By Peter Kemp, Solicitor of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, on 2010-12-04

Dear Prime Minister
From the Sydney Morning Herald I note you made a comment of "illegal" on the matter of Mr Assange in relation to the ongoing leaks of US diplomatic cables.

Previously your colleague and Attorney General the Honourable McClelland announced an investigation of possible criminality by Mr Assange.

As a lawyer and citizen I find this most disturbing, particularly so when a brief perusal of the Commonwealth Criminal Code shows that liability arises under the Espionage provisions, for example, only when it is the Commonwealth's "secrets" that are disclosed and that there must be intent to damage the Commonwealth.

Likewise under Treason law, there must be an intent to assist an enemy. Clearly, and reinforced by publicly available material such as Professor Saul's excellent article:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/dont-cry-over-wikil...
...Julian Assange has almost certainly committed no crime under Australian law in relation to his involvement in Wikileaks.

I guess David Hicks was afforded special dispensation from the US by the Australian Government because he was innocent, rather than him being Australian? Yes?

I too am curious about the stance taken by Julia Gillard. It is unfortunate that very few Australian politicians will have the balls to take a stance on the issue outside of the US line. It is a real shame.

I neither support nor condemn Assange.

When the individuals that scan, photocopy, email confidential/secret information to a whistle-blower website, they must be the ones to face the legal/moral music of their employer/country etc. Then again, whistle-blowing only seems to be okay when it is convenient to those holding the power ;)

Sylvestor

Prime Minister Julia Gillard remains opposed to gay unions, putting her at odds with right-wing Labor powerbroker Mark Arbib.

Senator Arbib is the first frontbencher to say he believes his party should support gay marriage.

He says gay people should have the legal right to get married, and MPs should be given a conscience vote on the controversial matter.

"If I was the parent of a gay son or daughter I don't know how I could tell them they didn't have the same rights as I did," Mr Arbib told News Ltd papers.

"I understand the Labor Party platform does not reflect that view at the moment but I hope one day that view changes."

Ms Gillard said Senator Arbib was voicing his personal views and would need to raise the matter at the ALP's national conference if he wanted to change the party's current policy, which opposes gay unions.

"Mark has expressed his personal views and no doubt he will take them to the next national conference, which is the proper place to have this debate," Ms Gillard told reporters in Melbourne today.

"We have currently a party policy, the party policy's crystal clear, that marriage is between a man and a woman.

"That's what the marriage act says and that's how it should stay."

As a gay man, in a long term relationship, I am actually happy that our relationship is not defined by an act of parliament (legislation).  How do you married folk feel about that? If "marriage" is about love and commitment, what happens when you break THAT law? If its about religion, then why do we need law to define it?

Apart from all that, because, frankly, I don't really care if heterosexual (man and woman) couples need laws to define their relationships (bit sad really), more to the point, will Mark Arbib now move to destabilize the Gillard Prime Ministership as a result of this 'disagreement'? 

Afterall, he did it to Rudd over Mining taxes!

Sylvestor