Diplomatic community does not extend to foreign legislators. It covers only those who are official diplomats of a foreign country (or those accorded derivative rights, such as immediate family of diplomats). Note that the right applies to the foreign country, not the individuals representing it, so the foreign country may choose (or not) to exercise the immunity.
While many countries (especially Middle-eastern countries) abuse diplomatic immunity with regards to smaller crimes (and especially parking tickets), most countries choose not to exercise the immunity in the case of felonies (except where the death penalty is on the table). Alternatively, the country will exercise the immunity but will then honor an extradition request.
IOW, unless Assange gets himself appointed as a diplomat of Australia, he's done nothing to improve his situation in the US.
"Having Julian Assange elected to the Senate would give him some advantages, at the very least the embarrassment of the Australian government having to communicate to whatever authority in Sweden - or the USA as the case may be - about 'Senator Assange' or, if ensconced in Parliament, the embarrassment for Attorney General Nicola Roxon if ASIO was found to have tapped Julian Assange's parliamentary phone and internet connection."
Then it goes on about starting a wikileaks party and actually archiving some political change.
Which does nothing to improve his situation in the U.S. The U.S. already does not have the jurisdiction to wiretap overseas; it must have local agencies do so (and many of them agree to do so, pursuant to INTERPOL agreements).
The wlcentral article is clearly written by someone who does not understand Parliamentary government (probably a fellow American). Members of parliament are selected by the parties (rather than being elected directly), but the parties must meet a minimum vote threshold to receive any seats.
The cabinet (i.e. ministers) are appointed by the party with the most seats, but members of parliament themselves are most certainly elected directly by the local area which they represent.
The senate is a bit different, where you have the option to select either the specific senators you want, or to delegate your votes to a party to allocate.
That's why I opted for 'auspices'. It's far worse to detain a head of state or member of a parliament than a designated representative.
While Assange will never be part of the government, it puts considerable pressure on the Australian government to do so if he is elected. Letting the opposition languish in prison is a major faux pas if you claim to be democratic.
No, the opposite, it's worse to detain a diplomat. International law (to whatever extent it exists) cares very little for one's standing as a politician, but a great deal about one's standing as a diplomat.
Note also: you have to be accepted by your host country to be immune from their laws. Diplomats are not a class of people above the law. The US isn't compelled to recognize immunity for anyone until it (for instance) admits them on their diplomatic passport.
It's hard to imagine any circumstance in which diplomatic immunity in the US could come to play for Julian Assange, no matter how wacky Australian politics ever get.
While many countries (especially Middle-eastern countries) abuse diplomatic immunity with regards to smaller crimes (and especially parking tickets), most countries choose not to exercise the immunity in the case of felonies (except where the death penalty is on the table). Alternatively, the country will exercise the immunity but will then honor an extradition request.
IOW, unless Assange gets himself appointed as a diplomat of Australia, he's done nothing to improve his situation in the US.