Latest / The Morning Edition / Kylie Moore-Gilbert on why Australia's hostage strategy must change

Transcript

Kylie Moore-Gilbert on why Australia's hostage strategy must change · The Morning Edition

0:04
S1: When Australian academic Kylie Moore-gilbert was released from an Iranian
0:08
S1: prison five and a half years ago, the country celebrated
0:12
S1: after more than two years of psychological torture. She was free.
0:17
S1: Then reality set in. I'm Samantha Salinger Morris, and you're
0:21
S1: listening to The Morning Edition from The Age and The
0:24
S1: Sydney Morning Herald today. Kylie Moore-gilbert, research fellow in security
0:29
S1: studies at Macquarie University, on the toll that prison took
0:32
S1: on her personal life and the changes the Australian government
0:36
S1: needs to make to better support hostages as cases of
0:40
S1: hostage taking are on the rise. It's May the 5th. Welcome, Kylie,
0:46
S1: back to the podcast.
0:48
S2: Thanks for having me back.
0:49
S1: Well, I'm so looking forward to speaking to you because
0:51
S1: you have just guest edited an academic journal on hostage diplomacy.
0:56
S1: It comes out today, and I think it puts the
0:58
S1: case forward that countries, including Australia, need to perhaps rethink
1:01
S1: that the way they conduct hostage diplomacy. So I have
1:05
S1: to ask, why did you even take on this project?
1:07
S1: Because you are a full time academic at Macquarie University.
1:10
S1: You are the mother of two small children, and presumably
1:13
S1: this might even trigger some traumatic memories of your own.
1:16
S1: So why do it?
1:18
S2: Well, I think the last point that you meant is relevant.
1:21
S2: I did it because it is a personal pursuit of
1:27
S2: mind to understand what happened to me. And of course,
1:30
S2: I was imprisoned in Iran for more than two years.
1:33
S2: About five and a half years ago, I returned from
1:36
S2: that experience. And as an academic, I wanted to understand
1:40
S2: what happened to me from an academic perspective. And I
1:42
S2: also wanted to know what had been written on this
1:44
S2: phenomenon before or during my incarceration, and where the holes
1:48
S2: and the gaps in the knowledge were, and what data
1:50
S2: we've got out there. And for me, it was it
1:53
S2: was a personal journey as well as obviously a professional
1:56
S2: one in my job, in my, you know, capacity as
1:59
S2: an academic, um, to put out academic publications. And this
2:02
S2: kind of thing is kind of part of the job description.
2:04
S2: But this topic area is intensely personal. And I felt
2:09
S2: that I had almost unfinished business. I wanted to understand
2:12
S2: where what happened to me sat within those broader trends
2:15
S2: and patterns, and to what extent it's almost not predictable,
2:20
S2: but conceivable that it could happen again to others. And
2:24
S2: in which case, are we able to somehow prevent that?
2:27
S3: Okay, well, let's start by.
2:28
S1: Getting into your own experience about how the Australian government
2:30
S1: actually helped to secure your release. Can you just begin,
2:34
S1: I guess, by telling us how did they secure your release?
2:36
S1: Because it was complicated. It was prolonged. And I think
2:40
S1: you had some issues, it's fair to say, with perhaps
2:42
S1: some of the way in which it was done. But
2:44
S1: just tell us, I guess, first off, about the deal
2:46
S1: that was made to secure your release.
2:48
S2: It seems like quite a sophisticated diplomatic deal and all credit,
2:53
S2: you know, goes to DFAT and goes to the envoy,
2:57
S2: Nick Warner, and two others, including the politicians behind the
3:01
S2: scenes who made this happen and pulled it all together. Um,
3:04
S2: our diplomats in in places like Iran, but also Thailand, um,
3:09
S2: and other countries as well were involved. And basically a
3:13
S2: deal was made directly with my captors who were the IRGC,
3:16
S2: the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. So not strictly the Iranian government, uh,
3:21
S2: but an armed group affiliated to the government that took
3:24
S2: me hostage. They wanted their own members to be exchanged
3:29
S2: for me. And there were these three IRGC. Uh, I
3:34
S2: don't even know what to call them, like failed terrorists
3:37
S2: who had attempted this attack in Thailand but were thwarted
3:42
S2: by the Thai authorities. Um, they were attempting to attack
3:46
S2: the Israeli diplomatic mission in Bangkok, I believe. And the
3:50
S2: IRGC negotiated to have these three goons released and sent
3:55
S2: back to Tehran in exchange for my freedom.
3:58
S1: At the time, Scott Morrison was prime minister, I believe,
4:01
S1: when this negotiation was happening. Marise Payne, I think, was
4:04
S1: the foreign minister, and they really strongly advocated for what's
4:08
S1: called quiet diplomacy. And I believe you've been a bit
4:11
S1: vocal about disagreeing with the way that the Australian government
4:15
S1: advocated for quiet diplomacy. So can you just start by
4:17
S1: telling us what is quiet diplomacy, and why do you
4:21
S1: think it can be problematic? How? Perhaps it was you
4:24
S1: think not ideal in your situation.
4:27
S2: So quiet diplomacy is just old school diplomacy, behind the scenes,
4:31
S2: person to person, not, um, you know, through a megaphone
4:35
S2: or through the media or through publicity or campaigning, but
4:39
S2: diplomats talking to diplomats in their quiet diplomatic fashion and
4:43
S2: attempting to come to agreements or arrangements on that basis.
4:46
S2: And I'm not saying that I think in every case
4:49
S2: it's unwarranted. I think there really is a place for
4:51
S2: that kind of, um, traditional diplomacy. I just think that
4:57
S2: having a blanket policy of always quiet diplomacy, no matter
5:02
S2: what the facts of the case, uh, even if media
5:06
S2: attention could be useful, having a kind of a knee
5:08
S2: jerk response of denying that as a tool and sticking
5:12
S2: to what we've always done, the quiet approach. Um, I think,
5:16
S2: you know, my argument is more nuance is needed there
5:18
S2: and more appreciation of the role of media as a
5:21
S2: tool in the toolkit. And I understand the instinct of
5:25
S2: government bureaucrats and politicians to keep the media out of
5:28
S2: these really sensitive cases because, you know, it's fraught with risk.
5:32
S2: I mean, um, certain details about the negotiations could be
5:36
S2: published that could jeopardise those negotiations, for example, or somebody's
5:40
S2: family member could go AWOL and start lambasting the detaining
5:43
S2: entity or government in the media and, you know, getting
5:47
S2: their guard up and making it doubly difficult to reach
5:49
S2: an agreement. But the media is a tool that can
5:52
S2: also be useful. It can also, you know, put forward
5:56
S2: the government's position or send messages or have a narrative promoted, um,
6:01
S2: that the government might want the other side to digest
6:04
S2: without having been told in a direct fashion in those
6:07
S2: behind the scenes negotiations, for example. Um, and in my case,
6:12
S2: you know, I found it was protective for me that
6:15
S2: transparency and that pressure applied by the media was protective
6:19
S2: in my, in terms of securing my human rights in
6:22
S2: prison and allowing me, for example, access to doctors when
6:24
S2: I was sick or unwell. This kind of thing preventing
6:27
S2: some of the more egregious abuses.
6:29
S1: And so do you look back now and and wish
6:31
S1: that the government had allowed more public outcry about your
6:35
S1: detention earlier, because you certainly have described your detention in
6:40
S1: the Iranian prison for 804 days as a nightmare. It
6:43
S1: sounds like, uh, the psychological torture you've described at some
6:47
S1: point as being even worse than the physical torture. So
6:50
S1: do you look back and just think, wow, the Australian
6:53
S1: government maybe made it more prolonged than it needed to be?
6:56
S1: In sort of cracking down on the outcry.
7:00
S2: So difficult to say. You know, I am super grateful
7:03
S2: for everything they did for me, but I did want
7:06
S2: it to be public. In fact, I expected it to be.
7:08
S2: And I, I was telling my family to go to
7:10
S2: the media from a few months into my incarceration, uh,
7:14
S2: because I understood that it would help me from my
7:18
S2: own position with my interlocutors, with my captors inside the prison,
7:23
S2: in a way. Um, they also expected it to be
7:26
S2: made public. I think this is a playbook that the
7:30
S2: Iranians have used many times, particularly the IRGC before. You know,
7:33
S2: the precedent is that there's never really been any downside
7:37
S2: for the prisoner in terms of mistreatment or anything like
7:39
S2: that when it or if it goes public. Um, it's
7:42
S2: not that they beat you up or something if you're
7:44
S2: suddenly being covered in the news media. So it was
7:47
S2: intensely frustrating to have my expressed desires denied by consular
7:53
S2: officials or my family because they thought they knew best.
7:56
S2: When I sort of wanted to make those decisions in
7:58
S2: my own life as well.
8:00
S1: Now I want to ask you about one of the
8:01
S1: papers in the journal. This one's written by Alice Jill Edwards.
8:05
S1: She's the UN special rapporteur on torture and other cruel,
8:09
S1: inhumane or degrading treatment or punishments. And she makes the
8:12
S1: case that hostage taking can be a form of torture.
8:17
S1: So I wanted to know if that was your experience.
8:19
S1: I mean, you've described it as going crazy inside your
8:21
S1: own head. Can you just, I guess, tell the listeners
8:24
S1: and myself what, what is that like, you know, what
8:28
S1: sort of voices inside your head or feelings are you
8:30
S1: battling in order to stay sane in that sort of circumstance?
8:34
S2: For me, it depends on the period of time we're
8:37
S2: talking about. I spent cumulatively 12 months in solitary confinement, but, um,
8:43
S2: I was in the sort of psychological torture. Solitary confinement
8:49
S2: at the very beginning. Throughout. Throughout the time I spent
8:52
S2: being interrogated. So that was about 4 to 5 months.
8:55
S2: I had of more intense interrogations at the. The onset
8:58
S2: of my detention and the first month was the worst
9:01
S2: because I was put in this tiny windowless box, um,
9:05
S2: two and a half by 2.5m², absolutely nothing to do.
9:09
S2: Not even a furniture, no bedding, nothing. Um, no objects
9:13
S2: to even look at. Look at other than a telephone
9:15
S2: on the wall for calling the guards. And obviously the
9:18
S2: guards didn't speak English, so I had no method of
9:20
S2: communicating with them anyway. So, um, this was, you know,
9:24
S2: the complete sensory deprivation and the suddenness of it. We
9:28
S2: can't even sit within our own thoughts for very long
9:30
S2: anymore these days. And so going from that kind of
9:33
S2: situation to suddenly being put in this solitary confinement, tiny box, it,
9:40
S2: it really, you know, your brain just can't cope with
9:43
S2: the sudden shift and the deprivation of all, um, kind
9:48
S2: of external stimuli. And you do go a bit bit
9:53
S2: crazy inside your own head, you know, your brain's flicking around,
9:56
S2: gripping at anything, grasping at anything it can to hold
9:59
S2: its attention. And you also have to sit in some
10:03
S2: really uncomfortable thoughts. And I mean, for me, I didn't
10:05
S2: know I didn't speak Farsi at the time, and I
10:07
S2: had no idea what was going on or who had, uh,
10:10
S2: taken me prisoner where I was, uh, what would happen
10:14
S2: to me? What would they do to me? So I
10:16
S2: had fears about the future. I had ruminations about the
10:19
S2: past and regrets everything I'd done to get me to
10:21
S2: that point. And, you know, you're not in a great
10:24
S2: mental space to begin with. And then being deprived of
10:26
S2: all that stimulation, it, you know, it's psychological torture.
10:30
S3: And so could.
10:31
S1: This help in some way? Like, how could this help?
10:34
S1: You know, if, if this is sort of a more
10:36
S1: recognized form of torture or that it could be a
10:38
S1: more recognized form of torture, could this help governments to
10:43
S1: get hostages out? Like, how could this be helpful on
10:45
S1: a practical level?
10:47
S2: And I think another paper also looks at reparations for
10:51
S2: victims and makes the contrast with victims of terrorism as
10:54
S2: opposed to former hostages and wrongful detainees. If you look
10:58
S2: at Australia or other Western states, the way in which
11:02
S2: we have recognized that restitution for victims of terrorism is necessary, um,
11:07
S2: as opposed to that for victims of hostage taking or other, um,
11:12
S2: international crimes. There's a real gap there. Um, victims of
11:16
S2: torture as well. I mean, I think there is recognition
11:19
S2: that if somebody's been physically tortured, that certain supports need
11:23
S2: to be in place to help that person reintegrate into
11:26
S2: society afterwards and support them in an ongoing fashion. But
11:29
S2: that doesn't exist, really. That awareness doesn't exist. Certainly, I
11:33
S2: don't think in Australia, but in most Western countries, because
11:36
S2: hostage taking is such a crime, which mercifully, you know,
11:40
S2: doesn't affect great numbers of people. Um, although it is rising, unfortunately.
11:45
S2: Certainly state hostage taking is on the rise. I think
11:48
S2: psychological torture is also underlooked, um, underappreciated.
11:52
S3: And so it was that.
11:53
S1: Is that borne out by your own experience, did you
11:55
S1: have a distinct lack of support or less support than
11:58
S1: you needed to sort of, you know, re enter society?
12:02
S1: And did you get any form of restitution? Did you
12:04
S1: want a form of restitution and or justice that you
12:07
S1: just didn't get?
12:08
S2: Absolutely. To both those points, I didn't get any support
12:12
S2: and I there I have no recourse to restitution or justice.
12:15
S2: And both of those points are very important. I mean,
12:18
S2: on the justice point, there have been attempts overseas by
12:22
S2: former victims to use international legal mechanisms to seek justice.
12:29
S2: But unfortunately, most of these mechanisms rely upon your nation
12:33
S2: state your government to seek that justice on your behalf.
12:38
S2: And governments are just unwilling. The only country that's an
12:41
S2: exception to that is the US, where they have a
12:44
S2: provision that if the state is recognized as a sponsor
12:47
S2: of terrorism, then victims can pursue them in an American court.
12:51
S2: So it's a very complicated process and one which Australia
12:54
S2: has no legal structure around at all.
13:02
S4: We'll be right back.
13:08
S1: So it makes me wonder whether you feel failed, I guess,
13:10
S1: by the Australian government, whether, you know, for not um,
13:13
S1: enabling any restitution or justice or not giving you any
13:17
S1: support on re-entering society. Because I know you said in
13:20
S1: an interview that your experience in prison changed everything. Uh, quote,
13:24
S1: my career, my relationships with loved ones, nothing was left unaffected.
13:29
S1: So perhaps you can just tell us, I guess, how affected,
13:32
S1: you know, how are your relationships with your loved ones
13:34
S1: affected now?
13:36
S2: I think that we need to appreciate that when a
13:41
S2: catastrophic incident like this happens in someone's life, there are
13:45
S2: ripple effects. It affects everybody around you. It's not just you.
13:48
S2: And from talking with many other hostages and their families,
13:52
S2: it's clear that sometimes the impact on families even greater
13:55
S2: than it is on the hostage themselves. Um, because if
13:58
S2: they don't know what's happening to you, well, they, it's
14:02
S2: that lack of information. They, they imagine the very worst.
14:05
S2: And often they have an even more, uh, volatile relationship
14:09
S2: with their own government than you might have. Um, because
14:12
S2: they're the main interlocutor in contact with government. They have,
14:15
S2: might have an even greater sense of betrayal than the
14:17
S2: hostage themselves. Um, or, you know, I've seen, unfortunately, family
14:22
S2: members of wrongful detainees and hostages from all kinds of places,
14:26
S2: not just Australia, kind of spiral into all kinds of
14:30
S2: very negative head spaces, including embracing conspiracy theory thinking. So
14:36
S2: in my case, you know, there was no package of
14:39
S2: support at all, I think. I don't blame the government necessarily. Um,
14:43
S2: I think it just sort of fell between the cracks.
14:45
S2: DFAT was the lead on bringing me home. But obviously
14:49
S2: DFAT doesn't operate inside the country. So then, you know,
14:51
S2: their job was done. They brought you home. Big success.
14:55
S2: It's over, you know, and there was not that sort
14:57
S2: of understanding that you need to be then passed on
15:01
S2: to another agency perhaps, and often that could be a
15:04
S2: state government agency. So we really hope that anyone else
15:07
S2: who's brought home in the future will actually get access
15:10
S2: to that support.
15:11
S1: And just curious, without that support, like, what did it
15:13
S1: look like? Were you walking around, you know, like a zombie?
15:16
S1: Like I can't even imagine how you would reintegrate in society,
15:19
S1: let alone re-establish your relationships with your existing loved ones,
15:24
S1: form new relationships. Um, become a parent, you know, how
15:29
S1: hard was that in the absence of proper trauma informed care?
15:35
S2: Um, I don't know if I've done a good job
15:37
S2: of that, frankly. I mean, I, I, um, my relationship
15:40
S2: with my family is not particularly great, I have to say. Um,
15:44
S2: but I was very fortunate to meet my current partner Sammy, um,
15:50
S2: and to have two kids of my own, which, you know,
15:54
S2: it was something that I, when I was in prison,
15:56
S2: I thought about a lot. I was in my mid 30s.
15:59
S2: Would I have the opportunity to have children if I
16:02
S2: had to serve my ten year prison sentence in full?
16:05
S2: Wouldn't have been possible. I would have been in my
16:06
S2: 40s by the time I was released and I was,
16:09
S2: you know, I got divorced. Unfortunately, my marriage broke down
16:13
S2: as a result of my imprisonment. And, um, when I
16:16
S2: came out, I had to file for divorce. So that
16:18
S2: was an extra layer of complication. Uh, luckily, I was
16:23
S2: able to meet my current partner relatively quickly, um, and
16:27
S2: have two children again, relatively quickly with maybe too quickly,
16:31
S2: I don't know, but, um, I'm very grateful that I
16:34
S2: have them. Um, and they're a grounding force as well.
16:38
S2: Nothing sort of snaps you out of your self-absorption. Then
16:42
S2: having two small children who constantly need have their needs,
16:45
S2: you know, prioritized over yours. But yeah, I mean, it's,
16:50
S2: it's an ongoing process.
16:52
S1: Now, I want to get back to, I guess, the
16:54
S1: governmental side of things, because a Senate inquiry into the
16:57
S1: wrongful detention of Australian citizens overseas handed a report to
17:01
S1: the government, right, in December 2024. You and I were
17:04
S1: speaking before we started recording. Uh, I think you expressed
17:08
S1: some frustration that the government hasn't responded to that. So
17:11
S1: tell us about that. And what are the top recommendations
17:14
S1: in that report that you think God, our government needs to,
17:17
S1: to adopt in your perspective?
17:19
S2: Some of it's sort of really obvious, kind of no
17:21
S2: brainer stuff that people would expect would already exist, which
17:25
S2: is one, when you're looking at consular cases, apply a
17:29
S2: definition or some kind of criteria to those cases to
17:32
S2: determine who is wrongfully imprisoned or has, you know, a
17:37
S2: question mark, at least somewhat dodgy incarceration or a dodgy
17:40
S2: situation that might warrant a second look, you know, rather
17:44
S2: than everyone who's been imprisoned in every country in the
17:46
S2: world from Australia gets put in one basket and maybe
17:50
S2: something will drift to the top if a particular consular
17:53
S2: case worker wants to flag it. But that's a personality
17:56
S2: driven thing. Um, cases absolutely get overlooked and people fall
18:02
S2: between the cracks. You know it most people would assume
18:06
S2: they already do that, but they don't. We need to
18:09
S2: have one point person in DFAT or in government that
18:13
S2: is responsible for these cases. Again, you would assume there
18:16
S2: would be already, but there is not. So both Canada
18:19
S2: and the US have instituted this. Australia needs somebody who
18:22
S2: can pick up a pick up the phone and be
18:24
S2: the point person. Talking to Canada's envoy, talking to the
18:26
S2: US envoy, getting tips, exchanging info, maybe asking for help. Um,
18:31
S2: triangulating data. This kind of thing. I mean, it's really needed.
18:35
S2: And at the very least, it's it's the buck stops
18:39
S2: on that person's desk. And so it prevents some of
18:41
S2: the buck passing and the bureaucratic wrangling that's unfortunately occurred
18:45
S2: in other cases.
18:46
S1: And so these changes are arguably needed now more than ever,
18:49
S1: because you've written that hostage taking is on the rise.
18:52
S1: So why is that?
18:54
S2: The disintegration of the international rules based order? I think
18:57
S2: this kind of might is right. Geopolitics that's emerging, where
19:02
S2: countries flout international norms and laws. Um, because they can.
19:07
S2: And countries like Iran, Russia, Venezuela, China, that sort of
19:11
S2: repeat perpetrator states of this, they don't care about international law. Sure. Um,
19:17
S2: but also they're more brazen now because that international rules
19:20
S2: based order is disintegrating because countries, including the United States, um,
19:25
S2: you know, can feel that they can act with impunity
19:27
S2: and do whatever they like. Um, these countries are emboldened now, Iran, Venezuela, etc. China.
19:33
S2: They are emboldened to undertake similar practices and people get
19:38
S2: caught in the crossfire. I mean, the innocent people are
19:40
S2: taken hostage and instrumentalized as bargaining chips and nothing is
19:44
S2: done to disincentivize it or punish that. So they. It's
19:48
S2: an it's a signal to do more of it. Um,
19:50
S2: because it works. The Iranians have um, received several payments,
19:55
S2: vast billions of dollars, vast sums of money from the
19:58
S2: US and UK governments in exchange for hostages. So, you know,
20:03
S2: it's a lucrative process.
20:06
S1: Well, let's get into one of the legislative reforms that, uh,
20:08
S1: this journal that you've edited, uh, sort of proposes because
20:12
S1: this is one writer who points to a Canadian bill
20:15
S1: that would allow Canada to offer monetary awards and or
20:19
S1: refugee protection to foreign nationals who help secure the release
20:23
S1: of detainees. So do you think that Australia should consider
20:26
S1: offering this?
20:28
S5: This is a really, really.
20:29
S2: Interesting proposal, and I think we really need out of
20:31
S2: the box thinking here. We need to have these kinds
20:33
S2: of ideas floating around, and it is controversial to offer
20:38
S2: refugee protection or other immigration, um, status to people who
20:43
S2: assist in freeing hostages or wrongful detainees, because obviously those
20:48
S2: people are probably going to be within the system that's
20:51
S2: taken those hostages in the first place. You know, we
20:53
S2: take Iran, for example, if you're an Iranian senior Iranian
20:56
S2: official working in the Islamic Republic who covertly provides information
21:01
S2: to Canada to help them get their hostage back, well,
21:05
S2: you're giving immigration status to an official from a nasty
21:08
S2: authoritarian regime who may have done other nasty things in
21:11
S2: their own past. That's a controversial move. Um, it's not
21:16
S2: set in stone. I think it would be assessed on
21:17
S2: a case by case basis, but, um, it is an
21:21
S2: innovative way of trying to incentivize people from within those
21:25
S2: regimes to help you, um, you know, get, get control
21:28
S2: of your hostages and your detainees again. Um, it didn't
21:31
S2: pass the Canadian parliament, but I think it's going to
21:33
S2: go up again. I don't think the issue is over. Um,
21:37
S2: it was opposed by Canada's version of DFAT.
21:40
S1: And just one follow up on that with that idea
21:42
S1: of potentially offering refugee status or visas. Excuse me, to
21:46
S1: people who do have information on a hostage and help
21:49
S1: with the release. What would you say to listeners who
21:52
S1: hear that? And they're thinking, wait a minute, we're trying
21:54
S1: to crack down on extremism here, especially in the wake
21:56
S1: of the Bondi massacre in December. This is really scary. Uh,
22:00
S1: you know that that person, we might be welcoming a
22:02
S1: person in a really nasty system into our own country. Like,
22:05
S1: what would you say to people who are listening and
22:07
S1: thinking that?
22:08
S2: I would also be concerned about that. I mean, I'm
22:10
S2: very concerned about, um, Iranian Islamic Republic officials, intelligence operatives,
22:17
S2: sympathizers in Australia. Unfortunately, there seem to be quite a
22:21
S2: lot of them that have flown under the radar. Uh,
22:24
S2: it endangers me and anyone else, mostly the Iranian Australian community. Um,
22:28
S2: Immunity that's been very vocal against that regime. And we
22:30
S2: see it with China, obviously, as well, and a number
22:33
S2: of other regimes too, that operate here in Australia. So
22:36
S2: the last thing we would want to do is would
22:38
S2: be to insert somebody like that into our country unnecessarily.
22:42
S2: So I think, you know, there would have to be
22:44
S2: vetted by ASIO or whatever the equivalent is very closely.
22:48
S2: I think it's encouraging defections. Essentially, you're encouraging some of
22:52
S2: these people to defect and give you their information, probably
22:56
S2: beyond just on the hostage or the hostage taking, but
23:00
S2: all their intelligence or information they might have. Um, and
23:04
S2: in exchange for that, you're offering them protection. We already
23:07
S2: do that when people want to defect, I understand. So
23:10
S2: this is just sort of an additional layer specific to
23:13
S2: hostage taking on top of that.
23:19
S1: Thank you so much, Kylie, for your time.
23:21
S2: Thanks so much for having me on. It's been great.
23:35
S1: In other news, today, scientists have developed a miracle food
23:38
S1: for people suffering from malnutrition. TikTok's Australian operation has surged
23:43
S1: towards $1 billion in revenue, despite mounting regulatory pressure and
23:49
S1: a prime suspect, and motive has been identified over a
23:52
S1: spate of mystery attacks that have terrified Melbourne's hospitality scene
23:56
S1: in the last three months. You can read more at
23:59
S1: the age.com.au or smh.com.au. Today's episode was produced by Josh towers.
24:08
S1: Our executive producer is Tammy Mills, and our podcasts are
24:12
S1: overseen by Lisa Muxworthy and Tom McKendrick. If you like
24:16
S1: our show, follow the Morning Edition and leave a review
24:19
S1: for us on Apple or Spotify. Thanks for listening.