On Friday, ABC radio was incorrectly reporting that Prime Minister Albanese was calling for an “Independent investigation” or “transparent probe” to be carried out by the perpetrator of the killing of Zomi Frankcom.
This didn’t match exactly what the PM said the day before, who asked for “transparency” and “explanation” but said he would consult with the victim’s family on the direction.
On Thursday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the decision by the Israeli military not to conduct a criminal investigation into the killing of Australian aid worker Zomi Frankcom was not enough but he declined to call it a coverup, as put by a journalist.
On Thursday, an independent investigation, as put by a journalist to the PM, was “one of the options that certainly should be considered” but he was not prepared to say by who or if his government would seek one.
Sara Ferguson on ABC followed up, “to be clear, you will press the Israeli government for some form of independent investigation?”
The PM didn’t commit. “We will press the Israeli government,” he says, without explaining what he will press for.
“The direction, we have said today, we'll discuss with Ms Frankcom's family. They deserve to be consulted on these issues, and we'll do that, and then we'll make an announcement in the coming days.”
Stay tuned for whether there is any further announcement.
Any investigation by Israel would not be independent.
On Friday, Melissa Clarke asked her colleague on ABC radio what options there would be, and he replied that options were limited.
The ABC didn’t appear to have sought advice from an international criminal law expert, or sanctions law expert. I will help fill the gap here:
Minister Penny Wong could apply a two way arms embargo on the Israeli military through our autonomous sanctions framework as a consequence of the military’s failure to investigate and apply consequences for the killing of Ms Frankcom (and the illegal kidnapping and abuse of Australians this year who were attempting to deliver aid to Gaza).
The Albanese Government could call for an independent investigation by the International Criminal Court into the killing of Zomi Frankcom.
The Albanese Government could make a private or public communication to the ICC requesting they investigate.
The Albanese Government could announce funding to support the ICC to carry out its current open investigation into war crimes committed by Israel (and Hamas), including the killing of Zomi Frankcom and her colleagues, which is currently suffering due to punitive sanctions on ICC judges and personnel from Australia’s “most important ally”, the United States. The Albanese Government could distance itself from the US punishments made to the ICC and stand by the ICC.
The Albanese Government could announce with other countries which had humanitarian workers killed by Israel that it is doing any of the steps above.
It is poor form that the ABC AM radio misreported the Government position and then didn’t enumerate the options open to the Government.
Unfortunately, it is likely the Albanese Government will not propose or execute any real consequences or movement towards a truly independent investigation, and then imply that’s because the family of Zomi Frankcom didn’t ask for that or want that, leaving it up to a bereaved family to have responsibility for the stronger consequences that are typically applied in these situations.
So far Minister Penny Wong has only applied a symbolic handful of individual sanctions in relation to Israeli violence in the West Bank, and spent her energy trying to get other countries to sign a general statement in support of the protection of humanitarian workers. This sort of work is probably intended to give the appearance of action in the memory of Ms Frankcom.
Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Penny Wong had this to say about the problem on Thursday:
There are still many unanswered questions. These include why, even if the first strike was a catastrophic error, two further strikes followed, each two minutes apart. As Mark Binskin concluded in his public report, these strikes were in violation of Israeli Defense Forces' standard operating procedures and rules of engagement. We still have not had a satisfactory explanation of why the strike occurred in a humanitarian fire control zone and after high command had directed the brigade commander not to engage the convoy. We have not had a satisfactory explanation regarding the senior brigade officer involved in the strikes being a signatory to a letter to the IDF Chief of the General Staff calling for aid to be restricted to Gaza. We have not received the drone audio as requested multiple times by the Government on behalf of Zomi's family. The Australian Government does not believe that the removal of two officers from their positions and three officers being reprimanded is sufficient accountability for the deaths of seven people, including an Australian citizen. And we do not have confidence in the IDF's Military Advocate General's process given the many unanswered questions. And I would note this follows a case where the former Military Advocate General was arrested after allegedly acting as a whistleblower and leaking surveillance footage showing Israeli soldiers abusing Palestinian detainees. I have said many times, and I say it again, democracies seek and accept higher standards. The Australian Government will continue to keep pressing Israel for justice for Zomi and her colleagues and we will consult with Zomi Frankcom's family before we announce further steps.
Minister Wong indicates more of the same approach they have used so far.
On Thursday, she was asked about whether she was interested in an International Criminal Court investigation which would be independent. She declined to say she would be interested or to call for the ICC to investigate, saying, “obviously they're an independent body and they have mechanisms available to them.”
The news regarding Zomi Frankcom comes as the Israeli government announces it will open an investigation into its killing of 5 year old Hind Rajab. Al Jazeera reports:
Human rights organisations and the victim’s family have rejected the internal Israeli investigation as offering only an illusion of accountability.
Hind Hamada Rajab, the child’s grandmother, has said she does not trust the investigations nor the Israeli judiciary, demanding an independent international probe into the killing of her granddaughter and her family.
The Albanese Government should be taking a principled stand with real consequences not only for Zomi Frankcom and her colleagues, but Hind Rajab, and all the humanitarian aid workers, health professionals, journalists and civilians intentionally targeted and killed by Israel. Unfortunately, the Australian media has nothing to say about any of this, with very limited analysis even of the treatment of Australian Zomi Frankcom.
Meanwhile devastating images from Gaza continue to roll in while our government allows for universities, super funds, charities and the Future Fund to continue to invest in genocide linked companies, sharing in the profit from these massacres.
Israel has killed more than 1280 Palestinians since it signed a so called “ceasefire”, showing its ongoing disregard for ceasefire obligations or international law. ABC radio reports four Israeli soldiers have died in that time in Gaza. Israel continues to ethnically cleanse and annex Gazan territory.
The difficulty of the current legal framework in Australia is that the gatekeeper for responsibility in ensuring consequences and no complicity in the killing of Australians and Palestinians is the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The sanctions framework depends on her discretion and will. Just a week ago Wong expressed her approach without any reference to international law. She continues to push for Australia to “express its values and interests” on the world stage, but no one asks her whether upholding international law, even for the sake of upholding it for the moral wellbeing of people living in Australia, is in our interests or our values.
The Red Lines Package will be introduced by the crossbench in the next few weeks. Please write to your MPs and Senators about this package here.
I appeared at the Royal Commission as an expert on the Dehumanisation Framework this week. My evidence was examined, cross-examined and re-examined for almost two hours. There was some news coverage focused on other angles, but I was glad to have this opportunity to directly communicate why we need to focus on how institutions govern to uphold public confidence and maintain genuine social cohesion. A principled and transparent approach is needed to dealing with complaints about hateful speech or conduct outside the courts, with singular standard linked to dehumanisation of people based only on protected attributes. Having different definitions or standards linked to different communities is inviting confusion, complexity and further discrimination. I also spoke about the benefit of this framework for school education and data monitoring, which can then involve broader education campaigns.
The video of my evidence can be accessed here:
Sara Ferguson asks PM Albanese
Did you take the view that online gambling is so popular in Australia that you couldn't go further without suffering some kind of electoral backlash, if you moved to restrict it further?
Anthony Albanese rejects this and resorts to his normal line about this reform being significant.
Ferguson replies, “You always say that, but it's coming off an almost-zero base.”
Albanese says, “it's very positive reform whilst acknowledging that the problem isn't someone having a bet on a Saturday if that's what they do.”
Ferguson is the first journalist I have seen to push back against this unsubstantiated notion put by the PM.
I include the exchange because it’s quite revealing:
FERGUSON: this has never been about the question of gambling, has it? It's not about a flutter on a Saturday or a punt –
PRIME MINISTER: That's where we disagree, Sarah.
FERGUSON: This is about advertising and predatory practises in gambling advertisements.
PRIME MINISTER: For some people, it is about gambling, Sarah. It is about a view from whatever perspective, be it a moral one, of wanting to stop all gambling. What we have wanted to do is to make sure that we deal with the issue of problem gambling. And that's why we have taken strong action in this legislation as well about incentives, for example, so that if you open up an account, you can't get the inducements for 14 days. If you have been on BetStop and go off, then that applies –
FERGUSON: What happens on the 15th day? What we saw in the Senate inquiry was allegations of predatory behaviour. So, who's protecting someone on day 15?
PRIME MINISTER: What we saw in the Senate inquiry, if the allegations that were came out of that are true, then that's a –
FERGUSON: Do you believe them?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, that's a breach of the law. That is something for criminal investigations, if that is what has occurred. What our responsibility is to do is to make sure that we don't stop someone betting over whether Alex Johnson scores a try against the Warriors on Saturday night, which might be a $5 flutter to give them some pleasure. I'm not a gambler myself, but some people want that. To make sure that that can occur, but that problem gamblers are protected. That is the priority that we had. It passed the Parliament overwhelmingly with some people, of course, voting against it, but it overwhelmingly had the support, and I think we've got the balance right.
FERGUSON: Whose idea was it to allow open slather gambling ads after 8:30pm? All the big sporting events go well past 8:30pm at night.
PRIME MINISTER: Well, past 8:30pm at night, this is about protecting children. One of the things that we have said as well with gambling is that we want to make sure that we break that nexus, which clearly has developed between people participating in sport and children being exposed to that.
FERGUSON: But how does this do that? Because after 8:30pm at night, as I just said, most big sporting events or even medium sporting events continue well after 8:30pm. So, if you're a child sitting on the sofa with their parents, watching the NRL Grand Final, you're going to see all of those ads. You're not protecting that child with a restriction that ends at 8:30pm.
PRIME MINISTER: We think we've got the balance right, Sarah.
I find this exchange evidence that the Government’s approach is not only wholly unsatisfactory given the terrible consequences of gambling addiction driven by pervasive advertising and inducements, but also quite morally questionable and disingenuous, because the Prime Minister has sought to characterise those challenging his approach as weak as enemies of people just wanting to have a punt or flutter. This is a calculated framing most likely written by the gambling industry, which the Prime Minister refers to as a the “betting industry” and says (in the same interview) that he has not sat down with them in recent times. However he admits to sitting down with the industries who rely on gambling advertising revenue.
No posts
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.