The Australian Parliament has apologised and admitted security officers made a mistake when they seized a bag of books from Julian Assange’s family during a visit to MPs.
Crikey can reveal a top Parliament official wrote to Assange’s father John Shipton this week to extend his “sincere apologies” for the August incident.
Department of Parliamentary Services secretary Rob Stefanic also wrote to Greens Senator David Shoebridge to say his department’s screening procedures had been clarified “to ensure that books are not categorised as protest material”.
The backflip came after the department initially defended the decision to seize the books. Crikey revealed last month the department had justified the seizure by mistakenly claiming the books had been identified as “protest material” because Assange’s brother, Gabriel Shipton, and his father had apparently arrived at Parliament as part of a group of demonstrators rallying outside for Assange’s political rescue.
But the younger Shipton told Crikey there had been no protest that day, prompting the department to urgently review its records and confirm its claim had been based on “factual inaccuracies”.
Shipton told Crikey he welcomed the apology but that the entire situation had left him “gobsmacked”.
“In what sort of democracy are books banned from a parliament in any way? How is that even possible in the first place?” he said.
“It’s a slap in the face, particularly in the case of Julian Assange, where we’re talking about a publisher who’s been locked in prison for publishing material.”
According to Stefanic’s letter to Assange’s father, dated November 2, the secretary came to the conclusion the claim about the protest was wrong after he “initiated an internal review and personally viewed relevant security footage”.
“I also recognise that you and your companions complied with a request to remove the bag and badge which were considered potential protest material,” Stefanic wrote.
“With the benefit of hindsight, you should have been permitted to take the books into the building without waiting for a parliamentarian’s staff member to collect them.”
He added security staff screen about 800,000 people per year and “don’t always get it right”.
“We are, however, a learning organisation,” he said. “We have implemented steps to ensure non-routine decisions are captured for accuracy and reporting and our screening procedures have been clarified to ensure that books are not categorised as protest material.”
He went on to say he regretted Shipton’s experience of visiting Parliament House hadn’t been “welcoming and pleasant”.
“I regret that your experience has fallen short of this ideal and for that I extend my sincere apologies to you and your family,” Stefanic wrote.
Shoebridge, who raised the matter with Parliament on the Assange family’s behalf, said he was pleased Stefanic had acknowledged what went wrong and apologised.
“It’s a good outcome from this whole sorry saga that Parliament has taken steps to ensure that books are never again classified as protest material,” Shoebridge told Crikey.
“This whole incident is a glimpse into the many challenges faced by Julian Assange’s family as they seek justice and political support to have him returned home.
“I join the family and millions of people in this country to renew the call on the Albanese government to take active, public and meaningful steps to bring Julian Assange home.”
The Australian Parliament/government will have a much more profound apology to make to the Assange family once the humane decision is made to repatriate Julian from his current parlous situation in a gaol cell.
Indeed!
This behaviour by Parliamentary Security is not a simple omission or excusable action.
It is a raw example of how authority targets individuals because they can. Regardless of lack of actual evidence or accountability. The “Assange” name . . . was all that was required. If such behaviour happens on the threshold of The Australian Parliament. The centre of our democratic values? Just imagine the opportunities that may be open to constrain all Australians wherever they live.
Too true, any many Australians don’t need to `imagine’.
So, they based their decision on “factual inaccuracies”.
This is another way of saying that they lied about why they confiscated the books. There’ll be no consequences for lying about this matter, of course.
The American Ambassador would have laid down the law regarding JA. “His ass is ours. Crystal?” Crystal.
Meantime Chelsea Manning goes free.
….which is a good thing.
I thought that Manning had been re-incarcerated pro-tem for refusing to turn state evidence.
So, will they apologise when Julian dies in a British or American prison bevause they are too piss weak to make a firm demand to release him ….or is placating our masters wishes far more important than principles! They were full of it before the elections but now …. a deafening silence!
How true. One day we will eventually see the rear of Biden and wonder whose shoelaces they are hanging out the back.