March 11, 2025
PABLO VINALES: Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke has accused opposition leader Peter Dutton of deliberately avoiding being briefed on the Dural Caravan for political reasons. Mr Burke says the AFP and New South Wales Police have been very deliberate in what information they decided to make public throughout the process at different points in order to prevent misinformation.
[CLIP START]
TONY BURKE: I received a briefing right at the start, and as it developed and as Peter Dutton kept going, we kept publicly calling him out and saying he hadn't received a briefing. We could not have signalled it more deliberately and more loudly. Peter Dutton would have understood exactly what we were saying and he didn't care. ASIO had publicly talked about lowering the temperature. We were publicly saying he should get a briefing from the Australian Federal Police. Peter Dutton made a decision. to avoid the Australian Federal Police and to ignore the public advice of ASIO.
[CLIP ENDS]
VINALES: To speak more about that accusation, Shadow Home Affairs Minister James Paterson joins us now. James Paterson, thanks for speaking with us.
PATERSON: Good to be with you, Pablo.
VINALES: So did the opposition leader deliberately avoid briefings to make what Labor is saying outrageous claims about this caravan hoax?
PATERSON: No, Pablo, these are really desperate attempts by Tony Burke to distract from the failures of the Labor Party and Anthony Albanese when it comes to national security and community safety. We were briefed, I was briefed on behalf of the Opposition on the 30th of January, and at no stage did police tell us that this was a hoax or possibly a hoax, and at no stage did the government tell us that we needed to receive any updated briefings because there'd been developments in the case. What Peter Dutton said, what I've said, what others have said is completely in line with what the New South Wales Premier Chris Minns said and completely in line with what the Prime Minister said. They both called it terrorism, we called it terrorism, and that was the best available evidence at the time.
VINALES: And following that initial briefing that you received, did you request any further briefings?
PATERSON: Well, we had no reason to believe there'd been any significant developments in the case, and police were publicly saying that they were very limited in what they could share about the case, and we assumed that that was the case for us. These briefings happen on a routine basis between governments and oppositions, and it is extraordinary and desperate for Tony Burke to politicise that. There are dozens of these briefings that the public never hears about and shouldn't hear about, and actually, it's pretty reckless to be publicly disclosing it in the way that Tony Burke has today.
VINALES: But are you saying you were obviously at the time very concerned, the rhetoric was highly charged, that given what you learned you didn't seek further answers, you didn't seek further information?
PATERSON: No briefing was offered Pablo and the normal course of events if government is in possession of information the opposition does not have and if they believe we need to be briefed they offer briefings and in my parliamentary career I have never on one occasion refused a briefing that was offered by the government. The government did not offer any briefing for the opposition on this other than the ones we already received.
VINALES: So you say Tony Burke has misled the public. Has the Coalition misled people, though, when Peter Dutton said that it would have been the most catastrophic terrorist attack in our country's history when, clearly, it was a hoax?
PATERSON: Well, that was based on what the New South Wales Premier and New South Wales Police said at the time. Chris Minns said this was a potential mass casualty event, and New South Wales Police said the blast radius from these explosives would have been 40 metres. Now, Peter Dutton was right to describe it in the way that he is, that he did at the time, and Tony Burke is just trying to cover up for the Prime Minister's failure here.
VINALES: New South Wales Premier Chris Minns has also defended his language around terrorism and this incident despite police knowing almost immediately it was a hoax. Did he do the right thing here, and do you think just overall, for all leaders, there is a lesson here?
PATERSON: No, I'm not critical of Chris Minns here. This is a serious incident, Pablo. Let's remember, even if it is the case that it was organised criminals who concocted a fake terror plot to target the Jewish community, that struck fear in the heart of Jewish Australians, and with good reason, because among the people who have been arrested for this hoax attack were people who allegedly carried out actual attacks on Jewish-owned businesses. There was a firebombing of a Jewish bakery in Sydney allegedly carried out by this same group. So, for Tony Burke to downplay the seriousness of these attacks on the Jewish community today, I think, is shameful. It shows why he's out of touch on these issues and has failed to appreciate the seriousness of antisemitism.
VINALES: But do you think there's a lesson here for all political leaders around language and around the temperature in a situation that was highly charged?
PATERSON: Well, it was an option available to the government at any time if they were concerned that any statements on the public record were not accurate to correct it. I note the Prime Minister never corrected the record that this was terrorism. If the Prime Minister of Australia puts on the public record that this is a terrorist incident and he subsequently becomes aware that that's not the case, the obligation is on him to publicly correct the record. But not only has he never done that, he has still never said when he was briefed or when his ministers were briefed on this very serious incident, and it's open for him to explain why he hasn't disclosed that.
VINALES: I wanted to get your reaction to some breaking news we discussed earlier this hour. Australia has run its first-ever monthly trade surplus with the United States. Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that in January, America imported more than $6 billion worth of goods from Australia. That's not a good sign for our argument for an exemption, is it?
PATERSON: Look, that's a very rare event. It has been the case for decades that the United States has a significant trade surplus with Australia, and we're one of the few trading partners that do have that trade surplus. That's not a concern to Australian policymakers. It never has been because we're a free-trading nation, and we benefit from trade, and we recognise we have trade deficits with some countries and we have trade surpluses with others, and in the end, all Australians are better off as a result of that. I think the key thing here is, why hasn't the Prime Minister got on the plane to Washington D.C. to meet with the President? We know he's previously said publicly he's scared of the President, I don't know if that's the reason why he hasn't done so. But we haven't even sent our Trade Minister over to make the argument for an exemption. All stops should have been pulled out here and I don't think they've put their shoulders to the wheel.
VINALES: So you're saying, and this is a point that Kevin Hogan made as well, that the Prime Minister should have gone to visit the US President. Would you have been critical of him, given that the coalition has been previously critical of him travelling?
PATERSON: No, I wouldn't have been. I mean, this is about Australian jobs and Australian industry, and the Prime Minister should have gone. The UK Prime Minister has travelled there; the Japanese Prime Minister has travelled there; the Indian Prime Minister has travelled there; the French Prime Minister has travelled there, and the Canadian Prime Minister has travelled there. All of those leaders understood it was important to form a good, strong, early relationship with Donald Trump to put their country's interests forward. The Prime Minister has failed to do that. Not even the Trade Minister has done that, and I think that reflects badly on them.
VINALES: OK, what did you make of Malcolm Turnbull's comments overnight? Is the government doing its best here? And does he have a point when he says that it's effectively out of Australia's hands?
PATERSON: Well, Malcolm Turnbull is now a private citizen, and he's entitled to make whatever comments he wishes about these matters, and if there are two people in the world who do not need anyone else to speak on their behalf, it is Malcolm Turnbull and Donald Trump. I think the real issue here is what the current Australian Government is doing to seek and receive this exemption.
VINALES: Are you concerned about the ASX200 dive today following the US plunge overnight? There could be some serious economic tailwinds, post tariffs, if the US does go into recession.
PATERSON: Yes, I am. I think we're in a very uncertain economic climate, as well as a very uncertain strategic and security climate. And I am worried that this government is not up to that task. At a time of uncertainty globally, what we need is strong leadership, not weak leadership. And from the Prime Minister down, this government has consistently displayed weak leadership, whether it's on national security or whether it's on tackling inflation.
VINALES: Given the comments that Donald Trump is making and the kind of consequences it has globally, at what point do you think it's incumbent on world leaders to be a little bit more forthcoming, a little bit more frank in criticising the US President?
PATERSON: Well, we've been very clear when we have disagreed with President Trump. For example, in relation to Gaza, we've said that his proposal for that is not consistent with our support for a two-state solution. And on other matters, including especially on Ukraine, we've said that we disagree with him on that, and we think we should continue to support Ukraine, that we believe it was an unjustified and illegal invasion by Russia and that we believe that President Zelensky is a democratically elected hero of Ukraine and we should back him in. And so we will continue to do that and stand up for Australia's national interests. will never shy away from doing that.
VINALES: Should we take a leaf from Canada's book, where they're being more forthright and aggressive?
PATERSON: Canada is in a very different situation to Australia. They are facing an across-the-board tariff, not just a tariff on one industry, and they've obviously responded in kind. I don't think Australia would benefit from trying to attempt to have retaliatory tariffs, as your previous guest said. That's not in our national interest. That's not in our economic interests.
VINALES: On another issue, before we let you go, the coalition says we shouldn't send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine. Now, Russia has warned Australia of the consequences if Australia contributes to an international peacekeeping force. The government says it won't be intimidated by Russia. Won't we look like we're just cowered by Russia if we don't?
PATERSON: Well, we certainly shouldn't make our decisions about that based on what Russia says or does. We should make those assessments in our own national interest. But this is, frankly, a thought bubble from the Prime Minister. It was a deeply unserious comment that he made. The work has not been done to determine how or when Australia could contribute to such a peacekeeping force. Indeed, we're probably a long way away from peace actually being achieved in Ukraine, and we couldn't be sending anyone until we do. So I'm really surprised that the Prime Minister has put that on the public record, that we're contemplating that, without the work being done. And I think it shows when it comes to national security, he lacks the instincts to protect Australia.
VINALES: But given that we've seen leaders of France, the UK, Keir Starmer, referring to the Coalition of the Willing and calling for, I guess, the global community to step up, is it really a thought bubble when we have like-minded countries calling, I guess, for more support around the world?
PATERSON: Well, Europe is in a very different situation when it comes to the war in Ukraine than Australia is. It's a continental war in which they are direct parties. We are a strong supporter of Ukraine, but we are not a resident party on the continent of Europe. And frankly, I think it is unserious from the Prime Minister. I mean, this is someone who's cut defence capability, including infantry fighting vehicles, and you can't deploy Australian men and women in uniform to a war zone if you don't have armor to protect them. Otherwise, you're putting them at risk. So, if this Prime Minister was more serious about investing in defence and increasing defence spending, this might be a different conversation, but he's cutting defence at the same time as he's talking about deploying Australians to the front line of the war.
VINALES: Marco Rubio says Ukraine may be forced to do difficult things as part of a deal, noting it would be difficult for them to reclaim land. Is that acceptable, do you think?
PATERSON: Well, we have said that we think it would be a terrible thing if Ukraine was forced to enter into a peace agreement on unacceptable terms to Ukraine because that would send the message that Vladimir Putin had been successful and that there is a reward for behaviour like that. And that could be misinterpreted by others, including in our own region, that this kind of behaviour is rewarded and that the world will stand by that. So we think it would be very unfortunate if that was the case.
VINALES: James Paterson, just lastly, the head of the Ukrainian World Congress, called for Australia to be ready to break with the United States and intensify our support. You obviously don't agree with that approach. But does Australia perhaps need to think about how it can play a bigger role here, given the US has stepped off the stage, so to speak?
PATERSON: I think there is more that we could do and we should do, and I'm deeply concerned and disappointed that a decision of the Australian Government to provide M1 Abram tanks, which we've been calling for some time to Ukraine, has been so significantly delayed and there is no delivery in sight.
VINALES: I'm so sorry, I'm so sorry, we're going to have to interrupt you there. We really do appreciate your time.
ENDS
