July 26, 2024
LUKE GRANT: Well, there could be more trouble brewing for the Federal government. Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus has referred cases of two non-citizens convicted of drug offences to the High Court in a last ditch attempt to stop more foreign criminals walking free on our streets. Now, this all comes after last year's controversial NZYQ decision by the High Court, which resulted in the release of more than 150 dangerous non-citizens from indefinite detention after the court found their incarceration to be unconstitutional. Look, I know that's generally how all this stuff is reported. Can I just make the point here that Andrew Giles in in answering questions by the High Court about alternative countries for these people, completely screwed things up, completely screwed things up. He effectively said, oh no, they'll be incarcerated forever in Australia. There's no hope of finding another way of dealing with them in another country. The previous government never made that mistake. This government did. And largely that's why we have the problem that's being dealt with here. Now, one of the new claims before the High court involves a drug offender from Vietnam. He's seeking release from immigration detention, his case slightly different from last year's NZYQ cohort. His visa application is under consideration. There's others, involving a recent freed Polish drug traffickers claim his incarceration over a period of about 18 months was unlawful. Questions also been asked about Labor's backflip by reinstating Mike Burgess as a permanent member of the National Security Committee. This is the boss of ASIO, remember what they did? They punted him off the committee and put him the Climate Change Minister on the committee, can you believe it? The National Security Committee. Why would you have the ASIO boss on that, When you can have the Climate Change Minister, the hapless Bobo? Plenty to talk about with the Shadow Home Affairs Minister, Senator James Paterson, who is on the line. You well?
JAMES PATERSON: Good morning Luke, very well thank you.
GRANT: Good on mate, nice to talk to you again. Will we be seeing more of these foreign criminals on our streets? What are you thinking about the action the government is taking? I guess to some extent, they've got to do something. Is it unusual? Just tell me your reaction to it all.
PATERSON: I just really hope that this time the government has dotted their I's and cross their T's with these legal cases in a way that they failed to do with the NZYQ case, as you pointed out in the opening Luke. They made a critical concession, factual concession in the pleadings for the NZYQ case. The Immigration Minister, Andrew Giles, conceded that there was no reasonable prospect for resettling NZYQ overseas and therefore effectively conceded that his detention was indefinite. And that is why the High Court made the decision it did. The High Court even warned the court in a directions hearing earlier on in the process, that this was a very considerable concession to make and it really led them only down one pathway. Now, the problem with that was that after they made this concession to the court, they then tried to resettle this person. They looked for countries around the world who would take him, so clearly his prospects of resettlement were not so hopeless when they were currently in the process of approaching people. So I hope that they don’t make those same mistakes again, because if they do make those kind of legal mistakes again in this case, then we could see a whole new cohort of many more dangerous violent offenders who are not citizens released into our community. And this is just what we've come to expect on the watch of Andrew Giles and Clare O'Neil.
GRANT: Yeah, I mean, they are hopeless. If the Prime Minister allows them to survive in their portfolios on Sunday when he goes through this so-called reshuffle, then I don't know. I mean, it ends up being a situation, doesn't it James, where, and I referred to poor old Mick Young in the Paddington Bear. There used to be consequences if you screwed things up. This bloke brought a teddy bear back from overseas as a minister and didn't put it on the form. These people have seen dangerous people release on our streets. And up until now, no price is paid. I mean, where is the accountability here?
PATERSON: You're absolutely right, Luke. And Sunday's ministerial reshuffle is a key test of the Prime Minister's authority and strength in the office, because he’s going to have to choose between his political self-interest, which would dictate that he keep Andrew Giles and Clare O'Neil in their jobs, or shuffle them sideways into different jobs. Or the national interest, which would dictate that both of these ministers are sacked and sent to the backbench. The only reason why you keep incompetent ministers in place is if you're a weak Prime Minister who's afraid of a factional powerbroker like Andrew Giles. And the other thing is, if Andrew Giles is not up to being immigration minister, why should he be inflicted on any other stakeholder? Why should he be given any other portfolio? There's a lot of talk in Canberra that he might even be given the Veteran Affairs portfolio. Frankly, haven't our veterans suffered enough? Do they really need Andrew Giles as their responsible minister? Is he someone you want anywhere near a national security portfolio? I mean, he's demonstrated colossal incompetence. And I think the only remedy for that is to be sent to the backbench, not to be promoted or sent into another portfolio.
GRANT: That is such a good point. And, you know, the other thing, mate I was sitting here yesterday morning and we flicked on the Prime Minister's media conference about, the retirement of, of Linda Burney and Brendan O'Connor. And he began his comments by saying, you know, I'm the only Prime Minister who will face the people, having been elected as Prime Minister, since John Howard or something like that. And we've done our best for the people over two years and three months, and we haven't lost a minister. And I'm thinking to myself, Mate, you haven't lost a minister because you haven't had the guts to punt two jokes, two clowns. That's the reality here. We can't be talking about being, you know, a strong, effective government and saying we haven't sacked anyone. He hasn't had the integrity to punt those two.
PATERSON: Exactly right Luke. It is a bizarre boast to say I've kept incompetent ministers in their portfolios where they're doing real harm to the Australian public, where Australians have become victims of violent crimes because they're not up to the job. And that's something to be proud of. Not to mention that the cost of living crisis that this government has presided over, and the incompetent ministers in those portfolios who have failed to deal with those problems. Rising energy prices on Chris Bowen's watch. Rising cost of living on Jim Chalmers watch. Total destruction of our fiscal position on Katy Gallagher's watch as Finance minister. You know, the purse strings have been completely let go in the last budget with completely reckless spending. Why would you be proud of keeping those ministers in their place for some political boast? He should be ashamed of their performance.
GRANT: Yeah I agree, as he should be about punting Mike Burgess from the National Security Committee. I mean, obviously, and this goes back a while, I think freedom of information documents reveal it might have been, even January before that where this error was fixed. But to move Mike Burgess, the ASIO boss, from this committee and stick in, Chris Bowen and his departmental secretary from the climate change department, I mean, I can't work it out. I'm sure you can't work it out, either.
PATERSON: Well, this was such a bad decision Luke, that even Anthony Albanese has recognised he got it wrong. And he's now backflipped and apparently put Mike Burgess as Director-General of ASIO back on the National Security Committee. But of course, he never should have been removed in the first place, and no explanation has been provided to the Australian public at any time about why he and the other agency heads were kicked off in the first place. What happened in the meantime while they weren't on the committee, what was missed? And why the Prime Minister has now accepted that he got it wrong and has invited them back? I mean, this is a very serious change to a very important committee. There's been no transparency about it whatsoever and we deserve better.
GRANT: Yeah, we absolutely do. Look, there's a story today in the Financial Review. If I can just, extend our chat a moment or two longer that talks about the Electrical trades Union. There are strikes in Sydney's west where members of this union in a construction site won't connect or disconnect power during that building process, except for two instances, which appeared to be, constructions involving Cbus or backed by Cbus Super. Now, this has been and this I mentioned earlier, this investigation by various people at nine has been brilliant. But this today, I don't know if it's next level or what, but, the lines are so blurred. And to think that, you know, we'll do the wrong thing by construction. Except if it involves a union super fund. Boy oh boy, that that begins us down a very murky path, doesn't it?
PATERSON: That's right. And militant unions have been emboldened because they know they have a weak Prime Minister who won't stand up to them. And Australians are paying the price. We're paying the price with massive infrastructure blow-outs that mean that we have to all pay higher taxes than we otherwise would to build roads and schools and hospitals. And the cost of housing is going through the roof because the CFMEU and the ETU and other radical unions effectively have a 30% premium on any other build. That means that young people are struggling to get into the housing market. And where is our prime minister when this happens? I mean, these extremist unions should be de-registered. The Australian Building and Construction Commission should be brought back, and the book should be thrown at the serious, violent, organised criminals that have infiltrated these unions and now dominate them. And all of this has happened on the Prime Minister's watch. He's known about it for years and he's done nothing because he's beholden to these Unions. He's beholden to the $6 million that the CFMEU has given him and the booth workers that they put on polling booths for Labor candidates around the country. And a strong Prime Minister like Bob Hawke would actually have done something about this and deregistered them.
GRANT: The broader question, I think, is this, if and we know that federal Labor gets support of the union movement and obviously in a way, shape or form, union super funds. How then can be an elected member of the Parliament and then sit in judgement of legislation affecting the pay packets of people who might be union members, let's just say. And what about decisions around superannuation. If you have financial or electoral benefit by staffing, whatever it is, isn't there now a question, a significant question, about what can and can't be voted on even with disclosure by members of parliament? Or is that going too far?
PATERSON: What I would say, Luke, is there's some very serious conflicts of interest here, and it's a murky business between the Labor Party, the union movement and industry super funds. And for good evidence of that all you have to look at is all the former Labor MPs who wind up as chairs of massive, industry super funds with absolutely no financial market expertise, people like Nicola Roxon, or Steve Bracks, or John Brumby, or Greg Combet, you know, these are people who have not had long careers in the finance sector and they wind up chairing boards, managing tens of billions of dollars. And I think it must enter into the minds of Labor MPs when they're having their careers in the Parliament, that they might want to have an appointment like that after they retire, and that might influence their approach to public policy. I think that's the only way to explain why they so heavily preference the union movement and so heavily preference industry super fund against their competitors.
GRANT: Yeah, everything good mate? The family well?
PATERSON: No complaints, bit of end of winter flu here in Melbourne, but we'll be right.
GRANT: Okay. Good to talk to you. Take care.
PATERSON: Thanks Luke.
ENDS
