November 28, 2023
JOURNALIST: I just want to start with your initial thoughts on the High Court reasons?
JAMES PATERSON: The High Court's reasonings confirm a preventative detention regime is possible and it is what I've been calling for it since the 9th of November and the government could have legislated it. But now all the excuses are gone. They need to introduce legislation to the Parliament tomorrow to protect the community. We will sit as late as we need and as long as we need to make sure it can happen.
JOURNALIST: And I guess on the detail of that preventative detention, what would you like to see that regime look like? What kinds of people would you like to see covered?
PATERSON: What's been very clear for three weeks that the government could have lifted the high risk terrorist offender's regime, modified it to apply to this cohort, and made sure that they can apply to the court based on the risk the person poses to the community that they should be locked up to protect the community. Now, very clearly, the High Court has said a child sex offender is a good candidate for something like that. Incidentally, that is the person who brought a case to the court. But there are others in that cohort that we know. I think murderers and other violent offenders are in that category, too, but rapists as well. So really, I think the options are very clearly open to the government now. They need to step up and act.
JOURNALIST: Would you pass laws that would allow these people to be redetained?
PATERSON: Well, of course, the Coalition has been calling for three weeks for the government to do this. They should have been ready to go the day after the case. They should have had draft legislation ready. I really hope they now have that draft legislation ready, that it can be introduced to the parliament tomorrow, that it can pass before we leave the Parliament this week and receive royal assent and be put into place to get these people off the streets.
JOURNALIST: The fact that the high court justices were unanimous on this finding, how much significance do you put on that?
PATERSON: I think it's highly significant. It was a unanimous judgement on the legal questions, but also a unanimous judgement on the path forward for the Parliament here. Every High Court justice has said you could introduce a preventative detention regime. I think that's been clear for weeks now. There's absolutely no ambiguity left and no time for any more excuses.
JOURNALIST: Just very generically, what do you make of it?
PATERSON: Look, it's a very significant judgement by the High Court, which has now given a green light to the Parliament and the government Act. It really can be no more excuses. They've said, as we have been saying for weeks, that a preventative detention scheme can be introduced, and it would be lawful, and it can be used to get high risk people like child sex offenders off the street and into custody. So, the government must act.
JOURNALIST: And you will support that, and you'll sit for as long as possible?
PATERSON: We will sit as late as we need, we will sit as long as we need. There should be no delays. They should introduce this legislation to the parliament tomorrow and it will pass swiftly.
JOURALIST: Can I just get your immediate reaction to what's been revealed today?
PATERSON: Well, the high Court has provided a green light for the Coalition's plan for a preventative or continuing detention order regime, which we've been arguing for, for three weeks. They've said it would be clearly lawful to introduce a new regime to apply to a court, to lock up someone based on the risk they pose to the community, and they've given the example of a child sex offender as a hypothetical case as to where this could be used. So, it really can be no more excuses from the government and no more delays. They should be ready tomorrow to introduce legislation to the parliament which could pass this week and be in application straight away to get these people off the streets.
JOURALIST: There is a large range of people in that group, not just people who have committed child sex offence crimes. You know, there are people who have been convicted of murder as well. But are you suggesting that every single person could be captured by this or only those who are convicted of particular serious offences?
PATERSON: Well, we've said from the very beginning that this would apply to the highest risk offenders in the in the cohort and ultimately, it's a decision for the court to decide whether it meets the legislative criteria of risk. But obviously I think a murderer is a risk to the community, as is a child sex offender or a rapist. And I think the government should be drafting the legislation to capture as many of the cohort as possible.
JOURALIST: To how many of the cohort, though, do you think should be exempt? Because we know that there's those different crime level. So, is there a group of 30 or so that should?
PATERSON: I'd love to be able to answer that question, but without more detail from the government about the exact offences that people committed for the reasons under the character provisions of the Act, that their visas were cancelled, that's a very difficult question to answer. My starting point is as many as possible who pose a risk to the community should be off the streets and not posing risk to the community.
JOURALIST: And just your reaction to the news that there is one person that police are looking for. What does that say about the current status?
PATERSON: It is another debacle that the government is still looking for this person who has refused to have a tracking device fitted to them and has absconded in the community and they don't know where they are, that they could pose an ongoing risk to the community. That is a travesty.
JOURALIST: And just finally, in terms of the steps from now, obviously there's only a few sitting days left of the year. So what would you like to see happen in terms of legislation potentially going before the parliament?
PATERSON: Legislation should be introduced to the House of Representatives tomorrow. It should pass the parliament this week. It should receive royal assent by Friday and by next week we should be able to get these people off the streets.
JOURALIST: And just to clarify, there was this discussion about a larger group of maybe 300 people who could be affected by what the High Court decided. What do you read in the reasoning that could apply to them?
PATERSON: It's a little bit early to tell how broad the application of this will be to that cohort, and it depends on the individual facts of each of their cases. The High Court has focused its judgement on the facts of this case and has emphasised that because this person was a child sex offender and because no child sex offender has ever been resettled, that person has to be released. It is actually not clear from their judgement that they intended for the government to release all of those other people in the community. It's possible that the government has prematurely released additional people to the community that they shouldn't have when the High Court ruling is quite narrow.
JOURALIST: Does your colleague Dean Smith, who according to the Government, has written a letter wanting to see someone convicted of a child sex offence placed in custody, does he need to either retract that statement or given he's made that judgement call, which seems to be completely unaligned with the Opposition's position? Does he need to consider any roles he has in the Parliament?
PATERSON: Well, this is a very grubby attempt by the government to distract from their own failings on this issue. Dean Smith has not released anyone into the community. This government has and this government didn't have a plan to protect the community from those high risk offenders that have now been roaming around in the community weeks at a time. So really the issue here is the government's handling of it and they are trying to distract us from that.
JOURALIST: But he did provide this letter of support for someone who had committed that offence. And the Opposition has been railing against the Government over this exact issue.
PATERSON: Yeah, I wouldn't have signed a letter like that, but I think it's very clear that only the government can release people. They have released people they have no plan to deal with these people being released into the community and they should be judged for that.
JOURALIST: So, does Dean Smith need to sort of reflect on the course of action that he took?
PATERSON: That's a matter for him.
JOURALIST: On the Home Affairs department. So, when the public service does commence the search for the next secretary, what kind of candidate do you think they should be looking for?
PATERSON: That's a good question. Look, I don't have a view about suitability of people for public service appointments. That's really something only the government can do. What we want to see from the government, at the political level is leadership to make sure that next time they get surprised by a High Court decision, they're ready. And that doesn't rest on public servants. It rests on ministers to instruct the departments to be ready and to act quickly when decisions like this are handed down.
JOURALIST: Senator, you probably answered this before, before I stumbled into your press conference.
PATERSON: That's ok, it's a rolling press conference.
JOURALIST: Is your argument that because the High Court is preserving the discretion of the minister to detain people who are unacceptable risk of reoffending, that the government has acted prematurely by releasing these people?
PATERSON: The High Court is clear in its judgement that it made the decision for this applicant on the facts of his case and that it was not possible for him to be resettled due to the specific nature of the offences he committed, which in this case are child sex offences, and they appear to put great weight in the fact that no one has ever been resettled because they have committed child sex offences. Now other people in that cohort have committed other crimes, including serious crimes, but not necessarily child sex offences. So, it is possible that their prospects for resettlement were better. And the government has prematurely, without the advice of the High Court, released those people and should now revisit whether or not those people should have been released.
Thank you.
ENDS
