February 6, 2025
GARY ADSHEAD: The government and the opposition got together and have decided to put through this legislation in and around minimum mandatory sentencing. Sentences of between 12 months for less serious hate crimes such as, according to what we've seen in the Parliament, giving a Nazi salute that could bring about a sentence of around 12 months. But six years for those found guilty of more serious matters that could be linked to terrorism or attempts at terrorism, they could face up to six years, no longer at the discretion of the judge or magistrate, but mandatory. That is the way that it's going to play out from here on in. That's a change in terms of what the Albanese government said that they would do originally. All right. First up, let's speak to Shadow Home Affairs spokesperson Senator James Paterson, who joins me. Thanks very much for your time, Senator.
JAMES PATERSON: It's good to be with you.
ADSHEAD: Well, why do we need minimum mandatory sentencing in relation to neo-Nazis and insignia, etc.?
PATERSON: The most important reason that we need it is because the antisemitic domestic terror crisis has got completely out of control on the Prime Minister's watch. And the people who are responsible for these crimes do not fear the consequences of their behaviour. And we need to restore deterrence by sending a very strong message to them that there are serious consequences if and when they're caught.
ADSHEAD: Is that off the back, particularly of the scenes in South Australia there, where obviously we had a bunch of neo-Nazis walking through the street?
PATERSON: Sadly, that was just one of many reasons why this legislation was necessary. Neo-Nazis are emboldened in our country, and we have other people of unknown motivation engaging in other activities, harassing the Jewish community, including firebombing synagogues, childcare centres, businesses, cars and graffiti of people's homes. And this is not Australia. It is un-Australian behaviour, and we must put a stop to it before someone is seriously injured or hurt.
ADSHEAD: What do you say to the idea though, that separation of powers should let the judiciary deal with things like sentencing of criminals?
PATERSON: I understand why people have that view, but I think far more important than a principle like that is getting this terror crisis under control. And of course, it is not only through deterrence that you have mandatory minimum sentences. You also have it to protect the community. We want these people behind bars for a long time when they're caught. And we want the victims of these crimes to feel a sense of justice, that the perpetrators who did this to them have faced real consequences.
ADSHEAD: Senator, obviously, the Albanese government initially were not going to go ahead with any sort of minimum mandatory sentencing. Do you know why they changed their mind?
PATERSON: I would love to know because they certainly were dragged kicking and screaming to this point. I mean, the Prime Minister himself dismissed the idea just last week. His Labor senators voted against a motion supporting mandatory minimum sentences in the Senate on Tuesday, just two days ago, and they've turned around and voted for it today. I've got to say, Gary, I think it is politics. I think they're fearful that they're on the wrong side of this issue, and it's hurting them politically. I don't think they've had a genuine conversion on the substance of the issue.
ADSHEAD: All right. But they obviously came to you and said we're prepared to now go minimum mandatory sentencing, they came to your party. But they didn't explain. They didn't explain the reasons why.
PATERSON: No, often in politics, it is never really explained why. They just said that they were agreeing to our proposals for mandatory minimum sentences. And we worked constructively to negotiate for the amendments to the legislation. So that it could be passed and has been passed today. And I'm glad that these new laws are on the books. I think it really is important that the police and our other agencies have those powers now.
ADSHEAD: When we're talking about matters where it appears that there's been a bit of a change of heart. Now, we do have a ban on DeepSeek. The AI app. Was that inevitable in your thinking?
PATERSON: Yes, it was inevitable because TikTok had already been banned from government devices because of the data security and espionage risk that it represented to government users. And DeepSeek is virtually exactly the same as TikTok in terms of its data collection policies and in terms of its relationship with the Chinese government. So if TikTok wasn't safe on a government phone, then DeepSeek was never going to be safe either.
ADSHEAD: So DeepSeek gets banned from government phones, but do you think it should be wider than that? Do you have a view on DeepSeek and what you've been learning in the last week or so?
PATERSON: I am very concerned about the app on two fronts. One is that privacy risk, but the other is that this will be a source of information for a lot of people, and they're going to get a very skewed version of the truth because it's going to be the Chinese Communist Party's version of the truth. If you ask it questions about Tiananmen Square or Tibet or Xi Jinping's plans for Taiwan, you're not going to get an honest answer. You're going to get the Chinese Communist Party's preferred answer, and that is a problem. And I'm also concerned that it's being used by people who work for critical infrastructure operators, such as ports and roads and electricity networks and telecommunications networks. I mean, if it's not safe on a government phone, it shouldn't be safe on their devices either.
ADSHEAD: But has the government got the ability to ban it forthwith in the country or not.
PATERSON: They don't have the power currently under the legislation to ban it for the whole country. But they do have the power to restrict it on critical infrastructure providers’ networks and those powers have been used in the past for other technologies that have been risky. For example, you might remember Huawei was involved in the rollout of our mobile network and the government banned that because it was an unacceptable national security risk. So the powers are there if the government is willing to act.
ADSHEAD: Alright. Now, on another matter, of course, this week in Question Time, the PM has been asked over and over when he was informed in relation to the caravan being found with explosives in it. And, of course the, the note that was there in relation to a Jewish synagogue. He won't answer the question as to when, and he continues to say these are operational matters, and he won't go any further than that. There's been some argy bargy in a Senate hearing today where the AFP Commissioner Reece Kershaw was asked when did he inform the PM? Just take a listen to some of what took place in the Senate hearing.
[CLIP START]
LLEW O'BRIEN: I'm seeking an answer to my question. If the Prime Minister or the Attorney General were briefed and if so, when?
REECE KERSHAW: What I would say is that that question relates to an ongoing joint counter-terrorism team investigation. And according to the briefings I've received, that's not the subject or purpose of today's hearing. And also, I am conscious that this is a public hearing, and it's not an appropriate forum for us to provide information relating to an ongoing investigation at this time.
DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: The question is simply about when the Prime Minister was briefed that in no way could prejudice a public criminal investigation. Your annual report repeatedly talks about counter-terrorism.
HELEN POLLEY: Senator Shoebridge, Senator Shoebridge.
SHOEBRIDGE: You should be insisting on the committee being respected and an answer being given.
[CLIP ENDS]
ADSHEAD: There you go, so you had a Coalition MP, Llew O'Brien first, then David Shoebridge. What's going on here in your mind, Senator?
PATERSON: Well, I think we're now getting in the territory of a cover up. I mean, the Prime Minister could have just answered this question, like how Chris Minns answered the question when he was asked directly and told the community when he was briefed. But the Prime Minister hasn't been upfront and honest. And now we've got Labor Chairs running interference, preventing the AFP from answering questions about this matter. That is in the public interest because if the Prime Minister wasn't briefed, we've had a huge failure of our national security architecture. And if the Prime Minister was briefed but he didn't act, well then, we've had a huge failure of leadership on the Prime Minister's watch and I think the Australian people deserve to know what the answer is.
ADSHEAD: You'll continue pursuing this?
PATERSON: Yes, we will. Because we really think it's in the public interest. I mean, this is a thwarted terrorist attack. But had it proceeded, it would have been one of the worst mass casualty terrorist attacks in our country's history. It would have changed our country forever and for the worse. And so we need to know was our national security policy architecture up to it. Did it do what it needed to do to protect the community? And I'm concerned that it didn't.
ADSHEAD: So, Senator, I mean, just to put it into perspective, though, if the PM was not briefed about this and it would appear that he wasn't otherwise, I think he would have just said, yes, I have been. It wouldn't be his fault, would it? I mean, it would be questions being asked of the national security services like the AFP and ASIO as to why the PM wasn't told sooner; it would be their fault.
PATERSON: I think it is his responsibility for two reasons. Number one, when he came to office, he dismantled the Home Affairs portfolio. He took the Federal Police and other agencies out of Home Affairs, put them in the Attorney Generals, and that's caused chaos in national security behind the scenes ever since that day. But secondly, he should have been leading from the front on these issues. He should have been holding regular National Security Committee of Cabinet meetings to respond to this escalating crisis. And he should have been asking questions of police and our other agencies. What's happening in the community? What's the latest intelligence? Have there been any recent incidents? And if he showed that interest, I guarantee you they would have told him.
ADSHEAD: So you think now that the AFP, in the way that Reece Kershaw dealt with that today, is aiding and abetting the PM in avoiding answering the question? Because Reece Kershaw was in a position to say, we told him on this date or whatever the case may be, but he didn't.
PATERSON: I think Reece Kershaw should have answered that question. But it was also very clear that the Labor Chair of that committee, Helen Polley, was running interference to try and prevent him from answering that question. And I fear that direct instruction was given to him that he shouldn't answer that question. And I assure you we will continue to pursue this. But if the Parliament can't get to the bottom of this then the only other option is an independent investigation by an eminent national security person in Australia to find out what happened here.
ADSHEAD: And you say that's in the country's interest to do that? Because that obviously could bring out all sorts of things that perhaps our services wouldn't want in the public arena.
PATERSON: Frankly, we've had inquiries into far less weighty matters in recent history in federal politics than this. This is a really substantive and serious issue, and we have to get to the bottom of it. And, of course, if there are some elements of the report that have to be classified for national security reasons, I'm sure the public will understand and accept that. But something as simple as when the Prime Minister was told or if indeed he was told - there's nothing classified or sensitive about that, because Chris Minns was able to answer that question and the sky hasn't fallen in.
ADSHEAD: And of course, we've got a situation where perhaps if we look at the timing, Chris Minns would have been sitting in a national cabinet meeting with that knowledge, but not being able to tell the PM and other Premiers.
PATERSON: Well, I'm concerned he was the only person in the National Cabinet meeting about antisemitism who knew that a terrorist attack targeting the Jewish community had been thwarted only a few days earlier. And if that is true, that's a shocking failure of governance in our country.
ADSHEAD: And just finally, you know, I'm paraphrasing what the PM keeps responding to questions, particularly by Peter Dutton in the parliament. He says, listen, you know, you're just picking on an issue here that doesn't matter. What's relevant is what the authorities are doing about antisemitism and the success that they're having in getting to the perpetrators. What do you say to that?
PATERSON: I think it does matter. We do need to get to the bottom of whether the Prime Minister knew or not because if he didn't know, then we need to fix our systems to make sure that ministers are told in the future. And if he did know but didn't act, then he will be judged very harshly by the community for that failure of leadership.
ADSHEAD: All right. We'll wait and see where that goes. Appreciate you joining us on all of those matters.
PATERSON: Thanks, Gary.
ENDS
