April 17, 2024
JAMES PATERSON: Good afternoon, I would first like to make some comments about the Deputy Prime Minister's speech at the National Press Club and then I'm very happy to take any other questions. Today the Deputy Prime Minister is going to announce billions of dollars of cuts to our investment in the defence of Australia, and that's a deeply concerning thing. Let's be clear, the only reason why he needs to do so is because he's failed as Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister to go to the Expenditure Review Committee of cabinet and get the funding that our defence forces need in the most dangerous strategic environment that the government's own defence strategic review has advised them of. The truth is that almost any minister in the Albanese government has been able to go to ERC and get more money, whether it's the NDIS, the health system, the aged care system, welfare system, they've all walked away with more money. But there's one minister in this government who goes to ERC and gets routinely rolled by his colleagues and comes back empty handed and the Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister. That would be dangerous and irresponsible at any time. But it's particularly dangerous and irresponsible when we know that our strategic circumstances are more dire than they have ever had been before. What we need from this government is strength, not weakness, when it comes to national security and defence.
JOURNALIST: Mr. Paterson, are you expecting the government to win their case against ASF17 in the High Court today?
PATERSON: I certainly hope that we do. It's only at the first hearing of this case. It's not necessarily that we'll get a decision today. It might take some months before we get a decision, but the government seems very confident about this case. And some independent constitutional experts have said that the government is likely to win its case. The flow on consequences of if the government would not win its case would be very profound for the system of mandatory detention in Australia.
JOURNALIST: If they did lose, would you be willing to support tougher deportation laws passing through Parliament?
PATERSON: Not only will we be willing to support it, we've said that if necessary, if it was an urgent ruling that we could bring the Senate back and pass the legislation that's already before the Parliament into this, if it's necessary. But that would require the government to lose the case and demonstrate how they intended to use these proposed powers to deal with that decision and that cohort. So far, they've been unwilling in either private briefings or public hearings, to make the link between those two things and to explain to us how they would intend to use it.
JOURNALIST: ASF17's lawyers claim that sending him back would be an effective death sentence. Do you think that means that Australia has some duty or responsibility to allow him to stay here? While the government actively looks for another country to settle him in?
PATERSON: I'm strongly supportive of third country resettlement options for people who've been found to be owed protection. If we can't settle them here because of the means or the way in which they came to our country, and they are owed protection, they should be resettled in a third country. But we have an independent process for assessing whether someone is owed protection. This particular person has been through that process and has not been found to be owed protection. And so we don't have any obligations legally under international law beyond that which we've already signed up to under the Refugee Convention. So it certainly might be the case that people don't want to go back home, don't want to go to their country of origin. But unless we have a legal obligation to protect them, then we don't have an obligation to keep them here.
JOURNALIST: If the government, wins this case, do you think there's no need for their laws? And they might just put them on the backburner?
PATERSON: We think there is a genuine public policy problem here when you have a non-cooperative person who has exhausted their legal options and still refuses to participate in their own deportation where they've been found to be owed no protection, we still think that's a problem. What we want to understand is how this particular set of laws solves that problem and does so in a proportionate way. The truth is, in that hearing and in that inquiry process so far, there's not been a single non-government witness that is provided any support for the legislation. In fact, as of Monday, 102 submissions were made to the committee. 101 opposed the bill. The only one that's supported was the Department of Home Affairs. So the government really has to make their own case for these laws and their necessary safeguards and oversights for these significant powers.
JOURNALIST: Do you have you received any other advice about how many people could be affected by the decision if ASF17 was to win this case? We've heard some comments from the department, but have you heard the same thing?
PATERSON: We can only go back to two sources. One is what the department says as part of this inquiry, which is that, potentially these laws apply to thousands of people, but that the most likely cohort is 150 to 200 people. You can also go back to the Solicitor General's evidence in the NZYQ case where he said about 350 people were potentially affected. Now we know 153 have been released so far. If there are further cases which reaffirm that decision or expand the scope of that decision, then I think we get into that sort of cohort. That would be of concern because, frankly, I don't think the government's done a very good job of monitoring and protecting the community against the risk posed by that original 153 let alone if it becomes bigger.
JOURNALIST: Back on the defence budget, is it a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul? Are we going to see money going to missiles, ships and submarines. Taken out of say Army? And how much of GDP should the government be spending on defence?
PATERSON: Well, prior to the election. Anthony Albanese said they would spend whatever they needed to spend to defend Australia. And it's very clear that they're not willing to actually do that. That was just a rhetorical promise, not a real one that they intended on delivering because there has been cuts across the board. I'm particularly worried about the massive cuts to Army capability, on the basis that we're going to know exactly what form of conflict we are going to be entering into the future. We can't predict that. We need a force that's capable of fighting in all scenarios in defending our country. And we are a first world, wealthy country. We should have a capable military across all domains, not just 1 or 2 domains. The fact that they are cutting some things to pay for other things shows that they're just not willing to expand defence spending as they need to fund the capabilities which we clearly need.
JOURNALIST: Are you satisfied with the reasoning provided for not changing the terrorism threat level?
PATERSON: At the moment, I don't have any reason to second guess the expert assessment of ASIO, which is responsible for making those recommendations. I know they are and I know they would be reconsidering it very carefully after the events of the weekend, considering the other sources of data that they draw upon and also, since the 7th October, the heightened community tensions we've seen. So it needs to be under constant review, and if it needs to be an increase I've got confidence that the Director General of ASIO will recommend that, and I hope the government would accept it.
JOURNALIST: If the government does lose this ASF17 case. Isn't that a bit of a bad look for the opposition? Given that you were the ones who blocked the laws that potentially could have dealt with that?
PATERSON: Well, that requires a couple of things to happen. First, for the government to lose the case and second, for them to lose the case before the Parliament naturally returns in May. And I don't think either of those preconditions have been met and may never be met. But if those extenuating circumstances did arise, that's why we said we'd be happy to bring the Senate or the Parliament back if need be to pass the laws.
JOURNALIST: On the terrorist incident. We've seen reports that potentially his community were aware he was being radicalised. Do you think ASIO and the AFP were across this and potentially this could have been stopped and this teenager could have been dealt with earlier?
PATERSON: I think if there were people in the community aware of this radicalisation and they didn't report that, that that's very unfortunate because the history of Australia's success post 9/11 in dealing with the extremist threat has relied on people coming forward with tip offs and advice. It's very important that ASIO and the federal police have good relationships with communities, so they trust them to do that. And if that hasn't happened, then that's something that needs to be very carefully examined. Sometimes, though, to be fair to our law enforcement and intelligence agencies, particularly in the case of lone wolf actors, particularly if they are self-radicalising online, there isn't as many opportunities to intercept that, to disrupt that, to prevent that from happening. And we don't know the full facts of this case how this person became radicalised just yet.
JOURNALIST: Just one more from a colleague, do you think the mass killing of mostly women on Saturday should have been considered a terrorist attack?
PATERSON: I think it's very important that politicians don't second guess the assessment of experts without very good reason to do so. And I have seen some politicians out there pre-emptively declaring that this was, or looked like or might of been a terrorist attack, in contravention of the advice that we have so far from police. Police have better access to information than we do about that, and I'm sure they will not hesitate to classify it as a terrorist incident if there is the facts to support it. But if there isn’t, it doesn't assist anyone to go around labelling it terrorism.
JOURNALIST: Just very quickly on the Solomon Islands, they are going to the polls at the moment, there's obviously been, some ongoing concern around China's influence in the region and specifically in the Solomon Islands. Is that something that you're concerned about?
PATERSON: Absolutely. We want the democratic institutions that exist in the Pacific to be able to function, to be able to be upheld. We want the self-determination of the people of the Pacific to prevail so they can safeguard their own sovereignty and their own democracies. And Australia's got a very important role in supporting them to do that. We provide extensive support to Electoral Commissions throughout the Pacific, for example, so they can conduct elections. And we wouldn't welcome in any way any interference from outside powers, particularly authoritarian powers in a region which we are part of, which we call home.
Thanks everyone.
ENDS
