6 ms·

Assange stands 'real chance' of election in Australia

111 points by nextstep 14y ago

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- tedivm 14y ago
  He's been under house arrest for over a year now. I'm not saying the guy is perfect, but he's taken some pretty big hits for wikileaks too.
- mike-cardwell 14y ago
  "just a dude running a website" demonstrates a complete and utter lack of understanding of everything he did, does and has achieved.
factorial 14y ago
This would be too good to be true.
tnuc 14y ago
He has no chance. He needs to be in Australia to be elected or he will be charged with electoral fraud. Good luck to him but by the time he has dealt with his current legal "issues" most people would have forgotten about him.
- mike-cardwell 14y ago
  "He has no chance. He needs to be in Australia to be elected or he will be charged with electoral fraud." I don't think this is news to anyone, let alone him. "Good luck to him but by the time he has dealt with his current legal "issues" most people would have forgotten about him." Nope. If and when he makes it back to Australia, he'll get a tonne of free publicity, without any effort at all.
  - caf 14y ago
    It's simply untrue. There is no such requirement. The requirement that does exist that will be problematic for Assange is that a Senator can lose their position if they are absent without leave of the Senate.
- twelvechairs 14y ago
  Can you provide a source for this? As far as I know (from an interview with Geoffrey Robertson, Assange's lawyer, but also known as a respected senior lawyer and public figure in both the UK and Australia) this is incorrect. It is possible to be elected when overseas, however there seems to be a grey area as to what would happen to his seat if he was unable to return to the country to occupy it in parliament.
  - nikcub 14y ago
    the grey areas will be clarified with either attorney general opinion or new legislation before the election, you can bet on that.
  - tnuc 14y ago
    It's not really a grey area. There have been politicians who have failed to be present enough days in their electorates in the past and suffered the wrath of the electoral commission.
    - twelvechairs 14y ago
      such as? 'in their electorates'? Do you mean he has to be in a particular state or territory if elected to senate?
    - caf 14y ago
      This is quite simply untrue. There is no requirement to live in an electorate to represent that electorate in Parliament, and in fact in the past it was very common for country electorates to be represented by city politicians. Antony Green has a great post debunking this myth: http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2012/02/local-seats-for-local-people-who-should-be-allowed-to-contest-elections.html http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2012/02/local-seats-for-... (and Senators don't even represent electorates).
    - cturner 14y ago
      Could you be thinking of housing allowance scandals? This is where elected politicians claim rent from the government for rent for houses they're not really living in.
alastairpat 14y ago
I'm all for Assange's senate bid, but given he doesn't seem to have declared/decided which state/territory he will be running for the Senate in, I'm curious as to how these data can be considered accurate/representative of any actual electoral outcome.
- jwilliams 14y ago
  True - the closest analog I'd see is Nick Xenophon who won a senate seat in 2007 as an independent, with 15% of the primary vote. If Assange did get 25% of the primary, then he'd be a shoe-in, probably at the expense of a Green. However, the article is a bit woolly. "25% would vote for" does not necessarily mean the primary vote.
  - vacri 14y ago
    It's pretty easy for a minor party (well, 'one of the', not 'a') to pick up the last senate seat in a state, given the way they're allocated. It all depends on which way the preferences flow.
    - jwilliams 14y ago
      Yeah, you're probably right -- I went and had a look back at 2007. Xenophon won, but a Green also picked up a Senate seat (in SA). The Greens polled just 6.5% and picked it up off preferences. I was figuring his vote would come at the expense of the Greens, but even in that case the major parties were marginal enough on the 6th seat to get the Greens in. (Plus the DLP won a seat in Vic in 2010, off just 2.3% of the primary). I expect the next election will be quite a shake-up, especially in the Senate - certainly can't see the major parties gaining. So, you're probably right that preferences will dominate the 5/6th seats.
      - nl 14y ago
        Given the current political climate I think his seat might come at the expense of a Labor senator.
chris_wot 14y ago
Th government is on the nose at the moment. So is the opposition! A dead fish has a good chance of being elected right now, if they aren't a member of the major Liberal or Labor parties...
nextparadigms 14y ago
It would certainly make it a lot more interesting to see how the US Government deals with him.
- sebastianavina 14y ago
  I would love to see a wikileaks alternative leaking assange classified documents.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
tjmc 14y ago
Here's hoping. Under the Westminster parliamentary system you can say anything in parliament and not be held liable. Everything said is then transcribed and made available as a public record. It's the ideal soapbox.
- DiabloD3 14y ago
  I, too, wish him luck.
- arethuza 14y ago
  Not quite "anything" - parliamentary privilege doesn't extend to anything deemed to be "unparliamentary language". For example, you can't call a fellow member of parliament a liar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unparliamentary_language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unparliamentary_language
rdl 14y ago
Would this get him some form of immunity from civil/criminal prosecution? Would it apply internationally? (diplomatic or consular immunity)
- dsl 14y ago
  Despite what the movies tell you there is no such thing as true immunity. If you commit a crime in another country under "diplomatic immunity", your host country must decide to waive your immunity and allow you to be prosecuted, or have you expelled back to your native country. The receiving country could then request extradition for a criminal trial (so you essentially get kicked out as a diplomat, and drug back as a citizen). In the specific case of Assange, professional activity outside official functions isn't protected at all. So if Australia did come to his defense and claimed he was acting in a professional capacity for doing something like leaking US military secrets, it would be an act of state sponsored terrorism.
  - slowpoke 14y ago
    >it would be an act of state sponsored terrorism. How would that be, in any way, shape or form, terrorism? If anything, it might be espionage or something in that vein. Calling whistle-blowing terrorism is disingenuous at best.
    - dsl 14y ago
      Terrorism is loosely defined as actions by an individual or organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. Almost word for word the mission statement of Wikileaks.
      - slowpoke 14y ago
        That's the stupidest definition of terrorism I have ever seen. You could call pretty much ANYTHING slightly subversive terrorism under this definition. Movements for social change? Terrorism. Peaceful demonstrations against government policy? Terrorism. Any sort of activism? Terrorism. I stand by my opinion: calling whistle-blowing terrorism is a ridiculous appeal to emotion, and anyone who even dares to attempt it should be laughed out of the building.
cletus 14y ago
Running for the Senate would be an interesting move, to say the least, and would probably create a headache for the Australian government that they don't want. I imagine Assange's lawyers have done their homework and have established that from being on house arrest in the UK he could run for the Senate (contrary to what 1-2 commenters here have said). There's probably few better elections to run in than the next one. It looks like the current Labor government will be decimated in the next election (in some ways history is repeating itself from the Hawke-Keating years, which is interesting). Yet the population seems disillusioned with the opposition too. My biggest problem with the opposition is their pointless continued opposition to the NBN. Anyway, the big potential headache for the Australian government here is Assange would go from being a citizen possibly being extradited to the Sweden (and potentially the US) to being a sitting Senator being extradited. While he wouldn't be a head of state and enjoy those protections, I'm not sure if there's any real precedent for extradition of someone in the government like this. Australia should be standing up to the US over this however so it's a headache I would invite and welcome upon our government. That all being said, I'm not sure I buy the theory that Assange's extradition to Sweden is to get his extradited to the US. I seem to remember reading something saying it was just as easy to extradite him from Britain so who knows.
- elliotanderson 14y ago
  I think the theory is that with the current displeasure British citizens have with their government, extraditing Assange at te behest of the US wouldn't go down so well. On the flip side, Sweden has shown that they are willing to cooperate with US interests. Essentially it's possible to extradite him from both countries, it would be a PR nightmare to do it from Britian
- whatusername 14y ago
  There's also the chance of a Double Dissolution Election. Assuming that the Liberal Party don't get a majority in the Senate, they may decide to call one to pass legislation repealing the Carbon ETS/Tax which Labor are about to introduce. If that happens -- then the requirement for a Senate Seat goes from 16.6% of the Vote to 8.33% of the Vote. Fun times ahead.
- 14y ago

111 points by nextstep 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

tedivm 14y ago
He's been under house arrest for over a year now. I'm not saying the guy is perfect, but he's taken some pretty big hits for wikileaks too.
mike-cardwell 14y ago
"just a dude running a website" demonstrates a complete and utter lack of understanding of everything he did, does and has achieved.

factorial 14y ago

This would be too good to be true.

tnuc 14y ago

He has no chance. He needs to be in Australia to be elected or he will be charged with electoral fraud. Good luck to him but by the time he has dealt with his current legal "issues" most people would have forgotten about him.

mike-cardwell 14y ago
"He has no chance. He needs to be in Australia to be elected or he will be charged with electoral fraud." I don't think this is news to anyone, let alone him. "Good luck to him but by the time he has dealt with his current legal "issues" most people would have forgotten about him." Nope. If and when he makes it back to Australia, he'll get a tonne of free publicity, without any effort at all.
- caf 14y ago
  It's simply untrue. There is no such requirement. The requirement that does exist that will be problematic for Assange is that a Senator can lose their position if they are absent without leave of the Senate.
twelvechairs 14y ago
Can you provide a source for this? As far as I know (from an interview with Geoffrey Robertson, Assange's lawyer, but also known as a respected senior lawyer and public figure in both the UK and Australia) this is incorrect. It is possible to be elected when overseas, however there seems to be a grey area as to what would happen to his seat if he was unable to return to the country to occupy it in parliament.
- nikcub 14y ago
  the grey areas will be clarified with either attorney general opinion or new legislation before the election, you can bet on that.
- tnuc 14y ago
  It's not really a grey area. There have been politicians who have failed to be present enough days in their electorates in the past and suffered the wrath of the electoral commission.
  - twelvechairs 14y ago
    such as? 'in their electorates'? Do you mean he has to be in a particular state or territory if elected to senate?
  - caf 14y ago
    This is quite simply untrue. There is no requirement to live in an electorate to represent that electorate in Parliament, and in fact in the past it was very common for country electorates to be represented by city politicians. Antony Green has a great post debunking this myth: http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2012/02/local-seats-for-local-people-who-should-be-allowed-to-contest-elections.html http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2012/02/local-seats-for-... (and Senators don't even represent electorates).
  - cturner 14y ago
    Could you be thinking of housing allowance scandals? This is where elected politicians claim rent from the government for rent for houses they're not really living in.

alastairpat 14y ago

I'm all for Assange's senate bid, but given he doesn't seem to have declared/decided which state/territory he will be running for the Senate in, I'm curious as to how these data can be considered accurate/representative of any actual electoral outcome.

jwilliams 14y ago
True - the closest analog I'd see is Nick Xenophon who won a senate seat in 2007 as an independent, with 15% of the primary vote. If Assange did get 25% of the primary, then he'd be a shoe-in, probably at the expense of a Green. However, the article is a bit woolly. "25% would vote for" does not necessarily mean the primary vote.
- vacri 14y ago
  It's pretty easy for a minor party (well, 'one of the', not 'a') to pick up the last senate seat in a state, given the way they're allocated. It all depends on which way the preferences flow.
  - jwilliams 14y ago
    Yeah, you're probably right -- I went and had a look back at 2007. Xenophon won, but a Green also picked up a Senate seat (in SA). The Greens polled just 6.5% and picked it up off preferences. I was figuring his vote would come at the expense of the Greens, but even in that case the major parties were marginal enough on the 6th seat to get the Greens in. (Plus the DLP won a seat in Vic in 2010, off just 2.3% of the primary). I expect the next election will be quite a shake-up, especially in the Senate - certainly can't see the major parties gaining. So, you're probably right that preferences will dominate the 5/6th seats.
    - nl 14y ago
      Given the current political climate I think his seat might come at the expense of a Labor senator.

chris_wot 14y ago

Th government is on the nose at the moment. So is the opposition! A dead fish has a good chance of being elected right now, if they aren't a member of the major Liberal or Labor parties...

nextparadigms 14y ago

It would certainly make it a lot more interesting to see how the US Government deals with him.

sebastianavina 14y ago
I would love to see a wikileaks alternative leaking assange classified documents.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

tjmc 14y ago

Here's hoping. Under the Westminster parliamentary system you can say anything in parliament and not be held liable. Everything said is then transcribed and made available as a public record. It's the ideal soapbox.

DiabloD3 14y ago
I, too, wish him luck.
arethuza 14y ago
Not quite "anything" - parliamentary privilege doesn't extend to anything deemed to be "unparliamentary language". For example, you can't call a fellow member of parliament a liar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unparliamentary_language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unparliamentary_language

rdl 14y ago

Would this get him some form of immunity from civil/criminal prosecution? Would it apply internationally? (diplomatic or consular immunity)

dsl 14y ago
Despite what the movies tell you there is no such thing as true immunity. If you commit a crime in another country under "diplomatic immunity", your host country must decide to waive your immunity and allow you to be prosecuted, or have you expelled back to your native country. The receiving country could then request extradition for a criminal trial (so you essentially get kicked out as a diplomat, and drug back as a citizen). In the specific case of Assange, professional activity outside official functions isn't protected at all. So if Australia did come to his defense and claimed he was acting in a professional capacity for doing something like leaking US military secrets, it would be an act of state sponsored terrorism.
- slowpoke 14y ago
  >it would be an act of state sponsored terrorism. How would that be, in any way, shape or form, terrorism? If anything, it might be espionage or something in that vein. Calling whistle-blowing terrorism is disingenuous at best.
  - dsl 14y ago
    Terrorism is loosely defined as actions by an individual or organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. Almost word for word the mission statement of Wikileaks.
    - slowpoke 14y ago
      That's the stupidest definition of terrorism I have ever seen. You could call pretty much ANYTHING slightly subversive terrorism under this definition. Movements for social change? Terrorism. Peaceful demonstrations against government policy? Terrorism. Any sort of activism? Terrorism. I stand by my opinion: calling whistle-blowing terrorism is a ridiculous appeal to emotion, and anyone who even dares to attempt it should be laughed out of the building.

cletus 14y ago

Running for the Senate would be an interesting move, to say the least, and would probably create a headache for the Australian government that they don't want. I imagine Assange's lawyers have done their homework and have established that from being on house arrest in the UK he could run for the Senate (contrary to what 1-2 commenters here have said). There's probably few better elections to run in than the next one. It looks like the current Labor government will be decimated in the next election (in some ways history is repeating itself from the Hawke-Keating years, which is interesting). Yet the population seems disillusioned with the opposition too. My biggest problem with the opposition is their pointless continued opposition to the NBN. Anyway, the big potential headache for the Australian government here is Assange would go from being a citizen possibly being extradited to the Sweden (and potentially the US) to being a sitting Senator being extradited. While he wouldn't be a head of state and enjoy those protections, I'm not sure if there's any real precedent for extradition of someone in the government like this. Australia should be standing up to the US over this however so it's a headache I would invite and welcome upon our government. That all being said, I'm not sure I buy the theory that Assange's extradition to Sweden is to get his extradited to the US. I seem to remember reading something saying it was just as easy to extradite him from Britain so who knows.

elliotanderson 14y ago
I think the theory is that with the current displeasure British citizens have with their government, extraditing Assange at te behest of the US wouldn't go down so well. On the flip side, Sweden has shown that they are willing to cooperate with US interests. Essentially it's possible to extradite him from both countries, it would be a PR nightmare to do it from Britian
whatusername 14y ago
There's also the chance of a Double Dissolution Election. Assuming that the Liberal Party don't get a majority in the Senate, they may decide to call one to pass legislation repealing the Carbon ETS/Tax which Labor are about to introduce. If that happens -- then the requirement for a Senate Seat goes from 16.6% of the Vote to 8.33% of the Vote. Fun times ahead.
14y ago