 Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the National Press Club of Australia. My name is Sandra Lane. I am the president of the club and you forgive me. This is probably one of the only times I'm allowed to do this. Tuesday and Sunday, I'm going to come and do clubbing. That is a very long way. My switch is Wikileaks Editor-in-Chief, Kristen Papenson. And he's here to talk about Julian Assange, who is a Librarian in the jail cell in London and there are calls for him to be released and not extradited to the United States. Kristen, welcome to the club. Thank you. That's cool. Thank you. It's a warm welcome. Thanks for having me. It's a great pleasure to be with you at Australia's National Press Club on Nongavantan. My respect to Nongavantan's past, present and emerging from Iceland's wintery darkness to be here in the homeland of Julian Assange, on the anniversary of the Eureka shock hits. This was an important turning point in your democratic history, I believe. Yes. And an implication for the history of the president's country as well. But today Julian Assange is about as far from the sunshine and beauty of this place as it is possible to be. I wish I didn't have to convey to you what it's like in Belmont's prison. It's a brick and wire hell of sensory deprivation. It is no place for a journalist or a publisher and it's no place for an Australian who comes from this bright and warm place. A few hours of visiting Julian in that place, I find myself very angry. I've been there for six months now, mostly alone in the cell for over 20 hours a day, virtually in solitary confinement. I don't know how much longer he can last. He is a resilient and strong man and I should know I have worked with him closely for 10 years. But he is no longer the man I met back then. He has sacrificed everything to publish what whistleblowers have entrusted to Wikileaks. The release comes from leaks. Wikileaks does not pack. It publishes what whistleblowers provide. And we keep on doing so because whistleblowers keep trusting Wikileaks with material. Corruption in fist drop files. Two ministers in Namibia have just been forced to resign and early today they were charged. Because they were revealed to be corrupt and taking drugs. Another whistleblower recently provided an email, communication to the chief of cabinet of the OPCW, the organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons, or fairway. The email was from someone who was in the inspection team that visited the site of an alleged chemical weapons attack in Dubai and Syria in April 2018. And remember that this alleged chemical weapon attack saw Syria bombed by the US, France and the UK. The email outright accuses the leadership of OPCW of omitting information and misrepresenting the facts. The emails also show how much pressure the US was bringing to bear on an organization that is supposed to be independent and impartial. Julian has sacrificed everything so that whistleblowers can shine light on these kinds of serious wrongdoing so the public can understand truths about our world and for the principles of press freedom. He should not be tortured as the UN torture expert states is occurring. He should not be extradited for publishing. He should not face 175 years in the US jail for publishing information about wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and activities in Contamble Bay, which is what he recharges relatively. He should not face jail for informing Australians and the rest of the world about the true nature of the wars we are fighting in. It is time to bring this Australian citizen home. What I want to discuss with you today is the fate of journalism and Julian. I look forward to your questions and thoughts. But before I discuss who or what is a journalist, when government secrecy is legitimate or excessive, let me say some thank yous. I want to thank Kerry O'Brien, one of your finest journalists for what he said at the Wall Plates last week. He made an important speech about the fate of journalism. For those of you who were in there, this is what he said. Julian Sanz is mouldering in a British prison, a way to have tradition to the United States, where he may pay for their severe embarrassment with a life in prison. Again, this government could demonstrate its commitment to a free press by using its significant influence with its closest ally to gain his return to Australia. I want to thank everyone who applauded when he said that, and it was almost all of the Australian journalists there. I agree also with the leader of the MEAA, the journalists union in this country, of which Julian has been a card-carrying member since 2007. Thank you for working, Chief Executive of the MEAA, for saying at the Wall Plates, quote, Julian Sanz may be extradited to the United States to possibly face a lifetime in prison. Among the charges he is accused of publishing material that could harm the national security of the United States. The scope of these words should alarm every journalist. There was loud applause when this was said too. Because Australian journalists get what is at stake, particularly after the raids on the ABC and on to journalists at home in this town, and some have understood this all along. And here I have me, journalists and writers like Philip Adams, Frank Kelly, Henry Fowler, Bernardine and Guy Rund. These journalists have made a consistent effort to wade through the complexities of Julian's case to see the simple truth at stake, principally those about press freedom. I want to thank Scott Budum, who is here today. For many years, one would have been forgiven for thinking only one Australian parliamentarian understood the danger arising from so many national security laws and the significance of the persecution of a publisher for publishing. But now I can also thank Andrew Wilkie MP and George Christensen MP who coach here the bringing Julian Assange's home parliamentary group. This group is an eclectic mixture of people from across the spectrum of politics who can all agree that it is time to see Julian Assange arrive back in Australia, a free man. So thank you for getting it. This is Barney B. Joyce, Rebecca Sharkey, Rex Patrick, Julian Hill, Steve George-Jones, Richard Hinafuel and Sally Steeple. I also want to thank someone here today who is in court tomorrow for a peaceful protest climbing onto your parliament with a banner that read Free Julian Assange, No US Exhibition. I hope the judge you face is similar to the magistrate another protestor faced in Melbourne last week for peace reprotesting at the UK consulate. That magistrate stated that someone would commend the person for occupying the UK consulate and did not, of course, a conviction or a good behaviour bond, but a $400 fine. I want to thank the doctors who signed a statement of concern about Julian's health, one of who is here today, thank you Dr. Sue Welle. And how could I not acknowledge and thank Julian's parents whose agony it is difficult to imagine? Christine, Julian's mother, once said, there are some others she wishes Julian had never started waiting list. But as a citizen, she was proud of her son and supported waiting list and it is. That is the kind of person who raised Julian, a person of principle who thinks like a citizen. It becomes clear through knowing his parents how Julian came to be Julian. I am a parent myself and as a parent I truly don't know how they have endured 10 years of their something mercilessly smeared while watching his deterioration, suffering and isolation. And who about? For publishing material that as Kerry O'Brien said embarrassed the United States. But Wikileaks wasn't alone and very often wasn't first in publishing documents on Pantano, Belarque and Cablegate back in 2010 and 2011. We partnered with some media organisation in this country and with the Spiegel in Germany, the Guardian in the UK and the New York Times in the United States and many others. And that is also worth a thank you. The power of what we collected about wars and war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq about crimes against humanity at Pantano, Belarque. It was worthwhile and it changed things. Not enough things, but some for the better. At the time, many agreed and welcomed Wikileaks which was awarded the War Play Award for most outstanding contribution to journalism in 2011. There are dozens of other awards Julian has received. Three German surprises this year alone. I continue to believe that Wikileaks and very many media outlets were right to expose what's happened in our names. The United States is trying to prosecute an Australian citizen who has not even in the United States, but in Europe, a gross overuse into the sovereign territory of other countries and a dangerous president. And what the President does at this set is a new form of forced rendition. Only this time, not with a zap over the heads and an orange job shoot, but with the enabling of the UK legal system with the apparent support of the Australian government. If Russia and China would do this to an Australian journalist, we believe that resolving this issue has important international implications. It's an enabling environment for the deterioration of press freedom standards globally. The world's media organizations, prominent individuals, and grassroots campaign efforts are growing in expressing concern by lobbying and by taking protest actions. The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and The Guardian have expressed great concern about the charges he faces. The UK special envoy for media freedom at the Dune Global Conference for Media Freedom, the charges criminalize common practices in journalism. With the American Civil Liberties Union has warned, established a dangerous precedent that can be used to target all news organizations that hold the government accountable by balancing its secrets. The bottom line is that the fate of Julian and journalism around the world are entwined. Now let me address the question of whether Julian is an answer to journalists. It's actually pretty insulting to be honest. I mentioned as a journalist that I don't read awards to no reason for 20 years before I joined Wichita and for the 10 years since I did. And the High Court of the United Kingdom is not confused on this matter. It described Julian as, quote, a journalist well-known through his operation of Wickelies, unquote, in the opening line of his November 2, 2011 ruling. And the US Army Conference Intelligence Center is similarly not confused. It described Wickelies as, quote, news organization, unquote, and Assange as a writer, a journalist that showed journalistic responsibility to the news-worthiness or fair use of the classified documents. Two relevant professional bodies for journalists are not confused either. The MEAA made it clear in 2007 and the Worklay Board in 2011, when Julian got the prestigious award. And the IFJ, the International Federation of Journalists, they gave him its International Journalist Heart. The US Enlightenment documents against Julian describe routine journalistic fantasies that first relates to taking measures to protect the identity of a source and the remaining 17 charges relate to receiving and publishing information. The prosecution is being pursued under the Espionage Act, first used against a publisher in US history. It is a prosecution in which there is no public interest defense. Alan Ruskwitcher, former editor of The Guardian, who acknowledges Julian as a journalist and Julian is qualified to do so, described the journalistic activities in the charges as the kind of activity that honorable journalists do all the time. Wickelies has experienced and challenged some journalistic practices. And as Hart Cohen and Antonia Ocasio say in the Global Media Journal, it has also changed the way we think about the rules. Wickelies did when it was first established in 2006 was to provide technological anonymity and untraceability to whistleblowers and sources. This is a bit similar to what the ABC installed last week, Secure Drop and what The Guardian and The View of Times caught up with a few years ago by installing it too. Wickelies was out in front in understanding the implication of the internet for journalism, its promise and potential for protecting sources for realizing new ways a network for the state could provide information to the public and all the media outlets and are now applying those learnings. What Wickelies specializes in is the analysis and publication of large datasets of censored or otherwise restricted official materials involving international relations or spying and corruption. He could speak for himself but rather than a few selected documents and shine light on how human institutions actually behave, how they evolve, how power is exercised and it is the archive being made public and all the few selected documents that has been discated to deal with the problems of corrupt institutions. Ironman plays for secrecy. Of course there is. Wickelies uses it extensively as so-called government and it is legitimate when there are delicate diplomatic engagements on the way when it's about dangerous materials for all sorts of reasons. What we have seen so much and what we have revealed is how rampant secrecy has become and how corruption thrives and becomes epidemic under conditions of secrecy. We have also revealed the unresolvable over classification of documents when governments should not hide all their actions behind official secrecy while seeking to know more and more about how they have created one of us. To speak about balance between government secrecy and the public's right to know is to not acknowledge how serious, out of balance these things have become. It is a journalist's responsibility to publish and inform the public and undo unnecessary secrecy just like we journalists must keep our sources secret. We have the necessity to do that. It is not our responsibility to protect intelligence agencies or protect police if they act in an incompetent or unlawful way. Or when a whistleblower does risk everything because something is very wrong and only sunlight can hold the wrong tune in its tracks. As Andrew Power, another great Australian journalist has observed WikiLeaks is an old-fashioned idea about journalism reborn in the age of 18. Now did Julian Assange himself seek to redact the war logs and cables? Yes, as Mark Davis recently attested at the Sidney The Politics in the Public event he witnessed Julian stay up the night after night to do just that. The Harvard professor Jochai Benkler, who testified in the Manning trial wrote a fine paper about the importance of a free and irresponsible press. By irresponsible he meant not responsible to one group or another. He meant that it is the responsibility of the press to remain free and to publish that which hopefully interests would prefer to be kept secret. When the ABC launched Secure Drop last week, this comment was made. It's a sad commentary on our times that Secure Drop is necessary. We hope one day it isn't. Similarly, it's a sad commentary on our times that WikiLeaks is necessary. We hope one day it isn't. For now, while whistleblowers keep trusting our platform with information, it is purposely. The UK-US extradition treaty stipulates that if an offense is political, extradition from the UK must not proceed. Well, the extradition of Julian to the US must not proceed. The charges against Julian are political and being used in a political way to deter journalism and publicity. The US authorities have spied on him, including live web streaming of his meetings with lawyers and colleagues, including from the embassy's toilets for years. Alhant was made to blackmail victims to extract 3 million euros from me, in fact, in exchange for these surveillance materials collected by Spanish firm Undercovered Oval. This matter is now before the Spanish courts, but gives a lot of insight into the lengths the superpower has been prepared to go. The German national broadcaster has filed a criminal complaint for visiting the embassy. I've traveled ten time zones to be here today. There are things you can do in defence of your colleague and your profession that we can't do from London or my hometown in Great Britain. You are able to ensure that timely and accurate information about the importance of this case reaches a wild Australian audience. You are able to design and dismiss the ruthless misinformation campaign that this is somehow about Sweden or the treatment of its cat or corruption within the US Democratic Party. In keeping the focus on the indictments for publishing, you keep the focus on the truth. You can ask him. And you are in opposition of facing the prime minister and his colleagues day after day, sometimes eye to eye. You can ask him what he has done to get Julian home. How has he stood up for his fellow citizen? Your government did take steps to secure the freedom of James Richardson, also of Melinda Taylor, also of Peter Gresson. And please be direct. Please be insistent. As for details, not apologies. Please be unrelentful and prepare for backing others when the inventory is limited. You above all are people to distinguish between publishing and espionage. A distinction that the US government and its allies seem intense on the raising. And you know as well as I that if they are successful in this, then Julian Assange will not be the last of our colleagues to have his life destroyed in this life of war. Look around this room today. You each have a role in the political ecosystem that helps keep things safe for everyone else. I know you're under a great deal of pressure because that's where we must draw the line. In the union movement, say, an injury to one is an injury to all. Please help us get our colleague and our friends safely home. The movement is engaged in a debate about secrecy, whistleblowing and journalism, especially around national security. This is a very old debate because journalism at its core will always be about power, about subjecting the powerful and the way they use power to scrutiny and overcoming their resistance to that and supporting those who want to hold them accountable. What's changed is that the internet has given journalists and whistleblowers more tools to undertake that process but also given the powerful more tools to resist and to attack those who try to subject them to scrutiny. First we have an old conflict being fought on new battlefields, in new media and on new devices and platforms. But these things are perhaps greater than they have ever been. An idea of just what Julian's health is like. You've said that you're concerned about his health. 60 doctors signed a letter last week saying that his health was at risk. What... I think you last visited him in October so I'm not sure that you... Can you give us an idea of his health? I have been able to visit him about four times since he was arrested in this... despicable manner in April. Of course he came from a bad place after all these years inside the Epitone Embassy. So being thrown into that prison designed to intimidate and... and actually in fact his conditions are worse. And I've said I've had that from lawyers who have presented terrorists who are serving time in God's most prison. They have actually a better environment to cope with the situation than Julian has. He is mostly in isolation for 20 hours a day to give an example of how he was treated there. He's always the... when I go to visit him he's always either the first or the last one to enter the visitation hall. That is because they empty the hallways when he goes from the cell into the visitation hall. And for what reason? One doesn't understand. And I've seen him grow thinner. He's lost probably 10, 15 kilos in these few months. He's pale. He's fraught. He has a hard time to think. He's constantly wearing airplugs because of the noise. And I basically see life fading out of his life. And I'm really concerned about his health. This is just a no place for an individual of his status. No place for a journalist. And no place for an Australian citizen who has done nothing wrong but exposed the truth. And that letter didn't... How is that received by the officials? If you are referring to the officials in the UK I have not heard of any reaction. They are becoming master of dismissing anything as a part of Julian's absence. Unbelievably they dismissed the finding of a very important human rights tribunal, the working group on arbitrary detention that found that he was in the embassy who was being arbitrary detained. And that panel in Geneva basically ordered the United Kingdom and Sweden to resolve the situation. It was dismissed as nonsense. The politicians there said they are misunderstanding. They don't understand the laws here. And when this was presented as a mitigating evidence in the court this spring in order for him to at least get up the usual sentence of a fine for reaching bail. He had just said that I was present there. The United Nations ruled to not have any bearings in my court. And that was after he had snarled Julian and called him a narcissist even though he was seeing him for the first time behind the bulletproof glass and he had only stated his name on the day of birth. So I don't think that unless organizations and individuals start pushing against the authorities in the United Kingdom and I hope politicians on this side start picking up the phone and put a pressure on the system and the United Kingdom that things will change because he must get out and it's absolutely impossible to think that an individual who's preparing for a case the most important case for his life he's fighting for his life in February that he has not a position to prepare the case. It's only two or three weeks ago that he actually got papers to read on his own defendants. And that's totally unacceptable. How can this happen in that civilized country? So this has to change and I'm hoping that pressure will come from this side of the world for your change. When we spoke this morning about six hours ago you had an appointment with the Foreign Minister Bruce Payne, has that changed? I hope not. Are you hopeful? I am always hopeful, you have to be hopeful. I have been heartening just in a few days I know I've found some in the year that I'm drawing a dark picture but since I arrived here I've met a lot of Germans here and a lot of supporters and I've felt that there is a growing sense of knowledge of the importance of fighting this case fighting for freedom of Julian and that gives you hope and I think there's a momentum coming people are more understanding the importance of this not just for Julian, for all journalists not just in this country but around the world and for the public because we're talking about the foundation of our democracy this is the theme so let it be the push back against the two decades of assert deterioration of our human rights and I hope that the freedom of Julian will be the first step in the right direction because we have certainly been in the wrong direction for 20 years Catherine Murphy Hello, thank you for coming all the way to Canberra for making this speech here today I have two questions the first sort of picks up from Saabra's question to you about the instance or meeting with the foreign minister and so forth particularly over the last couple of months WikiLeaks has had more purchase in politics this group has been formed a cross-party group in order to raise awareness about Saabra's the extradition but then how do you deepen that into engagement of the government level because the government's showing absolutely no sign of rallying to this cause so that's the first question the second to you is in your capacity as the editor of WikiLeaks and it relates to the U.S. election Julian is actually a statement in I think it was November 2016 just about the disclosure of the Clinton material he said that the intention was not to influence the result of the U.S. election but to face these dilemmas all the time what are the consequences of disclosures but the fact of the matter is I'm sure that those disclosures about the Clinton material did impact the election result in the U.S. has the WikiLeaks organisation had any cause post the election of Donald Trump to regret the fact that no material was published about the Trump campaign or any other candidates in that election given his own behaviour given what has been disclosed during the course of his bitterly contested presidency if I start from the end do I have any regrets about not publishing anything about Donald Trump well the regrets would then be not receiving anything of importance that we could authenticate and publish it is perceived as we were we do not pick targets in that sense we are giving information and if we had information about the source that it was and we could authenticate we would have so maybe the regret is that no whistleblower no source would make the information but but the question about influencing the outcome of elections and how journalists should somehow now in many people's minds stay away from politics prior to election is mind boggling to say the least I thought that the role of journalists in democratic society was to earn the Earth's secrets and influence and educate the public so they could go to the working booth as an informed citizen so exposing the politicians prior to election is part of what we are supposed to be doing and I've been told do you regret that we can use the public this information about the 2016 election and I said this to Julian as well and I said if that had been withheld it had been a journalistic crime I would have left the organization if I had heard of that to happen and that is my belief we should of course especially prior to election educate the public about what the politicians are about I spoke about the revelation in Namibia about the right to officials there two of them are in jail and the minister of officials and the minister of justice the revelation came out three weeks before the election there was nobody saying in Namibia that this was an interference into the electoral process or an attempt to influence the outcome of the Swapo party who actually went from getting 97% votes down to 50s I mean in the presidential race there was no content partly maybe a result of this revelation but in my mind to have not published until after the election there had been such a betrayal that it would be a journalistic crime not to do so so that is my general approach to this debate and why should there be any different approach to things in Namibia or in the States in many ways the United States thinks that they are above principles and a different set of rules should apply now you also asked about the politicians here I am hoping to meet with the politicians and I rely of course on the support group in the city in this country who know the lay of the land better than I do but I have been heartened to see that former politicians or prominents have been coming out even for a minister at the time that these uncomfortable truths were exposed in speaking on Julian Assange's behalf and I think that there is a spillover there is a growing concerns in the community and there will be a cross-party unity on fighting for Julian Assange coming back to this country Sarah Eisen Sarah Eisen from the West Australian thank you so much for speaking I would like to know if you could articulate your response to the action on other inaction of the Australian Government also from travelling so much internationally if you can tell me what the perception of that inaction is on the international stage well I was in the Bundestag in Germany just two days before boarding a plane down to this site and I got that question from government politicians and I didn't have the answers and they were puzzled why the Australian Government hadn't done more throughout the years I did not have the answer I could point out the strategic alliance and historical alliance this is just something that everybody knows about but it is puzzling to many on that site and I do not have the answers but yes I do have recognised that there is a question and disbelief that more has not been done Tim Shaw Tim Shaw member of the National Press Club board in June of 2012 I interviewed Julian Light from London and he said to me quote I was trying to play a very precarious game with the United States and I had 251,000 US diplomatic cables in my pocket I asked him if he was a technology terrorist or a titan of transparency and he referred to then US Vice President Joe Biden who is now Democratic candidate in the 2020 elections and Vice President Biden referred to him as a high-tech terrorist today if you had 251,000 cables delivered to you you know your responsibilities and your methodologies would you do anything different to what Julian and WikiLeaks did back then we of course learned from experience but in essence this was the right approach and remember this was not dumped on the internet all at once even though that is sometimes the feeling I get when I see the constant accusation of irresponsible they are working without any any filtering or any sort of curating which is nonsense all these releases that are now the base of these indictments the Afghan war documents the Iraq war documents and the diplomatic cables they were curated in some way I mean the one third of the Afghan documents were with health the summer of 2010 all the Iraq documents were redacted in a systematic manner and the diplomatic cables were over 10 months and you only stop that sort of process in coordination and cooperation with almost 100 news organizations all around the world who put their expertise in analyzing and producing story on the basis of these documents so it was all what an irresponsible throwing out of the on the contrary I mean it was this method has become a model for others international media alliances like the international consortium of investigative journalism who produced the Panama Papers it had other organizations on a local level like in Eastern Europe even now there's an African one so this is a model for cross border cooperation but this method that we use over these 10 months and it was only because of rather irresponsible behavior of the guardian journalists who purposely password to fire those online that the entire thing was released that I remember in the first weeks of the cable gate project we should constantly being hammered by the fact that we were drip feeding this out to the world why are you holding this back so the opposite was true we were harshly criticized for not dumping everything so of course the other journalists could all dive in and write stories on it so it's hard to please but this was all but no it was not an irresponsible thing and I think in essence I would have done it in the same way in the same way and it had a great impact at the time Latin America was a bit my experience it's probably because I'm the only person within WikiLeaks who does not speak Spanish but it's the way things go and you could see how that's an affected head we were dealing with both big mainstream media organizations but often with smaller grassroots media organizations three or four people editorial fighting against different social circumstances and it was very rewarding to take that on that trip maybe I can mention a little little anecdote here about how people perceived WikiLeaks at the time because you're absolutely true you had screaming individuals politicians and commentators in the United States at that time the killing, the assassination the droning of WikiLeaks the daughter of Jake Cheney actually wanted Pentagon to send a drone to WikiLeaks because he thought that my home city was the headquarters of WikiLeaks at the time it was absurd, I mean the madness that was going on and you had the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff a life from the Pentagon talking about the blood on their hands thing they already had blood on their hands and I was watching him and I was thinking oh my god this man representing the US military talking about anybody having blood on their hands what an absurd thing almost in tears and ever since so we just addressed this issue because I know it's probably going to come up has any harm become because of this is millions of documents that WikiLeaks has produced over the years documents from 2010 well in the many trial the Pentagon was forced to to come before the military court and admit that no physical harm had occurred because of this release and to this day we have not heard of any any such incident so it is astonishing an Orwellian and even Kafkaist as well throwing out clichés that they had the US military accusing Julian Assange and WikiLeaks to have blood on their hands after we exposed all those things the atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan that's astounding Cubs patron Ken Randall I'd like to ask you although the Julian Assange case is far from over well it seems to be far from over it has raised awareness and discussion of all the issues that you've raised today do you think it's advancing positive by any of those affecting journalists and journalism are you familiar that the case of Julian Assange has affected other journalists and journalists in general or the position security-wise if I understood your question correctly I am sure that already the process that he's in even though he hasn't been exercising to a sentence I have a feeling of course I can say that for certain that the rates of Australia this summer in June would not have happened if he hadn't been dragged out of the embassy in April and it seems that the incidents of these aggressive acts against journalists have escalated in the last few months so it seems that the precedent that I talked about and that specific question of extraterrestrial reach that the US takes has also has an effect on other actions that enables governments to take more bolder steps so I think it's already had an effect very good Cubs Kristin when you joined WikiLeaks in 2010 you were Iceland's most highly acclaimed journalist you've been there a decade as have indeed the other many of the core members of the WikiLeaks group that doesn't happen unless you all believe in the objectives of the organisation but also that you all have respect for editor Julian Assange who has been much maligned I have two questions for you firstly what concerns do you have for your own freedom and safety and that of your staff and secondly if you could reflect for us please your estimation of him as a human being we came from a totally different science in a line of thought he was from this very hacking days from Melbourne from the time when hacking did not have a necessarily negative connotation and I from this square mainstream media environment mostly in broadcast for 20 years and but probably considered somewhat radical in my approach and not an easy person to deal with I guess if one takes into account the time I had to storm out of my working place which was I think as often as I was awarded but we found a common ground and we had long discussions and they were always inspiring we had disagreements about certain things but we found common ground and he listens well and he doesn't dismiss anything you say so he's a good man to talk to a kind person with a good sense of humor he is anything but the strange character that has been portrayed in the mainstream media at some levels which is the result of this slandering campaign that's been going on for 10 years I don't know that person that person doesn't exist in reality this is what he was referring to when he said that media was complicit as well in this public mobbing which is that after his 20 years as a special writer for torture he had never seen anything like that before in a western country so we got him well now you talk about our security and our staff we have been under threat this is the reason why we try to limit the exposure that they are under we try not to advertise the names we have to try to secure their interests in any way we can the three people that have been on the surface working on WikiLeaks throughout this time me, Sarah Harrison and Joseph Farrell we have all been accepted of the same investigation that have been since 2013 we learned that social media organization had all been the US had all been demanded to hand over all the information about us we only knew because one of that one of that an organization Google actually took to the courts and demanded the right to tell the customers us that they had been forced by court order to hand over all the information they had on us of course it was rather g-mails the content of their little interest at least in my case but the metadata they were forced to hand over as well which basically is a tracking information which has now used in court cases against individuals and it seems to be going on we don't know about everything that is going on but unfortunately on this morning I heard that Thomas had been an artist that has worked with WikiLeaks or for WikiLeaks or assisted WikiLeaks with campaign well posters and graphic design etc that he had learned of a similar court order to Google to hand over information about him so not even artists that are associated with the organization are safe which is astonishing Tony Melville Tony Melville, Kristen Australian Director of National Press Club but there's a lot of serious stuff obviously in WikiLeaks but one of my favourite cables was the William Byrne's cable US Ambassador from the Chechen wedding I don't know if you know that one you can find it on the Guardian website there's a thing with a gold-plated revolver and his jeans and showering dances with $100 bills so it just revealed some of this classic stuff that is quite interesting to look at that you don't really see anymore and none of us see my question is about the whistleblower word that you've used many times there are many whistleblower protection laws around the world including in Australia and not out the US what would you like to see about those laws to protect publishers like yourself it has been my impression travelling around and seeing the variations of whistleblower protection act in several countries they are deeply flawed deeply flawed in many ways primarily because they demand a certain procedure you have to comply with before you can get any protections of whistleblower and the most absurd demand is actually to expose yourself to your superior to the head of the organization before you can actually go to the media so what my main concern these are usually acts made by government officials and passed by politicians who somehow put the media and journalists outside the framework so I know many examples where whistleblower have actually had including the NSA have gone to their superior and raised concern about a certain issue this happened in the NSA way before it was known and the individuals are devoted because of that problem it's just for raising concerns about the superior's surface in the media they are the first persons that they go to so they are exposing themselves to trouble this is just one example so I worry that in many cases the whistleblower protection acts are basically an opposite effect they are actually stifling the whistleblower and the information out I don't necessarily know how to amend it but obviously this is just a word of caution because originally I was much for it but I don't know how to get around this and strengthen this protection but this is one of the flaws that are in the existing acts in many countries actually in Holland where in Germany, in my own country where a bill of such nature is now before Parliament so it's of concern I'm Lisa Minatic and I'm representing myself as a concerned citizen Noting those who refer to Julian Assange as a technology terrorist generally have corrupt and nefarious acts they should cover up How do the truth media platforms get the message out that all the major mockingbird media platforms are owned by the deep state satanic bloodlines and nefarious elements of the intelligence agencies especially when the body count is suicide did whistleblowers are staggering especially around the Clinton and Bush dynasties How do we deal with this environment that you were describing I may have together a little translation on the fact that how do we deal with this reality we are talking about of course a very sad situation in the mainstream media world journalism is under attack it's very hard to see this happening in country after country of course there are economic concerns you have giants I mentioned Google before online giants are sucking 70-80% of all advertising revenue sucking the live out of the mainstream media and of course taking a huge toll this is happening at the same time as there's an attack on state broadcasters and I do make aware of that a couple of days ago the same thing is happening here in this country against the ABC as we're seeing in other European countries they are under attack it's done by cutting the blood flow cutting the budget same things are happening in other countries with the state broadcasters and it creates an environment that is unhealthy and on top of that of course it's all the legal changes that are made and have been made post 9-11 with our of concern basically eating away our press freedom and our liberties somebody told me there were over 70 certain legislations of this country and it's alarming what can be done to keep WikiLeaks alive and as a part of that get Julian Assange out of prison and get him on a platform and start a worldwide campaign for the reversal of this situation Wendy Bacon I'm from the Pacific media centre Kristen you have already spoken about how WikiLeaks is providing the contribution to journalism innovated in journalism you come from a mainstream background as you said I wonder if you could just talk a little bit more about how the basic principles of journalism are applied in WikiLeaks in particular maybe around context verification of documents and considering what is in the public interest how does your being as a journalist been applied in WikiLeaks is not very much different from any editorial process there of course is a discussion you see got expertise expert opinions on material because it's also complicated I can mention for example when we got material on the trans-parasitic partnership agreement negotiations that were actually stopped after we released the draft sort of agreement we sought out assistance in contextualization from labour unions from experts on various fields who wrote excellent pieces about context of the entire thing because it was a very broad scope there was about copyright it was about so many issues that are embodied in freedom that are pertain to individuals it's no different from editorial and of course the verification process can often be difficult but we use the same expert and we have access to a large group of experts who know these documents and know how to verify and I consider as a real lucky I think WikiLeaks has been extremely lucky all these years there's not a single single document that has been called out as a fabricated one or authentic everything is authentic so there's not been a mistake so far I'm not saying that it cannot happen at one time but as a track record I think that's pretty good so I mean there is in essence no huge difference I mean of course we were working in a different environment we could use encrypted computation communication we think about security security but you don't have the allowed editorial newsrooms I was a bit used to before not that I said I missed it but in 20 years you could have had enough of that but it's in essence the same thing although the technology and the platform is a bit different it's the same principle Andrew Fallon Thanks very much for your excellent talk Kristen it's really illuminating even for those of us that have spent a lot of time investigating looking at WikiLeaks you rightly point out that there has been a shift in sentiment around journalists they now increasingly support during the Sange to what extent has that support grown as a result of journalists realizing that they could be next that they could suffer the long reach of the American Department of Justice and Administration to what extent is it that or is it that they really have copped on to the fact that WikiLeaks is a fantastically positive force for journalism It's a trick question Andrew you're basically asking me whether journalists are acting out of self-interest or high moral values I'm not going to be tricked into that one it's probably a mixture of both and I mean I think we both know that of course there is self-interest there and let's hope it's also concerned for the acknowledgement that this is an attack on their life with it and their platform and their security and so it's not just self-interest because part of that self-interest is the technology that well let's hope and I think that the platform they stand on and the duties that they have are a sacred value and above all are extremely important I was just like it so a mix Cheryl Castro Thanks very much Sabra It's a long time since I've been a journalist but as a journalist I've been taking notes and one of the challenges as a journalist is to question why you're being given information and I used to get lots of leaks but I would ask why was I being given that information with regard to the Clinton emails did you ever consider that you might be plagued by the Trump campaign Well let me answer this with this way I mean the ABC is opening up a drop box which basically means that they are doing the same thing as we do and we do it for a decade or more for a decade is that not knowing where the information comes from is the best sort of security you can give to a source how will the ABC deal with the fact that they have no idea where the information is coming from whether the fact the evaluation of the documents that come there I doubt it because I mean if this was of a concern constantly it would be to put up this kind of you would have to know where it comes from what is the short what is the motivation and is the motivation should it come into play when you decide what is to be published or what not in my opinion it basically is a question of evaluating the information you have in front of you individually deciding on the basis of what is there whether it is in the public interest to publish it or not because you all know throughout I mean even when I was working mainstream media we all knew that when somebody was passing you a brown envelope underneath the tour for the internet came home I mean of course there is some motivation behind it but in essence it doesn't really matter in essence the material you are seeing it is authentic you just have to decide whether it is of interest to publish it or not everybody please join me and thank you for your help