May 29, 2023
Hamish Macdonald To the private army of more than 50,000 and a key force in Russia's battle against Ukraine. The Wagner group has been accused of human rights abuses and atrocities in Russia's war. And now there are calls from the opposition here in Australia to list them as a terrorist organization under Australian law alongside groups like ISIS and Hezbollah. But what difference would that actually make? Senator James Paterson is the Shadow Minister for Home Affairs and Cyber Security, and joins me now. Welcome back to Breakfast.
Senator James Paterson Good morning, Hamish.
Hamish Macdonald One of the key reasons to list the group as a terrorist organisation is that they might pose a threat to Australia or Australians. Is the Wagner Group doing that?
Senator Paterson There's really two reasons why we list terrorist organisations in Australia, Hamish. The first is the practical reasons. It makes it unlawful to associate with them as an organisation or to raise funds on their behalf or recruit people on their behalf, for example. But there's also a moral component to it. This is an opportunity for Australia to state our values and often to stand in conjunction with our allies and say that we don't tolerate the activities and the conduct of the particular group. So, for example, it's been common in the past for Australia to list a number of terrorist groups around the world that don't present a direct threat to Australia or Australians, but nonetheless we find their activities reprehensible. For example, some of the Islamic State groups that have operated out of Africa are not likely or capable of producing terrorist activity in Australia. But nonetheless we think it's important for us to take that stance and I think this is one that very comfortably sits in that category as well.
Hamish Macdonald I'm just trying to understand though, what the connection is with Australia beyond the clearly the morally abhorrent activities that they're pursuing in different parts of the world. I mean, is there any indication that the Wagner Group might be getting funding from Australia? Is there any indication that they might be trying to recruit from Australia? Is there an actual connection?
Senator Paterson It's not necessary to list a terrorist organisation for them to have a direct connection to Australia, and sometimes we list them as a preventative measure because we don't want Australians to think that it might be a good idea to travel overseas and join their cause. We don't want Australians to think it's acceptable to recruit on their behalf or raise funds on their behalf. Certainly there are supporters in Australia of Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine and this wouldn't criminalise people who have a political view about that, even though we might find their views reprehensible. What it would criminalise is people who are actively involved in supporting those organisations. And I think that is prudent.
Hamish Macdonald But my question is, are there are there people in Australia doing that?
Senator Paterson Well, I haven't been briefed on that, Hamish. And really only the Department of Home Affairs and its agencies is capable of arriving at a conclusion about that. And that's why I've asked the Government to seek advice from the Department of Home Affairs about whether or not Wagner can be listed. And I've also said that if it's necessary to change the law to facilitate that listing, then the opposition would provide the government with bipartisan support to do so. But a number of independent experts, including an academic from the Australian National University, quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday, said there are no impediments if the Government chooses to do so.
Hamish Macdonald If they're a terrorist organisation, what's their ideology?
Senator Paterson That's a really good question. And terrorist organisations sometimes have very clearly articulated ideology, which can be political in nature or religious or philosophical in nature. The Wagner Group, I think it certainly has a political view about the people of Ukraine and the fact that Ukraine is not a state that doesn't have its own sovereignty and right to exist. That's been very clearly articulated by its leaders as well as Putin and his allies.
Hamish Macdonald I just wonder whether designating this group a terrorist organisation somewhat lets the Russian government off the hook, given the proximity of Vladimir Putin and the Russian state to Yevgeny Prigozhin, the leader of the Wagner Group.
Senator Paterson I'm not sure how in any way, shape or form listing a key army or a private army, as you say, of the Russian state, is letting them off the hook. In fact, I think it is… [cut off].
Hamish Macdonald Which is to call them a terrorist organisation, because it is somewhat sort of, you know, ill defines them in terms of what they are, which is an arm of the Russian state and of Vladimir Putin, the president.
Senator Paterson Look, no, I don't agree. And I don't see that line of argument. I mean, it's been widely reported that United Kingdom is likely to be about to list them as a terrorist organisation, that the French parliament has voted unanimously to refer the matter to the EU for consideration. And the United States government already lists them as a transnational criminal organisation, and that triggers similar provisions to the provisions under Australia's Criminal Code, if we listed them as a terrorist organisation, it criminalises association with them and support for them. And so it's the tool that we have in our toolkit, like the ones our allies are contemplating using. I think we should stand with them and actually we have an opportunity to lead that. I mean, it is in Australia's national interest that Ukraine prevail. We have to do everything we can in our power to ensure they do so. That's why we led the world outside NATO initially in providing military support to Ukraine. Under the new government that actually slipped to second behind Japan, but nonetheless we're still a very strong supporter of Ukraine, and this would be one more thing we could do, an act of solidarity, but also practical effects as well.
Hamish Macdonald Earlier this year, a Senate Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee recommendation was made that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard should be designated as a terrorist organisation. The Attorney-General's office said in February that it didn't have the ability to do that. Why is that? What's your understanding?
Senator Paterson So the argument from the Attorney-General's Department is that the IRGC is an entity of the Iranian state and it's not possible to list state actors. There's dispute about the extent to which the IRGC is directed and operated by the state, but there's no dispute about the fact that it's engaged in horrific human rights abuses and is the world's number one state sponsor of terror. In fact, it sponsors and directs many terrorist organisations which Australia already lists like Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad. So they shouldn't be able to escape by means of a loophole from the consequences of their behaviour. And so, again, we've said to the government, if it changed the laws necessary to list the IRGC, then we'll offer bipartisan support for them to do so.
Hamish Macdonald I want to ask you about The Voice. Australia's race discrimination Commissioner says that making race the focus of the voice debate will embolden racists and increase abuse and vilification towards Indigenous Australians. Do you share that concern?
Senator Paterson I certainly think the tone in which we engage in this debate is going to be really important because no matter what the result is, whenever the voters decide later this year, afterwards, as Australians, we have to co-exist peacefully, pluralistically, as neighbours and friends and co-workers and colleagues. And so we should conduct ourselves as much as possible in a good tone. I think it's incumbent on both the Yes campaign and the No campaign to do that and to try and make this argument about the things that it's of substance that's about. I am very concerned about the constitutional risks. I am concerned about the lack of detail. I am concerned about the fact that it's permanent. And I am worried that it won't make a practical difference for the lives of Indigenous Australians that it aims to.
Hamish Macdonald And do you agree with Peter Dutton when he talks about the Voice re-racialising Australia? How would it do that?
Senator Paterson Well, what the Yes campaign and the proponents of this case are trying to do is to treat Australians differently. Now we could say that it's on the basis of their race, or if you prefer, we could say that it's based on their heritage or their ancestry or their ethnicity or their indigeneity. But either way, what we are doing is putting into our constitution something which treats people differently because of a characteristic over which they have no control, and I think that is offensive to liberal principles. We are all human beings and we're all Australian and we should be all treated equally before the law and before the constitution as well.
Hamish Macdonald But your - the Coalition's - position though, is that you do want to recognise Indigenous Australians in the Constitution and you do want a version of a Voice to Parliament. Why is the proposed voice to Parliament the one that would re-racialise Australia? I'm just trying to understand what the difference is.
Senator Paterson Well, because it puts it in our foundational document, in our constitution, and it involves a degree of constitutional risk because it's not just symbolic recognition of an historical fact, which is what a preamble inserted into the constitution to recognise Indigenous Australians would do. It's something that grants a form of power to a Voice to Parliament, which is yet ill-defined. We don't know how many people are going to serve on it. We don't know how they're going to be elected. We don't know the scope of its powers. And so that introduces real....
Hamish Macdonald Do you support any kind of Voice to Parliament?
Senator Paterson I think there's a very strong case for local and regional voices to be legislated. That's a process that we initiated when we were in government, and I think it very comfortably sits with liberal principles that local people are best able to make local decisions, that they should be consulted in that process. It's not clear to me how putting that in the constitution makes any difference to how it would work on the ground. In fact, it's just going to slow it down. We could have had local and regional voices up and running now, but after the change of government last year, the new Albanese Labor government put that process on hold.
Hamish Macdonald Given the long history of race though, in Australia's constitution, what would this do to re-racialise, to use that term that your leader has used?
Senator Paterson Well, for a start it would provide a constitutional hook for future High Court challenges to litigate the scope of the Voice and the power of the Voice. And it would mean that decision making in this country would be influenced by a body either elected or appointed to represent some Australians based on their heritage or their ethnicity or their race or their background. And I think that is a risk and I think that is a fundamental change to governance in this country. I think we should think very carefully before we proceed down that road.
Hamish Macdonald If you are an Indigenous Australian, though, do you acknowledge that perhaps the way legislation is delivered, decisions are made may already look actually that it is quite racialised, that the way our founding document was put together is quite racialised and therefore and a change like this might be necessary.
Senator Paterson I do absolutely understand that perspective, Hamish, because of course, when this debate started, one of the things which it focused on was the removal of the race power that's in the constitution. I mean, if we were sitting down again today to write our constitution in a pluralistic, liberal democracy, I don't think we would insert a power for the federal parliament to make laws according to people's race. And that's why I personally, I was very supportive of the initial moves about a decade ago to get rid of that race power. Now, the Yes campaign has moved away from that post the Uluru statement of the heart. That's not a priority for them. But I think that still should be on the table. I don't think it's a good idea, you know, in a 21st century liberal democracy that we should be able to make laws for people's race because of course that does relate to Indigenous Australians. But it could also allow the Federal Parliament to make laws about any other Australians according to their race and I don't think a Parliament should have that power.
Hamish Macdonald Do you think that the language of your own leader though, may be contributing to the concerns raised by someone like the Race Discrimination Commissioner? I mean, he's made these comments in the wake of Peter Dutton's speech referring to the racialisation of Australia.
Senator Paterson Yeah, look, I think that's unfair to single out Peter Dutton for criticism here, particularly given that some leaders of the Yes campaign, including on this very platform, like Noel Pearson, have used it to viciously personally attack people that have a different view, even other people who are supportive of a voice in the Constitution but have a different way about how we should go about that have been viciously attacked. I mean, Noel Pearson described Julian Leeser, my colleague, as a Judas and that's a shocking thing to say about a Jewish Australian. So I think Chin Tan and anyone else concerned about the tone of the debate should direct their criticism towards the people who are engaged in that personal vilification.
Hamish Macdonald So when you read those comments from the Race Discrimination Commissioner, that's who you think of. You think of Noel Pearson?
Senator Paterson I think we should think about anyone in this debate who's engaged in using any kind of slur, whether they're racial or religious or any other attempt to divide Australians.
Hamish Macdonald James Paterson, thank you for your time this morning.
Senator Paterson Thanks, Hamish.
Ends
