 This seems to be clearly a political case to many people, other than a lot of our politicians in Australia, but not Julian Hill. So, Julian, if I could come to you. The mantra from our foreign minister is that we can't intervene in another country's legal process. Why is that not a tenable position in your view? And what will Labor do about Julian Assange if they're in office next year? I think the legal issues have been well covered and I'm not going to delve into them, but I agree with you. I think it's an inherently political case, and that goes to the core of this issue. Personally, I think that the US should have frankly banked their win in the first outcome, in that they established Tamisha Green, but they established every point of principle they were seeking, except they didn't get their man. They could have banked that point of principle in the precedent that they've said that's a terrible precedent in substance, the argues of principle, but accepted the humanitarian grounds and just let it go has gone on for long enough. But it's an inherently political case. I suspect sadly that this issue may never be resolved ultimately through the legal system and the courts. If the US lost this, they may well try something else at some other time. It's an inherently political case, and that's my core point. That's an understood principle from my perspective, that political crime shouldn't be the basis of extradition. This case is designed to mute whistleblowers and invest in the journalists and have a chilling effect on the reporting. And as I said, even the last case outcome, so it's a dangerous precedent worldwide, that anyone, anywhere, anytime can be charged by the US government if they publish something that embarrasses them in effect. Now, people shouldn't be prosecuted for their political beliefs or journalistic activities. So therefore, I say that this case needs a political resolution between governments. In answer to your direct question at the start, Maurice Payne's got Morrison hiding behind trite little throwaway phrases. They're not engaging in the substance of the arguments. They never have at any point. Morrison said, oh, you should face the music. What does that mean? He's never been convicted of any crime. There's no credible evidence put up. Maurice Payne, we can't intervene in the legal system of any country, but they do that all the time. Like, really, I help. The department provides consular assistance at a minimal level. But we make critiques of the legal system of many countries. I've got citizens, I was just on a Zoom about issues in Cambodia. We make criticisms of all sorts of flawed legal systems on behalf of our citizens or in support of our beliefs. So I'll leave it to others to make those criticisms. But I think that point, the political observation is our government currently is just batting this stuff away because they don't want to engage in the points of principle. We can talk about them at some point. Your final question there was, what's Labor's position? Well, Anthony Albanese is the opposition leader. Alternative Prime Minister of the country has made his statement. I asked him a question in caucus, I think, and he made a clear statement. This has gone on for long enough and thinks that the matter should be brought to a close. And there's many ways that can be achieved. I know we've had a bit of criticism from some of our left comrades out in civil society that, oh, you're using weasel words. I can't make specific commitments. I don't know. If we form government, we've got a very clear position that was adopted unanimously at our national conference that this should end. The circumstances in which that ends depends on the time and what's happened in between now and whether there's a court case afoot and so on. But I'm confident that a Labor government will convey our position to the US government, hopefully the Biden administration with Elbow as Prime Minister. So that's a clear position from our point of view. I moved that resolution at national conference. It was unanimously passed. It sets the context for Labor governments to operate within. Thank you, Joanne. There seems to be a very simple question that needs to be asked right now by our government. And that is that twice now we've heard reports that the CIA plotted what's surveilled and plotted to kidnap or murder an Australian citizen. There's been absolutely no comment from anyone in government about that. They should at least, at the very least, shouldn't they, be asking the US, please explain what's this about? Is there any truth to this? At the very least, Mary, you spot on. This is not a spy movie. We're not in a spy movie. This is not the James Bond premiere. This is real life. This is a credible allegation, not by some fringe nutty conspiracy theory website. This is a credible allegation that has sources behind it that the intelligence agency of our biggest ally and security partner was seriously contemplating, drawing up plans to murder one of our own citizens in an extraterritorial killing. It sounds kind of mad when you say it, but in the country where our head of state lives, the foreign queen, that's another that's a whole other panel. I want to go off on that tangent. But I mean, this is ridiculous. She can't just ignore it and pretend it didn't happen. It requires a formal discussion with the US government. I'd be very happy to hear that these are not true. These reports are not true or that this was a rogue, silly conversation in the previous administration. We apologize. Whatever it was, you can't just pretend it didn't happen. Yeah, I think that the government can and should say and do something. It's actually not that hard to get an appointment with the US embassy if you're a politician. It's not always that easy either, but it's not impossible, particularly for the government, like really. I organized a delegation for George Christensen, Andrew Wilkie and myself. We went down. We had a fair hearing of the Chageau Defense. We went in. We had a robust discussion. I think there was a degree of surprise that we were actually quite civil about it. We're not crazy. We've got a view. It's a principal view. We explained our view. We discussed the view that was relayed back to Washington. If I can do it as an opposition backbencher, I'm quite sure that the foreign minister can get in there to convey the view and ask that important question. It's not acceptable. Countries pretend it didn't happen.