George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

In moving the Illegal Detention of Australian Journalists (Free Julian Assange) Bill 2021 to the House, I note that it seeks to enshrine an offence of seven years imprisonment for a head of a foreign government if the head of state detains an Australian journalist or requests another foreign government to detain an Australian journalist in the course of undertaking legitimate journalistic activity.

Mr Speaker, I have to tell you, it gives me no pleasure in having to put this bill before the House today, because by introducing this bill it is a recognition that we are failing to protect the rights and freedoms of our own citizens.

And I, for one, think this is an absolute disgrace.

Regardless of what you think of Julian Assange, who this bill focuses on, the bottom line is that he is an Australian journalist being detained—there are those people who dispute that; you could say 100 per cent that he is an Australian publisher—and punished for exposing the corruption of the powerful. The Biden administration, which has continued on the case against Julian Assange, is using one of our own to intimidate other journalists who even think about exposing secrets and war crimes. They don't care about an Australian citizen—in this case—he is dispensable.

But at the end of the day, this is not about him.

I am not asking anyone in this chamber to like Assange—you don't have to put him on your Christmas card list—and no one has to agree with what he says or the way he carries out his business. But you don't have to like someone to stand up and say that the way they are being treated is plain wrong.

An Australian journalist is potentially facing 175 years in jail—an effective death sentence—for exposing crimes against humanity, corruption and shedding a light on the plight of the weak and vulnerable.

As the Editor in Chief of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange did not commit a crime, he simply reported the truth.

Now, I understand you and many others may have heard things about Assange, so before I outline the substantive parts of the bill let's get a few facts straight.

None of the WikiLeaks publications resulted in Defence Force deaths. In August 2010, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell confirmed: 'There was no evidence that anyone had been killed because of the leaks.' Another Pentagon official had confirmed: 'The military still has no evidence that the leaks have led to any deaths.'

In 2010 our own Australian defence department task force concluded, in the words of the then minister, John Faulkner: 'Overall, the content published by WikiLeaks does not reveal any significant details about operational incidents involving Australians beyond that already publicly released.'

So there we have the first myth busted.

Secondly, Assange did not hack anything—it was Chelsea Manning who accessed the information in question and passed it on to Assange.

The Biden administration, in continuing with the appeal to extradite Julian Assange, is now in effect prosecuting Assange for carrying out regular journalistic activity such as passively receiving information.

Not hacking—journalism.

He should not be in prison.

He was not even on US soil when he published the cables in question. If the Biden administration is successful, it will establish a dangerous precedent of extraterritorial prosecutions for the alleged crime of journalism.

That means that any Australian journalist in any part of the world can be prosecuted for their work. We need to seriously think about the implications of this.

Extraterritorial prosecutions are dangerous.

We should not allow one of our own citizens to become the Biden administration's test case.

But Assange has never been treated as a regular accused.

When he was detained in the Ecuadorian embassy, he and his lawyers were spied upon by Spanish firm UC Global, violating basic due process rights. It was revealed after his arrest that two of his manuscripts, as well as his legal papers, medical records and electronic equipment, were handed to US officials by Ecuadorian embassy staff.

This is not the weekend newspaper we're talking about here—they stole his legal papers, medical records and personal notes, and handed them straight to those prosecuting him. It is an affront to the principles of natural justice that the Australian government has raised zero concerns about this clear violation of his privacy, as far as I'm aware.

If this goes without condemnation, the implication is that any foreign country can do the same. Could you imagine if an Australian journalist was detained and spied upon by the then KGB, and the then Kremlin sought to use evidence against them? Would we have stayed silent, back in Cold War times? I don't think so. That's why we need legislation like this.

Another fact that is overlooked is that a fair trial for Julian Assange is in effect impossible. If the Biden administration is successful in appealing the extradition he will not be taken to a normal court where evidence is open, like we have here in Australia. He will be tried in the east district court of Virginia, otherwise known as 'the spy court'. The judge handling the case will be Leonie Brinkema. She is known for her hard-line stance on issues of national security, and the use of secret evidence, that we don't know about, will be allowed.

No defendant has ever won in that court.

This is an affront to justice.

This is not a fair go.

This is un-Australian.

And that's if he even makes it to that court.

If Assange is extradited, he will be subject to 'special administrative measures' and detained in the Alexandria facility. If convicted, the notorious ADX Colorado, where people were buried alive—they have no contact with the outside world, and they go slowly insane. There is a significant and grave risk of serious human rights violations if Assange is transferred to US custody.

UK courts have recognised this. They blocked the extradition earlier this year because they know he is at risk of suicide if he ends up in the US.

He is one of our own, and the implications of his prosecution are serious. The precedent it will set will open the floodgates.

And that's why we need to remember the broader global context in which this is happening and the urgent need for this bill.

The fourth estate is under sustained attack globally. Democracy and freedom are on the line.

In an increasingly volatile world, the role of the media in holding authorities to account has never been more vital. A world devoid of freedom of speech and freedom of the press creates a democratic abyss and undermines the liberal democratic values Australia holds dear.

Journalists and publishers play a crucial role in shining a light on human rights abuses, holding oppressive authorities to account and independently reporting facts, including allegations of corruption, civil unrest, conflict and war. That's when they're doing their job properly rather than focusing on sideline issues, as some do. The rise of authoritarianism and the inclination of oppressive regimes to censor, harass, detain, torture and engage in the extrajudicial assassination of journalists under the guise of national security or espionage offences has become an increasingly troubling phenomenon.

The brutal killing of Jamal Khashoggi exemplifies this dangerous reality for journalists in all parts of the world. The Committee to Protect Journalists estimates that between 1992 and 2021, 1,418 journalists were killed in the course of undertaking regular journalistic activity. In 2021 alone, 274 journalists have been imprisoned globally, and a further 66 are confirmed as missing. Censorship and methods of intimidation are also commonly used, such as threats of prosecution and detaining family members.

This bill therefore seeks to protect Australian journalists from politically motivated detention and prosecution by foreign powers, such as those which engage in hostage diplomacy and/or political persecutions in order to impede transparency, hide potential misconduct and/or human rights abuses, and engage in prosecutions that subsequently result in a chilling effect for freedom of the press, thereby threatening undermining democratic values.

It seeks to act as a deterrent.

The bill seeks to clearly define 'journalism' to include conduct engaged in the regular course of legitimate journalism, such as publishing and passively receiving information. Not conduct that would be subject to criminal prosecution, but journalistic activity.

The core of this bill is section 4, which seeks to enshrine an offence of seven years imprisonment for a head of a foreign government if the head of that government detains an Australian journalist, or requests another foreign government to detain an Australian journalist, in the course of undertaking legitimate journalistic activity.

Section 5 of the bill addresses conduct engaged in by agents of a foreign government. For example, if the head of a foreign government has contracted out the detention of the Australian citizen undertaking journalism, they would still be liable still for prosecution. This would include security contractors and intelligence agencies.

The bill also covers journalistic conduct that is alleged to have occurred in any jurisdiction, due to the recent move of the Biden administration seeking the extraterritorial prosecution of Assange.

Numerous reports suggest foreign governments charge journalists with offences such as sedition, national security and espionage related breaches of respective criminal codes in an attempt to cloak and 'legitimise' politically motivated prosecutions. This is the current situation faced by several Australian journalists, including Assange but also Cheng Lei, who is being held at the behest of the Chinese Communist Party. That's why section 4 provides a clause pertaining to the real and underlying cause of the detention, such as politically motivated persecutions.

I present the bill. I note there may not be a seconder, Mr Speaker. That is fine. The bill is there for all to see, as is Assange's plight.

Andrew Wallace (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded? There being no seconder, the motion lapses.