the Commonwealth be a model litigant — was deeply shameful, even by the grubby standards of the Morrison government, and debauched the office of the “first law officer of the land”.
Along the way, Witness K — who has served his country in ways that a privileged man-child like Christian Porter couldn’t begin to comprehend — hit the fence. Exhausted, ageing, he pleaded guilty and received a short suspended sentence, a deeply offensive outcome even in its tokenistic nature.
All to persecute a man who dared reveal just how vilely and corruptly the Howard government had acted toward the fledgling state of Timor-Leste. That, despite Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus’ welcome decision yesterday, remains unfinished business. Some of the perpetrators of the bugging — David Irvine, Ashton Calvert — have died. Others remain — inexplicably — in good public standing in Australia.
Unlike Collaery and K, they deserve to be in the dock, accounting for themselves. In public.
John Howard and Alexander Downer need to be in the dock, explaining who initiated the plan, who approved it, and for what reasons. Downer can additionally explain what role it played in his later decision to take a job with Woodside, the chief beneficiary of the bugging.
Their advisers, too — Josh Frydenberg, adviser to both Downer and Howard at the time. Former MP Dave Sharma, Downer’s legal adviser. Charles Goode and Don Voelte, then at Woodside. Margaret Twomey, then ambassador to Dili.
And the perpetrators of the cover-up, too. Julia Gillard and Bob Carr, who received East Timorese politician Xanana Gusmão’s confidential letter advising of the issue in 2012, and who responded aggressively — including by publicly revealing the bugging allegations, even dismissing them as “not new” (thus rendering the whole prosecution ludicrous).
George Brandis, who authorised the raids on K and Collaery (though, to his credit, seems to have declined to authorise the prosecution of them). Former intelligence head Nick Warner, who as head of ASIS blocked the return of K’s passport, also needs to be held to account.
And most of all, Christian Porter, his then secretary Chris Moraitis, Michaelia Cash, and their advisers — all need to explain why the conduct of the Commonwealth during the prosecution (as separate from the Director of Public Prosecutions’ lawyers, who were always professional) was so shabby and vexatious — and what changed that Porter approved the prosecution.
There are other parties whose conduct over the past four years was less than becoming. Few federal MPs spoke out about the egregious nature of the prosecution. Labor’s Graham Perrett had the courage to speak out in 2019. NSW Labor MP Paul Lynch did so in 2018. Others, in time, followed, usually reflecting on aspects of the prosecution rather than the prosecution itself — Canberra Labor MPs Katy Gallagher, Andrew Leigh, Alicia Payne and David Smith; veteran Luke Gosling. Mark Dreyfus, who has his own role in the saga back in 2013, become a fierce critic of the conduct of the prosecution.
But Collaery’s political support came almost entirely from the crossbench: Andrew Wilkie, Nick Xenophon, Rex Patrick (later), and the Greens’ Nick McKim spoke out right from the outset for Collaery and against the injustice being done to him.
As for the media, its performance was woeful. The ABC’s Elizabeth Byrne skilfully covered the trial in Canberra. Guardian Australia’s Christopher Knaus provided detailed coverage and expertly pointed out the absurdities of the case. But few other journalists showed significant interest. The press gallery, in particular, virtually ignored it.
This was Australia’s Watergate — a moment of egregious misconduct and cover-up that revealed profound corruption at the highest levels of politics and the bureaucracy, a scandal playing out right before their eyes. And most of them closed those eyes to it, either intimidated by the constant lies about national security from the government or, worse, deeming the matter unimportant.
Many of them are now welcoming Dreyfus’ decision. Where were you when it counted?
Thanks Bernard for your very significant contribution as one of the very few people willing to keep the issue in the public eye when some people who should hang their heads in shame chose to look away.
Susan Connelly and a small group of stalwarts in Canberra always ensured Bernard knew he had not been forgotten.
So yes, we should all take a moment to feel the relief that Collaery’s torture is over.
BUT we should then maintain the rage that comes through in Keane’s column today and bring to account the many people who have behaved outrageously, immorally, cruelly and in some cases corruptly and illegally in this whole sordid affair.
Totally agree with you Barnino. I also feel that a large group who are getting off lightly on this matter are the great apathetic majority who stood bye and allowed this fragrant abuse of power to occur. This was a key issue of rights that should have ooncerned all informed and active citizens. However, the usual “I’m right mate’ attitude prevailed.
A mass movement would have ended this farce over-night. Perhaps Australians should be more cognisant of the words of Pastor Niemoeller in his warning of the growing Nazi influence to the individual freedom to the people of pre-World War 2 Germany: ‘First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out — because I was not a Jew Then they came for the communists and I did not speak out — because I was not a communist Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me’.
Well said. BK and Crikey have been at the fore front in bringing and keeping this case before the public while few other media outlets have performed well.
We do need to maintain our rage over this case.
A disgusting period in Australian politics. Surely the grubs involved, the courts should deal with those still alive.
Well done Bernard.
I noted yesterday the Attorney General, even in the announcement that the prosecution was dropped, immediately genuflected to the sacred cult of secrecy and the vast colleges of securocrats who guard the secret flame. Nearly all such secrets are, or course, not kept from our enemies but from the Australian public, guarded not only by the secret priesthood, but also by their lay brethren in the monopoly media: infiltrated, suborned and intimidated.
The media is often kept silent by suppression orders issued by tame justices in Victoria.
Absolutely, Bernard. There should be either a Royal Commission or a very well-resourced Federal ICAC investigation into this egregious abuse of the justice system. Let’s not forget David Irvine’s role, as you rightly remind us – not only was he running ASIS at the time, later as ASIO boss he got to cover up the mess ASIS had left behind, without most of the media noticing the glaring conflict of interest. A pity he will never have to answer for his actions and he was rewarded with a plum job chairing the FIRB to boot, despite no financial qualifications.
Yes. I’m in full agreement with Keane too. But I’m not clear exactly what he expects when he says various individuals should be “in the dock”. That’s where the accused is placed in a criminal trial. So it seems Keane has no doubt there are grounds for charging these individuals with crimes. I’m not sure exactly what the anticipated charges would be, and who Keane expects to investigate and produce the briefs of evidence necessary before the DPP brings a case to court. Is it possible Keane has confused being “in the dock” with being “in the witness stand” under oath at some commission of inquiry, where those individuals would be obliged to answer forensic questioning about their actions? Keane has a long record of being rather unsure of the difference.
I think fellow swimmer, that Bernard like me, wants a RC to investigate and lay charges. Damn, that Culvert and Devine are dead.
Eyebrows Howard and our UK knees up, Fishnets Downer are not and most of the rest of the cabal are around too.
That would be my guess also, if the point is to get all the facts out in public. Putting them “in the dock” would not help with that because it protects them from answering any questions. The suspects or accused cannot be forced to give evidence. If they were charged and then pled guilty there would be no need for any evidence to be made public at all.
My fellow swimmer, testimony to a RC is sworn evidence with the thin ice under the dock/ witness box being the power of the RC to directly jail the witness who lies or gives inaccurate testimony for contempt of court.
Even people with functional memories in the range of “Arthur” are examined on their signatures and documents delivered to the RC.
The person’s testimony can’t be used to bring criminal charges, however, the documents and any other evidence discovered and not directly submitted by the witness can be used to bring charges.
Bernard has just leapt the intermediate stage of a RC.
Well yes, I know all that, but the point remains – once they are in the dock, they cannot be questioned. They might voluntarily leave the dock and go to the witness stand, where they would take an oath and be required to answer questions, but they cannot be forced. And if they plead guilty there is no requirement for any evidence to be produced at all. From the point of view of getting the truth out in public there is no benefit from putting them in the dock.
I don’t think there’s any chance of a RC, but I’m hoping that a Federal ICAC – with powers to choose cases that it deems to be appropriate – will pick this up and run with it.
Howard’s not dead? He sure looked dead to me, last time I saw him.
Keane at his best.