The IGIS in reporting to its Minister lacks independence especially when it is the responsible Minister who has driven the unlawful conduct. It would have been an easy matter for Ms Thom to enquire into the documentary records of the Dili mission to determine whether the Dili mission met the then Cabinet’s National Security Committee’s requirements. I doubt whether she would have found that my classmate Phillip Ruddock then Attorney-General and member of the Committee had approved the Dili mission. A first step in the analysis which in my view a Parliamentary or Judicial Inquiry into the Australian Government misconduct in 2004 and 2013 must now undertake may start with the Intelligence Services Act 2001 (“ISA”) as it was in 2004. Section 11 of the ISA declares that: The functions of the agencies are to be performed only in the interests of Australia’s national security, Australia’s foreign relations or Australia’s national economic wellbeing and only to the extent that those matters are affected by the capabilities, intentions or activities of people or organisations outside Australia. (emphasis added) How was ‘Australia’s national security… affected by’ Prime Minister Alkatiri and his Cabinet? The instructions allegedly given by the Director General were to ensure that there was a clandestine recording of discussions to be held by the negotiating team before and after negotiating sessions with the Australian team. The central issue for the negotiation was the ratification of the IUA held up over Timor-Leste’s dissatisfaction with the 18.1% revenue split agreed to in the 2003 agreement. Australia’s interest in the negotiation was explained by a senior DFAT official, Geoffrey Raby, during testimony before an Australian Parliamentary Committee: Dr Raby: On the first question of the relationship between the IUA and the treaty, the question, as I recall it, was: what was in Australia’s national interests? As I said last time, from the government’s point of view Australia’s national interest will be maximised and preserved if the treaty, the IUA and all other
The IGIS in reporting to its Minister lacks independence especially when it is the responsible Minister who has driven the unlawful conduct. It would have been an easy matter for Ms Thom to enquire into the documentary records of the Dili mission to determine whether the Dili mission met the then Cabinet’s National Security Committee’s requirements. I doubt whether she would have found that my classmate Phillip Ruddock then Attorney-General and member of the Committee had approved the Dili mission. A first step in the analysis which in my view a Parliamentary or Judicial Inquiry into the Australian Government misconduct in 2004 and 2013 must now undertake may start with the Intelligence Services Act 2001 (“ISA”) as it was in 2004. Section 11 of the ISA declares that: The functions of the agencies are to be performed only in the interests of Australia’s national security, Australia’s foreign relations or Australia’s national economic wellbeing and only to the extent that those matters are affected by the capabilities, intentions or activities of people or organisations outside Australia. (emphasis added) How was ‘Australia’s national security… affected by’ Prime Minister Alkatiri and his Cabinet? The instructions allegedly given by the Director General were to ensure that there was a clandestine recording of discussions to be held by the negotiating team before and after negotiating sessions with the Australian team. The central issue for the negotiation was the ratification of the IUA held up over Timor-Leste’s dissatisfaction with the 18.1% revenue split agreed to in the 2003 agreement. Australia’s interest in the negotiation was explained by a senior DFAT official, Geoffrey Raby, during testimony before an Australian Parliamentary Committee: Dr Raby: On the first question of the relationship between the IUA and the treaty, the question, as I recall it, was: what was in Australia’s national interests? As I said last time, from the government’s point of view Australia’s national interest will be maximised and preserved if the treaty, the IUA and all other
Supplementary-Paper-2.docx