February 6, 2025
JAMES PATERSON: Good morning. Well, once again, when it comes to national security and community safety, we see Peter Dutton and the Coalition leading, and we see Anthony Albanese and the Labor Party following. It is only because of the advocacy of the Coalition that tough new laws will pass the Parliament today, which will include mandatory minimum sentences for terrorism offences. When we first called for these reforms several weeks ago to reassert deterrence, to send a strong signal to the people responsible for this campaign of terror, the Prime Minister and his senior ministers rubbished the need for any mandatory minimum sentences. But they have now conceded under political pressure that they are necessary. But if you're going to have a Prime Minister who's a cheap imitation of Peter Dutton, who goes along with Peter Dutton's ideas, after weeks of being dragged kicking and screaming to do so, when you have an election coming up, why wouldn't you just choose the real thing? Why wouldn't you just choose a strong leader who has the right instincts on national security and who can make the tough decisions in our national interest to protect Australians?
JOURNALIST: What will be the benefits of mandatory sentences?
PATERSON: I think there are three main benefits of mandatory minimum sentences. The first is it sends a very strong message to the people responsible for these crimes that there are very serious consequences if and when they're hopefully caught. The second thing is the community will be better protected because these people will be put away behind bars for longer than they otherwise would be. And the third is the victims of this crime will have a strong sense of justice that an appropriate penalty has followed for these heinous crimes.
JOURNALIST: There are real concerns about mandatory minimum sentences. What's being done to mitigate concerns that, you know, this is a deterrent for cooperation with police and it could be a deterrent for people to, you know, I guess, dobbing in their accomplices.
PATERSON: I don't have the same philosophical objections to mandatory minimum sentences that the Labor Party does. And so I really think it's up to them to explain why they have changed their mind about mandatory minimum sentences. But even if we conceded that those were issues, I think it is far outweighed by the fact that we have a domestic terrorism crisis targeting one religious and ethnic community that is involved in the firebombing of synagogues, childcare centres, cars and businesses that belong to that community that has utterly terrorised them. And so, in times like this, strong action is necessary. Peter Dutton and the Coalition have the strength to do that. Anthony Albanese and the Labor party wouldn't do it unless they're forced to do so.
JOURNALIST: What do you make of the strategy to announce this in the Federation Chamber at 7:30 pm at night?
PATERSON: Well, I think it's quite clear that the government is embarrassed by this, that they've been humiliated into this backdown, that they don't have the courage of their convictions. They voted against mandatory minimum sentences in the Senate on Tuesday when I moved the motion calling for them. They have been rubbishing the idea for weeks. It is against their national platform. And so I think they hoped that people wouldn't notice. I think they hoped that people wouldn't realise and they want to get this through, get this done, because they might not be proud of what they're doing, but they recognise now that it's necessary.
JOURNALIST: What did you or the Coalition make of Allegra Spender's amendments? Say, obviously they're not going to go through, but do you believe that there needs to be hate speech laws strengthened here federally as well, as obviously New South Wales is doing it?
PATERSON: The Coalition won't be supporting the Allegra Spender's amendment, and I understand the government won't be either. I think the view of both the governments and the Coalition and many religious leaders, including Christian leaders but also Imams, is that it had a very great risk of unintended consequences, a very great risk of capturing conduct that we might dislike, but that’s nowhere near as serious as the conduct that this legislation is aimed at. The problem that we have had in this country since the 7th of October is incitement to violence against one particular religious and ethnic community overwhelmingly; the Jewish community has been the substantial target of it. And what we need to capture is that urging of violence and that threatening of violence against that community. Ms Spender's amendments go far further than that and could have unintended consequences.
JOURNALIST: Are there any other laws you want to see to combat antisemitism, or has this sort of ticked all of your boxes so far?
PATERSON: Well, this is a good start. But what now needs to accompany these laws is action, actual enforcement of these laws, because we have, frankly, a law enforcement crisis since the 7th of October. People have behaved with impunity, openly defying laws like the prohibited hate symbols legislation by waving the flags of listed terrorist organisation in the streets of our major cities week in and week out, without any consequences. So we need federal and state police to put their shoulder to the wheel we need the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General, and the Home Affairs Minister, to back them with very clear expectations and resources to make sure these laws can be enforced, these people are caught and the consequences are clear.
JOURNALIST: Was the Prime Minister's response to Trump's Gaza plan adequate? Should he criticised some potential breaches of international law if it were to be carried out?
PATERSON: Well, I did think I was a bit rich for the Prime Minister to be so frustrated with the press gallery that they wouldn't ask him about his health announcement when a major international story was breaking. It's understandable that the media and the community have an interest in these matters, and he should be able to answer those questions. Speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party, our longstanding position in support of a two-state solution has not changed. We do believe that is the most durable solution to the peace process in Israel-Palestine. We continue to support that.
JOURNALIST: If Petter Dutton becomes Prime Minister and Trump tries to go ahead with this plan, will Peter Dutton try to talk him down or what would the Coalition do?
PATERSON: Look, I think that's quite speculative at this stage. It really is an idea only in a very embryonic form. I think we have to understand much more about it, and the president's intention is to follow through on it. But we'll continue to be guided by both our national interest and our values. And that dictates a two-state solution, which is critically negotiated between the parties, unlike the Labor Party, which has walked away from decades of bipartisanship on this issue and now believes in unilaterally imposing a Palestinian state without a peace process.
JOURNALIST: Do you believe that what Donald Trump has suggested at the moment amounts to ethnic cleansing?
PATERSON: That's not the language I would use only because this is a very embryonic idea. We have limited information about it. But as I said, our view remains the same. The two state solution is the most durable solution to this problem.
JOURNALIST: Where does the U.S. fit in two states, in a two-state solution?
PATERSON: Well, the two states are a Palestinian state and an Israeli state. And we believe in the self-determination of both peoples. We believe that they should be able to exist securely and within safe borders, both in Palestine and in Israel.
JOURNALIST: If Trump asked for further military support, potentially to wipe out Hamas or even for the whole plan, what should Australia do? We've never said no to the US in the past.
PATERSON: That we're getting kind of wildly speculative now, speculation, on speculation and until there was a concrete proposal, we really couldn't comment. Thank you.
ENDS
