September 3, 2024
GREG JENNETT: James Paterson, good to have you back with us once again. Now, after witnessing two weeks of fairly intense parliamentary debate, Mike Burgess has said that his words have been distorted during that debate on security vetting of Palestinian people who'd been granted visas. Do you accept that the criteria has been rigorously applied to all 3000 Palestinian visa holders, according to the ASIO boss, as he asserts very clearly most recently?
JAMES PATERSON: No, I don't accept that. And I don't think that's what he said at all. What he said very clearly in both the Insiders interview and this more recent interview, is that when cases are referred to ASIO, when the criteria is hit, ASIO does its job, and neither I or any of my colleagues in the opposition have ever had any doubt about that. There has been no criticism at all from us about Mike Burgess in the way he does his job, or about ASIO and the way they do theirs. Our criticism has always been of government policy. And we need to separate out here a couple of complicated, intertwined issues, including the application of the character provisions of the Migration Act and migration policy, and security assessments done by ASIO when they are referred to them. Mike Burgess has no responsibility for the character provisions of the Migration Act. That is the government's responsibility, and that is our great concern that that has not been enforced. And the Prime Minister could not even say when he was asked in Question time multiple times whether support for a listed terrorist organisation would violate the character provisions of the Migration Act. Now that Mike Burgess has made it clear that he views any Hamas supporter as a threat to Australia's security and someone who should not be coming here, there's no room for the Prime Minister to hide anymore. He's tried to use Mike Burgess as a political shield. Now he should front up and say, does he agree with Mike Burgess that all Hamas supporters are a threat to security and should not come to Australia?
JENNETT: All right, Well, we'll put that to figures in the government when we get the opportunity. Mike Burgess, though, is a little ambiguous about how many, if any, of the 1300 Palestinian visa holders here presently might now be having their security status reviewed. And you may have heard today, James Paterson, Peter Dutton said ASIO and the AFP are chasing their tail, spending an enormous amount of resource and money trying to identify people, whether they are of questionable character or not. Do you anticipate or assert that a portion of the 1300 presently here will not pass muster, to use Mike Burgess's phrase?
PATERSON: It would be of great concern to me if any of the 1300 require any further security checks, because the government has assured us that all the necessary security checks happened before they were granted these tourist visas and before they came to Australia. The reason why it would be a problem is once you're in Australia, it is very easy to use the legal system to extend your stay, even after the government has determined that you shouldn't be here, particularly if you've come from a war torn area where you can't be easily returned, as Tony Burke says, is the case for this cohort. So if Mike Burgess or ASIO does find a problem in any of this cohort, perhaps one that they weren't initially referred when they applied for their visa, and they think that they are security threat and they should be removed, that is going to be a really difficult problem for our country to deal with because, in my view, they were improperly granted tourist visas with insufficient security and other checks, that could have stopped this problem before it came into our country.
JENNETT: Just speaking of that group, you may be aware that your colleague Andrew Wallace, who has a senior position on Parliament's intelligence and security committee, has suggested that he wouldn't be surprised if some Palestinian visa holders were placed into immigration detention, presumably for the purpose of deportation. That does seem to suggest some level of expectation, doesn't it, that visas might be cancelled?
PATERSON: I think that's a very real risk that we will end up there because of the rushed and risky process that the Albanese government has presided over. Their visas could be cancelled because they are not genuine tourists and because they have no intention to return to Gaza, which is why, of course, they shouldn't have been granted tourist visas in the first place. It's a violation of the terms of their visas to seek to stay here beyond their initial visit. And secondly, they could be cancelled for either security reasons or for character provision reasons. The problem is this is going to be very difficult to remove them. They could go into immigration detention, but sending them back to Gaza, as Tony Burke has told us, is not a straightforward or easy thing to do. And so this problem, if it arises, will be one that we're stuck with dealing with for many, many years.
JENNETT: All right, let's move to the very related fact that has emerged in recent days. 750 of the Palestinian visa holders, or almost 750, who are currently here, have applied for refugee visas onshore. Isn't it the case that, having lodged those applications, assessment of those claims will necessitate very stringent security reviews and vetting the type you say was absent with the original tourist visas granted? So there's a safety net being built in beneath this 750, isn't there?
PATERSON: Well, you're half right, Greg. Yes, absolutely, they will go through a more rigorous process now that they've applied for refugee humanitarian visas from onshore in Australia. But those are the kind of checks that should have happened before they came to Australia, because once they're in our country, obviously a security threat can be posed to the community. But as I said before, it's also more difficult to remove them once they're here because they've got access to the Australian legal system and can tie it up for years and years and years with appeals and challenges to the decisions of the government. And so that's why in previous instances where Australia has been generous and brought people in from war torn countries like Syria and Afghanistan, we did not give them tourist visas to come to Australia. We made them go through the rigorous humanitarian and refugee assessment process while they were offshore in third countries, so they could be evacuated to safety, and they weren't in danger, but also so we could be confident about their identity, about their character, and about any security risk that they pose. And in some instances, that took up to a year, not the kind of 24 hour process that this government has presided over with the 3000 Gaza tourist visas.
JENNETT: Okay, so what should now happen to the remaining 1700 people who have been granted a visa but have so far been unable to travel onwards to Australia should they be pre-emptively cancelled so that they don't upon arrival in your view, join the list of those asserting asylum claims?
PATERSON: Well, the government has the opportunity to get this right for at least that 1700 of the 3000 cohort. They're not yet in Australia, and so they should now be assessed offshore for their eligibility for a refugee or humanitarian visa. They should have stringent security and identity checks done, and they should have their character examined as well - along the lines of the advice that Mike Burgess has now provided, that if they are Hamas supporters, that that means that they are a threat to security and they should not come to Australia, and they can use both the character provisions and security provisions to deny them a visa. The government has the opportunity to get this right, but they have to agree that it's a priority to get this right. And we still haven't heard from the Prime Minister or the Home Affairs Minister whether or not it's acceptable to bring someone into our country who supports a terrorist organisation.
JENNETT: All right, so if the government did retrospectively assess them on the lines that you just described right there, and the applicant passed the test for another form of visa, let's say a refugee visa to come to Australia, where would that leave your leader's call for a temporary ban across the board on Palestinian visa holders entering Australia?
PATERSON: Well, Peter Dutton and all my colleagues have been very clear about this. We want a temporary pause to make sure the government gets this right, because we don't think they've got it right at the moment, and we don't think it is responsible to hand out tourist visas to people fleeing a war zone controlled by a terrorist organisation. There are enormous risks in that. If the government puts in place the proper and appropriate settings like we did in Syria and Afghanistan, then of course, we're open to resettling people from the Palestinian territories. But only once that happens because, frankly, Australia's a very attractive country. There are millions of people around the world who'd like to come here. They can't all come and therefore we have an opportunity to be selective and choose the people who could make the best contribution to our country, who can make it stronger. And frankly, in the middle of a social cohesion crisis and anti-Semitism crisis, I don't think bringing in supporters of list of terrorist organisations is going to make us a stronger or a better country.
JENNETT: Alright we'll await further questions, I imagine when the Parliament returns, if not before. James Paterson, we will thank you as always and catch up again soon.
PATERSON: Thanks, Greg.
ENDS
