|
March 12, 2025
SALLY SARA: Well, the political fallout continues after police revealed that an explosives-laden caravan found in Sydney's northwest in January was a fake terrorism plot organised by organised crime figures. The opposition leader has defended himself against the government's accusation that he deliberately avoided briefings on the case in order to continue political attacks. James Paterson is the opposition's home affairs spokesperson and joins me now. James Paterson, welcome back to Breakfast.
JAMES PATERSON: Good morning, Sally.
SARA: Members of the Shadow Cabinet, including yourself, were briefed about the caravan the day after its discovery was made public. But Mr Dutton didn't attend that briefing. Why didn't he attend?
PATERSON: Well, it is very normal in the Westminster system of government when you have portfolio holders who represent the opposition in particular areas, in my case, Home Affairs and in Michaelia Cash's case, Attorney General, to attend briefings on behalf of the opposition and then to debrief the opposition members as appropriate on what happened. In that case, Senator Cash and I attended that briefing, we were briefed on it. So did a member of Mr Dutton's team, and we debriefed to him on the results of that briefing.
SARA: In that debriefing, was there any indication passed on to Mr Dutton that this incident regarding the caravan may not be a genuine terrorist attack attempt?
PATERSON: Sally, I'm generally reluctant to talk about these briefings. They happen all the time. They're highly sensitive and we don't even normally confirm that they occur, let alone the contents of them. But given Tony Burke's unprecedented decision to disclose this yesterday, I feel like I have to disclose it, so I can say that there was absolutely no reference whatsoever to the possibility of this being a hoax.
SARA: So, to be clear on the timeline, what was the date of that initial briefing? Do you know?
PATERSON: It was on Thursday, the 30th of January. It was at 2:00 pm in the afternoon.
SARA: And after your initial briefing on the caravan, did the opposition seek and or receive any further briefings on this issue?
PATERSON: No, we didn't have any further briefings from the AFP on this issue, and we had no reason to believe that they would be able to tell us anything different from what they told us in the first briefing because, frankly, the first briefing was very much in line with what they said at the press conference the day before. And after our briefing, the AFP was very clear, including to me in public forums like Senate Estimates, that they really couldn't tell us any more about this operation because it was sensitive and ongoing. And so we didn't think that there was anything likely to emerge out of the briefing. But of course, if the government believed that we did need to know that there'd been a significant development in the case, Tony Burke's got my phone number, so does Mark Dreyfus. Their offices know my office, and they know where to find us. And they could have told us there has been a development, you need an extra briefing. And we, of course, would have taken it. Never in my nine years in the Parliament have I ever refused a national security briefing.
SARA: Government ministers in Question Time were suggesting that you should get an updated briefing. Why didn't the opposition take that advice and seek further briefings?
PATERSON: That is not a serious way to offer a national security briefing in Question Time across the dispatch box. That was an attempt at partisan political point-scoring, and they didn't, in fact, say that we needed to have an updated briefing; they tried to make a point about whether Peter Dutton had participated in the briefings or not. This is a serious matter. National security briefings are a serious matter. They happen on a routine basis, and they are normally never disclosed. And they can be highly sensitive. And a government that is acting in the national interest does brief the opposition because it's critically important to make sure we are up to speed in a two-party system, with what the challenges are Australia faces. So if they actually were sincere about this, briefings could have been arranged, but they weren't.
SARA: There was a question in Question Time on the 5th of January when the Deputy Opposition Leader, Sussan Ley, asked a question of Mr Albanese, Mr Albanese said he noted her characterisation. He was happy to provide a briefing through security agencies if requested. Given those comments by the Prime Minister. Again, why didn't the opposition seek more information?
PATERSON: Well, I know that the Prime Minister was one of the first political leaders to call this terrorism after the New South Wales Premier did so, and the New South Wales Premier described it as a potential mass casualty event. The Prime Minister was updated on a regular basis by police, and he never corrected the record in relation to that. If the Prime Minister, the highest office holder in the land, says publicly that this is terrorism and doesn't correct the record, then I think all Australians are entitled to believe that that is still the case. If the government's argument is seriously that the opposition should have received a briefing, and then we should have gone and disclosed an update to the case that police had found new evidence and were pursuing new lines of enquiry, that would be utterly absurd.
SARA: The Prime Minister, as you say, and the Premier of New South Wales were describing this as a terrorist incident in the early stages. Is it appropriate that if they were receiving further briefings, that the situation may have changed, that they didn't reveal that information publicly without the permission of the security agencies? Is the right thing to do when the situation is when an investigation is continuing to keep quiet?
PATERSON: Well, if that is the case, then the government can't have it both ways. All political leaders called this terrorism when they were the facts that were indicated. That's what appeared to be the case. And no one corrected that record until the police did so yesterday. So they can't, on the one hand, say the opposition over-hyped this by calling it terrorism while they themselves called it terrorism and knew that it was not.
SARA: So if I understand your position correctly, do you think the government should have told you too or encouraged you to go and get another briefing? It was their responsibility to give you a nudge?
PATERSON: Well, they are the only ones who were privy to the information about the ongoing developments in the case. And normally, these briefings occur when the government becomes aware of intelligence or information that they think needs to be understood by the opposition. And what they do in those instances is either contact me directly or contact my office and say, we've got a briefing. And if they had done so, I would have taken up that offer. I can't read their minds, and I can't read police minds. I don't know when there are developments in the case. And until I know that there's a development, I'm not in a position to request it.
SARA: To another matter briefly, Senator, the White House this morning has said that Australia won't be getting an exemption from steel and aluminium tariffs. It seems no country has succeeded in getting an exemption. What do you think about the way that the Federal government has handled this matter, trying to secure an exemption for Australian industry?
PATERSON: Well, this will be very discouraging news for workers and families in the steel and aluminium industry to wake up to this morning. I hope that in the 24 hours or so before these tariffs actually start, that the government is now pulling out all stops to try and get a better outcome. I find it very difficult to understand why the Prime minister, unlike other world leaders, including the French and the Japanese and the Indians and the British and the Canadians, hasn't got on a plane and visited Washington D.C. to form a strong relationship with President Trump and to argue our case. But it's even more difficult to understand why our Trade Minister, Don Farrell, hasn't got on the plan to do it. I mean, what is the point of having a Trade Minister if he's not using the status of his office to travel to our closest ally and have these discussions in person and put our best case forward?
SARA: Senator James Paterson, thank you for your time this morning.
PATERSON: Thank you.
ENDS
