The ongoing revelations about the conduct of soon-to-be-former Home Affairs secretary Mike Pezzullo aren’t just humiliating for the man himself. ACT Supreme Court justice David Mossop must wear some embarrassment as well.
Mossop presided over the trial of Bernard Collaery, until the whole shameful prosecution was called off by the new attorney-general, Mark Dreyfus, in 2022. But before that, Mossop was the judge who agreed with the attorney-general at the time, Christian Porter, that information relating to national security would be disclosed in the course of the trial and prejudice national security. He also ruled that evidence against Collaery, and witness evidence produced by Collaery, would be kept secret via national security orders made by Porter under the National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act 2004.
Mossop’s order for secret evidence and a partly secret trial was overturned on appeal, with the appeal judges ruling that any harm to national security was unlikely to occur and was outweighed by the damage that would be done to public confidence in the administration of justice.
In truth, none of the material involved would have damaged national security — it merely would have embarrassed Australia’s intelligence agencies and senior figures of the Howard government by exposing their misconduct, and perhaps even unlawful actions. Indeed, Mossop actually admitted in his judgment that he was mindful that the NSI Act “may be used as a cover to protect from disclosure in a trial material which is merely politically embarrassing to a government or to avoid legitimate scrutiny of its conduct”.
One of Porter’s star witnesses was Mike Pezzullo, who gave evidence alongside, inter alia, Mike Burgess of ASIO, Director-General of the Office of National Intelligence Nick Warner, Frances Adamson of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Paul Symon of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service.
Their evidence is not publicly available, but Mossop’s thinking on their evidence is.
“I do consider that the evidence of witnesses called by the attorney-general who are currently engaged, or have been very recently engaged in national security and international relations, should be given some additional weight because of the currency and immediacy of their experience,” he wrote in his redacted judgment.
That word “current” was aimed at Collaery’s slate of witnesses who argued against Porter’s application — led by Gareth Evans, former chief of defence force admiral Christopher Barrie, and eminent former diplomat John McCarthy.
But the revelations about Pezzullo’s conduct this week from Nine newspapers make Mossop’s reliance on “current” status look awkward. Pezzullo’s secret exchanges with Liberal Party figure Scott Briggs show a senior national security bureaucrat engaged in attempting to impress and develop a relationship with an unelected, partisan figure, including apparently sharing confidential assessments made in the wake of the Christchurch mosque shootings sensitive enough that Pezzullo pleaded with Briggs not to pass them on.
If Mossop, as he claimed, was mindful of efforts to “protect from disclosure in a trial material which is merely politically embarrassing”, what to make of the evidence of a figure who had actively sought to build a relationship with a Liberal Party identity, when the Collaery trial related to the actions of senior Liberal Party figures and efforts by a later Liberal government to hide them from public view — and punish those who revealed them?
It now looks passing strange that Pezzullo gave evidence on the need for secrecy in the name of national security when he was so eager to share confidential material — freshly handed to the prime minister and his own minister — with an unelected party machine man and businessman.
The whole logic of Mossop’s argument to accept Porter’s application, and that of the NSA certificate regime itself, is thrown into doubt by what we now know of Pezzullo’s conduct. How can we accept the views of people who are “currently engaged, or have been very recently engaged in national security and international relations”, when they may well be engaged in sharing confidential material and inappropriately engaging with third parties as part of their distorted view of how best to prosecute their own and their department’s interests?
Pezzullo’s conduct suggests that it is those who are not currently engaged in national security and international relations, those with no agenda, no personal ambitions, no feuds with other senior bureaucrats, no grand visions of expanding their empire, no interest in currying favour with one side of politics or the other, who can bring a more informed and wiser perspective on what may or may not harm national security.
Still, with Porter forced out of politics, and Pezzullo unlikely to ever return, there’s at least some sense of justice slowly working in relation to the appalling persecution of Collaery and Witness K.
Thanks BK and Crikey. Your articles this week on Pezzullo’s self-intrusion into national affairs have been very pointed and raised very many questions around appalling process, secretive behaviour and a total lack of integrity and of ethics.
Crikey’s record on the Collaery – Witness K case[s] has been one of constancy and of continued questioning of ministerial and public servant conduct. The trail of events exposed, especially relating to Australia’s relationship with Timor Leste, is truly a national shame.
National shame! Exactly. Howard and his lickspittle Downer should be charged. There has to be some criminal conduct there.
As one of the many who protested outside Porters, office in Ellenbrook and Reynold’s office in Belmont in support of Collaery’s attempts to expose the coverups I also thank you Bernard and Crikey for keeping the pressure on.
And many thanks to you too Chris !
If Briggs did not hold a ‘National Security Clearance” (and I would almost guarantee he did/does not) then Pezzullo would be subject to the ‘Crimes Act’ for releasing national security classified material to him. Most politicians and their non-public servant staff do not hold such clearances however they can be granted ‘waivers’ for access
Bookem Danel!
Fear not. As we have long seen with deliberate semi-official leaks of similar material to the Oz, no questions will be asked, certainly no answers expected. For all practical purposes, the Imperial and neo-colonial ruling clique protects its mates who protect its interests. indeed it would not tolerate any insiders who sought to act in the national interest. Nor have we any excuse for not being well aware of their treachery.
The recent actions of some of these characters give me the impression the we surely have become a banana republic
No, a police state.
Agreed. Those with no current vested interests would be more balanced & credible in providing evidence.
It’s only fair that Pezzullo’s angst re his downfall is as drawn-out, fraught & personally damaging as Bernard Collaery ultimately endured.
Of course Pezzullo’s generous payout & public service super will help cushion the pain somewhat. And down the track possibly even a board position or two will be offered. He seems eminently suited to the current Qantas mob.
Unfortunately Pezzullo’s angst won’t come anywhere near what he and his conspirers/co-conspirators perpetrated in putting Collaery and K through the ruination they did.
There should be compensation due, to Collaery and K, for that institutionalised, government sanctioned bastardry.
“Awaiting (f)a”? So
…. Unfortunately Pezzullo’s angst won’t come anywhere near what he and his conspirers/co-conspirators perpetrated in putting Collaery and K through the ruination they did.
There should be compensation due, to Collaery and K, for that institutionalised, government initiated and sanctioned b-a-s-t-a-r-d-r-y.
There should be compensation due, to Collaery and K,…
Yes there certainly should be. But I would love to see an enquiry too – one that saw the ancient Howard and the buffoon Downer compelled to give evidence. Catherine Holmes (of Robodebt RC fame) would be an excellent inquisitor.
That compensation should be paid by those who were involved in the ridiculous and unAustralian prosecution! Including the judge, Porter, a number of other Liberal ministers and PMs
It’s a fair bet that procurement contracts for off-shore detention are going to be quite high up the lengthy “to do” list at the newly formed NACC, and I agree with Metal Guru that Witness K/Collaery case is worth an RC of it’s own. Given that, and the revelations made by the Nine Newspapers this week, I can see Pezzullo’s main occupation for the next few years being “Inquiry Witness”.
This is Shakespearean. On what we’ve seen so far, a Machiavellian master manipulator who made it to the top seems set for a precipitous fall. It could even be an opera. Would it be the first to have a libretto partially based on texts?
Thanks for the context BK: ” … soon-to-be-former Home Affairs secretary …” is pure gold.
Shakespeare wrote for public performances, but NACC is destined for private sessions. I fear it will not cut the standards we are seeking.
Just make it up – It couldn’t be far from the truth now coming out – literary license like spell checkers.
The NACC was conceived to be knackerless from the start.
Definitely a RC needs to be underway for the Witness K and Bernard Collaery case. Unlikely though due to so-called national security rules and the cans of works this would open up but I am game.
At the very least a referral to NACC would be needed.