 It's a great pleasure to be with you here at the National Press Club on Ngunnawal land. I would like to pay my respects to Ngunnawal elders past, present and emerging and to all First Nations people here today and joining us remotely. I'd also like to acknowledge the presence of many of those who are in the room who have supported Joiner Sange and his family over the years and in particular the members of the Joiner Sange Parliamentary Friends group, Senators Peter Wish-Wilson, David Shubridge, the member for Kuyong, the Honourable Meneke Ryan and from the Labour Party, Susan Templeman MP. So thank you for being here. I'd also like to acknowledge the presence of special guests including Bernard Kaleri whose endurance, courage and integrity inspires so many of us, myself included, and David McBride, the whistleblower for still-facing trial who remains the only person facing charges many years after the Brewerton Report. I've been working on Joiner Sange's defence and talking about its implications for democracy and free speech for over a decade. You might have heard some of the media sound bites from me over those years about the stark injustice it is that Joiner Sange faces 175 years in prison for committing acts of journalism, about how the United States seeks to imprison him for the rest of his life, for publications which have won the Walkley Award for most outstanding contribution to journalism and the Sydney Peace Prize medal. You might have heard me say that his prosecution sets a dangerous precedent for free speech and journalists all over the world. But having an opportunity like this to elaborate is rare and so I want to thank the National Press Club for the invitation and having me here today. I'm often asked how Julian is and so I think it's right that I start there. I really don't know how much longer he can last. The world was shocked by his appearance when he was arrested back in 2019. I wasn't. For over seven years I had been watching his health slowly decline inside the Ecuadorian Embassy where he was seeking to protect himself from US extradition. After years of government statements and media commentary claiming Julian was paranoid and should just leave the embassy, some were surprised when Julian was served immediately with a US extradition request when he was arrested. I wasn't because it was exactly what we were warning about for more than a decade. For the past three and a half years Julian Assange has been in a high security prison, Belmarsh, known as the Guantanamo of the UK and I've watched his health decline even further. Just last year after a particularly stressful court hearing Julian had a mini-stroke. As the prosecution was deriding the medical evidence of Julian's severe depression and suicidal ideation and the risk to his life those with video access or Julian sitting in a blue room in Belmarsh with his head in his hands. Now I've seen Julian on some particularly bad days but this was alarming and my alarm was for good reason. As it turned out he had just had or was experiencing as we watched live on the screen a mini-stroke which often precedes a major stroke. Once again we were witnessing in real time Julian's health decline. Julian's wife Stella who speaks so eloquently on his behalf now that he can't anxiously waits for the phone call that she dreads and it is no exaggeration to say when she does say this to the media and regularly that he is suffering profoundly in prison and she doesn't know if he's going to survive it. Unless a political resolution is found this case as we all know has always been political it requires a political solution and if we don't find one Julian is going to be detained for many many years to come. It is impossible to accurately predict the timeline but here is a brief overview of where we are in terms of the legal process and where what the legal process ahead might look like. After a year-long extradition hearing which was interrupted a number of times because of COVID Julian won his case in early January 2021. If extradited to the United States he will be placed in prison conditions which are known as special administrative measures or SAMS. These have been described as the darkest black hole of the US prison system. The magistrate ruled that Julian's extradition would be oppressive because of the prison conditions he would face and the medical evidence shows that if subjected to SAMS he will suicide and on that basis she barred his extradition but the Trump administration appealed and in its last days sought to get around that court decision by shifting the goalposts by offering an assurance that Julian would not be placed in such oppressive prison conditions but as Amnesty International has said US assurances are not worth the paper that they're written on and in Julian's case it's even worse than that the US assurance was in fact conditional. The US only promised not to place him in SAMS unless he did something later that would deserve him being placed under SAMS and who would decide those prison prison conditions the CIA and he would have no right of appeal. Before the US government was heard the US government appeal was heard we learned thanks to important investigative journalism that the CIA had planned to kidnap and kill Julian. I think it's worth pausing on that for a moment. The CIA had planned to kidnap and kill an award-winning journalist in London. Again the Central Intelligence Agency had plans in place to send someone to London to kidnap and assassinate Julian Assange. We know this because of an investigation based on interviews with at least 30 different official government sources. When the news broke I thought finally this is the thing that will put the case to an end. This will be it but no a British court accepted the US assurance despite the fact we were not able to challenge it in court with evidence and ordered and said that his extradition could go ahead. In June the British secretary home secretary ordered his extradition. We've since filed an appeal and we're waiting to hear and we should hear soon whether the High Court will grant us permission and hear that appeal. If it does we can expect a process that goes on for years through the High Court and all the way to the UK Supreme Court. If we lose we will appeal to the European Court of Human Rights that is of course if the current British conservative government doesn't remove its jurisdiction before we have that opportunity. If our appeal fails Julian will be extradited to the United States where his prison conditions will be at the whim of the intelligence agency that plotted to kill him. He will face an unfair trial and once convicted it could take years before wherever we ever get the opportunity to run a constitutional argument under the first amendment before the US Supreme Court. That is another decade of his life gone if he can survive that long and that's why I'm here. This case needs an urgent political fix. Julian does not have another decade of his life to wait for a legal fix and it might be surprising to hear that from me as a lawyer that the solution is not a legal one it is a political one. So when you hear politicians or government officials in the UK or in the US or in this country talk about due process or the rule of law this is what they're talking about punishment by process, burying him under legal process until he dies. In fact if you look at the case and you read our grounds of appeal there's been very little by way of due process or rule of law in what has been inflicted upon Julian. As we argue in our appeal this case has been rife with an abuse and let me just outline a few of those abuse of process. This case against him is unprecedented. It is the first time in US legal history that a journalist is facing prosecution under the Espionage Act for committing acts of journalism and the US is going to argue that Julian Assange as an Australian citizen is not entitled to free speech constitutional protections at all. Then we get to the US UK extradition treaty. That treaty prohibits extraditing anyone for political offences and yet the US is purporting to extradite Julian under the Espionage Act which is of course a political offence. That we say is unlawful and abusive process. We've seen the fabrication of evidence against him. The US key witness in Iceland has since admitted that he lied and yet the US is continuing to pursue an indictment based on his evidence. We've also seen that the indictment deliberately misrepresents the facts in order to secure his extradition. We've seen the unlawful surveillance of Julian of myself personally of our legal team on his medical treatment and the seizure of legally privileged material. At the extradition hearing we heard evidence from the revered leaker of the Pentagon papers, Daniel Ellsberg, who celebrated the world over for that public interest publication about the Vietnam War. Ellsberg explained that his prosecution by the Nixon administration under the Espionage Act was thrown out with prejudice for far less abuse than what we have seen in Julian Assange's case and yet this prosecution continued and was commenced and continued under the Trump administration and it continues today under President Biden. What does that say about our civil liberties and our democracies in 2022? The list of abuse goes on and on and on but I don't want to take up all day talking about that. As a lawyer working on human rights cases it's important to remain focused on the principles at stake and the work at hand. An essential part of my job is to remain dispassionate and level-headed in the face of injustice but it has become harder and harder to do so watching the persecution that Julian has faced and the impact that it is having on his family and on him as a human being and as a fellow Australian. In 2019 the UN Special Rapporteur on torture Niels Meltzer reported his findings on Julian's case and concluded that he had been subjected to torture, to torture. Years before we had made a complaint to his UN mandate and we had heard nothing back. It was only later that Meltzer acknowledged that it was he had ignored our complaint and had not responded to it because of the prejudice he felt against Julian after years of government propaganda and media reporting which attacked Julian's reputation but in 2019 he finally agreed to read our complaint and what he read shocked him and forced him to confront his own prejudice. He's since written a book about it what he learned and we have it here today so I'm going to show it to you. The trial of Julian Assange and I highly recommend it but in his UN findings this is how Mr Meltzer put it and I quote in 20 years of work with victims of war violence and political persecution I have never seen a group of democratic states ganging up to deliberately isolate demonise and abuse a singular individual for such a long time and with so little regard for human dignity and the rule of law. So it hasn't always been easy to remain dispassionate in the face of his persecution and in particular the impact on Julian and his family. Julian has two small children Gabriel and Max who are just five and three when they tell me about going to see their dad in the queue they're talking about going to visit him in Belmarsh prison they call it the queue because of the security cure that they have to stand in their little bodies padded down by guards their mouths checked their ears checked in their hair in their shoes before they're allowed to see their father this is heartbreaking because of COVID restrictions Julian was not able to see his family for six months and when they were finally allowed into the prison ongoing prison restrictions meant that he wasn't allowed to touch his children or even give them a cuddle try explaining that to your kids when you haven't seen them for six months and this is heartbreaking last week thousands of people linked hands together to form a human chain around British Parliament in an inspiring protest to demand Julian's freedom the kids came to the protest and I walked with them around the chain saying hello to people and they were wearing their free my dad t-shirts and chanting along with the crowd free free Julian Assange this is heartbreaking I say this because I think it's important to remind everyone of the very real human consequences of this case and the suffering not just for Julian but his family but what is he enacted in prison for and why are he and his family being put through this the events that led to Julian's indictment started in a room just like this one on the 5th of April 2010 at the National Press Club in Washington DC WikiLeaks shared the collateral murder video for the first time it put WikiLeaks and Julian on the map in all kinds of ways as you know it showed the murder of civilians children and journalists by US forces in Iraq a war crime which the US authorities then tried to cover up an Australian journalist Dean jate Dean Yates was the head of Reuters in Iraq at that time and he saw answers from the US authorities about what had happened to his colleagues the US claimed that their forces who complied with their rules of engagement that was a lie and freedom from information requests were for the information that would have proved that lie were denied it was only after that video and the rules of engagement were published by WikiLeaks that the world learned the truth about what had actually happened to those journalists and I want to emphasize here that Julian is being prosecuted for public publishing evidence about the murder of your journalist colleagues in Iraq after the release of collateral murder came the Afghan war diaries the Iraq war logs and the state department cables in each of these releases WikiLeaks pioneering global collaborations with journalists around the world working together with WikiLeaks and journalists from mainstream media organizations they analyze large sets of data identifying patterns and trends to understand what to understand what was really happening and to tell that story and what did we learn from those publications we learned that thousands more civilians were being killed in American wars and the US government had ever acknowledged they showed evidence of war crimes and torture by US forces western governments and their autocratic regime allies they revealed the dense networks of support between those governments and major corporations which drive our trade and foreign policies journalism like this at its core is about subjecting power to scrutiny to power sorry subjecting power to scrutiny and holding it accountable and the powerful didn't like it WikiLeaks was responsible for hundreds perhaps thousands of stories around the world about how power really works in Washington in Canberra in London and in capitals around the world they showed us what it means on the streets and in the homes of people in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan and about the price that's paid for the application of that power in shattered lives and dead and broken bodies rather than shame WikiLeaks provoked rage rage that journalism was exposing the powerful the Obama administration opened a criminal investigation which Australian diplomats reported was unprecedented in size and scale but the Obama administration did not indict Julian their concern was with the so-called New York Times problem that is that prosecuting Julian would mean criminalizing what the New York Times does every single day but we ended up with a president president Trump who had no such qualms after all he had called the media the enemy of the people and said he wanted to see reporters in prison and the result is an indictment against Julian which describes and criminalizes routine journalistic practices but let's not forget that Trump was willing to play politics with this prosecution back in 2017 before Julian had had been indicted by the US a congressman came to visit Julian in the Ecuadorian embassy he came to offer Julian a political deal I had been asked by Julian to attend and observe that meeting and I later gave evidence about it at the extradition hearing this was at the height of the Mueller investigation about Russian interference in the US election in 2016 President Trump was then a subject of that investigation Julian had already made clear publicly that the WikiLeaks publications in the context of the 2016 election had not come from a government source but Trump clearly wanted to know more congressman Dana Rowerbacher made clear on his visit that President Trump was aware of and had approved of him coming to make this proposal it was what he called a win win solution that would allow Julian to get on with his life Julian was asked to identify the source his source for the 2016 publications which the congressman explained would solve President Trump's problems and put an end to the Mueller investigation in return Julian would receive a pardon or some form of protection that he would not be extradited to the United States and of course Julian refused to identify his source a publisher's promise to their sources is solemn as many of you in this room will know even if that promise carries a cost Trump too made good on his promise his in his administration indicted Julian after he refused to name that source Julian has had many other opportunities to put himself in his own interests above the interests of democracy and free speech and he has always put himself second and the result is an indictment against him which threatens free speech and democracy the freedom of the press foundation calls this prosecution the most terrifying threat to freedom of speech in the 21st century and this is no exaggeration one of the 18 charges relates to taking measures to protect the identity of a source the remaining 17 charges all brought under the espionage act and they relate to receiving and publishing information there is no public interest defense to charges under the espionage act and around the world the media has responded the guardian the new york times the washington post have all made clear their concern about this prosecution and the fact that it is criminalizing public interest journalistic practices that they employ every day as the president of the international federation of journalists herself said just this week if Julian Assange is jailed in the U.S. there is not a journalist on earth who will be safe and she is bright if Julian is extradited the precedent means that any journalist or editor anywhere in the world who published truthful information about the united states could face extradition and prosecution for committing acts of journalism would we stand by and accept this if it was russia or china trying to do the same i want to make a few concluding remarks about julien's future about what the australian government can do and about what you and the room can do those who resolve julien's case by securing his release from prison will be remembered well in the books that will be written about it they will be on the right side of history australians remember well who brought david hicks home we remember well who got peter grester melinda taylor and james rickardson out of overseas prisons we remember well who got kylemore gilbert out of iran recently and if we can put to an end an espionage case against an australian citizen in iran then we can do it in respect of an equally outrageous espionage prosecution in the united states what a great day it was that day that kyle was brought home and was free i look forward to another great day when this australian prime minister and this government gets julien out of prison for more than a decade we have been making this ask of the australian government we have had nothing but silence and complicity by consecutive australian governments on both sides of politics not one australian government has had the courage to ask our ally to do the right thing to protect this australian citizen and journalist we now have a prime minister who has said and i quote enough is enough prime minister albany has said and again i quote i fail to see what purpose is being served by the ongoing incarceration of julien assange a heavy price has been paid and i couldn't agree with him more but now we need to see action we all want to see our prime minister stand up at the press conference taking questions about julien's release from prison rather than his death in custody and what will help the government bring this case to a close you the journalists in the room you above all people are able to differentiate between publishing and espionage a distinction that the u.s government and its allies is trying to erase you above all people have the unique opportunity and the responsibility of facing the prime minister and his colleagues every day you can ask what's being done and when it is that we'll see julien brought home ask them this the prime minister the attorney general the foreign minister at every press conference until julien is released from prison because if we don't see that day julien assange will not be the last of your colleagues to have his life destroyed in this line of work and what else will help force our government to do the right thing and bring julien assange home you the public protest right to your mp right to the prime minister turn up at their offices and demand action working for democratic accountability is why julien assange is sitting in a high security prison today and i believe that democratic accountability can help to get him out of it so hold our government to account and let's bring julien assange home thank you thanks so much jen um you talked about how this requires a political solution now not one that can be sorted out in the courts and that um uh various people including anthony obonese and penny Wong have said enough is enough um it's not clear whether they've actually advocated either privately or publicly to the americans about this as as you indicate i was just wondering um what what are the implicate i mean you talked in brief about the biden presidency is there any reason to believe that there might be a change from the trump position from the biden administration and what sort of risk is there if as some predict donald trump has returned to the white house at the next election we certainly hope to see a change in the biden administration this prosecution runs completely counter to the biden administration's own policies on the treatment of journalists and and free speech principles we are in a an ironic and strange position where you have a president who wants to close guantanamo but his department of justice is prosecuting the person responsible for the publications that made the policy position he now adopts about the closing of guantanamo possible and so it's it's really i think why it is an opportune moment for the australian government to have these conversations the obama administration chose not to indict for that reason and it's time the biden administration adopts the same position and puts an end to it what what is the relative role of um the sort of shall we say the national security establishment in the u.s i mean you talked about the incredibly alarming revelations about the cia uh but how much do you think this is being driven by that national security establishment um and how does that work in with the administration um well we do know that there there was a possibility and this is public that julian was on president trump's list for pardons at the end of his presidency and the reports are that it was put to a stop by by mike Pompeo who was um then the head of the cia so um i do think that there is a the driving force is the intelligence agencies um and that is a concern but this is a free speech question he's a journalist he's a publisher it shouldn't be up to the intelligence agencies to make that decision next question is from tim short thanks laura and uh thank you so much jennifer robinson for supporting free speech freedom of journalism and protection of the truth um it's over 10 years ago since i spoke to julian um before he went into the equidorean embassy and he spoke about that meeting that you had with nickle rocks and the then attorney general of the commonwealth um we'd heard from senator bob car these ministers of the time are only as good as the information that they were briefed with is it your view and julian's view as his lawyer that in 2022 we're getting the kind of clearer better and more honest information to our politicians it's not a legal matter now as you said it's political but can you reflect on that time in 2010 when you met with uh nickle rocks in 2012 and fast forward now to attorney general drafus's remark senator pennie wong's remarks and certainly what you've just quoted from prime minister albin easy both labor governments thank you tim for your question uh we we've seen a sea change in approach from from the australian government with this australian government now we've been working on this for a long time we've been coming to canberra to brief members of parliament um the position could not be clearer now that the u.s. has in fact indicted him back then we were worried about the potential indictment but it wasn't clear we could we weren't in a position to know whether it was there or not because of the secret nature of the process now it's there it's there for all to see we can see this dark injustice that it is and it is wonderful that we now have an australian prime minister who is saying enough is enough but we now need to see him take action on that so i find it encouraging as julian's lawyer that we have a government willing to have these talks with the united states the content of those talks i'm not privy to but we certainly hope to see progress and progress soon because as i said julian's health won't won't last much longer uk extradition between the united states was described as very one sided by lord jonathan's assumption i just like you to reflect on that uh and what your thoughts are on the australian us extradition arrangements i there's a there's a huge concern in the united state in the united kingdom about the imbalanced nature of the treaty between the us and the uk for example the united states would never extradite someone for a political offense prosecution for a political offense in the united kingdom and yet the uk seems intent on allowing it in this case and that causes concern not just for us as julian's lawyers but for for many who believe in civil liberties and the protection of british citizens um from political persecution um but unfortunately we are lumped with the treaty and the extradition act that we have uh and of course there is still this is still a legal case while i believe the solution will be political we will use every legal mechanism available to us as his legal team what i just want people to acknowledge is that that is going to tie us up in legal process for the next decade or longer and that's not acceptable thank you thank you david crow thanks laura david crow from the city morning herald and the age of melbourne thanks mr robinson for your speech um i want to ask you about the australian government's position and uh what they've said in recent months you've quoted from anthony albany easy and his remarks in december of last year before he became prime minister clearly since then whenever asked including at a door stop that i was out in i think in the first week after he took office his argument is always that uh whatever he he stands by his former comments um that is enough enough is enough uh but he's not going to engage in further comment in public that's also the kind of response that we've seen from penny wong as foreign minister in recent months and we also heard it here in this room from mark drafus as attorney general last week do you accept that it's better for the australian government to not make any public comment and to do all its work in private with the u.s government or with the british government or do you think that that's actually not getting results and that we should expect our prime minister and our ministers to speak publicly about what they think should happen well i think the australian government has made its position clear that enough is enough that is a public statement and then of course this is a case that's going to require private diplomatic negotiation and allowing time for them to do that we hope that they are doing what they say they are going to do which is to bring it to an end we're obviously not privy to those conversations but of course there is a place for both private talks and public advocacy and i think the australian public demands action and wants to hear from our leaders that they are taking the steps they need to bring it to an end so we have to give them an opportunity to resolve it this has already gone on for a decade it's not a straightforward matter and we'll continue to press the government to do more okay but that's all i can say i'm not privy to those conversations yeah you mentioned carly carly more gilbert i think was there a was there a situation with carly more gilbert where she was where the people around her were encouraged in at first not to speak up because it was regarded as being counterproductive if that happened in the end people did speak up and it helped get a result i mean do you think in the case of carly more gilbert that speaking up was fundamental to actually getting it out car look there's a place for put like i said there's a place for public advocacy and private advocacy and negotiation we will certainly continue to put our case very publicly and we'll continue to call on the australian government to do more and that's what all we can do as his legal team thanks mary costa kitties jennifer mary costa kitties freelance so thank you very much for your 12-year advocacy of julian and thank you particularly for appealing to journalists today to the press one of the criticisms of julian that's often used to undermine what he and wiki leaks achieved is that he's not a journalist the us in their indictment have attempted to differentiate between what wiki leaks did and and and real journalism i wonder if you could speak a little bit more about that the charges that uh uh aim to achieve that differentiation because we know that the the us's main witness has been discredited he outed himself by saying he lied to the fbi and yet there hasn't been much coverage of that thank you mary i am so tired of this point and hearing it from journalists actually that julian is not a journalist he is a card-caring member of your media union who described him and consider him as a journalist what more do you need than that in an any event as a lawyer legal protection applies to journalistic activity so whether or not you define someone as a journalist the protection applies to journalistic activity if you want to get into an argument about who or who is not defined as a journalist you are going down the same path of countries like russia and china it is a dangerous road to go down and this is why it's so important that journalists remember this legal protection applies to journalistic activity if julian's actions would julian's actions were journalistic activity the same kinds of practices that journalists engage in every day receiving possession and publication of government information that is what's being criminalized in this case by julian being prosecuted it is setting a process a precedent that will apply to each and every one of you so if you want to stand back and say he's not a journalist i'm not going to advocate for him you are literally shooting yourself in the foot and undermining your own protections as a journalist and as someone who engages in journalistic activity also just one more question and that's about due process because we that's all we've heard from politicians that we can't really intervene because there's a legal process happening and we have to stand back and allow due process to take place as someone who observed his extradition hearings and the appeal process online i thought it was extraordinary that an australian citizen a publisher an editor was not allowed not permitted to sit with his legal team was sitting in a glass box at the back of the court where he couldn't confer with his legal team and when he attempted to when i saw when you walked up and tried to confer with him he had to shout so that everyone else was able to hear him as well one other thing that's not not known because it's not familiar to us in our legal system is that in the u.s and and this evidence was presented at his extradition trial in the united states stakeholders have a say in sentencing conditions so the conditions that he would be held in the cia who we know are plotted to murder him will have a say in the conditions he is held in so could you tell us from your perspective the ways in which due process hasn't been followed like i said it would be here all day describing to you all the ways due process has not been respected um i'm interested to speak about what it's like to be in court with julien as mary described uh he's kept in a glass box at the at the back of the court um so when things happen in court where he wants to give us instructions which happens regularly he has to try to get our attention or he's trying to speak to me through a thick glass which means not only can i hear him but the prosecutors sitting opposite me can hear him so we actually have no way of being able to speak in a in a privileged confidential way during the course of the proceedings and it in it and it has a real impact on our ability to properly defend him but just a few words about the due process or so-called due process he'll face in the united states if he's extradited to the united states he'll face trial in in uh east virginia which is a will be a jury made up of um former intelligence agents or intelligence agents that is where the cia the nsa are all located um the the process and the nature of the charging in the united states means that there's a 97 plea bargain rate um in that jurisdiction um he is very likely to we have no hope that he will not be convicted um and then he's stuck in process in the united states for a very long time and i want to make the point too that a lot of people throw about this idea that was part of the assurance that the u.s said well he can go and serve his sentence in australia uh once he's convicted in this jurisdiction that is no solution at all because what that means is that he will have to go to the united states potentially be placed in prison conditions that will cause his suicide if he makes it through the appeal process is all the way to the supreme court only after that could we apply to try to get him home to australia and he won't last that long so when you hear a government official roll that out as a solution remember it is no solution at all james rickettson uh james rickettson i was um for 15 months jailed in cambodia as a spy and the first person that helped me with advice was julien assange via a um a smart phone that had been smuggled into the prison so i have a personal reason for wanting to support julien and also a reason as a member of the fourth estate um a couple of points i'd like to make one is which is reiterating what you've said jennifer is that in my case malcolm turnbull the then prime minister of australia is this going to be a question yeah i'm just it is it is going to be a question asked um did a deal with wunsen the prime minister of of cambodia um to secure my release after i'd been found guilty and and been sentenced my question then is why is that the australian government persists in saying that they cannot intervene in the case of australian citizens they're in trouble legal trouble when it's clear from my case from um carly more gilbert's case and pedigress and others that they can intervene thank you james for being here and for your question consular assistance is a very nebulous term it effectively mean it can mean anything from providing you a list of lawyers and saying good luck um to visit visiting you on the odd occasion in prison it is not a solution to cases like yours or to a solution to join a sanders case so when you hear the australian government talk about consular assistance it can mean many things it can mean next to nothing and it can mean engaging in the way that malcolm turnbull did on your behalf and that is precisely what we need to see happen for join us aren't we need prime minister albany to be on the phone to president biden and to get this sorted out thank you um just following that through a little bit jenn um you mentioned some of the various people who've got caught up in processes over the years david hicks um that um mr crester i think i see any moment all sorts of other people can you see any trend in um in whether it's got better or worse in terms of government interventions from australia or is it still just basically a case by case question i think those cases all show what the australian government can do when properly motivated um our intervention in cases of australians detained abroad is entirely political it always is and it depends on the politics of the moment and the politics of the particular government that's why it's so important to have a prime minister saying what he's saying now uh and the attorney general acknowledging that they're having these talks it is something that the australian government can do we've seen it happen in other cases and they can do it in this one next to it following on from Laura's question we we had a situation at the turn of the century where there was this incredibly positive feeling about the way law was working and and the way the the world was coming together since then we've seen this division obviously along religious grounds and and um also state grounds ideological grounds but also within the western world we've we've seen this division between the national security concerns and the ideological or the the libertarian concerns to what extent do you feel that the um you know for one of a better word the right wing the security concerns have overtaken natural libertarian principles thank you for your question the implementation of national security legislation in this country alone is terrifying the amount of criminal um offenses that have been created to prosecute people for publishing national defense information even if it's in the public interest is terrifying we would never have accepted that before but in a post 9-11 world we're seeing a creeping I think incursion on our civil liberties whether we talk about unlawful surveillance and surveillance on all of us as citizens whether we talk about the types of offenses that are being implemented and pursued against journalists let's not forget that the abc in this country um was had a criminal prosecution held over their head because of public interest information that was leaked to them by a very brave whistleblower um this wouldn't we would never have accepted that before we would never have accepted an Australian citizen being held in prison and facing life in prison for publications that is one journalism awards for and we have to resist the normalization of this treatment of an Australian citizen and journalist because this will become the norm if we let it be how can we turn this back bring Julian Assange home as a starting point would be great Kelly Tranta hi Jen hi Kelly thank you for your address and your tireless advocacy for as long as I can remember I have just a very brief question you've said that you've been asking successive Australian governments for diplomatic assistance for Julian for over a decade but successive Australian governments have done nothing the Albanese government has said that enough is enough and they refer to quiet diplomacy but foi documents received by declassified oz from the attorney general's office confirm that a post extradition plea deal is still being considered notwithstanding the dire personal consequences for Julian of landing on US soil and for journalists in this room and the world over do you think quiet diplomacy is effective when mr Assange's position has not substantially changed in any way since the election in May with over a decade decade of inaction by successive successive Australian governments are you confident that representations are actually being made to the United States that no extradition take place and should mr Albanese meet with mr Assange family thank you first I do think that the Prime Minister should meet with Julian's family it would be a welcome gesture and one that I think the Australian public would fully support in terms of all I can say is what I have been told that private talks are underway for us any kind of post extradition agreement would be unacceptable as an outcome it is as I have explained no solution we cannot allow Julian to be sent to the United States to face those those prison conditions we know that there's there's medical evidence to show that he will suicide if he's placed in those conditions and that is not an acceptable outcome for any Australian citizen ebony Bennett thank you ebony Bennett I'm deputy director at the Australia Institute Jennifer you've talked a lot about the threat to freedom of the press by the prosecution of Julian Assange you just kind of mentioned the raids on journalists that we've seen here in Australia and Australia has slipped down the world press freedom index as well I've also got Bernard Clary in the room we've seen not only whistleblowers prosecuted but their legal representatives as well how concerned are you about Australia's system of protection not only for press freedom but for whistleblowers and their lawyers and how would you like to see that strengthened thank you well of course as lawyer for someone who works with whistleblowers to watch a colleague prosecuted in our country for doing his job as a lawyer is fundamentally unacceptable and our attorney general did the right thing in dropping the prosecution against Bernard you should never have been put in that position and I salute you for your courage we do need to have a good look at Australia's free speech protections not just and whistleblowing isn't an essential act in our democracy free speech and the publication of material and public interest relies upon whistleblowers and the protection of journalists and receiving information from whistleblowers to hold our government to account and the prosecution of whistleblowers like David McBride of lawyers of journalists the rating of the ABC is unacceptable we cannot call ourselves a democracy if we behave like that thanks Laura Tim Shaw director of the National Press Club again Jennifer Vice President Biden described Julian as a words for the effect of technology terrorist if you could sit down with this representative here in Australia Caroline Kennedy what message would you like Ambassador Kennedy to take to President Biden I would love to have a sit down meeting with Ambassador Kennedy and in fact I invited her here today so we would welcome a dialogue with the United States government and we will continue to make the ask that we have asked publicly which is it's time to drop these charges and to respect the First Amendment of your own country is there a good start with the US ambassador in Britain I haven't had one one on one or any communication with the ambassador in Britain thank you David Kerr thanks again Laura I'm going to go Mary Costa-Caitis asked you a question which I think you said you were tired of getting but I think needed to be asked which is is Julian Assange a journalist I have another question you're probably also tired of getting but which bearing in mind in the room today we have supporters of Julian Assange clearly but viewing at home we may have people who haven't given this issue a lot of thought and still might wonder about the actions of Julian Assange in recent years because I just googled this and of course you can see plenty of assertions that the work that he did helped Vladimir Putin and helped Russia undermine Hillary Clinton for instance in the in her presidential campaign now this is an assertion that's often made and I thought I would put that to you you mentioned in your speech the deal that he declined but I thought I'd get you to elaborate if you can on on this argument it's often claimed that that he helped Russia and Putin with his activity what do you say to that thank you for giving me the opportunity to address that and just to say I'm not tired of the question I'm tired of hearing journalists say that he's not a journalist as if that matters the speaking about the 2016 election publications I want to make it very clear WikiLeaks was sued in the United States in respect of those publications and a judge in New York said that those publications had the highest order of protection under the First Amendment to publish information about a political party in the context of an election that that publication has the highest order of free speech protection the New York Times had they received that material would have published it and as Julian has said if you receive information about a particular political candidate in the context of an election and you choose to sit on it you are putting your finger on the needle his position is that WikiLeaks should publish and they published that material and a judge has recognized in the United States that it deserved protection and was newsworthy so to say whether it helped politically one way or another it was in principle an act of journalism that is protected by the First Amendment thanks riley thanks Laura you could be going to the high court and then the supreme court and and you know anytime I go to court I find it an expensive process I just wonder how you're going to find how you're going to fund this you know who funds this you know this this advocacy at the end of the day because it's it's gotta be people have got to do it thank you for asking that question because Julian's defense has been funded by donations from the public and through fundraising campaigns we are a huge legal team I'm one of many both in the United Kingdom in the United States and across Europe who are working to try to protect him we are up against a superpower we also have my colleague here in Australia Stephen Kenny who I want to acknowledge for his great work for us and and for David Hicks so this is an expensive exercise taking on a superpower the US and the UK is an expensive exercise so anyone who is minded to support Julian would be very welcome to donate to his to his family and the campaign here in Australia and to the legal defense fund do you want to put a figure on it I'm not able to do that Kim Rubenstein Kim Rubenstein Jennifer um professor at the University of Canberra and honorary professor at ANU we've referred to him as being an Australian citizen throughout and I'm wondering if you can reflect on two things one the overall treatment of Australian citizens abroad not only in these individual circumstances but the thousands that were stranded during the time of COVID you may have indeed been one of them but also to think strategically about strategic um litigation here in Australia and I'm a guest of the Grata fund here today which conducts strategic litigation that you of course are aware of yes you'll recall that David Hicks um in his time during his imprisonment there was an attempt in the federal court to bring a case of um testing out those questions about consular assistance and the responsibility of the Australian government for citizens who are detained is there some consideration of bringing a like matter against this government in order strategically to put pressure not only on the politics of this but also of the legal principles of what a state owes its citizens thank you Kim for your question and for being here and to acknowledge the Grata fund of which I'm on the board and thank you for your important work um the treatment of Australian citizens is um is I think a cause for concern I certainly have had questions about what my Australian passport means uh watching what happened to Julian and to for the many thousands of Australians myself included who were stranded outside of the country because of our COVID restrictions that was unlawful to prevent citizens to return home from their country is unlawful as a matter of international law and we should not have stood for it and I hope that more Australians here at home will advocate for us as fellow Australians not to be barred from entering our own country um the question about potential litigation here in Australia is really one for my colleague Steven um and so that's something I'm happy to talk to you about privately Kathy Vogel Kathy Vogan consortium news um like Mary I've been reporting from the courtroom for the last three years roughly and we've been looking at the case very closely now I want to ask you a question about the High Court appeal uh one of the points that you're appealing is that the US misled uh the UK courts on the core facts of the case um that seems to be the story of Julian's life if you've read Professor Melton's book but could you just very briefly give us a little bit more information about how they have done that that's it thank you um one of our appeal grounds of appeal relates to abusive process and the way in which the United States has misrepresented the facts and the indictment in order to justify his extradition um there's a there's a number of allegations which have been publicly stated to include hacking and I want to make very clear in this room that Julian Assange has not engaged in any form of hacking with respect to that material he received information from a source just as journalists do all day every day um there's also an allegation that WikiLeaks was responsible for publishing unredacted material online I also want to make clear that WikiLeaks engaged and as we did in the evidence before the court that WikiLeaks engaged in um actually pioneered the use of encryption technology to protect the sensitive material that was being shared with media organizations pioneered it and I say that that these media organizations did not have these protections in place until they started working with WikiLeaks and that was at Julian's insistence and demand now we see it used in all journalism operations around the world WikiLeaks engaged in a reduction process with their mainstream media partners and the reason that the unredacted material ended up published online was because of a security breach by the Guardian news well by journalists at the Guardian and that was all put in evidence before the court and in fact the material was first published by a website in the United States unredacted it remains online and he has never been asked to take it down so I think when you when you hear the government's narrative about what WikiLeaks did or didn't do what Julian is or is not responsible for I encourage you to look more closely at the facts that we presented in the court and on that basis we say that it is an abusive process to seek his extradition claiming that he is responsible for the damage that was done damage which they say and I want to make clear is an allegation of damage but there is no allegation even on the prosecution's own case that anyone was harmed as a result of WikiLeaks publications next year in Australia of course we don't have any sort of freedom of speech guarantee do you think that we're looking at changing the constitution now do you think there's an any need for that specific freedom of speech the freedom to publish information if it's found or if you genuinely believe it to allow that so that we can actually produce whatever we believe in to be genuinely true it has long been my publicly stated position that Australia needs a Bill of Rights we need an explicit right to free speech we have one implied by the High Court in our constitution that's not good enough in my view and I think our country could benefit from more explicit protections on all range of human rights but freedom of speech in particular we're almost out of time but one question I suppose a lot of people would have is what has happened to WikiLeaks and to the broader sort of idea of being able to you know have platforms which allow the sort of broad dissemination of really big dumps of material such as we saw from WikiLeaks well WikiLeaks is still in operation Kristen Raffensen is the editor in Julian Stead obviously Julian can't continue to run the organization from inside a high security prison but they are continuing to to publish and to receive information and we're seeing more and more these kinds of big global collaborations with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists who are replicating really what WikiLeaks first did with their first big publications massive data publications sharing among media organizations around the world to make sure that those stories are given context and published in different countries where they're relevant so I think that is the future of journalism in a global information environment where we are so connected that these stories will continue to be reported on in that way and I certainly hope to see that WikiLeaks will continue to publish and continue to show you know take a robust approach to publication because I think it pushes the media the rest of the media to do better has it changed the sort of mechanisms and processes through which things like the International Consortium work though do you think that what's happened to Julian Assange I think well I think they've all learned from what WikiLeaks did because they're replicating that in terms of the global collaborations I think I think journalists are concerned about what this prosecution means and are cautious and and that's a problem we're seeing a chilling of national security journalism thank you please join me in thanking Jen Robinson