The return of Cheng Lei is good news and I can only imagine how relieved her family must be. My intention here was not to discuss Cheng Lei’s release but to highlight the misinformation from Labor around this story, and how this relates to the ACMA Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill the government is aiming to implement.

Penny Wong, as Foreign Affairs Minister, last week took credit for the release of Australian journalist, Cheng Lei. That may be misinformation. According to a Chinese government post, Cheng Lei was released after serving her sentence in China for publishing information under an embargo. In other words, she completed her sentence and was sent home.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said it himself: Cheng’s return was not part of a deal struck with Beijing and her release followed the completion of China’s judicial process. It couldn’t be more clear.

Yet the Labor government is passing off Cheng Lei’s release as a Labor government achievement with Penny Wong taking credit herself. The PM even advised his caucus in the aftermath of his failed $450 million Voice referendum to “focus on achievements” and placed the release of Cheng Lei at the top of the list.

Why did I feel this was important to point out in the senate and on the record? It’s an example of misinformation from a government that is about to censor everyone except itself and the accredited media. To a bureaucracy with a censorship hammer, every bit of unapproved information looks like a nail.

I think most of us agree after the past few years that if we are to combat misinformation and disinformation then the government and its media mouthpiece would be the best place to start.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. It’s based on a constituent’s inquiry. Australian journalist Cheng Lei was convicted in China of illegally providing state secrets to overseas parties and imprisoned. Cheng Lei was recently released and arrived back in Australia last week. Minister, can you inform the Senate what role you had personally, your department had and the Prime Minister had in the release of Cheng Lei? 

Senator WONG (Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate): I thank the senator for his question. Obviously, as you would expect, this is an issue on which there has been a lot of discussion at various levels with the Chinese authorities, urging the return of Ms Cheng and urging her to be able to return to Australia. I can indicate to you—and obviously some of this is at officer level—that, as I said publicly at the time, this was my first engagement with the then foreign minister Wang Yi, when I first met him at the first bilateral discussion in Bali. It is the practice of Australian governments to ensure that we raise consular cases with other countries, China included, at all appropriate meetings. 

I can indicate to the senator that Ms Cheng Lei was the subject of representations from me, the Prime Minister and officers, just as with other consular cases such as Dr Yang’s and with those obviously facing criminal charges. We made those representations at the Prime Minister level, at the foreign minister level and at officer level, and we will continue to do so. I would acknowledge also that this has been the practice under successive governments. I spoke to former senator Payne after I had met Ms Cheng Lei at the airport to let her know before the news became public. I acknowledge that she also raised this with the Chinese authorities— (Time expired

The President: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: The Chinese ministry of state has posted on Weibo that Cheng Lei had been sentenced to two years and 11 months in prison and had been deported after completing her sentence. Minister, your words on Cheng Lei’s arrival at the airport, as quoted in the Guardian, made it clear that the government was taking credit for her release. They quoted you as saying: I made them a promise some time ago we would do everything, I would do everything I could, to bring her home …Minister, who is telling the truth—you or the Chinese government?

Senator WONG: Senator, you and I have differences of opinion, but I regret that you would use something I said about what I said to her children in that way.

An opposition senator: Seriously?

Senator WONG: No—not ‘seriously’. It was an expression of hope, emotion and a degree of humanity, because, like all Australians, I wanted to see a mother return to her children. That was also what I said publicly. The Chinese legal system has been completed. We have seen what they have said—that is, the articulation of the Chinese legal position. What I can say is that we made a priority to make representations— (Time expired)

The President: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is this a case that proves the Albanese government’s misinformation and disinformation bill should not exclude ‘government misinformation and disinformation’ and
instead should include ‘government misinformation and disinformation’?

The President: Senator Roberts, I’m not sure how it relates, but I’m sure the minister will respond as she sees fit.

Senator WONG: Senator Roberts, there is no misinformation on our side. There is no disinformation on our side. What we have said—and if you had actually tracked every engagement I have had with the Chinese authorities, what I have said afterwards when I have articulated, at least in summary version, what I said to the Chinese authorities and what the Prime Minister said to his counterparts—you would know that we have made these representations. All I can say is this: this is not a partisan issue, and this is not a political issue. This is an issue about an Australian who is now home with her children. Behind her were many Australians across this country and across the political divide who made the same representations to Chinese authorities at all levels that Australians wanted to see a mother united with her children. I think that is a good thing. It was a great privilege to have the opportunity— (Time expired)

Transcript 

Senator ROBERTS: I move: 

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to a question without notice asked by Senator Roberts today relating to the reporting of the release of Chinese Australian citizen Cheng Lei. 

The Chinese government announced that Cheng Lei’s release was simply a matter of her completing a sentence of two years and 11 months. In her explanation though the minister claimed an emotional high ground that is not supported by events at the airport. Minister Wong was most welcome to make remarks to Cheng Lei’s children in private, and she did so. The minister then restated and expanded her remarks to the press, which were widely reported. Further, at that press conference the minister stated that the release of Cheng Lei was a result of Senator Wong’s perseverance, which the minister did not restate in her answer to me. Did her representations have any effect on the Chinese government? Not according to the Chinese government. Who is right? We may never know. 

One Nation is concerned about the Albanese government’s misinformation and disinformation bill as applied to this situation. As drafted, the government and mainstream media are exempt from the bill. The Guardian‘s slobbering all over Minister Wong and the Albanese government over Cheng Lei would be exempt from this bill. The government can say whatever it likes and the mouthpiece media can repeat and even embellish those claims and that would be legal. Bloggers and social media companies who question the narrative though would be guilty of misinformation and fined or shut down. Weibo, which announced the Chinese government’s side of the story, has an office in Sydney and would be regulated under that bill. There’s no provision in the bill for truth as a defence. There’s no definition of what is misinformation. If this bill is passed, democracy itself will be at risk from an unending one-sided glorification of the ruling party. Last weekend, Australians rejected this sort of propaganda in the referendum campaign. The government proceeds with a misinformation and disinformation bill at its peril, because the people will see through it, just like they saw through the lies in the ‘yes’ case. This is about censorship. 

8 replies
  1. Monique Bertino-Clarke
    Monique Bertino-Clarke says:

    Thank you Senator Roberts for “keeping them honest!”
    One can see how the ACMA Mis/Dis Bill will be used. This Bill flies in the face of the failed Voice.

  2. Geraldine Toomey
    Geraldine Toomey says:

    Why is directly answering a question so hard….giving the impression that she/ they had some influence over Ms chengs release is misleading.
    Ms Wong’s response, if honest,should have been Ms Cheng served her sentence time and was released and deported…simple.
    Let’s face it if she/ they had any influence, Julian Assange would be home by now…

    • Graham
      Graham says:

      Ahh, the politics of dancing.
      All so called ‘honourable’ ‘politicians’ are guilty of the same thing. Taking every situation and turning to their advantage. ‘their’ mantra is ‘never let a good crisis go to waste!’

  3. Carola
    Carola says:

    How typical of governments to want to CONTROL & CENSOR people’s communication exchanges and opinions on social media, and yet, they want free rein to dish out to the public whatever information suits them — inaccurate information to deceive — lies — obfuscation — propaganda……. AND NOT HAVE THE SAME CENSORSHIP THEMSELVES. I often wonder if these same MPs & Senators use the same communication control tactics within their own families. ____ I’m of the opinion, that if someone wants to enter parliament they should be subject to a psychological test to discover if lying & deception are OK traits with them.

  4. Warren
    Warren says:

    It may be the cynicism that increases with age and experience but the more claims of achievement by big gang politicians, the more and deeper I look into them. Nothing shocks or surprises me and so a promise that the sun will rise tomorrow through a members close negotiations with God would hardly raise an eyebrow. Should though, such negotiations be displayed to impress us, the common people, I suggest they be performed in the open air rather than in a church where the roof might fall in as was oft threatened by my mother when fibbing was apparent.

  5. Mathilda McKeown
    Mathilda McKeown says:

    That is so typical of the Government to bring out new laws but it never applies to them. When some of the public especially in the last 3 years, found the truth on a certain topic it was a conspiracy theory or now that call it misinformation or disinformation when it was the Government that was reporting misinformation and disinformation. If the Government stuck to the truth we wouldn’t be having this conversation and talking about a new bill on the misinformation and disinformation. Main stream media and Government have brain washed the public and it’s time to bring the main stream media and Government departs to accountability. Australians need to push back on all their crap.

  6. Templar
    Templar says:

    It’s all very well for Wong to take credit for the release of ‘Australian’ journalist, Cheng Lei, but where is the concern for Julian Assange? Wong, as was the case with previous Ministers for Foreign Affairs, is willing to sacrifice Assange in order to demonstrate Australia’s ongoing sycophantic obedience to its master in Washington. However, false bravado against China is a different story.

    • Michelle
      Michelle says:

      Exactly. All this feel-good, self-congratulatory fervour over Cheng Lei’s return after doing her time, and radio silence over Australian-born journalist, Julian Assange. Aren’t we allied with the US? Don’t we have more bargaining tools at our disposal? Would Australia threaten a U.S. journalist and keep them from their family? Can you imagine the fuss? Let’s make more noise and get him home to his boys. The news media reporting on Cheng Lei need to make the connection between the two situations

Comments are closed.