March 26, 2024
JAMES PATERSON: Good morning everyone. Well, here we are again. It feels like Groundhog Day. Another day, another rushed, patch up job from a panicked government when it comes to border protection, national security and community safety. This is now the fourth piece of legislation that the Albanese government has dropped on the opposition and the crossbench in the parliament and asked us to pass in as little as 36 hours to deal with the rolling crisis of immigration detention and the harm some of those former detainees are now doing now that they are released into the community. They have asked us to do so without so much as a Senate inquiry. They have given us just an hour or so notice of their intention to introduce this into the House and to seek passage through the house this morning. And they are expecting the Parliament to pass it through the Senate tomorrow, so this legislation can receive royal assent and be law. This is shocking process. Perhaps if it was only done once, that would be okay. Perhaps if it was in response to a genuine and urgent crisis, that would be okay. But Murray Watt had publicly announced eight days ago that this legislation would be coming forward. We now know it was finalised on Friday. It apparently went through a Labor caucus committee last night, and the opposition has only been told of it this morning. That's an extraordinary demand on the Parliament, on all of us. We think there should be a Senate inquiry. And frankly, we think the government should stand up and explain this morning what this legislation does and why it's necessary. Where is the Minister for Home Affairs? Where is the Minister for immigration? When will they stand up and explain what is in this legislation and why is it necessary?
JOURNALIST: What's in the legislation?
PATERSON: That's for the government to explain. I am the Shadow Minister for Home Affairs, not the Minister for Home Affairs and it's up to them to explain it. What I can say is that it seeks to deal with issues arising from the AF17 case, the case of an Iranian detainee who is not cooperating with the government's efforts to return him to Iran and the hundreds of other people that are potentially in that category, if the High Court decides in the coming weeks that their detention constitutes indefinite detention because of their failure to cooperate.
JOURNALIST: AF17 case is heard in the middle of April, isn't there a need for urgency then if it's to receive royal assent? Will you even have time to process the Senate inquiry and receive royal accent before that court case is heard?
PATERSON: Well, we didn't just discover that this case was going to be in the High Court today or yesterday or last week. They have known for weeks. In fact, it was a federal government action which has seen this end up ultimately in the High Court. So they knew this was coming and they knew legislation might be necessary. That could have made a genuine attempt at bipartisanship and informed the opposition, at least of the principles that they wanted us to consider last week or the week before or even a month ago. And yet that's not what they've done, they have dropped it on us. So the unreasonable behaviour here is from the government. We are trying to do our best in the national interest to get to the bottom of this and find out whether, in fact this does work or whether it will have unintended consequences, whether it will get people hopping on boats again, as we're sadly seeing under this government.
JOURNALIST: If it is in the national interest, then should people to know what's in the document you are holding?
PATERSON: I agree, and that's up to the government to explain.
JOURNALIST: Well yourself and the immigration spokesman Tehan both said that transparency is important. You've been slamming the government on this, so why is it that you're not going to give us information on what's actually in the legislation.
PATERSON: Well, it's not up to me. It's up to the government. It's not my legislation. It's the government's legislation. They're the ones that drafted it. They are the ones that gave instructions to the department. They're the ones who are going to have to implement it. It's up to them to explain. I can't do Clare O'Neil's job for her and Dan Tehan can't do Andrew Giles job for him. They have to do their own jobs themselves.
JOURNALIST: Is the Opposition support for this legislation contingent on that Senate enquiry?
PATERSON: Well it would be very difficult to be able to support this without at least understanding the implications of what it is. We could have a quick Senate hearing, at least tonight, to at least hear from government officials to have them answer questions on this, on the public record so that stakeholders can be formed. It is obviously not enough time to get submissions in from informed stakeholders, to get experts in. But the very bare minimum that the government should facilitate is a hearing for a couple of hours tonight so we can ask basic questions to the department.
JOURNALIST: What questions do you have?
PATERSON: Well, we're just going through the legislation right now. But one of the things that's immediately apparent to us is we are very concerned about unintended consequences. We are very concerned that this legislation, like other decisions that government has made, will cause people to get back on boats again. Now, we've seen at least 12 or possibly 13 boats since the election. We have seen at least two make it all the way to the Australian mainland drop people off and leave without being detected. And we saw reports last week of a horrific capsize of Rohingya refugees seeking to come to our region, we don't know their ultimate destination. that could have resulted in dozens of people, including children, drowning at sea. This is back to the bad old days. I really fear where this is heading. We have to understand the implications.
JOURNALIST: But in principle, do you think legislation is needed ahead of the Court case?
PATERSON: That's not clear yet from what we understand, we have only had the legislation for an hour. We want to understand the government's rationale for it, the answers they gave us at the briefing this morning were frankly perfunctory and didn't go to those unintended consequences.
JOURNALIST: Do you think it's odd that they have, you know, they brought on this court case essentially putting it to the High Court, and now they're doing legislation at this point?
PATERSON: Yes, I think it's very odd. They brought on this case; it is hugely consequential if it goes against the government based on their track record in the High Court. We would be worried that it might, it would potentially cause hundreds of people to be released into the community, including more violent offenders alongside the 152 who are already out.
JOURNALIST: What did the government say in this briefing, they explained it to you, what did they explain?
PATERSON: I'm not the government spokesman. I'm not the expert on this legislation, they are. It's up to them to come forward and do that. They are reasonable questions that you have, but they should be answering them, not me.
JOURNALIST: Is that normal practice for the government to step in and put this sort of legislation in place when the High Court is already making a decision?
PATERSON: A very good question for them to answer as well. I think it is an unorthodox approach to cause a case to come to the High Court and then to introduce legislation in case that's not successful.
JOURNALIST: And what is it about the legislation that makes you concerned about these unintended consequences? Can you provide some details about that specific part of the legislation?
PATERSON: We're concerned that the result of this legislation will give more incentive for people to get on boats.
JOURNALIST: But what is it in the legislation?
PATERSON: Let the government explain the implications of this legislation. I think that'll be self-evident. One more question.
JOURNALIST: Just on a slightly different topic. The Chinese state backed cyber attacks that the UK and New Zealand reported this morning, can we get your reaction on that.
PATERSON: It's very welcome that the United Kingdom and New Zealand have publicly attributed these attacks on MPs and electoral systems to the Chinese government. It is especially malign behaviour to attack members of parliament and electoral systems in democracies. It is not the act of a friend, and it is appropriate that that they have been called out. I also welcome the fact that the Australian government has joined them in that attribution. But as yet we have not seen whether or not Australia will follow the United Kingdom and the United States in sanctioning the individuals involved. That's a power available to the Foreign Minister under the Magnitsky reforms. She should explain today whether or not the government's going to do so. And if not, why not?
JOURNALIST: On those sanctions we saw a few weeks ago with the Russian Medibank hacker, the US and UK sanctions, I guess in sympathy with Australia. Should we do the same in this case? And if we don't? Would that be a sign that we are going soft because it involves China?
PATERSON: Well, certainly the US and UK showed solidarity with us and augmented the power of our sanctions by adding their weight to it. As a matter of principle, I think we should do the same to support our allies, and it'll be up to the government to explain if it thinks the bilateral relationship is more important than defending our national security interests.
Thanks again.
ENDS
