(Update 7pm +11 27/3/24) Dear Andrew Wilkie, Adam Bandt, Josh Wilson, Bridget Archer, David Shoebridge, Ms. Bridget Archer, Tony Zappia, Peter Khalil, Peter Whish-Wilson and other members of the Bring Julian Assange Home Parliamentary Support Group,

I urge you as a matter of utmost urgency, to try to move a motion today in both the Senate and the House of Representatives that the Australian government act to make the UK government end its illegal imprisonment of Julian Assange.

Included below as an Appendix a copy of a letter I sent to all of you 6 weeks ago, on 12 February. On 10 February you announced that on Tuesday 13 February you were to hold a press conference on the lawns of Parliament House to demand that the Australian government "Tell the UK government No US extradition." Can you advise me if that press conference and subsequent rally even occurred? I have not seen any video nor any transcript of that press conference.

Had that event occurred and had it all been put on record, it would have been a powerful message to the Australian people and to the rest of the world that some members of the Australian parliament believe that the Australian government could and should use the power, vested in it as the government of a sovereign nation, to make the UK end its illegal imprisonment and torture of Julian Assange.

It appears to me that the press conference may have been called off after the government may have said it would allow Julian Assange to be 'debated' - finally, more than 2 years after Andrew Wilkie and George Christensen were undemocratically prevented in 1921 from even putting motions to parliament which called for the government to act to free Assange.

Am I right?

As you are aware a motion which merely "underlin[ed] the importance of the UK and USA bringing the matter to a close so that Mr Assange can return home to his family in Australia" was subsequently put and carried 86 votes to 42 on 14 February. Discussion was curiously limited to a total of only four members speaking, in total, for only 25 minutes.

Given the most recent UK High Court ruling, it seems to me that the motion carried by the Australian parliament on 14 February has had no impact, certainly a lot less than I believe would have occurred had the planned press conference and rally proceeded on 13 February.

As you are surely aware, the UK High Court has subsequently given the US government three weeks to satisfy the High Court that Julian Assange won't face the death penalty in the United States.

So, presumably, if any subsequent assurance from the US satisfy the High Court judges that Assange will not suffer the death penalty then they will allow him to be extradited.

Even if that assurance that Assange won't suffer the death penalty can be trusted, he still stands to be imprisoned for the rest of his life in solitary confinement for more than 23 hours per day in conditions of total isolation for the rest of his life, but this appears to be of no concern to those judges.

Given this development, I think action to make the government act now needs to be taken without further delay in our Parliament. As you are aware, after today, parliament will not be sitting again until Tuesday 14 May - almost 6 weeks from now.

So as a matter of urgency, please move for a suspension of standing order today so that the plight of Julian Assange can finally be properly debated today.

Should the motion for the suspension of standing orders be defeated, then if a division is called, we will know the names of those MPs who are not only hostile to Assange, but who will have then opposed discussion on the floor of Parliament about Assange. At least then, the process of effectively holding to account elected representatives who will have betrayed an Australian citizen can begin.

Yours faithfully,

James Sinnamon

0412 319669

Appendix: To Parliamentary supporters: please put motion for Assange (12 Feb 2024)

(The letter below is published as a comment beneath my article How the Julian Assange Support Group can hold to account the Albanese government for its failure to support Julian Assange and how you can help(11/2/24) at https://candobetter.net/james-sinnamon/blog/6798/how-julian-assange-support-group-can-hold-account-albanese-government-its#comment-279816)

Dear Andrew Wilikie, Bridget Archer, Josh Wilson and Adam Bandt,

Firstly, can I congratulate all four of you for having organised that protest and press conference at 10:30am this coming Tuesday 13 February outside of Parliament House in support of Julian Assange? Unfortunately, I won't be able to make it up there from Melbourne on that day.

As I wrote in an article about the the planned protest on my website (which which was adapted to become a PDF file for a a leaflet of which I have already distributed 400 copies), I welcome the fact that, contrary to what even a number of supporters of Julian Assange seem to believe, your publicity for the protest makes it clear that you believe that the Albanese government could make the UK government end the illegal imprisonment and torture of Julian Assange today, if it chose to.

But Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has chosen not to act to end that illegal imprisonment. By not doing so, he has failed to uphold his basic duty of care towards an Australian citizen. For this, he and his government must be held to account before the Australian public who overwhelmingly want to see Julian Assange freed.

Whilst I think the planned protest and press conference are a fantastic and positive initiative for the campaign to free Julian Assange, unless motions, which demand that the Albanese government act to free Assange, are not also soon put to the House of Representatives and/or to the Senate, it will be much harder for the Albanese government to be held to account for its failure to act.

Whilst we all understand the great difficulty that members and Senators will face were they to try to put such a motion, the alternatives pursued by members of the Parliamentary Assange Support group in recent years have had little to no impact, as far as I can tell. These alternatives are: asking Government ministers what they are doing for Assange in Question Time, presenting petitions in support of Assange and making statements.

Whilst I can see that government ministers (from my recollection, Albanese and Wong) have felt uncomfortable when faced with questions about Assange, those questions have had almost no enduring effect on the government's conduct.

As far as I can tell, petitions and even the very informative and eloquent statements made on the floors of Parliament in support of Assange have had zero impact on any Government minister.

But were a motion which, if carried, required the government to act to end Assange's imprisonment were to be put, then those in support of Assange, in speaking for that motion, would be able to put on record the overwhelming evidence that

(1) Assange has been refused due process in a court system rigged by crooked judges;

(2) There is no way that any judge with integrity or any fairly selected jury would have put Assange behind bars even for one night;

(3) Assange's imprisonment in solitary confinement serves no judicial purpose and can only be explained by malice on the part of the judges;

(4) Should Assange be extradited, he faces the same kind of extreme torture that Chelsea Manning was subjected to for many years;

(5) No-one has been prosecuted for any of the crimes revealed by Wikileaks;

(6) If Assange, who, apart from his supposed 2012 'misdemeanour' of 'skipping bail', has broken no British law, can be treated in this way, then any other Australian citizen, who may have embarrassed members of the US government or its military, could also be treated this way.

In the face of all this evidence, regardless of how many vote in support of Wilkie's motion, the government will clearly be seen by all interested Australians, in the course of any debate, to not have a leg to stand on.

The motion that Andrew Wilkie and Adam Bandt tried unsuccessfully to put on 2 December 2021 is included below in the Appendix (see in the article above). This motion, or an adaptation of it could be used today.

Whilst, the necessary motion to suspend Standing Orders, could be defeated, if, this time, unlike in December 2021, Andrew Wilkie called for a division, then we would know the names of each of those MPS who would have used their vote to prevent debate and they could be treated accordingly by their constituents at the next election, if not before.

Yours faithfully,

James Sinnamon

 

Update: Senator David Shoebridge questions Foreign Minister Senator Penny Wong on Julian Assange, 26 March 2024

Parliament is now in recess until Monday 14 May, almost six weeks from now. Julian Assange was raised in the Senate, in fact on Tuesday 26 March, the day before I sent the above email to Andrew Wilkie et al. The transcript from Hansard for the Senate sitting of 26 March is included is included below:

Assange, Mr Julian Paul

Senator David SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (14:17): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Right now, Julian Assange's life is hanging by a thread. We know that tonight, Australian time, there'll be a decision from the UK courts on his last appeal. If he's extradited to the United States, the medical evidence is clear: he will likely never return. What is your government doing to obtain his free return home?

Senator Penny WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:17): Thank you to Senator Shoebridge for the question. He is correct; we do understand that a decision on Mr Assange's case is expected soon. As you would know, this matter is before the UK courts. I appreciate that Senator Shoebridge has previously made comments, with which we don't agree, about our capacity to intervene in legal proceedings of another country—another jurisdiction. Obviously, the Australian government cannot do that. I can confirm, however, that the Prime Minister and I have personally raised this issue with both the United States and the United Kingdom. I can confirm that that occurred very recently in the last instance, and there have been an ongoing set of representations. The government is also engaging closely with Mr Assange and his legal team, and we will continue to do this.

There is obviously strong interest in this case. There is a depth of community sentiment. The Prime Minister said quite clearly publicly and I have reiterated that we believe that enough is enough and there is nothing to be served by Mr Assange's ongoing incarceration. Obviously, we have also ensured that Mr Assange has been visited by our high commissioner, Mr Smith. And, as I said to you previously, Senator, there is a limit until Mr Assange's legal processes are concluded. On what government can do, as you will recall, a resolution by government was only possible after legal processes had been concluded in a— (Time expired)

The PRESIDENT: Senator Shoebridge, first supplementary?

Senator David SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (14:19): If Julian Assange loses his appeal tonight, what, if any, assurance have you sought from our close friends in the United Kingdom and the United States that he will not immediately be deported to the United States? Are you leveraging our multibillion-dollar AUKUS commitments or any other diplomatic asset to defend the fundamental rights of a citizen?

Senator Penny WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:20): We have made representations, and you will recall, Senator, that, in relation to the United Kingdom's legal proceedings, we are not in a position to intervene in the legal proceedings of another country; however, we have made clear our view that there is nothing more to be served by this matter of Mr Assange continuing to be incarcerated and we believe the matter should be brought to an end. I can only indicate to you that we are engaging at a government-to-government level, and the government has also been engaging with Mr Assange's legal team. The PRESIDENT: Senator Shoebridge, second supplementary?

Senator David SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (14:20): Minister, there are global concerns about the precedent this case would set if the USA is able to try a foreign citizen for journalism, with the former UN special rapporteur on torture saying: 'If Julian Assange is convicted, it will be a death sentence for freedom of the press.' What assurance will you give Australian journalists that this government will not be bullied by the US into handing over a journalist from Australia for prosecution there?

Senator Penny WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:21): I think that's a hypothetical question and a made-up question, because there is no— Senator Peter Whish-Wilson: How is it hypothetical?

Senator Penny WONG: Senator Whish-Wilson, would you like to make a speech, because you always just interrupt the question time.

Senator Peter Whish-Wilson: I could probably do a better job than you.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Whish-Wilson, withdraw that comment.

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Whish-Wilson, when you withdraw, you stand and you withdraw respectfully.

Senator Peter Whish-Wilson: I withdraw, President.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you. Minister Wong.

Senator Penny WONG: Senator Shoebridge, you are proceeding from the situation with Julian Assange, where many representations have been made, including publicly, to suggesting that some—

The PRESIDENT: Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Hanson-Young, do you wish to raise a point of order?

Senator Sarah Hanson-Young: President, could Senator Wong address the answer to the question through the chair and not directly to individual senators, please?

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Hanson-Young.

Senator Penny WONG: Senator Shoebridge is creating some hypothetical about an Australian journalist in Australia being extradited to the United States. There is no such case of which I'm aware, and what I would say to you— Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

Senator Penny WONG: No, from Australia. But they can't have it both ways: they don't want me to look at them, but they're happy to yell at me. Which one do you want, Senator Hanson-Young? Do you want the blokes to be able to yell, or do you want me to address them through the chair?

Senator Nicholas McKim: Question time is when you answer the questions.

Senator Penny WONG: I'm happy to continue.

The PRESIDENT: Minister Wong, I have Senator Shoebridge on his feet.

Honourable senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Order across the chamber! I have a senator on his feet. Senator Shoebridge, a point of order? Senator Shoebridge: I'd ask you to draw the minister to her task in question time, which is to answer questions, not ask them. Her behaviour is out of order.

The PRESIDENT: The minister is answering the question. Minister.

Senator Penny WONG: We always advocate for Australian citizens and Australian journalists, and you would have seen that from the actions we have taken since we've been in government. (Time expired) (14:23)