http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3157403.htm?show=transcript
JULIAN ASSANGE: Prime Minister, you just got back from Washington but what Australian citizens want to know is which country do you represent? Do you represent Australians and will you fight for Australian interests because it's not the first time that you or a member of your cabinet has been into a US government building and exchanged information. In fact, we have intelligence that your government has been exchanging information with foreign powers about Australian citizens working for Wikileaks. So Prime Minister, my question to you is this: when will you come clean about precisely what information you have supplied the foreign powers about Australian citizens working or affiliated with Wikileaks and if you cannot give a full and frank answer to that question, should perhaps the Australian people consider charging you with treason?
Firstly Mr Assange, not being a lawyer I perfectly understand if you don't happen to know about the legal definitions of words like "treason", however what you have done is inadvertantly publicly admitted that you and your organisation have broken the law and that you personally have no idea about legal responsibility.
Let's just break down all of your little mistakes and idiocies shall we?
"it's not the first time that you or a member of your cabinet has been into a US government building and exchanged information"
Well duh!
One of the most basic things that any law student goes through in Australia is the source of law and the Constitution of Australia. Section 51 of the Constitution deals with the specific powers which the Parliament has. It stands to reason that if the Parliament is charged with certain powers, then it also has the responsibitlity to exercise those powers.
I will now list two specific powers below:
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/par5cha1.htm
51.The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:
(vi.) The naval and military defence of the Commonwealth and of the several States, and the control of the forces to execute and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth.
(xxix.) External Affairs:
Now obviously if a Minister of the Crown is going into a "US government building" and has "exchanged information", they are doing so because they have been charged with the power and responsibility that the Parliament has given them. A business person who goes to the offices of another business does so because they are acting as an agent on behalf of the firm which sent them. Why should the affairs of a Minister of the Crown be any different at all? How difficult is this to grasp Mr Assange?
Australia is tied to the US through various treaties and agreements, ANZUS, APEC, the Australia – United States Free Trade Agreement etc. What else do you want? Are you seriously suggesting that a Minister of the Crown wouldn't have some business with a US Government Department at some stage?
The next part seriously bothers me:
"In fact, we have intelligence that your government has been exchanging information with foreign powers about Australian citizens working for Wikileaks.
So Prime Minister, my question to you is this: when will you come clean about precisely what information you have supplied the foreign powers about Australian citizens working or affiliated with Wikileaks"
Technically speaking and because of the provisions of the Statute of Westminster 1931, statute law passed in Britain up until 1931 has legal standing in Australia up until such time as it is replaced by Australia law. This includes the The Official Secrets Acts of 1911 and 1920.
Admittedly unlike the United Kindgom, Australia does not have specific legislation dealing with things which the government wants to keep secret. However it does have specific provisions in the Crimes Act 1914 which deal with Official Secrets:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca191482/s79.html
CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 79
Official secrets
(2) If a person with the intention of prejudicing the security or defence of the Commonwealth or a part of the Queen's dominions:
(a) communicates a prescribed sketch, plan, photograph, model, cipher, note, document or article, or prescribed information, to a person, other than:
(i) a person to whom he or she is authorized to communicate it; or
(ii) a person to whom it is, in the interest of the Commonwealth or a part of the Queen's dominions, his or her duty to communicate it; or permits a person, other than a person referred to in subparagraph (i) or (ii), to have access to it;
(b) retains a prescribed sketch, plan, photograph, model, cipher, note, document or article in his or her possession or control when he or she has no right to retain it or when it is contrary to his or her duty to retain it; or
(c) fails to comply with a direction given by lawful authority with respect to the retention or disposal of a prescribed sketch, plan, photograph, model, cipher, note, document or article;
he or she shall be guilty of an indictable offence.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 7 years.
In other words, if you Mr Assange or your organisation is in possession of, communicates and/or doesn't destroy the information which you have obtained from the Commonwealth without permission, you are guilty of an indictable offence and may be imprisoned for 7 years.
Mr Assange himself is of course, no stranger to court proceedings. As far back as 1991 he was in court charged with 31 counts of computer hacking. The Australian Federal Police had his phone tapped and although he was brought to trial, he was released on a "good conduct" bond with a fine of $2100.
The judge's obiter dicta contained the remarks that "there is just no evidence that there was anything other than sort of intelligent inquisitiveness and the pleasure of being able to—what's the expression—surf through these various computers" and that he could have handed down a sentence of up to 10 years for the crimes.
Wikileaks in principle publishes documents from government which would otherwise go totally unnoticed. If however the government or a government agency deemed that a particular document be classified or given secret status because it is of a sensitive nature, then permission for Wikileaks to have such a thing is not there and a breach of the Crimes Act exists.
As for the quite frankly pointless comment "if you cannot give a full and frank answer to that question, should perhaps the Australian people consider charging you with treason?", it really does show a total lack of understanding of what treason actually is.
Treason broadly, is a tort which is a betrayal of the state, nation or sovereign. Again the Crimes Act 1914 doesn't explicitly use the word "treason", but it does use a nominally interchangable word "treachery":
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca191482/s24aa.html
CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 24AA
Treachery
(1) A person shall not:
(a) do any act or thing with intent:
(i) to overthrow the Constitution of the Commonwealth by revolution or sabotage; or
(ii) to overthrow by force or violence the established government of the Commonwealth, of a State or of a proclaimed country; or
Prime Minister Gillard isn't very likely to try to overthrow the government which gave her the office which she currently holds is she? How does that make any logical sense at all?
I don't think that Ms Gillard is doing a bad job as as the Prime Minister and I certainly don't think that she's done anything which would constitute an act of treason or treachery against either the Parliament or the Commonwealth either.
If anyone is in breach of the law, it is more likely to be Julian Assange because of the nature of his organisation rather than Julia Gillard who would be acting on behalf of the Parliament and Commonwealth. Unless she suddenly decided to order the RAAF to start launching AGM-123 Skippers down the Bourke Street Mall or something, the chances of charging the PM with treason are Buckley's and None.
Mr Assange's question to the Prime Minister when examined properly, falls down at every hurdle and may even accidentally incriminate him as well. Then again, Ms Gillard herself probably sums this up quite well:
"Well, his motivation, as stated, is a sort of anarchic here it all is, just have it and I don't have a great deal of respect for that. Now, I understand people will take different views on it but that's the view that motivated me to make those comments."
I will take precisely the same view as Ms Gillard because I don't have a great deal of respect for that sort of thing either.
No comments:
Post a Comment