Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Clark proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Government's disregard for the rule of law, sovereignty and a healthy democracy.

I call upon all those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The topic for today's matter of public importance is the government's disregard for the rule of law, sovereignty and a healthy democracy. I suggest there's no better case study to explore this important subject than Julian Assange. Seeing as this will be discussed during this MPI in some detail, to assist the House, I'll briefly summarise the matter.

Let us not forget that Julian Assange is not a citizen of the United States; he is a citizen of Australia. He founded WikiLeaks and he sought asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for some seven years in an attempt to avoid extradition to the United States via Sweden. He's now jailed in Belmarsh prison in London, where he's been for almost one year, most of that time as punishment for breaching bail when he sought political asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy. He remains in Her Majesty's Prison Belmarsh while a court hearing is underway looking at a request from the United States for him to be extradited to the US, where he faces 17 espionage charges and one hacking charge. If Julian Assange is convicted of those 18 federal charges, he's at risk of being jailed in a US federal prison for 175 years—a life imprisonment which may well be called a death sentence when you consider the man's poor health.

There are a range of views about Julian Assange, but please let us remember what the substantive matter is. The substantive matter is that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, acting as a journalist and a publishing house, released information in the public interest, including hard evidence of US war crimes. Let's not forget that the US extradition is narrow and is only to do with WikiLeaks' revelations during 2010 and 2011 regarding US misconduct in Iraq, in Afghanistan and at Guantanamo Bay and also regarding the so-called embassy cables. Who can possibly forget the shocking footage—that grainy black-and-white footage—of a US attack helicopter gunning down Iraqi civilians in the street, including two Reuters journalists? Unbelievable footage!

This isn't about all of the other allegations, insinuations, stories and furphies that swirl around WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. This is fundamentally about the freedom of the press and the freedom of a journalist to publish information in the public interest. That's what this is about. That's only what this is about. Let's put aside this nonsense debate about whether Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are a journalist and a publishing house. Of course they are. I was in London just last week at the Frontline Club and there, in the display cabinet, is Julian Assange's Walkley Award. You can add to that all of the other international awards he has received for his journalism. There is also the fact that, at the moment, in the international media, there is a letter from 1,300 international journalists who all agree that Julian Assange is a journalist and that he has a right, as a journalist, to report on the misconduct of any country.

Imagine the precedent that will be set if US extraterritoriality is deemed to be global. Imagine the precedent that will set. Does that mean that any time an Australian journalist offends any other country that that country can successfully extradite that Australian journalist to that country? If the precedent is set about Julian Assange, does that mean that the next time an Australian journalist offends China and China demands that journalist to be sent to Beijing for special treatment, the Australian government will roll over? Does it mean that if an Australian journalist says something that offends Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia wants to get their hands on that journalist that the Australian government will roll over and agree to that extradition? Because that's what this is all about. That's the precedent that will be set.

It is shameful that the Australian government is standing by and letting these events unfold. It is a shocking demonstration of our subservience to Washington and our indifference to London. It's not good enough. It's beyond time that the Australian government recognised a terrible injustice to an Australian rotting in a jail in London. It's way beyond time that the Australian government fought for its citizens and for the Prime Minister to pick up a phone to Boris Johnson, pick up the phone to Donald Trump and to say: 'Back off. Drop the extradition. Let that Australian journalist come back to Australia.'

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Community Housing, Homelessness and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a very strange MPI from the member for Clark. He's got up here today and he's spoken about Julian Assange and criticised the US military. As a left-wing independent MP in Tasmania, he's talking about the US military. None of that was in the topic for today's MPI. The topic was quite bizarre, quite frankly. If he wanted to talk about Julian Assange maybe he should have put that in the notes for what he wanted to talk about. There would have been plenty who wanted to speak on that. But the topic is really quite bizarre.

The member for Clark talks about the disregard for the rule of law and the sovereignty of our nation, saying the government doesn't support the sovereignty of our nation and that we don't support a healthy democracy. There's nothing here about Julian Assange. Basically he went for five minutes, spoke about that and sat down, and that was the whole argument.

We have a very strong democracy here in Australia and a strong constitutional monarchy. If you really want to look at what people think about Australia, look at what happens when you go to a citizenship ceremony? If you go to a citizenship ceremony and you talk to new Australian citizens who are busting at the seams to come to Australia, and you look at Australia through the eyes of a new citizen, they specifically love our country. They really want to be here. They're lining up to come in. You can see the tears in their eyes.

On the weekend, I was out in North Lakes with some constituents of mine, Charlene and Brent Alley. I had lunch at their place at North Lakes. They originally moved here from South Africa. They were welcoming a new family, Yoshi and his family, which had just come to Australia and have permanent visas here. I spent time with those 20 people. They were just so grateful to be here in Australia—really grateful.

I was talking to the member for Brisbane before as well. We were sitting here, and he was saying that he was out at the markets on the weekend and he had a constituent come up and talk to him about everything that was wrong with Australia, or everything that needed fixing, and described him as a miserable leftie. But, what he actually said to her was: 'What is it that you like about Australia? What is it that you love about Australia?' They couldn't answer—not one thing. They were baffled by the question: what is it you love about Australia?

I love lots about our country, as a man that comes from Brisbane. I love our democracy. Our democracy is strong. I love our rule of law and that in Australia we've much safer, I believe, than in many other countries, generally speaking. People generally respect the law, and it's enforced well through state governments and through the police in different states. We have the freedom to worship in Australia, to be able to believe in our faith. Whether we have a faith or we don't, we have the freedom to worship and gather and express our views.

I love the fact that in Australia we celebrate Christmas. Christmas is a special time of the year. Growing up in Bracken Ridge, Christmas was very important.

Honourable Member:

An honourable member interjecting—

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Community Housing, Homelessness and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, not all countries do. I recently spent time overseas, and not all countries do celebrate Christmas—not in the way that we do here in Australia, and I love that.

I love our environment. We have a beautiful, wonderful environment here in Australia. I love our freshwater ecosystems, native animals, coral reefs and diverse continent. I love the fact that you can go to the member for Clark's electorate down in Tasmania and get a completely different environment from up in the Cape York Peninsula or the Daintree, where I've travelled. Having travelled around Australia with my young family before coming into parliament in 2011, I really do appreciate that.

I appreciate our egalitarian society in Australia, whether you're a member of parliament, like the Prime Minister, or whether you're unemployed, or perhaps even living on the street, as a homeless person. As the Assistant Minister for Community Housing, Homelessness and Community Services, I've been meeting a lot of homeless people lately. Last Wednesday night I went out onto the streets of Brisbane with Micah to feed the homeless and chat to them. There were some 100 people lining up. We do have an egalitarian society in Australia, but, if you look at the member for Clark's MPI today, he thinks everything is wrong with our country; there's nothing positive here at all.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's the government!

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Community Housing, Homelessness and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would expect that from a Greens member—through you, Mr Chair. I would expect that from the member for Melbourne, because when you listen to the Greens all they talk about is what's wrong with this country. They have nothing positive to say. The Independent member for Clark is a nice fella personally. I've been to his electorate and I do like the man as a person, but he's very close to the Greens in his views. I believe that is everything that is wrong with this MPI today.

We, of course, are very sovereign. Having come into this parliament in 2013, one of the first things we did was speak about Operation Sovereign Borders and the need to make sure that our borders were strong in relation to illegal arrivals by boat—people paying people smugglers to come to this country. We implemented a set of rules or procedures that Operation Sovereign Borders enacted. It looked at turning back boats where it was safe to do so, it looked at offshore processing and it looked at temporary protection visas. That policy saved many lives. It stopped deaths at sea, it closed 19 detention centres and it removed all children from detention. The member for Clark voted against it and was completely against it. Everything we try to do in this parliament in relation to Australia's sovereignty, the member for Clark is against. He puts out an MPI—for the Greens member over there—about the government's disregard for sovereignty and a healthy democracy. Yet he comes in here, as a member for Tasmania, and wants to talk about the US military.

We've also cancelled visas. We've cancelled many visas of non-Australian citizens, permanent residents of Australia, who are sentenced to jail terms of 12 months or more—people who have been convicted of serious offences: sexual assaults against children, armed robbery and so forth. We have sent many, many people home. We've also wanted to ensure and put into legislation that that not be dependent on a 12-month jail sentence. Who voted against it? The members opposite who stood with the member for Clark on this MPI. They joined him when they stood in approval of this MPI.

An honourable member interjecting—

But you all stood. The member for Clark also voted against that. The member for Clark wants to ensure that permanent residents that commit crimes aren't sent packing. Guess what? As the member for Petrie I say that the Australian government is here to serve the Australian people. The hypocrisy of the member for Clark is astounding.

The basis of upstanding political behaviour in Australia is reliant on at least three ideals: following the Constitution with repeated self-regulation, ensuring that decisions are independent of external forces and ensuring that the people of Australia are fairly represented. Australians want a government that follows these ideals, and it baffles me that opposition MPs broach such a topic without seeing the seeping irony. It seems peculiar that I am here to defend the Australian government and our healthy democratic ideals when, in May last year, we won another democratic election. Australians didn't want more antics or broken promises; they wanted a government that delivered consistently and represented the people's interests. To those members that are about to speak: to argue that the Morrison government does not represent a healthy democracy is to simultaneously argue that the Australian people didn't actually know what they wanted or what they were doing in May last year. The opposition MPs' argument ends right where it begins. (Time expired)

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are a lot of great things about this country, but this government—and that last speech—is not one of them. Protecting the rule of law and individual freedoms is vital, but this government's silence in the case of Julian Assange is cowardly and disgraceful. The government's line is simply 'Julian Assange is being afforded the usual consular assistance', but that is simply farcical, given the gravity of the situation. Julian Assange is facing extradition from the UK to the US to face charges under the Espionage Act for revealing war crimes and corruption by the US military.

This is not an everyday consular matter. The case has ramifications for individual freedoms, press freedom, the rule of law, the sovereignty of nations and democracy itself, for reasons that were very eloquently outlined by the member for Clark. But, overnight, the UN Special Rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer, published an indictment of the case against Julian Assange, and he had this to say—and I want to read it at some length, because it is crucial:

The case of Julian Assange is nothing else than a modern show trial featuring politically motivated prosecutors, denial of justice, manipulated evidence, biased judges, unlawful surveillance, denial of defence rights, and abusive prison conditions. What sounds like a textbook example of dictatorial arbitrariness is in fact an actual precedent happening in the middle of Europe, the birthplace of human rights.

…   …   …

… this case reveals systemic dysfunctions that make our Western constitutional states look like "fair-weather democracies", where the protection of the law can be relied upon only as long as the machinations of the powerful are not fundamentally questioned … The Assange case must finally be recognised for what it is: a totalitarian attack on the rule of law and press freedom, without which a healthy democracy is not possible. If we do not soon want to wake up in a worldwide dictatorship, we had better rub the sleep from our eyes!

Those are not my words. They are those of the UN Special Rapporteur on torture.

As if the need for the government to take a stand wasn't already compelling, a few days ago it was revealed that meetings between Julian Assange and his lawyers in the Ecuadorian embassy had been secretly filmed by a Spanish surveillance company, most likely at the behest of the US. This is a clear breach of legal professional privilege and it casts serious doubt on the prospects of Julian Assange receiving a fair trial. And what has the government's response been to this revelation? Have they sought assurances from the UK or US that Julian Assange will be afforded due process? There has been absolutely nothing. This government that comes in here and beats its chest about individual freedoms and about protecting people in this country is doing absolutely nothing, despite the revelations, day after day after day of the fundamental rights of an Australian citizen being trashed—being trashed in a way that has fundamental consequences for whether reporters in this country will be able to report fairly and whether people in this country can be guaranteed that the government will back them if they ever find themselves falling foul of a government elsewhere.

There is nothing exceptional, though, about an Australian government making public its concerns about the legal process a citizen is facing in a foreign country. This argument that it can't speak up is just wrong. Whether it was Hakeem Al-Araibi facing extradition or Peter Greste in an Egyptian jail or David Hicks in Guantanamo Bay, Australian governments have challenged the dubious legal process of a foreign country on behalf of one of its own in the past. It's what governments can do, and it's what this government should be doing for Julian Assange. Australia shares a monarch with the UK, and, supposedly, we have a special relationship with the US. Now is the time to make those relationships count. If this government cannot make public its concerns with the UK or the US when the rights of one of its citizens are being so egregiously violated, then what does it stand for? And what do those rights stand for?

The crucial thing about this is that this case is not about whether or not you like Julian Assange. It's not about whether you agree that he was supporting one side of politics or another when he released the documents. It's about whether you think an Australian journalist who gets information that details criminal activity and then publishes it is entitled to the protection of this government and of the rule of law.

What we find from this government, which beats its chest about the rule of law, is that it is prepared to throw someone overboard at the earliest possible opportunity, to do nothing more than to appease an overseas government. This government has sold out our sovereignty to the United States simply because the United States has asked it to, and every Australian citizen should be very, very worried.

Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also wish to speak on: 'the government's disregard for the rule of law, sovereignty and a healthy democracy', the Matter of Public Importance raised by the Independent member for Clark. The only thing is, as has been previously mentioned, Julian Assange wasn't actually mentioned in the MPI; so it's basically been made very difficult for government members to prepare to talk about this, because he was not mentioned in it at all.

However, the MPI does mention the law. Can I first of all say: on this side, in the coalition, we've always put the Australian people and their safety first. The coalition will also look after the Australian people, and that is actually highlighted, too, by you, Mr Deputy Speaker O'Brien—and I acknowledge your service with the Queensland police—and also by the Minister for Home Affairs, the member for Dickson, who's also a former police officer, and also by the member for Cowper in New South Wales, also a former police officer.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Community Housing, Homelessness and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And yourself.

Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And I myself am a former police officer.

Can I say it's actually interesting to follow the member for Melbourne representing the Greens. In my entire time here, since being elected in 2004—and I'm sure the member for Bonner will back us up here—I've never heard the Greens ever support one piece of ASIO legislation or one piece of national security legislation. They have never backed the coalition when it comes to law enforcement, and, when it comes to the opposition, I'm sad to say that the majority of times the Labor Party has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to it.

I'd just like to also take up the point of the character test. The character test, for those who don't know, is where the government determines if a person's visa should be revoked because of their character. It's pretty much based on criminal grounds. They've either committed an offence, as the member for Petrie, the assistant minister, said, where they've been imprisoned for a term of 12 months or more, or they've committed a sexual offence against a child, or, the next part, where they're involved with a criminal organisation or association such as an outlaw motorcycle gang.

The great news is: the coalition, the Liberal-National government, has booted out over 4,000 people who've committed crimes listed under the character test. The biggest danger would have been to have had a Labor government and the member who would have been the immigration minister if Bill Shorten, the member for Maribyrnong, had become Prime Minister. Here I'll go to an article which was in the Courier Mail on 6 September 2018. It reads:

A CONVICTED murderer with a 40-year criminal history had the backing of the office of a Queensland federal Labor MP, which repeatedly tried to stop his deportation.

The office of Shayne Neumann, Labor's would-be immigration minister—

so he would have been immigration minister—

knew about John Desmond McAteer's violent, drug-fuelled crimes, but wrote to the Immigration Department three times offering a reference to help stop him being kicked out of Australia.

The official correspondence on Mr Neumann's letterhead and signed by—

an electorate officer—

… shows the representations included helping McAteer find "evidence of his good character".

I go further into the quote:

"John calls into the office … to lend me poetry books, provide me copies of his poetry or simply as a courtesy when out and about," …

Can I make the point that, when it comes to protecting our borders and deciding who stays in our country, it shouldn't be based on poetry, whether you read it or whether you create it. That's completely wrong.

Now we have legislation in the Senate which, again, was not supported by the Labor Party and definitely was not supported by the Greens: the character test. We've tried to change the character test so that the offence is no longer based on the time. It's no longer based on somebody doing 12 months in jail but based on the actual crime they commit: crimes against a person where it's a potential punishable offence of two years or more, sexual offences or—and this is really important for the independent members here—breaching an order made by a court or tribunal for a person protecting another person. What we're talking about here are family violence orders. If a person is on a visa and commits the crime family violence, they should not remain in the country. Sadly, this is being blocked by the Labor Party teaming up with the Greens. When it comes to the law, I make this point: the Australian people are always best in the safe hands of the National and Liberal parties, who form a strong government to protect Australian citizens.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased to speak to this motion. I plan to speak on the aspect of a healthy democracy. Sometimes we see in the present echoes of the past. Nowhere is this clearer than when we think about the perilous state of our democracy. In 1853 in Beechworth, at the height of the Ovens Valley gold rush, a young gold-digger named William Guest was shot by police. Guest was an innocent man; his death the result of a flagrant misuse of police power by an inept assistant gold commissioner, Edwin Meier. At two subsequent inquests, local police and government officials suppressed key evidence to cover up their own mismanagement and corruption. In response, the gold-diggers of Beechworth called for an independent inquiry into the circumstances of William Guest's shooting and into the conduct of the local officials, specifying that the inquiry should be conducted by parties wholly unconnected with those responsible for the shooting, the gold commission and the police.

When the government made it clear that it would hold a closed inquiry from which the press were to be barred and which would be run by the head of the department about which the diggers were complaining, the diggers realised that they would not receive a fair trial. The diggers refused to accept that their government, to which they paid gold licence fees but for which they could not vote, could respond to serious breaches of public trust by conducting sham inquiries into itself. As their leader, Dr John Owens, said: 'We pay our licence fee month after month trusting to the integrity of the government. Bred to respect the law, we expect to be secured the upright and efficient administration of the law.'

The Beechworth diggers then decided to do something which had not yet been done on any other goldfield in Australia: they decided to petition the parliament for the right to vote. Today, when we look at the 1853 Beechworth petition, we can see embodied in it some timeless values. It's a call for a full and fair franchise for people of all backgrounds and races. This spoke to accountability. It's a call to replace the gold licence tax with a universal tax applied to all as a civic duty. This spoke to fairness. It's a call to dismantle the broken and corrupt system of gold commissioners. This spoke to integrity. These key tenants of the Beechworth petition, accountability, fairness and integrity, now are the fundamentals of our democracy. Their calls were heeded. Change was possible.

All those years ago, Dr Owens asked the people of Australia: 'Do you know what representation means? Of course you do. It means that, if those who, by wealth or station or authority, are placed over you do wrong, you have the power of compelling them to do right.' This story, documented by local historian Jacqui Durrant, is one which has dark echoes 167 years after it unfolded, because we gather today in a time when people once again have lost faith in their government, when people are calling for reform and where attempts to silence those calls will not be accepted.

Last week the community of Indi gathered once more on the site of the original 1853 Beechworth petition to launch another petition calling for another great reform in our democracy. This new petition called on the government to introduce a federal integrity commission to excise corruption from our democracy and restore integrity to our politics. We did this because our democracy is straining and because people are ceasing to believe in the ability of politics to improve their lives.

At the last election the government committed to introduce a federal integrity commission. Not only must they finally honour this mandate; they must introduce an integrity commission worth its name—that is, a federal integrity commission which has broad jurisdiction to investigate the people it needs to, common rules so that everybody is held to the same standard of behaviour, appropriate powers so that it can actually do its job, fair hearings so that investigations are done openly when it's in the public interest to do so and accountability to the people so the commission answers to public not political interests.

When the government releases its bill, I will assess it against these five Beechworth principles. If it meets them, I will give it my full support. If not, I will introduce amendments to ensure that it does. So the Beechworth principles stand not as an ultimatum but an invitation to walk with Australians towards an evermore perfect democracy.

Fiona Martin (Reid, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand to speak on the MPI: the government's disregard for the rule of law, sovereignty and a healthy democracy. The member for Clark, who has left the chamber, raised the MPI, and those opposite are busy playing politics while we on this side are getting on with the job of governing. When John Howard left office, there were only four illegal maritime arrivals in detention. It's those opposite who relaxed our nation's borders and allowed more than 50,000 arrivals to reach our waters. When we took office there were more than 10,000 people in detention, including nearly 2,000 children.

Those opposite talk about the rule of law and sovereignty, but it was the coalition government who took back control of our borders, strengthened our immigration program and closed 19 detention centres as a result. It is the Morrison government who have removed all children from detention. We've taken back control of our borders and seen illegal boat arrivals fall dramatically. We've disrupted the business of people smugglers from 800 boat arrivals under Labor to 34 interceptions under this government. While those opposite sought political points by supporting reckless medevac laws, on this side of the House we understand that a strong immigration program doesn't mean rejecting those in need; it means ensuring our assessment processes are strong enough to identify those who really need our help.

Having restored integrity to our immigration system, we are in a position to increase Australia's generous humanitarian program. This has increased from 13,750 refugees in 2013-14 to 18,750 in 2018-19. Australia also provided a generous humanitarian response to the Syrian crisis through the additional intake of 12,000 refugees fleeing the conflict in Syria and Iraq. If we had not restored the integrity of our immigration system, if we had not strengthened our borders and if we had not disrupted the practices of people smugglers, our government would not have been in a position to support the additional intake of genuine refugees.

A strong immigration program is in the interests of all Australians. As the representative of one of the most multicultural electorates in the country, I represent people in Reid who come from China, Korea, Italy, Lebanon, Greece and more. These communities are proud to contribute to our great nation as business owners and taxpayers. These communities recognise the hard work that goes into applying for visas, residency and citizenship and the trust that has been given to those to become strong members of the community. It may surprise some people in this place that it is our migrant communities who call for a strong and fair immigration system that strengthens our nation, supports their communities and gives help to those most in need. Strong borders protect our nation from the threat of terrorism. This government believes dual nationals who support terrorist activities forfeit their right to be an Australian. We're also cancelling the visas of criminals who put Australians at risk.

In December 2014, the coalition government strengthened the character provisions in the Migration Act, introducing mandatory cancellation provisions. These provide that a noncitizens' visa may be cancelled if they are sentenced to 12 months or more imprisonment or have been convicted of a sexual crime against a child. To keep Australians safe, the government has introduced legislation to further strengthen the Migration Act by making it easier for the government to cancel visas of foreign nationals convicted of violent crimes and sex offences, irrespective of their sentences received. Despite Labor and Greens joining forces to block the legislation, the government is putting it back on the agenda. Labor's record shows that between 2008 and 2013 Labor cancelled just 643 visas of foreign criminals. Between 11 December 2014 and 31 December 2019, the coalition cancelled 5,023 visas under section 501 of the Migration Act. Those opposite are distracted by political games. We're focused on the safety of all Australians through stronger borders, a fair immigration system and keeping violent criminals out of this country.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this matter of public importance. I do not share the views of my crossbench colleagues. I greatly respect them and I greatly respect their honourable beliefs but I do not agree with them. We are talking about Julian Assange. He in fact comes very much from my homeland, and I would have natural prejudices for him. But we have a country that is a dictatorship called China. It has made no secret of ambitions that go well beyond its own borders. It's power is enormous. I share my crossbench colleagues' view that this country is no longer being run by this country; this country is being run by the corporates. I think all of us on the crossbenches would share that view, which is not held by either side of this parliament. The corporates are running this country. Most of the corporates happen to be Chinese, and if you think they're running those corporations in the interests of Australia then you would be very much misguided. Then again, when a supposed Australian company is paying its CEO $25 million a year and he seems to have influence of extraordinary power in this country, then I would say that democracy really is becoming close to a mockery.

Let me just say that the important decisions made in this country are made not by the people in this parliament but by corporations. They decide whether a big building is going to be built or whether it's not going to be built. They will decide whether a mine is going to open or whether it's not going to open. They will decide whether they employ people on an industrial award or on some other arrangement. They will decide all of that and that is their power. You free marketeers have given them that power. You free marketeers have enabled them to buy the Australian economy. I mean, how much of the electricity industry do they own? How much of Australian water do they own? How many of the Australian airports do they own? How many of the Australian sea ports do they own? Then ask: how much of Australia do we own?

I was just talking to a very good friend of my wife about the six million acres of all the station properties surrounding us at the time. I asked: 'How much is owned by Australians?' She said, 'About two million.' I will be giving the details of that in this parliament very shortly. That is a random sample. I spoke to someone who happens to be a distant relative of mine—a First Australian at the top of Western Australia. I said, 'How much of Western Australia is owned by foreigners?' and she said, 'Ask how much of Western Australia is owned by Australians. That would be the more relevant point!' She said, 'Outside of my people—we still have reservation areas that we're not allowed to do anything with; we can't break a twig on them or take a cup of water out of the river. We still own that area, but take the national parks out and most of the rest is owned by foreigners.'

You people have sold your country. It's owned by somebody else. The people who own it have the say, not you. So, in a very profound sense—in a more profound sense than the Julian Assange argument or arguments over boat people—democracy does not rule this country. Once upon a time, we were able to make laws which pinned these people down so that they could not indulge in harmful behaviour to Australia. Whether it's in an environmental area or whether it's in an industrial award area, they could not act outside of the parameters of this place. When you signed the free trade agreement, you agreed that we could not change the goalposts; we could not change the rules. You gave your sovereignty to the corporations.

I come from a mining area. There were four great mining companies in this country. There was Rio Tinto Australia, which they claimed was Australian—I would doubt that, but, anyway, they claimed that it was. MIM most certainly was Australian owned, BHP most certainly was Australian owned, and Western Mining was most certainly Australian owned. They are now all incontrovertibly foreign owned, and they account for nearly 80 per cent of our mineral production. So you gave the whole lot away— (Time expired)

Pat Conaghan (Cowper, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to say that I'm a little bemused at the motion by the member for Clark. I appreciate that his motion, although it doesn't refer to that person, is about one man. But, in doing so, the member for Clark ignores millions of Australians before today, millions of Australians today and millions who will come to this country in years to come.

I'd like to tell you a story about two men: Joszef Kovach and Stephan Katerinka, or Joe and Steve as I got to know them later in their life. Joe and Steve grew up in Hungary. Born in the twenties, they went through the Second World War in Hungary when Germany invaded their state. They were imprisoned, they were brutalised, they saw the worst of what humanity could offer. But they were fortunate that they lived through that period of time and, together, they caught a boat to Australia in 1948. They were sent out to the Cowra migrant camp where they were put to work anywhere they could be used, in the shearing sheds and on the farms. But, through conversations with them, they told me that they were happy to be there. They were happy to be there because they were free. They were happy to be there because they had opportunity, and they made the most of that opportunity. Together, they worked. They went to Paddington. They opened a delicatessen together and worked there for many years. They could do so because there was rule of law and there was democracy, and they were given the opportunity to vote and make decisions, not like what they were subjected to during Nazi Germany.

Joszef ended up working for many decades and retired as an accountant with Qantas. Stephan ended up starting a turkey farm and sold to one of the major processors in Australia. They could do that because of the rule of law. In their retirement, I used to go and visit them. They would talk about politics and they would argue about politics, but they could do that because we live in a democracy and we have the rule of law. Nothing has changed.

Moreover, under this government there are opportunities. Unlike what the Greens would like to tell you, there are opportunities. The sky is not falling. What we have is opportunities. At every citizenship ceremony I go to in my electorate of Cowper I meet people—we have people from South Africa, India and China, people from all over the globe—who want to live in this great country because we have the rule of law and we have democracy. They don't have to worry about their house being burnt down in the middle of the night. They don't have to worry about being raped on the way to school because they choose to get an education. We have the best country in the world because we have the rule of law and democracy, and that will continue because we are being served by a great government.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The six principles underlying the Australian Constitution should be well known: democracy, the rule of law, the separation of powers, federalism, nationhood and rights. These principles protect what we, as Australians, hold most dear, and they ensure that the framework within which the Commonwealth government operates is robust, fair and—above all—lawful. I therefore find it galling that we, as the crossbench, are here today to highlight that our government is in fact in constant disregard of two of these principles.

We all know that democracy isn't perfect. Perhaps Winston Churchill said it best, speaking in the British House of Commons after the defeat of the fascist Nazi regime in World War II:

No-one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried …

Our democracy is precious—a form of government where the people have the authority to choose their governing legislators and therefore influence legislation. Our democracy has been hard fought for and it is what ensures our views and values as Australians are properly represented.

Similarly, the rule of law is a cornerstone of our system of governance. It promotes the ideal that every person—every person—is subject to the laws of our land, regardless of their power or position. It also infers that individuals cannot have their rights eroded and cannot be punished unless they have been found to be in breach of the law after a proper judicial process. According to the Australian Constitution Centre, a newly established education centre at the High Court of Australia:

The rule of law gives us a predictable and ordered society. It promotes justice, fairness and individual freedom. The rule of law provides a shield against the arbitrary exercise of power.

As my fellow crossbenchers have already highlighted, examples of how these principles have been disregarded are shamefully frequent. Examples in the recent past include: dubious political advertising, where truth and fairness—foundations of a healthy democracy—are set aside for lies and misinformation; constant restrictions on the freedom of the press, where asking legitimate questions of government results in police raids on homes and newsrooms and threats of arrest and imprisonment; the failure of this government to protect the rights of Australian citizens like Julian Assange; the dubious awarding of contracts to government supporters; the misappropriation of government funds in the recent sports rorts scandal, where much-needed funds for local sporting groups were redirected to projects that provided a political benefit for the government; the offshore processing of refugees, which has been criticised by the United Nations and various international legal entities—we have kept refugees in detention for seven years, in contravention of international laws, so don't speak about rights and all citizens being equal; the political stacking of government bodies and important pseudolegal bodies, such as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust; and major mining approvals granted just days before the federal election. The list is endless. It is embarrassing and it is dangerous. With every scandal, with every example of blatant disregard for democracy and the rule of law, the public loses more and more trust in all of us. They lose faith in their democracy and they lose trust in their politicians. In a recent report entitled Democracy 2025,the Museum of Australian Democracy details recent findings. The research shows that members of parliament in general are distrusted by nearly half the population. Government ministers are distrusted by 48 per cent of respondents and trusted to some degree by only 23 per cent. The report comes to the following shocking conclusion: by 2025, if nothing is done and the current trend continues, fewer than 10 per cent of Australians will trust their politicians and political institutions, resulting in ineffective and illegitimate government and declining social and economic wellbeing.

This is not just about being liked or trusted; it's an erosion of our social and economic wellbeing. I call on this government to introduce a national integrity commission with a broad jurisdiction, an ability for direct referral, strong investigative powers and the ability to hold public hearings. It is in all of our duties to restore faith in politicians.

Vince Connelly (Stirling, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will begin by saying I'm not entirely convinced that there hasn't been some form of typographical error here. When I read the matter before the House today, I was incredulous that a democratically elected member sitting here in this place would, by inference, accuse the government of having a disregard for the rule of law, sovereignty and a healthy democracy. So I'll proceed on the generous assumption that the member for Clark is in charge of all his faculties, did not make a mistake and has made a baseless assertion which I'll now proceed to refute.

Let me take each part in turn. Firstly, on the rule of law, this government, in just one example, has restored the Australian Building and Construction Commission. This is designed to tackle CFMMEU thuggery. We've banned secret and corrupting payments between businesses and unions and created a Registered Organisations Commission that will make unions more transparent. We've introduced legislation to give courts more power to deregister law-breaking unions and officials. And we've introduced legislation to ensure that money that is paid for workers' entitlements is actually used for workers' benefits and not to line the pockets of unions.

Let's touch on sovereignty, another incredibly important and fundamental commitment of this government. Let's talk about boosting the defence industry as a commitment and practical step to enhancing our sovereignty. The previous Labor government, by contrast, ran down our Defence Force and failed to commission a single ship from an Australian shipyard for our Navy. We on the side of the House, by contrast, are building 57 new naval vessels. This will boost Australia's Defence Force as well as create thousands of new skilled jobs.

We also enhanced our sovereignty by investing in skills. This government's $585 million package Delivering Skills for Today and Tomorrow will create up to 80,000 new apprenticeships in areas of skill shortages. It sees this government investing $3 billion into the vocational education and training sector in 2018-19.

Let's continue talking about sovereignty. When John Howard left government in 2007, there were only four illegal arrivals in detention and none of those were children. Labor proceeded to unwind the Liberal-National government's strong policies. The results speak for themselves; they were disastrous. Over 50,000 people arrived in 800 boats, 1,200 people that we know of died at sea, 8,000 children were detained and 17 detention centres were opened at a cost of $17 billion. We've taken back control of our borders. That's how we support sovereignty in this nation. The Liberal-National government has ended Labor's border chaos and restored our border protection policies. We have stopped those deaths at sea, closed 19 detention centres and removed all children from detention.

We are also contributing to our national sovereignty and to the rule of law by cancelling the visas of criminals. In fact, between December 2014 and December 2019, the coalition has cancelled over 5,000 visas and has strengthened character provisions. These provide that a citizen's visa must be cancelled if they are sentenced to 12 months or more imprisonment or have been convicted of a sexual crime against a child.

Let me move on and talk about a healthy democracy. It is a sign of a healthy democracy—not without a little irony, however—that the Independent member for Clark has the freedom to come into this place and submit a matter of public importance and trigger debate in this chamber for a full hour. Perhaps the member for Clark doesn't like that element of democracy. Perhaps it's the case that a fair exchange of ideas, including those colleagues on this side putting the strong position of the government on law and order and on sovereignty, is against his best wishes, but we are here to do that. I stand here, as one of the many ex military or police that are serving on this side having defended democracy, now having the right to stand here and defend the government's strong record.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to 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.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker, Minister for Regional Health, Regional Communications and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The discussion has concluded.