February 6, 2025
BRIDGET BRENNAN: Let's return to our top story, where Donald Trump's plan for the US to take over Gaza has sparked global outrage from world leaders. Shadow Home Affairs Minister James Paterson joins us now from Canberra. Good morning to you, Senator.
JAMES PATERSON: Good morning.
BRENNAN: This has widely been described as a plan for ethnic cleansing. Is that how you characterise it?
PATERSON: Look, I wouldn't use those words, but I would say that it hasn't changed the view, the longstanding view of the Liberal Party, that we support a two-state solution that includes self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians. It includes security and peace within secure borders of two states. And we do have a task ahead of us to rebuild Gaza after a terrible war. And one of the critical elements of that task is going to have to be removing Hamas from power because if Hamas remains in power in Gaza, it will continue the misery of the Palestinian people as well as the Israeli people.
BRENNAN: So you wouldn't support the forced deportation of hundreds of thousands of people from Gaza? And why not call it a plan for ethnic cleansing? That's what it's described as under the Geneva Convention.
PATERSON: Other people are free to use that terminology. I would say we don't understand enough about President Trump's intentions and his plans here to be specific about it, except to say that our view remains the same, which is a two state solution and self-determination for both peoples is the best and most sustainable hope for a solution to this long standing problem.
BRENNAN: There's clearly a refugee crisis underway in Gaza. You can see the images of people sleeping in tents on the land that used to be their homes. Does Australia have a responsibility to look at our refugee intake from Gaza and from other parts that have been affected by this conflict?
PATERSON: Well, Australia's actually already taken a larger number of people from Gaza than most other countries in the world, including both the immediate region around Israel and Gaza and like-minded democracies. In some research that was done late last year into this, when we had accepted 3000 people on tourist visas, it was demonstrated that other countries like the United States and Canada and New Zealand and the UK had accepted a tiny fraction of that. So I think we've already done very significant heavy lifting here, and we certainly shouldn't be doing any more than we had already done unless there is extremely robust security and identity checks, which is a difficult thing to do in a war zone controlled by a listed terrorist organisation.
BRENNAN: What do you think would be a prudent response from the Australian Government? How do you think the Prime Minister and other Ministers should respond to this announcement from President Trump? Has the Government gone far enough to denounce this type of plan?
PATERSON: It's not for me to provide public advice on a matter like that. I would just say that Australia's national interests should be what dictates our foreign policy and our values should be what informs our foreign policy. And the Prime Minister and other senior ministers should be able to articulate what our policy is and why we have it. The truth is the Albanese government has actually walked away from the long standing bipartisan position on this issue. They now support unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state prior to any successful peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine. They've done that under political pressure, and I think that has been irresponsible because this solution cannot be imposed from the outside by Australia or any other party. It has to come from the parties there on the ground, reaching a peace agreement.
BRENNAN: Have you had a win on mandatory sentencing of hate symbols and the like that the Government has now adopted? And what could be the broader implications of this legislation?
PATERSON: Yes, I think that's the fairest way to describe it. Yet again, we're seeing Peter Dutton in the Coalition leading when it comes to national security and community safety. And yet again, we've seen the Prime Minister following. He just doesn't have instincts for national security. Nor do I think he has the strength to make the tough decisions required in the national interest. He has to be publicly pressured into doing the right thing to protect Australians.
BRENNAN: What do you mean by that? What do you mean by publicly pressured?
PATERSON: Well, we have been calling for mandatory minimum sentences for some time now and the Prime Minister and his Ministers have been rubbishing the need for them. They even voted against them in the Senate on Tuesday when we introduced a motion to call for them. They have a long standing position of opposition to mandatory minimum sentences, but it's been very clear since antisemitism has been allowed to come completely out of control on Anthony Albanese's watch. That to restore deterrence, to really send a strong message to the people responsible for these crimes that tough laws like mandatory minimums were going to be necessary. And it was only the Coalition that identified and called for that need. The Prime Minister has reluctantly conceded. He's been dragged kicking and screaming again, as he was on the National Cabinet and so many other initiatives in this crisis.
BRENNAN: Okay. I think the Prime Minister would dispute that. Let's move to DeepSeek. Do we need a broader strategy to combat the security concerns, the data security concerns around AI products and apps, given we're going to see so many more products come out in the next few years made by businesses and individuals in foreign governments?
PATERSON: I certainly welcome that the government has made the decision to ban it from government devices following the advice of our national security and intelligence agencies. It would be hard to understand any different decision given that it is so similar to TikTok in its data collection practices and in its relationship with the Chinese government. And this government also eventually banned TikTok from government devices. But I think we do have questions now about critical infrastructure operators, about government suppliers, about defence industry and about Australians more broadly. If it is such a serious data security risk and cyber security risk to the government that it needs to be banned from government devices, well, what protections are there in place for everybody else? And so far the government has not outlined any protections at all except to say that Australians should be cautious. The truth is, when you have apps and devices coming from authoritarian countries, and those companies that make those products have relationships and obligations to those governments, that does pose a real risk to Australians, and I think we need a more comprehensive response to protect them.
BRENNAN: All right, James Paterson, we'll leave it there. Thanks very much for your time.
PATERSON: Thank you.
ENDS
