The Dreyfus Files - The Age
Global opinion is likely to split again over WikiLeaks found Julian Assange, after a decision was handed down in his extradition case.
The Australian founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, has been ordered by a judge to be extradited to Sweden to face sexual assault allegations.
Despite this, it may still take up to a year for the case to go through all the legal channels and be resolved. Mr Assange's lawyer indicated his client will appeal the decision.
Regardless of the decision, global opinion will likely split once again on the moral righteousness or otherwise of Mr Assange.
But this legal process shouldn’t cloud our analysis of the issue that made Mr Assange famous in the first place – his decision to release more than 250,000 US diplomatic cables stolen by an American soldier.
I’ve watched this story evolve with keen interest, because throughout my professional life I’ve worked for greater freedom of information and transparency in government.
I fundamentally believe in the public’s right to know as a core principle of good government.
As a QC in Victoria, I appeared in many cases about Freedom of Information and protecting the rights of journalists and media organisations. As an MP, I’ve worked on improvements to the Commonwealth FoI Act, and on an inquiry that recommended new legislation to protect whistleblowers in the Australian public service.
I believe in transparency and public access to information. I also believe, however, in the proper protection of those whose lives could be put at risk by the publication of government information.
Mr Assange has sought to reassure us, stating that no US diplomatic cable would be released containing the names of people who have provided information to US authorities. Such people could include human rights activists in Burma, Tibet, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia, Egypt or a host of other authoritarian places where US diplomats have good reason to be talking to such activists.
They could include informants and agents who give information to US diplomats on the clear understanding that their identities will be protected.
If Mr Assange’s organisation was to inadvertently release information that leads to the identification of an innocent person in one of the more than 250,000 US diplomatic cables that he has obtained, he could put these people at huge personal risk.
WikiLeaks’ release processes can be compared, and should be compared, with the immense care taken by Western governments, including the Australian government, before releasing decades old cabinet documents.
Australian cabinet papers have historically been released after 30 years, but before that release occurs they are checked and re-checked by officials and intelligence agencies in an effort to ensure that no living person will be put at risk of physical harm because of the disclosure of his or her identity.
This is done because even after 30 years, the source of information to Australian authorities might be revealed in released cabinet papers. This is so even where the source is not named – sometimes merely a single piece of information may enable the immediate identification of a source.
I’ve spent a significant proportion of my professional life working to promote the public’s right to know about the activities of their government. I’m glad that the case of Mr Assange has brought these issues to the forefront of public discussion.
In the broader discussion about the rights and wrongs of disclosure, it’s worth reflecting that in our democratic and free society and others like ours, we are in fact well served by some proper and thought-through confidentiality in government affairs.
