September 18, 2024
LUKE GRANT: As I mentioned earlier today, Labor has quietly scrapped, we're told, a ministerial direction, ordering the deportation of bridging visa holders charged with an offence or placed under investigation. The policy is known as Direction 63. Now in January, the former Immigration minister Andrew Giles revoked Direction 63 set out the Commonwealth expectation, quote unquote, that bridging visa holders should be stripped of their right to remain in Australia if they're charged with a crime. It's understood there was criticism from lawyers for undermining the presumption of innocence by cancelling visas before a person was found guilty of a crime. Look, I get that point and there's a little bit of me that is persuaded to think maybe that is a bit too tough. But as I said earlier, if we, and we do with a straight face, say if you're born in Australia, you've won the, you know, the lotto of life. And if we can sensibly have other people come to Australia and join the spoils on offer. That is a very high standard. That bar must be set high. Because, you know, there would be so many people that would value Australian citizenship and we should see it as a great prize to offer people. I'm not so sure the government sees it that way, but you know, the bar should be high. Senator James Paterson, Shadow Minister for Home Affairs and cyber security, has raised concerns about the security implications of this. And I'm delighted to say the Senator is on the line. James, I hope you are well.
JAMES PATERSON: I am. Good morning, Luke.
GRANT: It's like winning the lotto, being born here. We put a massive price on what it is to become Australian. And if that means on occasions, you know, you've got to not just do the right thing but be seen to be doing the right thing. In other words, not get yourself involved in any kind of investigation, then I guess that's the price you pay. I understand when people say, well, hang on, if you you've been found guilty of nothing, why are you being sent away? But you know, it's the price of Australian citizenship, I guess. Is that fair or unfair?
PATERSON: Well, I'd go one step further, Luke, which is that this applies to people who are not Australian citizens. They are visitors in our country. They're here on temporary visas and it's a privilege to come to Australia and to visit Australia on a temporary visa. And Australia has some expectations of you when you come, and you enjoy that privilege. And one of those expectations is you abide by the law, and you are of good character. And if you violate that by committing or allegedly committing a serious crime, then I think it's entirely reasonable that your visa be cancelled and you be put into immigration detention while the matter is resolved. Because otherwise you have very serious alleged criminals free in our community abusing the privileges that they have been given to come to Australia. Now, Scott Morrison put this in place as Immigration Minister ten years ago. And yet secretly and quietly in January, the Albanese government repealed it. They haven't explained why they didn't even tell the public they did so. There was no media release. There was no press conference. They didn't even put anything on the Home Affairs website. So we only discovered this almost by accident. And I think the cover up is as bad as the crime here. Why didn't they tell the Australian people that they did this?
GRANT: Yeah, a very good point. Do you think, as is suggested in some of the press today, that this is a way that the now government might just make it easier for those people who might have come from war torn areas, let's say Gaza, to stay here?
PATERSON: I think it is possible that that was the motivation of the government. And really, Tony Burke, the Minister for Home Affairs, needs to stand up today and explain whether that is the case or not, because this particular direction applied to people on bridging visa E. That is a type of visa where you've come to our country, and you've applied for protection onshore in Australia and you're put on this visa while your claim is assessed. Now what we do know is that there are now about 900 Palestinian document holders who've come from Gaza who are in that category. So I think the question is open to being asked, did they rescind this so that any Palestinian visa holder who commits a crime is not sent to immigration detention? Was that their motivation?
GRANT: Yeah well, unless they answer yes, I think most of us would say they're pulling our leg. What do you imagine is this claim that if someone's not found guilty, should they be, and they're on a bridging visa, should they lose the rights that come with that, with that bridging visa? I'm sympathetic to that in a way. But there would be very serious charges. It might take some period to prove. And in that case, we're giving the good people of Australia the benefit of some doubt, aren't we?
PATERSON: Everyone's entitled to the presumption of innocence, both Australian citizens and visitors to our country, and this does not alter the presumption of innocence. They remain presumed innocent until proven guilty and their claims and the charges against them are only ever decided in a court of law by a judge or jury. But what should happen in the meantime if the charges are sufficiently grave, is that your visa, which you've been granted, can be revoked so that you can be put into immigration detention? Because we recognise that if you have allegedly committed a serious crime, then you have broken all the principles of the visa that was handed out to you, the very reasonable conditions that we put in place and that you do pose a risk to the community that the Australian public is not willing to bear because ordinarily you wouldn't be in this country if you committed a serious crime. And so I think it's an entirely reasonable, long standing, protection and the government has to explain why they've repealed it.
GRANT: Yeah, I think that's very fair. I don't know if we'll get that explanation today, but there's a bit going on, isn't there? Even now, down to what the Prime Minister said in Sydney yesterday, James, about, and I think it was Andrew Clennall from Sky who put to him a number of scenarios, all of them negative about the government. And his response was, well, people have to focus on the good things we do. And I thought, what. I thought that was almost a little arrogant. There that, now there's some talk of a double dissolution, which I think the government probably smart to dismiss because it wouldn't end well for them. We are in an unusual place in this election cycle with the polls now clearly turning in your support and the government more than rattled.
PATERSON: I think that's right. I think the government is rattled. I think the prime minister has been arrogant and I think he's under real pressure and that's why he's lashing out. I mean, basically what he said yesterday is the Australian people should stop complaining. You know, we've done a lot for you and why aren't you grateful? The truth is he's done nothing for Australians. He's made the cost of living crisis worse. He's made the cost of living and the impact on people's family budgets much worse. And he promised to do the opposite. I mean, before the last election, one of the things he committed to in his election pre-election speech was cheaper mortgages. Now, is there any Australians who can say that they're paying cheaper mortgages after two years of Labor, let alone cheaper electricity prices, let alone cheaper grocery prices, let alone cheaper petrol prices? The cost of everything has gone up under Labor and you know, a lot of Australians tell me they can't afford another three years like the last two.
GRANT: No, and one interest rate cut doesn't save anything. It'll have to be a number of them because as we reported yesterday, I think the ABC came up with a figure, a half $1 million mortgage, costing people an extra $1,200 a month. So, you know, you cut that by, let's say, a hundred a month. They're still knee deep in you know what? Good to talk to you, James. Appreciate your time.
ENDS
