October 13, 2024
DAVID SPEERS: Senator Paterson, welcome to the program.
JAMES PATERSON: Good morning.
SPEERS: You've said there's a gulf between Australia and the U.S., but the President, the Vice president, as we heard there, they along with Prime Minister Albanese, are calling for a ceasefire. You're not, aren't you the one at odds with the U.S.?
PATERSON: Well, David, it's not a remarkable thing that Australia could come to a different judgement from the United States. We are our own sovereign country. The problem here is that the Prime Minister doesn't have the courage of his own convictions. He's unwilling to say when he disagrees with the United States and he clearly does disagree with the United States. I think he should just be open and honest about that and say this is where we disagree. But let me give you a couple of examples where that's clearly the case. When Hassan Nasrallah was killed a couple of weeks ago, President Biden welcomed that unambiguously. The Prime Minister has never done so. The United States is one of the most important suppliers of military equipment to Israel in this conflict. Our country under Albanese has put an effective ban on exports of military equipment to Israel and the Foreign Minister has been trumpeting that. When Israel entered into southern Lebanon to degrade Hezbollah a spokesman for the State Department last week welcomed that. The Prime Minister's never done so. President Biden says on numerous occasions not only does Israel have a right to defend itself, but Israel has a right to respond. The Prime Minister has never brought himself to say the statement that Israel has a right to respond, despite being repeatedly asked in interviews and doorstops.
SPEERS: But on the issue of a ceasefire, just to be clear here, do you want to see a ceasefire?
PATERSON: What we ultimately want to see an end to this conflict. But, David, in my view, that will only happen once Hamas releases the hostages and once Hamas is degraded so they no longer pose an ongoing threat to Israel from Gaza. And once the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, which was passed in 2006 unanimously by the United Nations Security Council, restores that demilitarised status of southern Lebanon, south of the Litani River. Until those things can be resolved. Then I think there's going to be ongoing conflict, sadly.
SPEERS: So you are at odds with the US right now on a cease fire?
PATERSON: Well I think the Biden administration has been clear they welcome Israel degrading Hezbollah's capability in southern Lebanon.
SPEERS: They are also clear on the need for a ceasefire.
PATERSON: Well, that can only happen when Hezbollah is degraded and defeated to such an extent that it doesn't pose a threat to Israel. Let's remember that in the last 12 months, since October 7th, 9000 rockets have been launched by Hezbollah into northern Israel, and there are 65,000 Israelis who are displaced internally and cannot return to the north. Israel does not want a 7th of October happening on their northern border. And until that area south of the Litani River can be cleared of Hezbollah, I think it's going to continue and I understand why Israel is taking the steps that it is.
SPEERS: Okay, we'll get to that. But you said the Prime Minister should be clear where he disagrees with the U.S. Are you clear that you disagree with the U.S. on a cease fire at the moment?
PATERSON: Well, David, it wouldn't be remarkable for an Australian politician to disagree with an American politician, particularly as the United States administration under President Biden and Vice President Harris is a centre left administration. I am from a centre right political party. There will be times that we disagree and mature adults can be open and honest that, I think that is unremarkable.
SPEERS: But this is our main ally. Are you saying it's no big deal to disagree with them on one of the biggest foreign policy issues right now?
PATERSON: Well, David, the United States, of course, is our main ally. They're our closest friend. I've been there three times in the last 12 months. I've had these conversations directly with members of the Biden administration with potential future appointees to a Trump administration. Yes, from time to time, Australian politicians and U.S. politicians will disagree on things, particularly questions of principle. We are very strong supporters of Israel. We understand the circumstances they face. God forbid Australia ever faces challenges that Israel faces. God forbid Australian politicians are ever faced with these choices. But if we are, I expect that the Australian public would expect their government to respond as decisively as Israel has.
SPEERS: Okay. But should you stop having a crack at Anthony Albanese for having some gulf between his position in the U.S.? When you've got a clear difference with the U.S. On a ceasefire?
PATERSON: Well, David, I'm just pointing out the differences that do occur between the Albanese government and the Biden administration. I think they are self-evident. I gave you four examples of them. It's the Prime Minister who's unwilling and unable to acknowledge that. It's the Prime Minister who's trying to say that they're on the same page when it's clearly not the case. He should have the courage of his convictions. He shouldn't be weak. He should be honest and stand up and say what he believes.
SPEERS: You've said you want to see Hamas degraded before any ceasefire. You've also said you support Israel doing what it needs to do to restore deterrence in the region and put Iran back in its box. What does that mean?
PATERSON: Well, Iran, and particularly the IRGC, is the puppet master behind the war on Israel. They own and operate effectively the three terrorist organisations attacking Israel right now, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. And it is only because Iran has been emboldened in recent years that they feel not only can they use those proxies to attack Israel, but they can openly attack Israel. They have on two occasions now launched attacks on Israel using drones and missiles directly from their territory to Israel's territory. That is not a good thing. And it is completely understandable why Israel feels the need to reassert deterrence. And it's clear, by the way, that the Biden administration supports them in doing so.
SPEERS: Do you have concerns about some of Israel's actions, particularly the wounding of UN peacekeepers?
PATERSON: Certainly, if it is the case that it was IDF action that wounded UN peacekeepers, that is very unfortunate and that is very regrettable. It should be investigated. It should not happen.
SPEERS: When it comes to ceasefire. If you disagree with the Biden administration on this and you also disagree with the G7 leaders generally and the British Prime Minister, the other G7 leaders who have also called for a ceasefire?
PATERSON: Well, let me give you a kind of tangible example here, David. It was on the 26th of September that Australia, with some other nations, called for a ceasefire in Lebanon. Had Israel followed that advice Hassan Nasrallah would still be alive today, the former head of Hezbollah. Now President Biden himself, as I said before, has publicly welcomed the death of Hassan Nasrallah. I agree, I think the world is a better place without Hassan Nasrallah in it.
SPEERS: I understand that point, the questions is about ceasefire and whether you disagree, not just with Joe Biden, but with the other G7 leaders.
PATERSON: Well of course, David, we ultimately aim to get to a ceasefire. Of course, we ultimately aim to get to peace. But I don't think that that's going to happen unless Israel can successfully remove the very serious and existential threat that it faces. I mean, some public assessments are out there saying that 50% of Hezbollah's rockets have been disabled, have been degraded, and can no longer pose a threat to Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and other populated centres again. The Biden administration has welcomed that and so do I.
SPEERS: Okay. But one day a ceasefire, but only just to be clear. Only when Hamas is degraded, Iran is back in its box. This could be a very long time.
PATERSON: Well, David, if those things don't happen, then we will just have other conflicts like this in the future. If Hamas is allowed to regain control of Gaza, as they have after previous conflicts they have publicly said that they will launch more attacks like that they did on the 7th of October, which caused the largest loss of Jewish life in a single day since the Holocaust. That would be intolerable to any liberal democracy. Australia would not tolerate that threat. And I understand why Israel won't tolerate it either.
SPEERS: Lets turn to your criticism of the visas that have been granted to Palestinians here in Australia, you've called for the cancellation of a visa granted to Fayez Elhasani because he has links to Hamas. He hosted Hamas representatives in an event five years ago in Gaza. Look, ASIO has had a look at him. Look, they've not cancelled his visa. Has ASIO got this decision wrong?
PATERSON: Well, ASIO doesn't cancel visas, David. ASIO provides security assessments to the government.
SPEERS: Well they have not recommended a cancellation, by the look of it.
PATERSON: Well, that's something that you might be aware of, but I'm not. That hasn't been publicly reported previously. Let's look at the test that Mike Burgess set out when he was speaking to your colleague, Sarah Ferguson, at 7.30. He said that anybody who had simply liked a tweet calling for the destruction of Israel or liked to tweet in support of Hamas constitutes a security threat to Australia that should not pass muster. Now, let's look at what Fayez Elhasani is reported to have done. Well, three of his brothers and two of his sons were members and key operatives in listed terrorist organisations. As you say, he hosted not just Hamas, but Palestinian Islamic Jihad and others at a press conference at his institute at which he said, we must resist Israel by all means necessary. It's also been reported that last year in Iraq at a conference, he said that his son was raised to wage jihad and that his grandson is being raised in the same way. His institute has published art which is anti-Semitic in nature and which glorifies terrorism. Now, in my view, that very easily clears the low bar for a cancellation on character grounds, even if it doesn't meet the bar for security grounds. But I think if we look at the Berges test, which he publicly set out, it's hard to see how he meets that.
SPEERS: But you don't seriously think Mike Burgess has recommended his visa be cancelled and the Government's ignoring that, do you?
PATERSON: Well, I don't know. What we do know, David, is that through an order of production of documents through the Senate that I secured a couple of weeks ago, that ASIO was referred to 2,601 Gaza visa applicants on the 16th of March this year. That's an extraordinary number of visas to be referred in just one day and they were referred after their visas were granted, not before they were granted. That puts ASIO in a very difficult position. Now, they're diligent, they're patriotic, they're hard working. But Mike Burgess himself has said, ASIO is not all seeing and all knowing. And we wouldn't want them to be all seeing and all knowing, that would be a security state not a liberal democracy.
SPEERS: So you think they might not have given enough scrutiny to Elhasani.
PATERSON: Well, I don't know, David. All I can say based on the public information that we have is I don't think Elhasani meets the test of Mike Burgess has set out.
SPEERS: This leads to an important question; do you have faith in ASIO's vetting of these Palestinians?
PATERSON: I have total faith in ASIO, I have total faith in Mike Burgess. My doubts are about Tony Burke and Anthony Albanese.
SPEERS: I can understand your political point there. But if ASIO have looked at all of these visas, as you say, they've looked at this guy, why isn't that enough?
PATERSON: Because David, the Minister for Home Affairs and Immigration is the one who has the power to cancel visas. Courtesy of the Daily Telegraph on Wednesday he is now apprised of these facts. Perhaps he wasn't earlier, but he is now. And he can cancel that visa not just on security grounds, but also character grounds. There are very wide provisions in the Migration Act, which allows the Minister for Home Affairs and Immigration to cancel visas. I don't think this person meets the character test of the Migration Act. If Tony Burke disagrees with that, he should set out as to why.
SPEERS: There was another foreign national that made headlines during the week who addressed the October 7th rally in western Sydney. Khalid Baydoun, a visiting U.S. professor. He called October 7th a day of celebration. I understand that he has now left the country, he left on Thursday after being told that his visa would be cancelled. Do you welcome that?
PATERSON: Well, since he became the Minister for Immigration and Home Affairs, as far as I'm aware, Tony Burke has not cancelled a single visa of any of these protesters, of any of these visitors to our country, despite them stoking hatred and division in our country. He's talks a very big game, but he doesn't actually follow through. It's all well and good that someone has voluntarily left our country.
SPEERS: after being told that his visa was going to be cancelled.
PATERSON: Well, that's news to me, David. I don't understand why this visa wasn't just cancelled. Tony Burke said he requested a bread from his department. That should be one of the easiest briefs he has ever signed from his department. Because this is a person who, on the 7th of October at a rally at Lakemba mosque, said that it was a day of celebration. No one who who says things like that should be welcome in our country. But by the way David, I don't think he should have been granted a visa in the first place either because a week before he came to Australia, he posted on social media on Instagram in support of Hassan Nasrallah. Now, how is someone who supports a dead terrorist being granted a visa to come to our country?
SPEERS: Let's turn to China. It's pledged to remove the remaining trade restrictions on Australian rock lobsters. It follows the removal of bans on coal and barley and wine and beef. Do you give the Albanese Government any credit for stabilising relations with China?
PATERSON: Certainly, David. It is very welcome that these tariffs have now been lifted and this economic coercion campaign is coming to an end. And of course it happened on the Albanese Government's watch. They deserve some credit for that. But I actually think it is a credit to Australia as a whole because the reason why the Chinese Government has walked away from these sanctions is because they didn't work. They had two objectives. One was to damage the Australian economy and to send a message to our likeminded partners and friends, never speak out against China because there'll be a cost. And the second was to change our domestic public policy settings, which they made very clear in the list of 14 demands. It's failed on both counts. The Productivity Commission estimates it hit our economy by 0.1%. All of our allies and friends took the opposite message that China would hope, they are reducing their dependence on China rather than stopping to criticise them. And we have locked in behind those issues that China asked us to change, and that's a bipartisan achievement. It started on the Morrison government. It's continued on the Albanese government. Yes, they deserve some credit for that.
SPEERS: The Coalition has flagged a tougher approach on China. For example, would you want to see Australia ban Chinese made vehicles?
PATERSON: No, I haven't called for that, David. Although I do want to look very closely at this issue because connected vehicles, internet connected vehicles, are a national security in a cyber security risk, so much so that the Biden administration is taking very tough action to eliminate them from the U.S. market. If our closest friends and allies think it's a concern, then I think we need to address that in some way as well.
SPEERS: So you'd look at it, you'd consider a ban on Chinese vehicles.
PATERSON: It's not my preference to have a ban, David. I think there are other ways of mitigating these risks.
SPEERS: Like what?
PATERSON: We can impose or for example minimum cyber security standards that would lift the bar that all internet devices like that have to meet not just cars, but other devices that are connected to the internet.
SPEERS: So just explain that to me. If they are cyber connected, they have to, how could you actually protect, protect against any sort of spying or data collection?
PATERSON: Sure, David. There's a whole lot of minimum or mandatory cyber security standards that could be imposed on any internet connected device, whether that is a security camera or a baby monitor or a car. And it is the basic kind of cyber mitigations. It's about the control of what happens to the data, who it's shared with, who it goes to, what it transmits. And you could set a high bar that everyone would have to meet if they're importing to Australia. I think that's something that we should be considering.
SPEERS: And look a final one, last time you're on the program, you said the Coalition would be seeking advice on TikTok and whether it could be banned in Australia. You are of course, worried about its Chinese ownership. Have you received any advice on that?
PATERSON: David I've had extensive discussions with our U.S. counterparts on this and I think the action that the United States Congress has taken here is something that we should look at emulating. The U.S. Congress has passed a bill which requires TikTok United States to be divested from its parent company ByteDance. And the reason why that's important is that ByteDance is subject to the control of the Chinese Communist Party, particularly article seven of the 2017 intelligence law, which requires its employees to cooperate with Chinese intelligence agencies and keep it secret. Unless that link is severed then I think we TikTok is going to pose a national security risk and particularly a foreign interference risk in our democracy. The U.S. has taken this action. The worrying thing, David, is that you might end up with a safer version of TikTok in the United States and a more dangerous version of TikTok in Australia because we've been unwilling to take that action.
SPEERS: Senator James Paterson, thanks for joining us this morning.
PATERSON: Thanks David.
ENDS
