Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Hansard source

The rule of law is more than simply the government and citizens knowing and obeying the law. The rule of law involves checks and balances on the use of government power, the independence of the judiciary, the presumption of innocence, access to justice, and the right to a fair trial. All of these measures restrict the arbitrary exercise of power by government. Just as the rule of law is necessary for a healthy democracy, so is freedom of the press. In fact, I would say that, if we don't have freedom of the press, we don't have a democracy. The importance of quality investigative journalism cannot be underestimated for the contribution it has made to an environment of accountability and an opportunity for reform. Whether the government has an appetite for reform is another matter.

When serious wrongdoing in the form of corruption or a lack of integrity or even an attitude of apathy is uncovered, this must be brought to the public's attention after avenues for holding those accountable have failed. But in recent months we have seen what happens when draconian secrecy laws mean there are no avenues to expose wrongdoing and the only option is to turn to the media to expose a culture of wrongdoing. The recent ruling with respect to the ABC warrant raid is arguably further evidence of the urgent need for protections for public interest journalism and whistleblowers more broadly. As Managing Director of the ABC, David Anderson, said this week:

This is at odds with our expectation that we live in an open and transparent society.

We are not saying journalists should be above the law, we're saying the public's right to know should be a factor that is taken into account—and legitimate journalism should not be criminalised.

For a story that was published three years ago, it astonishing to me that the journalists involved are still yet to find out if they are to be charged—charged for carrying out investigative journalism that is in the interests of the public, for trying to inform and educate the Australian public on the actions of their own government.

The trial of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange commenced this week in the United Kingdom, and it provides a chilling glimpse into the future and what it may hold for the journalists at the heart of our most recent AFP raids. As the member for Clark has previously mentioned, members of the public and parliament may be divided in their views on the appropriateness of the actions of Mr Assange, but we should all be united in our outrage for the manner in which he's been treated by the US, the UK and his own government, the Australian government. This Thursday the member for Clark and the member for Dawson, as co-chairs of the Parliamentary Friends of the Bring Julian Assange Home Group, will hold a briefing on their recent trip to the UK, where they visited Mr Assange in Belmarsh prison and saw the enormous pressure this prosecution and incarceration has placed on him. I strongly encourage all members to attend this briefing.

Closer to home, and right here in Canberra, we have another example of how successive governments have viewed the rule of law, namely Bernard Collaery and Witness K and their prosecution. In his recent hearing, Mr Collaery made the following comments:

It is with a heavy heart that I shall enter the dock of the courtroom where I have spent my entire career supporting the Rule of Law.

Those principles hold that Ministers are as bound as any ordinary citizen to maintaining ethical and legal codes of behaviour.

You might forgive me for thinking, after more than 40 years in the law, that I might understand injustice. Clearly I have more to learn.

I can say no more because I am silenced by a law we gave our political leaders to fight terrorism.

Those are the words of Mr Bernard Collaery. The secrecy surrounding the prosecution of Bernard Collaery and Witness K is completely unnecessary—and it's all in 'the national interest'. Julian Assange, Bernard Collaery, Witness K and Richard Boyle—he's facing 161 years for blowing the whistle on the ATO for their use of heavy-handed tactics and revenue targets that ended up being a Four Corners report—and that was after he raised his concerns with the ATO! These incredibly brave people have stood up and blown the whistle on the government's actions, and they are paying a very heavy price for doing so. I'm deeply concerned for their futures and for our democracy if this is allowed to continue.

See this speech in context