|
November 16, 2023
ANDREW BOLT: Joining us now is the Opposition's Home Affairs Spokesman, James Paterson thanks for your time. Where is this amended bill to control these free detainees up to in parliament right now.
JAMES PATERSON: Well Andrew, I just left the Senate, where we are now in the committee stage of the bill, considering those six amendments that the government has agreed, but the opposition has proposed, which really significantly strengthen the bill. And can I tell you Andrew, I was in both of those meetings today. I was in the one this morning where the government came to us and they told us this is the strongest possible bill that we could have and it's take it or leave it. And I was in the meeting in the afternoon where they said, actually, we're very happy to consider your amendments, which they have now agreed to. And in the process we have a much stronger bill than the government initially proposed and which they said could not be any possibly stronger. I mean, as you outlined in your editorial, Andrew, some of the things that were omitted from their bill was a restriction on these people going near schools and childcare centres, including if they were child sex offenders. Omitted from their bill was it if they were offender against a person, for example, a rapist, but they could not be restricted going near a person. Omitted from their bill was any mandatory minimum sentences because while they talked about a five year sentence. We all know that most judges wouldn't dare apply anything close to five years and therefore a mandatory minimum is necessary. So we do have a much better bill but only because Peter Dutton stared down the government, refused their take it or leave it offer and proposed, constructively, some very important amendments to make this bill much tougher.
BOLT: Way to just put out there, I mean, I shouldn't be laughing because it is absolutely staggering that the government thought it could dump murderers and rapists and paedophiles and maybe even a terrorist, we don't know, dumped them in the street and think, Oh, no biggie, you know. I mean, how on earth did they make such a mistake? I mean, I know that's a free kick for you, but seriously, I'm staggered.
PATERSON: Well Andrew, I think two major errors have happened here. Firstly, was the error of not being ready for the High Court's ruling. Justice Gleason warned in a preliminary hearing in June, basically put up in red lights, we don't like this bill, we don't like this law, and we're probably going to overturn it. But despite that warning, when the High Court finally handed down its decision on Wednesday of last week, it was not a draft bill ready to go. In fact, the Senate was sitting at that time and they could have brought a bill into the Senate on Thursday and legislated it, they could have passed it in the House on Monday. And frankly, I think a lot of this concern would have been avoided if they'd done that, but they weren't ready for it. That was the first mistake. The second mistake, frankly, is not having the courage to push back on the legal advice and the department and make sure that this was as tough as it was. I think the government probably asked the department to produce the strongest bill you can do, accepted the department's drafting and didn't test that proposition.
BOLT: Thats yes minister stuff, James that is where you let the bureaucrats tell you what to do when you are the government, you know. But listen, the point is here though I mean, it was, I think, wrong and the high court certainly thought so, to keep people indefinitely in detention. Right. You had to have a solution at some stage. But what now do these people go through the rest of their life in Australia? with ankle bracelets and curfews. That's a bit strange. I mean, there's got to be some sort of ultimate resolution, doesn't there?
PATERSON: Andrew, that's a fair point. I agree that indefinite detention is not the solution that any government prefers or proposes. And in fact, these people were detained pending their removal, in the hope that we would find a third country that would accept them that they could be resettled in. But they were challenging cases we absolutely acknowledge that. It also wasn't acceptable for them just to be released into the Australian community with no restrictions at all, because let's remember, none of them had valid visas, they failed the character provisions of the Migration Act and therefore should not be in Australia. The only reason that they are in Australia is because the crimes they committed were so serious that no country wanted to take them, including in some cases their own and I don’t blame other countries for not wanting to take them.
BOLT: And the question is, what's next?
PATERSON: I've been calling for a week now, Andrew, for the government to consider something akin to the high risk terrorist offenders framework, which has a range of tools available to the government to protect Australians from the highest risk cohort of these offenders. Now that could include preventative and continuing detention orders if there's such an acceptable risk to the community. But it also includes extended supervision orders and control orders, which are less restrictive regimes, but give the community some comfort that these people are being monitored, are being controlled, and pose less of a risk. Now, that's something that the government has not been willing to do so far. They say that waiting now for the reasons for the High Court to be handed down, but we think they should look at it.
BOLT: But James Paterson, I tell you what, what it has underlined is a very you know, ultimate importance of stopping them from coming to Australia in the first place, which Labor has been so weak on in the past and maybe in the future, I don't know. James Paterson, thanks for your time. Really appreciate it.
ENDS
