The wording of the motion was seen by its supporters as a “vanilla” proposal that did not seek to antagonise. It did not call upon Labor to act and did not take shots at the Liberals. It was aimed instead at the UK and the US.
However,it had two elements that were highly sensitive for some. The first was that it described Assange as a Walkley Award-winning journalist – always a contentious claim for his detractors because they see him as a hacker and activist. Yet the facts are clear on this point. Wikileaks won a Walkley Award for journalism in 2011 and Assange was named as the website’s editor. He was a whistleblower,in a sense,but he was not an insider. He was a publisher.
Another element was more sensitive,especially for Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and the Liberals. The motion said this:“Mr Assange remains incarcerated in HMP Belmarsh in the UK,awaiting a decision on whether he can be extradited to the USA to face charges for material published in 2010,which revealed shocking evidence of misconduct by the USA.” That reflection on the US was a huge stumbling block.
Again,the facts are important. The material published in 2010 was a video called Collateral Murder and its release will probably remain the defining moment in Assange’s life,whatever comes next. The video was taken by US forces in Iraq in July 2007 and showed soldiers shooting from helicopters into a group of people in Baghdad. At least 18 were killed.
The details remain contested because critics of Wikileaks say at least one was holding a rocket-propelled grenade,but the attack clearly resulted in civilian deaths. Two children were wounded. Two of those killed were journalists for the news agency Reuters.
Loading
While the deaths came in the midst of a long war,how else could a motion in parliament describe that attack? The video was shocking evidence of misconduct. Soldiers fired on civilians from a helicopter. Wilkie would not wipe that away to win the Coalition’s support. “It made me think they were looking for an excuse not to support it,” he told me on Thursday.
Liberal leaders,however,say the motion had an unbalanced criticism of the US and this meant they could not vote in favour. Even so,they acknowledge that Dutton has previously backed the argument that the matter should be brought to an end.
Some tried to get Barnaby Joyce to vote in favour of the motion,but the former Nationals leader was in a difficult position. He argued the case for Assange as part of a group of MPs who travelled to Washington DC last September,but voting for the motion on Wednesday would mean crossing the floor and,in all likelihood,giving up his shadow cabinet position. He left the chamber before the final vote. Other Coalition MPs were also absent.
Albanese voted in favour of the motion,as did every cabinet minister and Labor caucus member in the chamber. That means the motion not only sums up the will of the House – by a convincing majority – but also the position of the government. Greens and independent MPs voted in favour,as did Archer and one other Liberal,Russell Broadbent,who now sits on the crossbench.
Loading
Until this week,the government’s position was summed up in the brief comment from Albanese on his return from Washington DC last October. “I’ve made it clear thatenough is enough — that it’s time it was brought to a conclusion,” he said. That was one day after he raised the problem in a private conversation with US President Joe Biden.
Those around Albanese see this as a long series of steps. They cannot predict the court decision next week,but they can steadily make the case for Assange in the hope of a resolution. Foreign Minister Penny Wong has raised this with her counterparts,and so has Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus. The vote on Wednesday is simply another step.
Assange took refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London in June 2012 because,he said,he feared extradition to the US. He remained there until April 2019,when police carried him out. He has been in prison ever since. There will always be doubts about some of his leaks. On balance,however,many of the leaks were in the public interest. And he has lost 12 years of freedom.
Wilkie will travel to London next week to see the High Court hearings. He sees the vote in parliament as a message that has to influence decisions in the UK and the US,even if there is a long way to go. “It’s a solid building block,” he says. “It cannot be ignored.”
David Crowe is chief political correspondent.