Media
|
Transcripts
December 5, 2025
MICHAEL MCLAREN: Senator, thank you again for your time.
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Good to be with you.
MICHAEL MCLAREN: So what is going on here? I mean, you know, you know that old saying, it's not the crime, it's the cover-up that'll get you. I'm not suggesting there's a crime, but perhaps we could appropriate that in this case and say it's not the repatriation per se, it's the secrecy around it which might well get the government here?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Well, it's certainly politically incriminating. We already knew that there was something a little bit sus going on here, but documents released through the Senate in the last couple of days have really blown the lid off this. So you might remember the government was insistent on saying that they really had nothing at all to do with the return of these ISIS members and their families. That, you know, it almost came as a surprise to them. But we now know that Tony Burke, the Minister for Home Affairs, met with Save the Children, a charity advocating the return of these ISIS members, not once, but twice. And that in that meeting, he made a number of commitments, according to notes taken by his own officials, that he was grateful for Save the Children keeping this out of the media. He didn't want it to be public knowledge that these people were planning on returning. He said that there would be no blockages to these people returning, the government wouldn't refuse their return to Australia. He also said that there might be a way which we could ensure that they were granted passports while they were overseas and that they would be provided assistance once they came home. And most damningly of all, he, at one of these meetings, asked the public servant who was taking notes to leave the room so he could have a private conversation with Save the Children.
MICHAEL MCLAREN: Is that standard practice?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: No, it's unusual, and I think the question arises, what did he want to say to this charity that are advocating ISIS members come to Australia that he didn't want to say in front of a public servant that he didn't want any notes to be taken about? And as is characteristic of Tony Burke as a Minister. He's gone missing in action. He's disappeared once this story has become public. He really needs to front up and explain what happened in this secret part of the meeting.
MICHAEL MCLAREN: Well, he's not the only one that's gone missing lately, because Anika Wells is pretty hard to track down at the moment as well.
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: That's right. And I think you probably would be if you'd just been exposed for spending a hundred thousand dollars of taxpayers' money on return flights to New York. I mean, I don't know quite how you could manage to spend that much money. Even a short notice booking to New York tomorrow costs a fraction of that. It's really inexplicable.
MICHAEL MCLAREN: The airline probably couldn't believe their luck. Now, Rodger Shanahan describes the situation that we're talking about with the ISIS brides as being repatriation by stealth. I've spoken to Rodger in the past about this. I don't want to verbal him, but I believe he and I are of the same opinion that in the case of children and some of the women, if they are Australian citizens, perhaps there is a reasonable expectation that Australia, a wealthy country with adequate prisons and everything else should it need be required, should deal with their own citizens. But he has problems quite clearly with the way this is being handled. I think the thrust of what he is saying, he's a Middle East analyst, he knows he's talking about here, is that there's just too much secrecy swirling around this. And of course, where there's secrecy, people get a bit of a whiff, don't they?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: I think that's right. I think the government could have handled this very differently. They could have been transparent, they could have been open, they could have done a press conference and said, this is what's happening. These people are coming home, and this is why they're coming home, and this is what we're going to do to protect you from any risk that might arise. I mean, let's not forget, these are Australians who chose to leave our country to join a murderous death cult, one of the worst terrorist organisations of the 21st century that has engaged in some of the most barbaric killings. And remember also that many of the victims of ISIS we offered a safe haven too in our country.
MICHAEL MCLAREN: That's right, that's right, yes.
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: The Assyrian Christian community, the Chaldeans and others, the Yazidis, we said, come here, and you will be safe. And now they know that some of their captors and jailers, or at least their partners and spouses, are back here as neighbours as well, and that would be deeply distressing to them.
MICHAEL MCLAREN: One of the points that Rodger Shanahan raised, I wouldn't mind getting your thoughts on this, James, is to do with the fact that the government over the years, or certainly since September 11th 2001 have introduced more than ninety pieces of counterterrorism legislation in this country, including new legislation to take into account the legal peculiarities posed by the rise of Islamic State and the attraction that some Australians have to the conflict in Syria or in Iraq, or certainly had in the past tense. Now, what we have no understanding of at this point is whether any of the recent arrivals have faced any legal action whatsoever on behalf of the Australian government upon their arrival. It does seem strange, doesn't it, that at least that hasn't been made public?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: I'm aware of at least three potentially applicable pieces of legislation that could be used for this cohort, depending on their circumstances. The first is, it's a crime to associate with a listed terrorist organisation and on the face of it, if you went to fight or join ISIS, you associated with a terrorist organisation. Secondly, we made the parts of Syria and Iraq governed by ISIS declared areas. We made it an offence to go to those areas without a permissible excuse, and going to marry an ISIS fighter is not a permissible excuse. And finally, we gave the government the power to temporarily exclude an Australian citizen from returning to Australia until we could build a case to ensure that you're charged if you've been associated with a terrorist organisation. As far as I know, none of those three powers have been used on any of these most recent returnees and the government has not explained why they haven't done so.
MICHAEL MCLAREN: Okay. What do we do about the children here? Not just these children. I mean, in the past, you know, I think when Scott Morrison was Prime Minister, you were part of the government, a cohort were returned with government assistance. They included children, the children were really the catalyst for the, shall we say, the national sympathy to arrange the repatriation? I mean, they are guilty, I would assume, of nothing except sins of the fathers or the mothers, as the case might be. What do we do about any other children that are still in Syria that might fit into this cohort? Do we just say, no, the gate's closed, your parents made a bad choice, or do we continue to show some flexibility down the track?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Certainly, any young person who was taken over there, before they could make choices for themselves, or an Australian by descent who was born over there, is not morally culpable in the decisions of their parents. And of course, we have a responsibility to them. But the first and most important responsibility is to protect Australians, and if any of those people, by virtue of the experience they've had over there growing up in an ISIS death cult and living in a refugee camp where there are terrorists present, poses a risk to the Australian community, then the government must protect the community from that risk. And if they've committed no crime, then you can manage that through intervention services, and counselling, and support. But if they have committed a crime, then of course I think the law must be enforced.
MICHAEL MCLAREN: Should it be enforced here or over there? I guess that's one of the points here. This is the sticking point. As Rodger Shanahan says, I mean, both sides of politics for quite a while have sort of said, Well, look, you know, you don't touch this, and I won't touch this, and no Australian really wants them here, so let's fight on other issues. And I appreciate that. But if we are dealing with Australian citizens, I mean, should we leave it to the fledgling Kurdish authorities funded by the Americans to effectively imprison them, or should we get them back here and imprison them?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Well look, it really depends on the individual circumstances, and I've previously been a member of the intelligence committee, and I've been briefed on some of that, which of course I can't disclose. But what I can say is that there are among these sorts of cohorts, there are people who are presumed to be and assessed to be by our intelligence agencies to be higher risk and lower risk. And people who are a high risk to the Australian community, my view is that the Australian government should use every lever available to protect us, including using those temporary exclusion orders to prevent them from coming back to our country unless they can be arrested, charged and incarcerated on their return.
MICHAEL MCLAREN: As for the cohort that we're speaking about in the contemporary sense, the small number that have come back under very shall we say, secretive circumstances, do you have any sense where they are? I'm not asking you to give away a home address, but I mean, are they living a private life, albeit monitored, or are they in an institution of some sort?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: No, I don't. I don't have any visibility of that as a member of the opposition. And I did ask questions in the last round of Senate estimates to Home Affairs officials and the Australian Federal Police. Could they at least say which state they're in, which territory they are in? I'm not asking for their home address or street number. And they wouldn't even tell me that. They wouldn't even disclose whether they're in Victoria or in New South Wales or indeed elsewhere. And so the public is none the wiser. And what we should be trying to do is give the public confidence that every step is being taken to protect Australians, that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies are on top of this. And you know, I think they are professional and patriotic Australians, the people who work in those agencies. I'm sure they're doing their best, but I don't share the same level of confidence in the government or the ministers, particularly because of the secret way they've handled this.
MICHAEL MCLAREN: Okay, so assuming what we understand thus far is actually what has happened, is it the case that should future cohorts make their way to Australia, it won't be because the government's identified them per se and gone in there with a sort of military jet and flown them out and done an operation. It will be based on whether the individuals can raise enough capital, either abroad or at home, to fund their way out, to pay the smugglers or whoever it is, to get out of one of these refugee facilities, get to Lebanon and then from there rely on some sort of consular assistance or passport assistance or whatever from the government to get home. In other words, it's a user-pays system.
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: The government did a round of assisted repatriation early in their first term when Clare O'Neil was the Minister for Home Affairs, and they have said since then that they will not be doing any further assisted repatriation. So you're right, it will be only by people making their own way back to Australia. But the government is calling this a “self managed return”, as if it's some kind of self managed superfund or something. I frankly think that's a very loose approach to national security. I don't think we should just allow people to make their own way here without any care to managing that process, to protecting the Australian people and not using the powers that has been given to the government to protect them.
MICHAEL MCLAREN: Speaking with Senator James Paterson. We'll find out more about that throughout the new year. You'll be like a dog on a bone, I know. We'll keep deferring to you. Now you're also, as I said, the Shadow Minister for Finance. I just want to briefly ask you about the figures coming out overnight. That we now know, between the Federal and State governments, most of which of course are Labor, $48.1 billion in interest payments per year. That equates to one thousand seven hundred dollars, give or take a few dollars, for every individual in Australia. I don't know what it is per taxpayer. It would be north of two thousand, I'd imagine. That's just the interest on the debt. Your home state of Victoria is becoming a mendicant joint. I mean, you've got a situation down there where the public sector has grown by something like 60% since 2010, and yet the population's only grown by 29% percent. I mean, all the economics are pointing in the wrong direction here, aren't they?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: You're right, this is a very sobering publication from the federal Parliamentary Budget Office yesterday that, as you say, shows that $50 billion dollars of interest payments are occurring every financial year now, or about $1700 per person, and that will be rising to about $63 billion in just the next couple of years as the debt continues to increase, but also as interest rates are predicted to rise. And that's money that can't be spent on other things. Can't be spent on schools, can't be spent on hospitals, can't be spent on police, can't be spent on our military or other priorities. And you're right, it's primarily the federal Labor government which has driven that, but also some state Labor governments, especially in my home state of Victoria, which is a great state but very badly served by a very bad, out of touch, Labor government that seems to have no regard for the damage they're doing to future generations.
MICHAEL MCLAREN: I mean my concern here, and I think I share this with many taxpayers who listen, James, is the fact that, as I said at the start of my program today, despite what the PBO have said, really we have been swash absolutely swimming around in rivers of gold, thanks to just good fortune, what's under our feet and what big economies overseas want to buy. I mean iron ore, gold, coal, gas, you know, half the things the government want to ban. These are things that have been returning stonking great royalties for well, ever since the Howard years, really, unbroken. And yet even though revenue is increasing more than we thought, spending is increasing even more again, we just cannot balance the books. And now you've got the government wanting to have universal child care and all these other, you know, long term very significant imposts to the economy, and yet the voters seem to be saying, like Oliver, please, sir, can I have some more?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Well, in many ways, Jim Chalmers is the luckiest treasurer since Federation. Since 2022, when the government came to office, they have received unexpected, unanticipated revenue upgrades to the tune of $370 billion, and that has underpinned the first two surpluses that the government has delivered. But even with that massive increase in revenue, they've now plunged the budget back into deficit because their spending has been even more out of control. Revenue as a proportion of the economy is at a 25 year high, but spending is at a 40 year high outside the pandemic. And so you're right, there's rivers of gold flooding into Canberra, but even more flowing out of it between Jim Chalmers and Katy Gallagher, who have just lost control of the budget.
MICHAEL MCLAREN: Well, I assume in due course we'll start to hear from your side where the savings can be found.
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Yeah, we've already outlined one of those savings, which is this tax incentive for people to buy EVs, which is costing about ten times more than Labor said it would, the benefits of which go overwhelmingly to high income earners, and which if your objective is to reduce emissions, is one of the least efficient ways of reducing emissions. The Productivity Commission has found that it costs about $1,000 for every ton of emissions abated under this scheme. So that's one saving straight off the bat, but we'll have more to say.
MICHAEL MCLAREN: Merry Christmas if we don't speak before the 25th. Thank you for your time this year.
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: You too, thank you.
ENDS