November 16, 2023
JAMES PATERSON: Well good morning, I attended a briefing this Morning at 7:15 on the government's proposed solution to deal with the problem of the High Court's ruling and the 84 people who've now been released into the community, which includes convicted murderers, rapists and child sex offenders. The bill as we understand is going to be introduced the House of Representatives at 9 a.m. this morning, and I've got it with me. It is the absolute bare minimum required to deal with this problem. It is only 18 pages long. It's frankly pretty thin. And if this is all the government was going to do, it should have been ready on Thursday last week when the Senate was sitting, and it should have already passed the House of Representatives on Monday and provided at least a minor level of protection for the community in the meantime. But what it doesn't do is ensure that any of these high-risk offenders who are out there in the community are re-detained, none of them will go back into custody as a result of this bill passing. All it does really is enforce the conditions of visas, which the government already said were being enforced. The government said the visa conditions were mandatory, but we learnt yesterday when the government finally admitted the fact, they weren't mandatory at all that was unenforceable and had offered no protection to the community at all. That's really all this Bill does. If that was all the government was going to do, they should have done it a week ago. What they really should be doing is making sure that these dangerous offenders are off the streets.
JOURNALIST: Dose the opposition support the bill?
PATERSON: We've got our party room processes this morning and we will discuss the bill. What we are looking at is whether any amendments can be moved in the short time that we have this morning to strengthen this bill to actually offer some meaningful protections to the community.
JOURNALIST: Do ankle bracelets and curfews go far enough?
PATERSON: No they don't, ankle bracelets and curfews mean that during the day these people will be out in the community. They can go to work, they can go to school, they can go to shopping centres, they can go to sporting centres. They can go out in the community. And some of them, frankly, should not be there, they pose to high a risk to the community. And the government doesn't seem willing to test the proposition that, for example, a high-risk terrorist offender regime could be applied to some of this cohort. That a preventative detention order could be applied or a control order could be applied or continuing detention order could be applied.
JOURNALIST: What makes you think those things wouldn't just fly in the face of what the High Court ruled and be ruled invalid as well?
PATERSON: There is always constitutional risk with legislation. If you are scared by constitutional risk, then you shouldn't be a legislator. And even if the High Court subsequently ruled out of order a preventative detention regime that was introduced by the Parliament, well at least the community would have been protected until then. That would be many months before a case got back to the High Court and that would have offered the community some protection in the meantime. As it is for the benefit of most of summer at least these people are going to be out in the community and posing a risk to the community.
JOURNALIST: Can you see any amendments in this current moment to the bill that you'd like to suggest?
PATERSON: Well, we're looking at that right now. We're seeking advice that right now we've had this bill for just over an hour and we are seeking drafting advice right now about what amendments we can move and what additional protections we can put in place.
JOURNALIST: Should the government be negotiating with Malaysia? So in the case of the hit man potentially deporting him back on the condition that he doesn't face the death, the death penalty.
PATERSON: The government should look at all measures available to protect the community, including deporting these people where they can be deported. There is precedent for deporting people even when they do face a risk of serious penalty in foreign jurisdictions. The reality is someone who is an alleged hitman who is allegedly responsible for killing a pregnant woman is not someone who should be issued a visa to be in Australia. He clearly doesn't meet the provisions, the character provisions of the Migration Act.
JOURNALIST: The High Court ruled that immigration detention was illegal. So how would you if you were in government actually impose legislation that would reincarcerate people?
PATERSON: Well, we're not proposing immigration detention. What we're proposing is something like the high-risk terrorist offenders framework, where you can apply to a court to have someone detained in the criminal justice system and a judge will would have to sign off on that. It's very different to the immigration system. It's very different to what the High Court has called the administrative system of detention and I think the government should be willing to explore that.
JOURNALIST: Should the PM be here for all this?
PATERSON: Look, I think the Prime Minister's international travel is important and in the national interest, but he should not have left without this having been dealt with. He should not have flown out of the country this week without having dealt with this bill and there was plenty of time to deal with this before he left.
JOURNALIST: What makes you think the high-risk terrorist offender framework suits all or the majority of the cases that we're talking about here?
PATERSON: Well, it may not suit every single case, but I suspect it will suit at least some cases and I suspect at least the highest risk of that cohort could be removed from the community if the government was willing to explore this option. We're disappointed that they're not willing to do so this week. Thanks, everyone.
ENDS
