September 18, 2024
JAMES PATERSON: Good morning, Tony Burke needs to stand up and explain today why the government in secret in January this year repealed Ministerial Direction 63. Ministerial Directions 63 was issued by Scott Morrison as Immigration Minister almost a decade ago, and it stayed in place in all that time and made sure that someone on a bridging visa who committed a serious offence had their visa cancelled and were put in immigration detention while the crime against them was investigated and tried. It's a measure to protect the Australian community. What Tony Burke needs to explain today on Direction 63 is which part of it does he disagree with? Does he disagree with the part that says that “all non-citizens residing in the community are expected to abide by the law”? Does he disagree with the Australian government having a “low tolerance for criminal behaviour by non-citizens who are in the Australian community on a temporary basis”? Which part of this does the Albanese government disagree with and why did they repeal it? Why didn't they tell the Australian people, and what was their motivation in getting rid of it? Because unfortunately when it comes to ministerial directions, we can't trust this government. They stuffed up Ministerial Direction 99. They stuffed up Ministerial Direction 110 and now they've secretly rescinded a ministerial direction designed to protect the Australian community.
JOURNALIST: Kind of speculating here but, If the reason is because it might have been on legal advice because it could of been seen as punitive given the NZYQ cohort would that be satisfactory explanation?
PATERSON: Well, the government would have to make that explanation. They would have to be transparent about that. They'd have to stand up and say so. They haven't done so. They didn't even issue a press release. They didn't put the Ministerial Direction, which rescinded this order, on the Home Affairs website. They didn't tell anyone about it. So we are just left to speculate. They must explain why they've been so secretive about this. They should explain, for example, was this because they were trying to bring Palestinians into Australia? There are about 900 Palestinians on bridging visas right now. Is that the reason why this was withdrawn? Is it because they don't want them to be taken into immigration detention if they break the law in Australia?
JOURNALIST: Senator, do you welcome the expanded AUKUS pact and do you have any concerns with it given it could increase tensions in the region?
PATERSON: AUKUS is the most intimate and attractive military technology sharing partnership in the world, and my view is the first pillar of AUKUS should remain the original three members because we've got an awful lot of work to do to get that right. But it does make sense under pillar two to cooperate with other very like minded and trusted partners. It's already been announced that we've been cooperating with Japan, and adding South Korea and New Zealand and Canada, makes a lot of sense because these are technologically advanced economies. They are like minded partners and they can help all of us crack the problems in quantum computing, artificial intelligence, hypersonics, cyber security, in ways that will make the world a safer place.
JOURNALIST: Instagram today coming out announcing that it's going to roll out an age safe platform for teenagers. Just a week after we had a whole debate in Parliament regarding age verification and bans. Do you think it's coincidence on the timing?
PATERSON: Well, forgive me for being cynical. These platforms have known for some time the enormously negative impact that they have on the mental health of young people. They've done very little to combat it. It's welcome that they are finally acting but these are the kind of things that they could of rolled out at any time, over the previous years. They haven't done so, and I think that reflects badly on them. And I still think there is a very strong case for governments to act.
JOURNALIST: So this doesn't negate the need for a social media ban?
PATERSON: No, I don't think so, because a 13 year old and a 14 year old and 15 year old shouldn't be on social media. It's not good for their mental health. It's not good for their education. It's not good for their socialisation. I think there's a very strong case to get them off to keep them safe.
JOURNALIST: What did you make of the attacks targeting thousands of Hezbollah fighters overnight, exploding pagers. Does this risk inflaming tensions in the Middle East?
PATERSON: Well, this is a highly sophisticated and very patient attack. It highlights a couple of interesting things. Firstly, that supply chain security is very important. Connected devices are highly risky. And probably every intelligence agency in the world is waking up this morning and asking themselves, how do we stop this happening to us? And if we chose to, how do we make this happen to our enemies? If it is confirmed that Israel is behind this operation, it wouldn't surprise me and I think they'll be well within their rights, given what Hezbollah has done to them in return. And this is just another example of why we have a very serious situation in the Middle East. Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation, is listed in its entirety in Australia and we should stand with our friends and allies in Israel in defending themselves against this attack.
JOURNALIST: Israel still hasn't accept responsibility, but as you say, it is a likely prospect. A ten year old girl is dead though. Do you think it's an adequate action?
PATERSON: Look, it's not for me to pass moral judgement from 12,000km away about the choices that Israel has to make to defend itself while it's under attack simultaneously by three terrorist organisations who deliberately target civilians. But the truth is, in military operations it is impossible to conduct them without any civilian casualties at all. And the decision that all military commanders and governments have to make is, is it justified given the nature of the threat that they face? The nature of the threat that Israel faces from Hezbollah is a very serious one. We saw only a few months ago Israeli children killed on a soccer field because they were hit by strikes from Hezbollah and anything they can do to disrupt Hezbollah to make their business model more difficult, I understand why they're doing.
JOURNALIST: Was it awkward yesterday sitting next to the Greens in the Senate chamber?
PATERSON: No, it wasn't. In the Senate chamber on any given day, we sit next to members of every party, and if we are uncomfortable doing that from time to time we are in the wrong business. It's often the case that we agree, as nearly the entire chamber did yesterday, that the government got this wrong, their housing policies won't make a difference. This is an extraordinary amount of public money to spend for a very little return on investment. And the housing crisis is only going to get worse on this government's watch because they've got no good ideas to actually address it.
JOURNALIST: The government's going to try and force more votes today on more bills. Are you worried about being viewed as obstructionist if you're going to vote down the Help to Buy, Future Made in Austria, EPA, potentially more?
PATERSON: No. We will vote for good policy and we will vote against bad policy. We voted for the NDIS changes. We voted for the CFMEU legislation. We've reached an in-principle agreement with the government on aged care. We're willing to be constructive and bipartisan in the national interest as we often are on national security matters as well. But when the government puts forward half baked ideas, we proudly vote against them. And frankly, I don't think the Prime Minister's threat of a double dissolution election is a credible one. That's the kind of threat that you make when you are ten points up in the polls, not when you're behind in the polls. A double dissolution election right now would give the Prime Minister a much worse Senate and probably lose his House majority. So we're not intimidated by that and we'll continue to vote in the national interest.
JOURNALIST: CFMEU administrators have put out a public statement this morning, basically expanding an investigation, setting up an integrity unit inside the administration process at the CFMEU. Given Geoffory Watson’s report, that's been delivered to the Administrator how serious are some of these findings not just in Victoria, your home state but around the country.
PATERSON: Look, it's no surprise at all that the administrator has discovered that the problems within the CFMEU are even worse than what he thought they were when he took on that role. Because the CFMEU is rotten to its core, its business model is to be corrupt, its business model is to be criminal. They have been open about that for many years. The surprising thing is that anyone is surprised. Of course this organisation is infiltrated from the top to the bottom with criminal elements and I frankly wonder whether or not it is reformable. I wonder whether an administrator, no matter how diligent and motivated, can actually fix those problems or whether or not we would be better off just to get rid of the CFMEU and deregister them and start a new clean union that can replace it, or allow other unions that have better reputations to take up the space left by the CFMEU.
Thanks, everyone.
ENDS
