Topics: Julian Assange;
09:35AM ACST
27 June 2024
John Stanley: Simon Birmingham, he’s leader of the opposition in the Senate. He’s the Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister. But he’s also someone who not long ago put out a tweet criticising Anthony Albanese for making the phone call to Julian Assange. So, let’s get him on. Simon Birmingham, good morning to you.
Simon Birmingham: Good morning, John. Good to be with you.
John Stanley: You saw the welcome last night. What did you make of it?
Simon Birmingham: Well, I’m pleased this saga is over. Julian Assange, like any Australian in trouble overseas, has been entitled to all appropriate consular assistance from our diplomats, from the Department of Foreign Affairs. And even though for a number of years he refused to receive such assistance or such meetings. He, of course, was always entitled to it. So, I’m pleased that this is over. And of course, he spent five years in jail. The US system has recognised that when he pleaded guilty yesterday morning to charges under their Espionage Act. But let’s be clear. Yesterday morning he pleaded guilty under the US Espionage Act and then last night he was welcomed home by Anthony Albanese. I think this just shows a grave error of judgement by Anthony Albanese. Julian Assange is not a hero. He’s been convicted of a crime. He’s admitted to that crime, and he should not be receiving that type of special homecoming greeting from our Prime Minister.
John Stanley: Just in relation to the Espionage Act. Do you share concerns about the scope of it, where it can essentially its tentacles reach right across the world?
Simon Birmingham: I think the US is entitled to, of course, apply its laws, as you said in your introduction. Julian Assange is viewed by many people through different lenses. I don’t see him as a journalist, nor is a responsible publisher. He published some half a million documents without the faintest idea of what was in most of them, without curating or editing or doing the type of work that you, John, or any other responsible journalist would do in terms of assessing what the implications of your story were. And as the US State Department has been clear in publishing all those documents, he put lives at risk. He caused the US to have to reposition different people and make various changes in their operations because he had no regard at all for what he was publishing. He was just to publish and be damned approach, which is not journalism. And I’m sure if there were different cases that came before the US courts in future, they will hang in part off of whether or not actual journalistic ethics are being applied.
John Stanley: I did mention this earlier that in 2016 he was releasing massive, massive dumps of documents, which had been hacked by the Russians, the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, some private emails and the like. So, and he seems to have done this before, almost doing the work of Vladimir Putin there. Is there a danger because we know we’ve got hackers from different countries trying to access our systems here. Is there a danger that this may now be encouraged?
Simon Birmingham: Well, I think we face a real danger in the current day and age from widespread hacking. From the way in which artificial intelligence is also used and from the desire of countries like Russia and others to push misinformation and disinformation out there. That’s why standing up for high quality, credible, trustworthy journalism is important. Rather than defending the actions of those who may well contribute to the misinformation campaigns of other nations and may well be used in different ways to spread or republish on the internet such information. Now, they’re all debates that, of course, will be important for us as we move forward. And right now, though, my criticism is really pointed, not so much at Julian Assange. They were matters for the legal processes of the US, and he pled guilty. But at Anthony Albanese as to why he would send the wrong signals on two levels. One to the United States for the fact that he’s welcoming home somebody who acted like this and ultimately was found guilty, uh, in relation to charges in a court of our closest ally. And the other essentially, it puts him up on a plane with people who genuinely have been political prisoners and genuinely were wrongly detained, people like Cheng Lai, Kylie Moore-Gilbert, Sean Turnell. And he’s absolutely not in that category at all. He wasn’t in an Iranian jail or detained in Myanmar. He was in the United Kingdom for the last five years in their legal system and prior to that, spending seven years hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy.
John Stanley: And that was over a separate issue in terms of charges coming out of Sweden, as we know.
Simon Birmingham: Sexual assault allegations coming out of Sweden. Again, Sweden, a democracy with a rule of law far, far away from Iran or China or Myanmar.
John Stanley: Yep. All right and just the question of his flight, I understood reading this morning. It was a private jet. And I think they’ve raised close to the 700,000 for the payment of that wasn’t are you established- have you satisfied it’s not taxpayers money for that return trip?
Simon Birmingham: It seems, from what has been said that it was underwritten by the taxpayer, but that the expectation is he will be paying those costs. And obviously people seem to have given and from what I understand, more than the published cost of the flight has been raised. So, it’ll be a question for Mr. Assange as to what’s going to happen to that money. But I trust taxpayers will not be out of pocket because, of course, he could have simply agreed to extradition and the US would have flown into the US under those circumstances.
John Stanley: Sure. All right. Look, I appreciate your time. Another interesting day in Canberra. We’ll talk soon. Thank you.
Simon Birmingham: Thanks, John. My pleasure.
[END]