April 15, 2024
JAMES PATERSON: Good morning, everyone, first I would like to start by expressing my condolences for the loved ones of the victims of the shocking and senseless attack at Westfield Bondi Junction on the weekend. This is the sort of event that we're not used to seeing in Australia, that we hope never to see in Australia and we hope will never happen again in Australia. It is utterly tragic and utterly senseless that six innocent people have lost their lives, and many others are still in hospital receiving treatment. At the same time, I'd like to express my admiration and respect for those civilians who stood up in a time of need and uncertainty who gave assistance to their fellow victims who rendered medical care. Who even stood in the pathway of a crazed person with a knife in order to prevent harm from being done to others, and particularly to inspector Amy Scott, a policewoman who ran into the face of danger and due to her actions, undoubtedly saved the lives of countless others. It's now time for NSW Police to be allowed to conduct their inquiries and their investigation and I know that all Australians look forward to understanding the results of those.
Secondly, today, the government will be holding a hearing, the Senate will be holding a hearing, into the government's migration removal and other measures Bill. And yet again, we see this government is running away from scrutiny. They’re running away from transparency. They’re running away from openness when it comes to this bill. This is a complex and technical bill. But submitters were only given two weeks to make submissions, which closed only on Friday. And yet today, on Monday, we are holding the only currently scheduled public hearing into this bill. I'm concerned, as a result of that, that there are many independent expert witnesses that we won't hear from, there are many multicultural and diaspora groups who will be silenced, who won't have the opportunity to have their say about this bill, which could have profound implications for them and their families. And I'm also concerned that we have the Department and Operation Sovereign Borders only appearing before us for one hour and 15 minutes, for something which is a highly technical and complex bill. We will only have a very limited opportunity to question
them on that and the evidence we receive from other witnesses today. I note also that other relevant witnesses like the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Attorney General's Department, the Australian Government Solicitor, the Solicitor General are all not appearing today, and we will not have an opportunity to question them. I know this bill is politically inconvenient and uncomfortable for the government, but that doesn't mean the Senate should be prevented from doing its job. We don't need to report until the 7th of May. There's plenty of time for us to hold further public hearings, to hear from further witnesses and properly examine this bill.
Finally, I just want to comment on the events over the weekend in the Middle East. The Coalition unequivocally and unambiguously stands with Israel against Iran, which is a malignant actor in the Middle East and should be unequivocally condemned for its behaviour. We call on the Albanese government to do the same. We cannot tolerate it becoming normal for countries to send hundreds of drones and missiles against other countries and cause harm and destruction. It has become normal in Ukraine with Russia. We shouldn't allow it to become normal in the Middle East from Iran. And that requires an unequivocal condemnation and action from the Albanese government. We have been calling on the Albanese government for almost a year now to list the IRGC, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, as a terrorist organisation, because that's what they are. They are the principal state sponsor of terrorism across the Middle East. And we've seen again this weekend what destabilising and destructive force they are, and they should be penalised for that.
JOURNALIST: What possible amendments, does the Coalition think could improve the operation of the government's deportation bill?
PATERSON: Well we are seeking to explore possible amendments through the parliamentary inquiry process. We want to make sure that there are no unintended consequences for the bill. We want to make sure that there are no drafting errors in the bill, and we want to make sure that the extraordinary powers to be handed to the Minister for Immigration have appropriate safeguards, and rigor put around them. Let's remember that all the Immigration Minister is required to do before banning an entire country from applying for any form of visa is to consult with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister, it is quite possible at the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister tell the Minister for Immigration it's a terrible idea and they shouldn't do so and there's nothing to stop the Immigration Minister proceeding in doing so. That's an extraordinary power, to vest in the hands of a single individual, a single minister. And we're going to look at some possible rigor to put around that process.
JOURNALIST: One of the countries that the government, would want to apply that fly in ban to is Iran, given the events of the weekend, how possible, that makes that power?
PATERSON: Well, officials and ministers have publicly, repeatedly said that this will be a diplomatic tool that might never need to be used. That the simple threat of using this, will encourage countries to take back their citizens. I think Iran has demonstrated it's fairly immune from diplomatic threats, whether from Australia, the United States, Israel or anyone else. It's kind of ludicrous to think that the Australian government threatening to ban Iranians applying for visas is all of a sudden going to change the posture of the Iranian government on this or anything else. So, really that'll be up to government witnesses to explain today how a power like this would work in a country like Iran. And if events
deteriorate in the Middle East, as we all fear they will, how on earth you going to force people back to Iran under those circumstances?
JOURNALIST: Initially, when this bill was thrown up some of your concerns were that unintended consequences would be the restarting or the encouraging of people smugglers to kick into gear again, how do you see that happening?
PATERSON: We remain concerned about this because right now it's very common for someone who wants to make a protection claim in Australia to obtain a valid tourist or other visa, fly here to Australia and then make that protection claim from within Australian territory. If you ban a country from being able to apply for a tourist or any other sort of visa, if no one from that country can come here by plane and then apply for protection onshore, then the only means for them to do so, would be to attempt to do so by boat. We're not encouraging them to do so, but we're worried that desperate people might think that's the only pathway for them. And I want to make sure the government understands this risk and has taken steps to address this. I have no confidence based on their recent performance that they have. Of the 13 attempted boat arrivals since the election, three have made it all the way through to the Australian mainland, dropped people off and left again without being detected. Now if that's happening at the same time as you're banning people from applying for more visas, I am worried one of the unintended consequences of this bill will be even more people getting on boats.
JOURNALIST: Just on supermarkets, there is an inquiry going on into that today as well. Where is your party room at in terms of negotiations around whether is going to be any kind of intervention into supermarket giants.
PATERSON: We'll Peter Dutton and David Littleproud have publicly said that we are looking very closely at a targeted, narrow, appropriate divestment power for the supermarket industry only. That's something that the Shadow Cabinet has discussed, and it's something that Angus Taylor and David Littleproud are working on and will bring forward further details in due course. But we think the Albanese government is not willing to do enough to protect Australians from the shocking cost of living crisis that they are facing particularly at the grocery checkout. They appear not to be willing to do anything at all to take on the supermarkets and protect Australian consumers.
JOURNALIST: If your party set on divestiture power specifically or are you looking at other options as well?
PATERSON: I think divestiture power will be part of the solution. There's a lot of other international markets that have these powers. It would be a very targeted power that would have appropriate safeguards. And, for example, would deal with the problem of land banking by supermarkets, who in say a regional centre where there's only 1 or 2 supermarkets, buy up other possible sites that could be developed for a supermarket and withhold it from the market, prevent it from being developed. That's the kind of case study where a divestiture power could be applied in a way that would support competition, support consumers, and better outcomes.
JOURNALIST: You mentioned the AGS and Solicitor General not appearing for deportation bill inquiry. Does that indicate you have concerns about the legality of aspects about the bill? And why aren't they appearing, did they decline? were they blocked by Labor Senators?
PATERSON: Well I can't talk about confidential committee deliberations. I'll just note that the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee is a government dominated committee. Any questions about witnesses appearing before that hearing really are a matter for the chair to explain, the government appointed chair to explain. It's my view, which I’m stating on the public record that one public hearing with limited government witnesses, with limited time is not sufficient to consider this bill. We have plenty of time to hold further hearings throughout this recess in the lead up to the budget. We are only required to report by the 7th of May there's nothing stopping us holding an additional hearing with additional witnesses.
JOURNALIST: ASF17 is in the High Court on Wednesday. What are your concerns around that?
PATERSON: I'm concerned that we're having a public hearing into a bill that possibly relates to that case two days before that hearing. And I am concerned that government witnesses today will say that they are not able to any questions about that given that they have a High Court matter in just two days. It's another reason why we should have another public hearing with government witnesses after the High Court hearing, so they are less restricted in what they can share with the committee.
JOURNALIST: Are there any safeguards, that you would like to see put in place that would alleviate Coalition concerns about, banning entire nationalities under this bill?
PATERSON: Well, that's what we'll explore through the enquiry process today. What we have heard is particularly vocally from diaspora communities and multicultural communities how fearful they are about the implications. And I think it's up to the government to reassure those communities that this power won't be used in the way that hurt their loved ones.
JOURNALIST: Just quickly, on the Bondi attack. Obviously it's early days at the moment but there is some implications that this man was targeting specifically women, given the number of victims. Do you think that there needs to be any kind of look into perhaps some parts of the internet, that are promoting the kinds of, ideologies against women that perhaps this man was looking into?
PATERSON: My view is that all plausible lines of inquiry should be investigated by police, including that one. It is possible that that was a motivation, but I don't want to add to public speculation about that while the police are trying to do their job, and we should await the results of any police inquiries or coronial inquiries that occur before we lead to public policy implications from that. We have to be very careful that we are drawing the right lessons from this. If it is indeed the case, if that was the motivation of the attacker, then there will be implications that flow from that but we will have to wait and see what the police have to say.
JOURNALIST: More broadly do you think there is issues on various internet communities in terms of attitudes towards women?
PATERSON: There is no question that the internet has provided a radicalisation pathway that's much faster, then used to exist. And social media platforms in particular are part of that. There is horrific, violent, misogynistic content online and there are young men who are consuming that and I do think that it is having an impact on their world view, on their approach to the community, and their approach to women, and that is extremely regrettable. And we need to carefully consider what we can collectively do to combat that, and the responsibility that social media platforms have to combat that as well.
Thanks everyone.
ENDS
