November 27, 2024
.png)
GREG JENNETT: All right, bring it back to Canberra now and Parliament House, the Government and the Coalition have brokered a deal on several highly controversial migration bills that have caused alarm among human rights advocates. According to the Greens, who are highly critical of it, these powers to deport non-citizens, they reckon, could capture up to 80,000 people. Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke has done no interviews on any of these bills this week. But Shadow Home Affairs Minister James Paterson is explaining the Coalition's reasons for backing them and he joined us to do that a little earlier. James Paterson, good to have you back on the program, particularly given all that's happening around the Parliament this afternoon. So the coalition has given the green light to what I will call extraordinary powers to deal with non-citizens on bridging visas or in other cases in detention. By far, the most extreme element of this is paying third countries to take deported non-citizens. I must say the government's being very secretive about what countries it has in mind, but through the negotiation process. Were you able to ascertain what options before it?
JAMES PATERSON: Well, Greg, it's pretty clear the government has made a total mess of the migration system. And whether it's our borders or community safety or the High Court decisions, it's been a mess from start to finish. What we are trying to do is work constructively with them in the national interest to clean up their mess and particularly their unconstitutional laws, which is part of this package. But to go to your question about the specific elements, about removing people from our country to third countries and paying them to do so, we think that is a necessary power because we do have a problem of people who can't go anywhere else in the world and who we do not want to stay in Australia. But the government has not been transparent either with us or with the public about which countries they are negotiating with, about what the terms of the arrangements are or when they will be settled.
JENNETT: I wonder why you signed up to that without any knowledge of those destination countries. You are, in effect, giving them a blank check.
PATERSON: I wouldn't say we're giving them a blank check. We have signed up because we think it's an important principle that deals with a long standing problem in our migration system. And the government has given some public assurances, including in the Senate committee last week, that they won't refoul anyone that is, they won't send anyone back to a country where they face persecution. And it is their intention to uphold their obligations under the international refugee conventions which Australia has signed up to. So that would mean sending them to countries who are also signatories of those conventions and uphold those principles.
JENNETT: Do you have any reason to believe that Nauru and PNG could be under consideration? They've done deals with Australia before or could it be once bitten, twice shy for those two?
PATERSON: It's certainly possible that it is nations in the Pacific that the government's negotiating with. As you say, Nauru and PNG have been part of the offshore processing solutions in the past, but we've also entered into third country resettlement options with countries like New Zealand and the United States. And we don't know who the government is negotiating with or who they will reach agreements with.
JENNETT: All right. Now you say that non-refoulement against the UN convention has been ruled out by the government, but there is also a power embedded in this bill that would allow a removal pathway non-citizen who has refugee protection status determined, to have that overturned or I think the technical term is revisited by the Minister. How is that not in breach of refoulement?
PATERSON: Because there are people who can be assessed to be refugees at a point in time and the circumstances in the country from where they come may change and they may no longer meet the conditions to be a refugee if it is reassessed. So a good example is Sri Lanka. It was in the past a country that was at war. There was a very serious civil war and at that time there were people from the Tamil minority who did have a very well-founded fear of persecution and could not go back. But after the peace process and the end of the conflict, that may be different and they could be reassessed and I think that's a reasonable condition.
JENNETT: Looking at political hotspots around the world, that would be a highly limited list, wouldn't it, that that met those criteria?
PATERSON: Well, I guess we hope not. I guess we hope that conflict around the world and overseas does come to an end and that people do not need to be refugees. And many people do wish to return to the country that they've come from when it is safe to do so.
JENNETT: All right. Now, the Greens have claimed, James, that the entire cohort of bridging visa removal pending, I think that number runs out to about 80,000 people could be affected by that. Is that true?
PATERSON: Well, look, I'm in an invidious position of having to explain the government's legislation for them because Tony Burke doesn't seem to want to do any interviews or press conferences on this. But as I understand it, the Department of Home Affairs says that this legislation does not change the category of people for which these powers apply. That those existing arrangements, those people are captured. And it is their intention to use it [for] the cohort of the NZYQ High Court case. Who are that difficult cohort, who have committed serious offences, who can't go back to their home countries and who so far no third country will accept.
JENNETT: All right. Now this is just the latest in migration patch up bills following on from the High Court's NZYQ decision. In many ways the government or the Parliament has tried to outrun the High Court. What have you done to satisfy yourself that this one is constitutional?
PATERSON: What we sought assurances from the government that they are confident that these amendments are constitutional. But as you say, Greg, we also sought those assurances last time and they were provided last time. And that proved to be erroneous because the government's legislation was unconstitutional and found to be such by the High Court. I'm hopeful that the government has done their homework this time. That they've dotted their I's and they have crossed their T's and that this legislation will withstand scrutiny. But all we can do is rely on the government's advice because they are not willing to publish the solicitor general's constitutional advice.
JENNETT: All right. Quick final question before we move on to other matters. It's been brought to my attention that you were answering a question earlier today about the many objections of the Human Rights Commission to these migration bills. But the later transcript from your office removed the phrase, “But we're not going to be dictated to them by that.” That is the High Commission. Was that a deliberate omission?
PATERSON: No, that's not a deliberate omission at all. And in fact, I'm happy to repeat it here now if that was what I said. I'll go back and review the transcript with my office, but I never remove anything from transcripts. And as much as we're grateful for the work that the Human Rights Commission does, we don't take advice from them on migration matters or national security matters.
JENNETT: No, thanks for clearing that up. I don't want to make a mountain out of a molehill, but I thought it fair to run it past you. Israel. Hezbollah. Cease fire. It's meant to hold for 60 days. Would you consider it safe for Australians who've recently departed Lebanon to now return?
PATERSON: I would urge Australians to continue to be very cautious about being in the region. This is still a conflict zone. We hope that this ceasefire is successful. We hope that it holds. We hope that it continues to be a more stable peace agreement between Israel and Lebanon, and we hope that Hezbollah doesn't return to its activities south of the Litani River in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701. But I would be concerned that that is possible because it has happened in the past. And so Australians should continue to exercise very great Caution.
JENNETT: And the prospects for a follow on deal with Hamas in Gaza. Is that enhanced, in your view by this cease fire?
PATERSON: Well, everyone wants to see an end to this conflict, but I think that it's going to be very difficult to achieve unless Hamas is willing to free the hostages and also lay down their arms and cease to be a threat to the security and the people of Israel. And it doesn't look like there's any willingness for Hamas to do so. So I am pessimistic about those prospects. But of course, we're hopeful that this conflict can be ended on acceptable terms.
JENNETT: Yes, the world will be watching that. Can I also just draw you back, finally, James Paterson, to an emerging story this afternoon that suggests the Northern Territory Government's lease over the Port of Darwin with Landbridge might be on the brink of collapse. What do you understand of the circumstances?
PATERSON: I understand that the Landbridge Group, which bought the lease from the Northern Territory government a number of years ago, is entering into financial difficulties and it may lead to an opportunity for that lease to be returned to the Northern Territory government and for control of the Port of Darwin to return to Australian hands. That would be very welcome. If that is the case and I encourage the Albanese government to use all the levers it has available to it, including the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act and the Foreign Investment Review Board to make sure that the Port of Darwin is no longer in the hands of a potential strategic adversary.
JENNETT: Should it be nationalised, removed from Northern Territory ownership and control?
PATERSON: It shouldn't need to be nationalised and I'm not advocating that, but I think it would be much better if it was held in the hands of a country which is on friendly terms with Australia or indeed an Australian company who's willing to lease it on commercial terms. And all the powers that are necessary to achieve that have been legislated by the former government. And so the test is will the Albanese government use those laws to make sure it returns to Australian control.
JENNETT: A Potentially very significant development. James Paterson, thank you as always.
PATERSON: Thanks Greg.
ENDS
