November 13, 2023
JAMES PATERSON: Well good morning, I want to touch on a couple of issues. Firstly, the Immigration Minister has announced this morning that 80 people have been released from immigration detention following the High Court's decision. This is contrary to the advice that the Minister Murray Watt gave the Senate last week when he said no one other than the applicant in the case, NZYQ would be released until the High Court has handed down its decision. Well, the High Court has not published the reasons for its decision and those people have been released. We don't know who they are. We don't know where they are. We don't know what crimes they have committed. And I have no confidence that the government is taking all the steps necessary to protect Australians from the risks that these people pose to us, because we do know some of them have committed serious, violent and sexual crimes and others have violated the character provisions of the Migration Act. So much so that many other countries in the world are unwilling to take them and they're now being released onto the streets. The government really should be much more on top of this issue. They should have put in place measures to protect the community, I'm astonished that they still have not reached out to the Opposition to say that they have a plan to deal with the problems that these people could cause to the community.
JOURNALIST: And what more should the government be doing to protect the community?
PATERSON: Look, we've provided a couple of suggestions already, which is more ideas and the government has put forward. We've said they should look at the terrorism framework and the processes in place there. For example, control orders and continuing detention orders and extended supervision orders. That's just one option. There are many others available to the government, but it doesn't seem like they were prepared. I am surprised that the Department of Home Affairs wasn't already prepared with draft legislation, that they hadn't already prepared advice for the government, that the government wasn't ready to go. And really only the government can explain why that's the case.
JOURNALIST: The government says they made the High Court decision before saying what the further measures on the table might be. Is that good enough? And do you have a view on electronic monitoring, which is something Home Affairs has previously said they should consider?
PATERSON: The High Court's reasoning would certainly be helpful in preparing any proper solution to this problem, but there are interim steps that the government could and should put in place before then that do not relate in any way to the indefinite detention of these people, but measures to control them in the community. I'm not convinced that only issuing visas with conditions attached to them is sufficient, given that the High Court has already found that these people cannot be detained pending deportation, which is what normally happens when someone breaches a condition on their visas. I'm open minded about electronic monitoring and any other method which gives the community confidence that these people are going to be monitored and that their behaviour is going to be controlled and that they don't pose a risk to the community.
JOURNALIST: You mentioned the terrorism framework and what this legislation change to think is needed here. What do you think that should look like?
PATERSON: Well, the terrorism framework is very mature. It's already laid out. It's set out in legislation, and it could just be extended to cover other types of offences or people in this category. It doesn't appear, though, that the government is considering options like this or if they are, there's no evidence that they've done so.
Thanks everyone.
ENDS
