Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Well, here we are debating the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 3) Bill 2023, and I think all colleagues should reflect on the use of the term 'national security', because what a catch-all that phrase is. It's used to justify the persecution that Julian Assange is currently facing—'Oh, national security,' say the US government, when they're asked to justify why they're trying to extradite Mr Assange to a virtual death sentence in the United States. 'National security,' cry the Australian government, as a justification for prosecuting David McBride, who yesterday was, shamefully, sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years and eight months, with a non-parole period of 2½ years. 'National security,' say the government's lawyers in that case, when they're pressing for a significant term of imprisonment, 'because we need to deter people from doing what Mr McBride did'. Why? 'Because of national security,' say the Labor Party.

'National security,' say the so-called parties of government in this place, the so-called parties of government in the United Kingdom and the so-called parties of government in the political duopoly that is the United States of America, every single time they want to justify government secrecy, every single time they want to justify draconian new laws that crack down on rights and freedoms that we've enjoyed in this country and, indeed, that we have sent tens—in fact hundreds—of thousands of Australians overseas to fight and die to protect throughout the colonial history of this country. 'National security,' say the so-called parties of government when they refuse to introduce a charter of rights or a bill of rights in this country, leaving us as one of the only liberal democracies in the world that doesn't have some form of protection in that area.

But what does 'national security' actually mean? Here's what it can mean: 'national security' used to protect the profits of corporations in the military-industrial complex; 'national security' used to protect the profits of fossil fuel corporations that are engaged in international geopolitical manoeuvrings in order to mine large gas, oil or other petroleum deposits around the world. National security has become a catch-all to punish and prosecute whistleblowers.

Let's reflect just a little bit on what happened yesterday to Mr David McBride, a brave whistleblower who blew the whistle and exposed horrendous war crimes committed by people wearing Australian Defence Force uniforms. You'd expect that those people who committed the war crimes would have been the first to find themselves in the dock, but—no—it was the person who first exposed those war crimes. He was not only the first person to find themselves in the dock; he's now been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of over five years, with a non-parole period of 2½ years. We should be pinning medals on people like David McBride, not sentencing them to multiple years in prison.

Our whistleblower protection framework in this country is fundamentally broken, a fact that was actually acknowledged by the Labor Party when they were in opposition. Now they're in government and the spooks have got their ear. The so-called national security apparatus of government have got hold of the Labor Party and, suddenly, they've abandoned the semi-principled position they held on whistleblower reform when they were in opposition. That's all gone out the window now. They were instructing their lawyers, in the case of Mr McBride, to press the judge for serious sanction based on the principle of deterrence. Of course that's what the spooks are going to say. Of course that's what the national security apparatus is going to say. That's the frame they live in. But it is incumbent on the government—which is actually not there to represent the spooks or the national security apparatus of government, but is there to represent the Australian people—to actually question that advice and, when necessary, reject that advice. But that won't happen. It doesn't matter which political stripe of government we have in place in this country, because we're operating in a political duopoly. Whether it's Coles or Woolworths, the price gouging remains, and, whether it's a Labor or Liberal government, the same approach will be taken.

Let's run through it. The spooks decide they need more powers. The national security or intelligence apparatus in government decides it needs more powers. Because they know how this works, they put in their ambit claim for more powers. The government says: 'Yes, that's a good idea. We'll deliver that. We've just got to run it through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.' It goes into that committee process, and occasionally that committee will rasp off a few of the roughest edges of the legislation that it gets. But who is on that committee? That's right: the Coles and Woolworths of Australian politics. The bill comes out of that committee process sometimes effectively unamended and occasionally with some of the sharpest, roughest edges sanded down. It comes into this parliament and it's passed by the Coles and Woolworths of Australian politics. On and on it goes; rinse and repeat.

In the last 20 years we have had well more than 200 pieces of legislation which erode fundamental rights and freedoms pass through state, territory or Commonwealth parliaments in this country. All the while, the political duopoly fights off attempts to have a national conversation about whether we should have a bill of rights in this country, leaving us as one of the only so-called liberal democracies in the world that doesn't have some form of legislated or constitutionally enshrined bill of rights.

In order to fix our whistleblower protections in Australia, we need a bill of rights. We need to understand that, when people like Mr McBride and the member for Clark, Mr Wilkie and, albeit in different circumstances, Witness K and Bernard Collaery take action, they are taking that action because it is in the public interest.

Finally, the Attorney-General, Mr Dreyfus, did instruct the DPP to drop the charges that Mr Collaery was facing. I might add that it was after Witness K was prosecuted and persecuted through our legal system, with the support of governments of both political stripes, that Mr Dreyfus finally acted to drop the horrendous prosecution against Mr Collaery. If you look at the reasons that Mr Dreyfus gave for those instructions, they could just as easily be applied to Mr McBride's case. Although those cases were not completely analogous, the rationale for dropping the prosecution could have equally been applied to Mr McBride, because, fundamentally, both Mr Collaery and Mr McBride, although there were differences in their circumstances, were acting in the public interest and being persecuted and prosecuted by the state for acting in the public interest.

It is up to Labor to justify why they acted to withdraw the prosecution against Mr Collaery but not against Mr McBride. In the same way, it's up to Labor to explain why they have not taken stronger action to protect the interests of Julian Assange, who after many years still languishes in prison in the UK because one of our great supposed friends on the international stage, the United States of America, wants to extradite him to, virtually, a death sentence over there for public interest journalism.

There's a pattern emerging here, colleagues, where people who act in the public interest are persecuted and prosecuted by the state. That's what happened to Mr McBride, that's what's happening to Mr Assange, and that's what happened to Witness K and Bernard Collaery. They were prosecuted and persecuted by the state for acting in the public interest. Why does the state do it? National security. We keep hearing it. But, at the end of the day, 'national security' is code for protecting entrenched power interests. It is code for protecting corporate profits, whether that be in the military-industrial complex or in the petroleum complex. It is the profits of those corporations that drive so much of Australia's foreign policy. They are what drive so much of the government's agenda in this country, whether that is a Labor or Liberal government.

We do have deep concerns about this legislation. There are some positive elements to it, and it's worth noting that the changes in the bill are a result of the Comprehensive Review of the Legal Framework of the National Intelligence Community undertaken by the Attorney-General's office. Of course, the Greens actively and often call for increased transparency and increased accountability, so we do support those elements of this legislation that deliver increased public reporting, increased transparency and increased accountability. We also note that the bill removes the ability of the Attorney-General to delegate their powers under the ASIO Act and the TIA Act and prohibits the conferral of the Attorney-General's powers under the ASIO Act and TIA Act upon another minister except by legislative amendment or substituted reference order made by the Governor-General in exceptional circumstances, and we do think that ensuring those powers are exercised by the Attorney-General only is appropriate. So we understand that there are some positive elements to this legislation. But I say to the Australian Labor Party: don't forget the things you said in opposition.

Now, we've all heard the log cabin story of the Prime Minister, pumped out repeatedly, ad nauseam, on his social media challenges, and we all know that the man who sits in that office today is a very different person, with very different values from the ones he held in his early years. Australians understand the hypocrisy of that log cabin story.

But I want to say to the Labor Party very clearly: Australians are beginning to understand your hypocrisy in regard to whistleblowers and to understand that what you said in opposition is not what you're going to actually deliver in government and that is on you. It is on you that you proposed a half-decent way forward to improve whistleblower protections in this country when you were in opposition, but you won't proceed with those reforms now you're in government.

We need to look after people who are acting in the public interest, not subject them to the persecution and prosecution that people like David McBride have been subjected to. I want to say to Mr McBride that, notwithstanding the huge term of imprisonment to which he has been sentenced, there are many, many people in Australia who thank him for his courage, who thank him for his actions and who are sincerely, genuinely grateful to him for acting in the public interest.