November 27, 2024
ANDY PARK: Papers and insults were thrown across the Senate floor today when Queensland Senator Pauline Hanson moved a motion for a Section 44 investigation of Fatima Payman, alleging the WA Senator still holds citizenship from her birth country of Afghanistan.
[START CLIP]
FATIMA PAYMAN: If that is not racist, what is it? Oh it's not racist. Somebody bring the dictionary. Because Senator Hanson does not know the definition of racism.
[END CLIP]
PARK: Senator Fatima Payman there speaking in the Senate earlier today, Just to recap, Section 44 of the federal Constitution forbids politicians from having more than one citizenship. The Greens and crossbenchers opposed Hanson's attempt to table the documents, while Labor and the Coalition backed the vote because it was a procedural motion. James Paterson is the Liberal Senator for Victoria and joins me in our Parliament House studio. Welcome to you, Senator.
JAMES PATERSON: Good to be with you.
PARK: What did you make of this back and forth in the Senate today?
PATERSON: It was incredibly unedifying for everyone involved. And I think it has further contributed to the lowering of the public esteem for the important work that the Senate does as an institution and I think that's extremely regrettable.
PARK: Who lowered it the most then?
PATERSON: I don't want to pick sides and adjudicate between Senator Payman and Senator Hanson or indeed my other colleague, Senator Thorpe, who engaged in similarly inappropriate behaviour in the chamber today. I wish all Senators would engage in a spirited way, you know, sincerely advocating their points of view without resorting to insults or throwing things or flipping the bird, as some Senators did this morning.
PARK: So before those actions, the sort of genesis of this, do you believe that it's fair and reasonable in terms of a motion led by Senator Hanson? Is it reasonable for her to bring that forward?
PATERSON: Well, certainly any senator can bring forward a motion and can table documents, and that's a right that every Senator has and I think should be upheld, because Senators from time to time need to exercise that in their own judgement in the national interest. On the broader question, though, of Senator Payman's eligibility, I am not convinced, based on the information I have, that she is in violation of Section 44 and I think there would need to be further evidence that demonstrates she was.
PARK: So hang on, you're not convinced there is evidence, but you are backing this motion. So what do you hope? Do you expect to flush out the relevant information then, do you?
PATERSON: Well, there's a couple of things we need to unpack here. Senator Hanson has a right to table documents and she has a right to move a motion. That doesn't mean that we agree that Senator Payman should be referred to the High Court under section 44. That would be a separate question, which we would have to have to vote on separately. And based on the evidence that I'm aware of, I think it's unlikely that my party would vote to support to refer her to the High Court because I don't see the evidence that she's violated Section 44. The High Court requires that you've taken reasonable steps to renounce any other citizenships that you hold. And generally, for most people, that means you remove any other citizenships. But there are some people for whom they are not able to renounce their citizenship due to the nature of the regime. There is not a Taliban office that she can go to renounce her citizenship. And I understand she has legal advice to that effect.
PARK: Let's move on elsewhere. The Coalition has struck a deal to pass all three of the Albanese government's controversial migration bills, which will, amongst other things, give the government power to deport non-citizens to third countries or third party countries. Are you clear on what countries Australia might pay to do this?
PATERSON: No, the government has not been transparent about the countries that they may be negotiating with or that they are willing to enter arrangements into. And we questioned them about this in a Senate committee hearing last Thursday. All they were willing to say is that they would only enter into arrangements that would be consistent with the obligations that Australia has signed up to as part of the refugee convention, including that they would not be willing to refoul someone, that is to send someone back to a country where they face a fear of persecution.
PARK: The Coalition was able to secure minor safeguards on new powers to ban travelers from whole countries and tougher scrutiny of protection visa applications. These amendments have been criticised as unnecessarily cruel. The Greens have suggested that you are getting Labor to do your bidding. Are you?
PATERSON: Well, we negotiated with the government in good faith to try and clean up the mess that's been caused by their unconstitutional laws which were rushed through the parliament before Christmas last year. Part of the package of laws deals with that and other parts of the package deal with long held Coalition priorities for our migration system, in particular the safety and security of immigration detention centres and the officers who work in those detention centres, including from Border Force, for example, to be able to ban mobile phones in those centres because they have been used to run drug smuggling rings. And the government has engaged with us in good faith and they have agreed to this package of reforms.
PARK: Okay, so in May the Coalition called for the mandatory consideration of the best interests of the child and diaspora communities before exercising new ministerial powers. Was this on the table in your negotiations with Labor?
PATERSON: I don't want to breach the confidence of private negotiations with the government, otherwise we wouldn't be able to have them. But there was a negotiation. There was back and forth and we agreed to what we think are important limitations on the power of the Minister to declare a country a removal concerned country. For example, its sunsetted after a country is determined to be a removal concern country after three years and the Minister is also expected to table a list of reasons for why a country should be declared.
PARK: Senator James Paterson is with me on Radio National Drive. Following the Coalition's deal with the Albanese Government to pass a suite of controversial immigration bills you've been pushing back on the Albanese government, Senator, and the claims of public interest immunity over scores of submissions to an independent review into national security think tanks. Why is it important that these documents are made public?
PATERSON: I think Australians have a right to know who is seeking to influence this review, whether they may be Australians or entities, companies or even foreign governments and what they are lobbying the government to do.
PARK: Even if it undermines the process of decision making and policy development in Australia? That was the quote from Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, Patrick Gorman.
PATERSON: I don't understand how a submission to a government inquiry, if it was released, would possibly undermine the cabinet process. There is confidentiality around the cabinet documents, but that generally only relates to the documents of cabinet themselves or things which go to the nature of the decisions facing cabinet. Not submissions to an inquiry, which may make a report, which may go to cabinet, which may attract the consideration of cabinet. I mean, it would be a pretty significant expansion of the terms of cabinet confidentiality to protect submissions in this way. And one that I think is not consistent with this government's promise to be transparent.
PARK: In August, it was reported that this review might recommend cutting funding to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, which I think receives about $4 million a year from the Government. Does that concern you?
PATERSON: Yes, I would be very concerned about that for two reasons. One, ASPI does good work, which informs public debate about national security matters that I don't think anyone else is capable of doing.
PARK: But is that precisely because they do receive government funding? The source of this complaint is that it really gives them a competitive advantage over other think tanks.
PATERSON: Well, many other think tanks like the Lowy Institute, like the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney and others, receive Commonwealth funding as well to do this research. But the main reason why I'd be concerned if ASPI's funding was cut is that it was one of the demands made by the Chinese embassy in their list of 14 demands during the pandemic. They said that funding for think tanks like ASPI should be cut because ASPI criticised the Chinese Communist Party. If the Albanese government were to give in to that demand of the Chinese Communist Party, that would be a very retrograde step, that would undermine our democracy and our sovereignty. And it would have a chilling effect for other researchers who are taxpayer funded, who are doing research which might also displease the Chinese Communist Party. It would send a message that your government will not back you if you do things which are critical of the Chinese government. And that is not a healthy thing in a democracy.
PARK: We'll have to leave it there. Liberal Senator for Victoria, James Paterson, thank you so much for your time this afternoon.
ENDS
