November 22, 2024
CHRIS O'KEEFE: Now the Albanese government has announced a new Migration Bill, and what it could see is 80,000 people all non-citizens deported, removed to third countries, 80,000. Now, we're not just talking about people convicted of crimes here. This could affect anyone who falls into what they're calling Removal Pathway Non-citizens. And you know what the Australian Government is doing? We are paying the third countries to take them off our hands. So we pay Country A or B to deport citizen or non-citizen A or B. But the government won't tell us which countries that we're shipping them off to. No details, no transparency. We do know that the bill is being rushed through after the high Court ruled that indefinite detention was unlawful. And of course, that led to the release of, you know, the best part of 100 detainees. Some of the worst criminals in this country, mind you. So what do you make of all this? To unpack this further is Senator James Paterson, he's on the line for us. G'day Senator.
JAMES PATERSON: Great to be with you.
O'KEEFE: What do you make of it?
PATERSON: Look, there is a genuine public policy problem here, which is that the High Court has now said that if someone who is here as a guest in our country and has committed a crime, can't be deported back to their own country and won't be taken by any third country, they have to be released, free in the community. And right now, not even with an ankle bracelet or a curfew. And unfortunately, we know this cohort, which is now well over 200 people, is highly recidivist, they are going on committing new crimes. So I think the government does need new powers to deal with that cohort. And we are trying to work with them in a constructive and bipartisan way to find a solution to this problem. But part of the reason why we're having this problem is that the last legislation that the government rushed through turned out to be unconstitutional, didn't stand up in the High Court, and we were given assurances that it would be. So we're seeking much more comfort on this bill to make sure it is constitutionally sound.
O'KEEFE: It feels like the Rwandan solution that the United Kingdom tried.
PATERSON: Yeah, look, I think there probably are some similarities. I think that is a fair observation, not exactly the same. But as you pointed out in your opening, we are not having the same transparency. There is not the same openness from the government. I think they should give more clarity about what countries they are planning on using as destinations to resettle these people and what financial arrangements they plan to enter into. But they weren't giving any answers to this in the Senate committee last night. Nor were they giving answers to questions about former child sex offenders who are loose in our community without monitoring who we're supposed to be stopping from going near primary schools.
O'KEEFE: What I would ask, do you think Australians care where they go, what countries they go as long as they're not here anymore?
PATERSON: I think the overwhelming concern from the public is about community safety.
O'KEEFE: So do you care where they go? If we pay some country to take them off our hands, well so be it?
PATERSON: I do care where they go because I think we do have international obligations which we've entered into, which we should take seriously. We shouldn't be sending people to places where they'll be persecuted. But I think there are countries in the world that would be willing to take them, that would be safe, that we can enter into those arrangements.
O'KEEFE: Any idea how much this is going to cost us?
PATERSON: That is that is the million dollar question and the government has no answers on this. They can't even explain to us how much the compensation is going to cost us arising out of the High Court's decisions on indefinite detention and on electronic monitoring.
O'KEEFE: I would ask though, given that they're not telling us what countries we're engaging with, does it suggest to you that maybe they haven't convinced any countries to engage with us?
PATERSON: I think it's highly likely that they haven't reached any arrangement with any third country. Otherwise some of these people would have started to be deported or could have been re-detained in immigration detention because there was a reasonable prospect of them being deported. I don't think Tony Burke or the government have done their homework. I don't think they've done the work that they need to do to open up these pathways and I hope this legislation makes their job easier because in the national interest I want this problem to be solved. But at the moment I don't have a lot of confidence that they are.
O'KEEFE: Well, how can you have confidence? There's two that have failed so far.
PATERSON: Exactly. When it comes to immigration every time the government goes near it, it turns to custard, whether it is released detainees, whether it's border protection or whether it's just the overall high numbers of immigration, which have gone completely out of control on their watch.
O'KEEFE: Will the Opposition in good faith negotiate with the government? And if you guys are comfortable with what this plan looks like, what this bit of legislation looks like, will you back it?
PATERSON: We are negotiating with them in good faith and in the national interest, and we are prepared to help Labor clean up the messes that they caused for themselves because we must put community safety first. You must put public safety first and we would never jeopardise that.
O'KEEFE: So on first blush, do you back this or not?
PATERSON: Yeah, I would say, it's fair to say our inclination is to be supportive and to facilitate the passage. But we are in negotiation with the government about other measures that would help improve community safety, that would help get the immigration system back under control. As one example, we tried twice when we were in government to legislate to give Border Force the power to control the products that were going into detention centres, because we had a growing problem of criminality in detention centres. It's become much worse in recent years. The Labor Party voted against that when they were in opposition and we tried to legislate it.
O'KEEFE: That was when you were trying to stop mobile phones going in, won't you?
PATERSON: Exactly. And it's become a massive problem because people are running drug networks from inside immigration detention, and Border Force has very little power to prevent that from happening. We tried to give border force that power. Labor stood in the way when they were in opposition. We will be more constructive and bipartisan and try to fix this.
O'KEEFE: Have you heard on the grapevine any of these countries? Just before I let you go, any of these countries where we may be deporting people to?
PATERSON: There's a lot of speculation about this in refugee circles among the advocacy groups there, but there's no hard evidence.
O'KEEFE: What continents are we talking about?
PATERSON: Well, I think they have typically talked about countries in our region and particular in the Pacific. We have had arrangements in the past with countries like Nauru and PNG who have facilitated offshore processing. So that's the speculation. But I don't have any hard evidence either way.
O'KEEFE: Senator, I appreciate you coming on. Enjoy your weekend.
PATERSON: Thanks, Chris.
ENDS
