June 17, 2024
RAY HADLEY: Now, there has been some consternation about the imprisonment of Yang Hengjun, and as such, Senator James Paterson, the Shadow Minister for Home Affairs, is wondering and hoping that something might be done about this man's imprisonment. He's on the line right now. Senator Paterson, good morning to you.
JAMES PATERSON: Good morning, Ray.
HADLEY: So where do we sit and why is this man incarcerated? And is there any hope of him being returned to Australia?
PATERSON: Well, those are good questions that not even the Chinese government has really attempted to answer. It's not clear what he has alleged to have done and why he's in incarceration, but he's been in incarceration for about five years now, and his family is very concerned about his health and wellbeing. He has some serious health issues and been confined in solitary confinement, with limited access to medical assistance and Australian consular officials doesn't help that, obviously. And so we need to be robustly advocating for Dr Yang Hengjun at every opportunity and every level until he's released.
HADLEY: So in relation to, and we've had notorious cases dealt with where the Prime Minister has sought and gained the release of others more recently. But over time, historically, these things have happened depending on the relationship. As I understand it, the gentleman is a writer. So what, In China you don't need to be charged just incarcerated and they tell you about it after it's all over, do they?
PATERSON: Well, the Chinese justice system is not like the Australian justice system, to put it mildly. It's completely opaque. It's decided by the whims of the Chinese Communist Party and dictated by politics, not the law. And so people can be and often are detained for years before they're charged. They can then be detained for years before they're convicted. And when they are convicted, their trials are often not transparent, and
sometimes their verdicts are delayed for a long period of time. Now, he has been charged and convicted, and his verdict is a death penalty. And he is effectively on death row in China at the moment. They have put his death penalty in abeyance effectively. They're not going to carry it out for now. But really that means that, you know, the executioners sword metaphorically is hanging over his head while he's suffering in solitary confinement and with poor health. And so it really is a deplorable situation and he should be released.
HADLEY: So, I mean, it is a minefield. How should the Prime Minister go about addressing the matter with the Premier? In relation to this poor man? And one of the other things, it's always someone who has been either born in China or is Chinese heritage. They come here, they take Australian citizenship, and then they go back to work there I suspect, as was the case with Cheng Lei. Now she got repatriated back to Australia and is now even I think appearing on Sky News is the present these days. So how did he work that one out? But he can't work this one out, the Prime Minister I mean.
PATERSON: Well good question. So what do we need to do? Well, the Chinese government has made very clear publicly that an improved relationship with Australia is something they're pursuing. And so, in turn, we need to make it clear to them that the lack of resolution of this case is a major obstacle to an improved relationship, along with the foreign interference and cyberattacks and dangerous activity of the PLA towards the Australian Defence Force. You're right, sometimes it's the case that it's Chinese born or Chinese ethnic people who are detained. But it is not always the case. For example, the Chinese government took two Canadian citizens known as the two Michaels, effectively hostage, for several years. Neither of them were born in China. Neither of them were Chinese citizens. Neither were ethnically Chinese. They were effectively victims of hostage taking by the Chinese government, which is an appalling thing for a country that aspires to be, and says it is, a country that upholds the rules based order.
HADLEY: Okay. Well, I guess we wait in anticipation, but from what you've just said, little hope of this poor fella being brought back home any time soon, but he's not on death row anymore. But that could change, you know, on a whim. Really?
PATERSON: Yeah. His sentence has effectively been held in abeyance. That means that it could be carried out at any time. We hope and pray that it won't be. And the way that the Chinese system works is will only find out he is getting released the day that he actually is released. There probably won't be any signs before that, as was the case with Cheng Lei and other cases.
HADLEY: Well, but in relation, I mean, I just find it incomprehensible. I know that we can't tell them what to do, they're a sovereign nation, but we can't even find out what he's been charged with, what he's supposed to have done to be incarcerated and then sentenced to death and have it at the moment put in abeyance. We don't know?
PATERSON: Well, other than a very loose description that he's accused of espionage broadly, but no particulars have been provided. No evidence has been provided. That is the nature of the Chinese justice system. And there is a reason why the official travel advice from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is to exercise caution, and that Australians visiting China are at risk of arbitrary detention and arrest, because that is the nature of the system.
HADLEY: Anyway, and I won't be gone there any time soon. I was there in Beijing for the Olympics, but thankfully it's Paris this year. You start to think about if you're a commentator, a broadcaster, you say something that perhaps isn't viewed favourably by someone either when you're in China or regrettably, when you were in Australia, as perhaps I would from time to time. And all of a sudden you could be detained. We move on, I spoke to Nick McKenzie from 60 minutes and Nine newspapers earlier in the program about Hizb Ut Tahrir. Now this is sort of a problem that I've dealt with, long before you. I've spoken to Prime Ministers Howard, Rudd, Gillard, Tony Abbott particularly, not so much Malcolm Turnbull, Scott Morrison or Anthony Albanese. This mob, Hizb Ut Tahrir, are a declared terrorist organisation in many nations across the globe, including most recently from January, Great Britain. According to the report on 60 minutes last night. Having spoken to Nick McKenzie they're behind all these protests. Every protest from the very first one, before there was any retaliation from Israel towards what had happened in relation to the 1200 people slain and other people taken hostage. Now they've been at the forefront of this, although they are in the shadows, so to speak. And yet, why can't we, For 20 years I've been asking the question, Senator Paterson. Why have we not declared them a terrorist organisation like we declared Hamas?
PATERSON: Ray, you've been right to ask these questions for a long time. And frankly, the case is even stronger now than it ever has been post 7th October, because the terrorism listing rules in this country are clear. If you were involved in promoting, fostering, encouraging and even praising terrorist activity, that is grounds under the Criminal Code for your organisation to be listed as a terrorist organisation. And on face value this group and some members of this group have been doing so. You pointed out that at that rally which occurred on the 8th of October, one day after the attacks on Israel, where Sheikh Dadoun, associated with this group, was involved in praising the actions of Hamas on that day. Now these people need to be looked at very closely for terrorist prescription, but also other offences that they are likely to have committed, including incitement to violence and associating with terrorist organisations. They need to be looked at very closely and every possible avenue should be explored and the full force of the law should be deployed.
HADLEY: Okay. Well, let's hope someone's listening. I appreciate your time.
PATERSON: Thanks Ray.
ENDS
