http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cca1995115/sch1.html

I think that Julian Assange would have done his research, seeing that he has so much time on his hands.
Given that our Australian Government is fully aware of the fate of Julian Assange and the people involved in Wikileaks should they
get into the clutches of the United States legal system, imprisonment and torture.
This is an action which is alleged to have taken place between one Australian Citizen and a group, Wikileaks,
and between the government and a group of its own citizens.

80.2A Urging violence against groups
Offences
(1) A person (the first person ) commits an offence if:

(a) the first person intentionally urges another person, or a group, to use force or violence against a group (the targeted group ); and
(b) the first person does so intending that force or violence will occur; and
(c) the targeted group is distinguished by race, religion, nationality, national or ethnic origin or political opinion; and
(d) the use of the force or violence would threaten the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 7 years.
Note: For intention, see section 5.2.

(2) A person (the first person ) commits an offence if:
(a) the first person intentionally urges another person, or a group, to use force or violence against a group (the targeted group ); and
(b) the first person does so intending that force or violence will occur; and
(c) the targeted group is distinguished by race, religion, nationality, national or ethnic origin or political opinion.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.

5.2 Intention

(1) A person has intention with respect to conduct if he or she means to engage in that conduct.
(2) A person has intention with respect to a circumstance if he or she believes that it exists or will exist.
(3) A person has intention with respect to a result if he or she means to bring it about or is aware that it will occur in the ordinarycourse of events

Interestingly (or more specifically, sadly) there is indeed no law that I could find that would put Julia Gillard under a charge of treason (though I find that charge strangely appropriate).
Treason law states that if an Australian provides information to an outside source that is hostile to the Australian nation- as opposed to an Australian NationAL, which is the case of what Gillard is doing to Assange.

Interestingly, there are no laws that Assange had broken- however, I have found laws that state David Hicks is indeed guilty of treason, and many Islamist commentators are guilty of the parallel offense of urging violence against a group!

So Julia, don't you have more important things to chase after than someone who upholds a basic democratic right, against people that actually have a criminal charge to answer to?

The Gillard Government is a legitimate government so is unlikely to answer charges of treason in the case of Assange. The PM is not guilty of treason and the government is providing the usual diplomatic support as any Australian national.

Governments do on occasion legitimately share information with other countries in relation to many crimes such as drug or people trafficking, identity theft, terrorism, money laundering but Assange does not fall into these categories.

The general public have no way of ascertaining whether the Australian Government has supplied information about Assange to the US. Assange has committed no crime. Is the US Government even gathering evidence with intent to charge. There is silence on the subject because I suspect there is no case to answer.

Treason is one of those concepts of which it's application depends on your position in the social order ie. citizen, 'legitimate government', freedom fighter such as in the Treason Trials of the 1700s when parliamentary reformers were tried as traitors. No Western Government could get away with that now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1794_Treason_Trials

While I am a strong supporter of Wikileaks and any attempts to make governments more accountable and open to scrutiny, the idea of charging the PM with treason is a bit OTT in the same way as the absurd Tea Party has called for Assange to be tried as a traitor.

The PM is more to be remonstrated for failing to give public support for Assange in her earlier ill-informed comment about illegal activity as a knee-jerk reaction so as not to ruffle the US-Australia alliance.

I will be watching closely the Australian Government's respose should there be any attempts to extradite Assange to the US to answer any future charges.

For my money's worth I don't think it will happen given growing support for the goals and aims of Wikileaks and a growing demand for greater citizen participation.

and thought that the PM answered Julian Assange quite well.
lexi,
do you think that would be the case if the program was not government funded ?

The fun is that the -of, by and for the people’s- bit comes from a trained lawyer and, to date, no one knows what he meant by ‘people’ as it seems that Lincoln was a rat in a government of rodents who, earlier had made short work of the Aborigines of the continent he then ruled.

To RaiseTheDust

I frequently visit of the State Library of Victoria that has many shelves of law-books’.

The eminent writers’ of those books amply dissert on ‘The Rule of Law” and often mention specific Laws while I ask myself: ‘who wrote that Law’.

So the most fundamental question; ‘Who’s Law” never comes to the fore.

But, if nobody tells us the chap or chaps that wrote the Laws those books refer to, we all know the ones who did not.

I did not, the ones who take my rubbish to the tip did not, and the petty thief who pinched my full shopping bags did not.

Who then made that law if not one in a position of privilege achieved by the criminal use of the gift of the gab?

‘Law, and ’whose law’ are inseparable concepts.

I have wondered why Labor did not redo the AWB enquiry with much broader limits. Thus both Howard and Downer to name just 2 would indeed be facing this charge.

So the reason they didn't was the Libs could resurrect other issues next time they are in.

I say do it, I want all politicians in jail with their mates, criminals, where they belong. Let them explain face to face to the drug users why that's a crime and so on.