|
November 18, 2023
JAMES PATERSON: Good afternoon. I'll make comments about two issues first, then very happy to take some questions. Well, firstly, the Albanese government's shocking mismanagement of the High Court's decision to release high risk offenders into the community continues today. As we learned on the front page of the Herald Sun, a man who murdered his wife and was jailed for 22 years could be the next person who is released into the community. Tony Kellisar came here as a refugee from Iran and in 1997 brutally murdered his wife and then dipped her body in a van of acid and left her two daughters to grow up without their mother. Now, he was recently released from prison and put straight into immigration detention. But under the High Court's ruling could be the next to be out on the streets. And the family has heard absolutely nothing at all from the Department of Home Affairs about his whereabouts and whether he may be released next.
We also learn from the Immigration Minister, Andrew Giles today that a 93rd person had been released into the community. This is interesting because the Solicitor-General identified among the cohort of people who need to be released, only 92 people, and said that perhaps down the track, a larger cohort of 340 people may be impacted by the decision. Now, this suggests that either the Solicitor-General was wrong in his evidence to the High Court or that the government has begun to release some of those 340 detainees into the community, but with absolutely no transparency at all. They haven't explained why they've gone beyond that figure of 92 and they should front up and do so. Otherwise, the Australian community will continue to feel unsafe.
Secondly, I just want to comment on the reports today that a People's Liberation Army Navy vessel engaged in unsafe, dangerous and provocative behaviour towards Australian Navy personnel operating in Japan's exclusive economic zone. This is incredibly risky, inappropriate behaviour and frankly not the act of a friend. They were apparently warned that they were Australian Navy divers in the water. They moved closer to the Australian Naval vessel and then turned on their sonar, forcing the Australian Navy divers out of the water. Now this apparently happened on Tuesday, but the government has waited until today to tell us after the Prime Minister has jumped back on the plane in San Francisco back to Australia from APEC. The question really is did the Prime Minister use the opportunity of his time with Xi Jinping in San Francisco to raise this issue with him? And what other steps will the government take to deter this malign behaviour and make sure that it never happens again?
JOURNALIST: On the China incident, is this a Setback back in our relationship with China?
PATERSON: It's certainly not the act of a friend and it is completely contrary to the warmth and the apparent friendship that was displayed in Beijing only a couple of weeks ago when the prime minister and the foreign minister were there. On one hand, China says it wants a better relationship with Australia and on the other hand it takes dangerous manoeuvres that put the safety of Australian personnel at risk and in fact has caused them injuries in this case. This is very malign behaviour and it is yet more evidence of why the relationship with China is far from normal.
JOURNALIST: And what kind of response should there be from Australia?
PATERSON: Well, there needs to be a very robust response. It's really important to remember that the Chinese vessel was warned that there were Australian divers in the water. They chose to move closer to the Australian vessel and then they activated their sonar knowing that it would do them harm. And it's also important to remember this happened in Japan's exclusive economic zone. It didn't happen in Chinese waters. It happened in international waters within Japan's exclusive economic zone. So it is particularly malign behaviour that must be robustly taken up with the Chinese side and I hope the government has already done so. And if they haven't, I expect to say what they've done so about it.
JOURNALIST: So what should that robust response be?
PATERSON: Well, the first opportunity would have been the Prime Minister directly raising this with Xi Jinping in San Francisco. He's going overseas to do these important trips for a reason. And one of those reasons is to stand up for Australia and stand up for our interests. They could be nothing more important than him raising this directly with Xi Jinping.
JOURNALIST: On the immigration detention decision, are you satisfied with the government's intention to wait until after the release of the High Court's decision before adding any other new legislation?
PATERSON: No, I'm not. I mean, if it wasn't for us, the government probably wouldn't have acted at all. It was a week ago that we told them that they would need to legislate, and they initially said that they couldn't do so until the High Court handed down its reasons. Eventually, when they did release legislation, they said it was as far as they could possibly go. We thought it didn't go far enough and they subsequently admitted that we were right. So all along, they had to be pushed to act. And I think they're going to have to be pushed to act again because people like Tony Kellisar are the worst of the worst. They should not be on the streets, even with an ankle bracelet, even with a curfew applied. That's the danger that the community is exposed to. And that's why we think either a preventative detention scheme or a continuing detention scheme like we have for high risk terrorist offenders is appropriate for this cohort.
JOURNALIST: So on the ankle bracelet is your understanding of the legislation that they are only mandatory at the Ministers discretion. which means that rule could be relaxed?
PATERSON: Yes, that that is our understanding. We proposed that it should be mandatory. The government went away and drafted our amendments for us said that that would cause legal issues and so instead there would be a presumption that unless the person does not pose a risk to the community, they would have to have an ankle bracelet. Now, the minister has said today that all of these people will be having an ankle bracelet. I want to know what about the 340 who might be released next? Questions on the phone?
JOURNALIST: Yes, Senator Paterson, what makes you think that a preventative detention or continued detention order would not just be struck down by the High Court and then could open the Commonwealth up to massive compensation claims?
PATERSON: The reason why I think it would be treated differently is we already have preventative and continuing detention orders within the high risk terrorist offenders framework and they are applied when a government makes an application to a court and the court agrees. What the High Court have said is that the government cannot indefinitely detain someone. Only a court can punish someone and a continuing or preventative detention order is completely consistent with that ruling.
JOURNALIST: But which of the cases do you think it would apply to?
PATERSON: Well, this is the thing. The government has not been transparent about exactly who has been released or exactly what crimes they committed. All we know from reporting in the media today, following an order for production of documents that I secured from the government last week, is that a very large number of these detainees were very serious offenders. That's the government's own words to describe these detainees. And they knew this for many weeks before the High Court handed down this decision. In fact, they tendered this document in the High Court as part of the proceedings. And so their inability to be ready for this really is a shocking failing to protect our community.
JOURNALIST: The opposition has said all week that these detainees should never have been released. The government has followed the high court ruling. Is there any way around this? What would the Opposition have done differently to prevent these detainees from being released?
PATERSON: The first thing we would have done is we would have been ready. The government was caught completely flat footed when the High Court handed down its decision on Wednesday and it didn't have draft legislation ready to go. It should have been because Jacqueline Gleeson of the High Court warned them in June that the High Court was likely to find this scheme unconstitutional. So, they should have been ready to go. They should have been able to introduce legislation the next day when the Senate was sitting and passed it on Monday in the House of Representatives, and it could and should have included a preventative or continuing detention order to protect the community.
JOURNALIST: If these detainees were coming out, no matter who was in government?
PATERSON: We have to comply with the orders of the High Court. That's obviously true. But the government could have been ready for that with a scheme that would have allowed people to be re-detained consistent with the law.
JOURNALIST: Can I just ask, are you suggesting the government deliberately kept quiet about the PLA incident until the Prime Minister left San Francisco?
PATERSON: It sure looks like that to me. This incident occurred on Tuesday. They waited until Saturday before they publicly announced it and after the Prime Minister had finished his press conference for the day, boarded his plane and started to fly back home to Australia. I wonder if they didn't want the Prime Minister to be asked in San Francisco whether or not he had raised this with Xi Jinping? He would have known before he got on the plane. In fact, probably for the whole week that this incident had occurred, and he wasn't upfront with the Australian people about that.
JOURNALIST: Andrew Giles said this morning that preparations began well before the hearing of this case in the High Court. Do you have any idea what the Government was working on behind the scenes before the High Court case?
PATERSON: Well, if that is true, there's no evidence of it, because the government, when the High Court decision was initially announced, said that they couldn't legislate at all until the High Court handed down its reasoning. And then after pressure from the Opposition, they finally backed down and announced that they would in fact legislate. So, I think this shows the government was not ready, whatever preparation was taking place.
Thanks, everyone.
ENDS
