November 16, 2023
PETER STEFANOVIC: Let's go straight back to Canberra because standing by is the Shadow Home Affairs Minister James Paterson. I know you've got a busy morning, James, so appreciate your time. First, I want to get your response to your opponent's legislation today, or proposed legislation, ankle bracelets, curfews, strict curfews and jail time for potential breaches of visa conditions is that enough? What are your thoughts on it?
JAMES PATERSON: Good morning, Peter. I've just come directly from the briefing that the government has offered us, on the bill which occurred an hour and 45 minutes before they planned to introduce the bill into the parliament. It's not a big bill. It's 18 pages long. Frankly it's pretty thin and all it does is the absolute bare minimum required before the parliament leaves. Our preliminary view is it doesn't go anywhere near far enough because none of the now 84 people who have been released, which let's remember, they include murderers, rapists and child sex offenders will be re-detained or otherwise protected from the community as a result of this bill. Really, the main thing this bill does is just put in place the provisions that the visa conditions already was supposed to impose. And the government has been saying for almost a week now, 'but don't worry these people have been released into the community on strict visa conditions.' Well, it emerged yesterday that the government finally admitted that those visa conditions are not enforceable. That there were no consequences if there were breaches and the main thing this bill does is make sure that's the case. Well it should have always been the case, and if this is all the government was going to do, that should be introduced into the Senate on Thursday, last week straight after the High Court's ruling.
STEFANOVIC: There is the threat of jail time for breaching visa conditions. I mean, what else could they do?
PATERSON: Well, we have been calling for a week now for the government to look at the terrorism framework, which includes preventative detention. It includes continuing detention. It includes extended supervision orders and it includes control orders. None of those are in this bill. None of those are going to be applied to this cohort and the government has to explain why none of these violent and dangerous people released into the community are going to be re-detained because, frankly, if they are still able to be out there, freely walking around, then they pose a risk to the Australian community, and not one that we will tolerate.
STEFANOVIC: So tough on the laws that the court is using?
PATERSON: Well, absolutely. I mean, it would have been an option for the government to have introduced a scheme like the high-risk terrorist offenders scheme, which would have detained or preventatively detained people who have been released into the community. They're not even attempting to do that in this bill.
STEFANOVIC: Okay, so as things stand, will you support the legislation?
PATERSON: Well, we're looking at it very closely. As I said, we've only had it for about an hour now this morning, and we're having a party room meeting to consider it shortly. But our starting point is it doesn't go far enough. It needs to be beefed up. We will look at whether or not we can draft amendments to strengthen the bill or whether or not they can be moved. Bear in mind it is going into the House of Representatives at 9:00 am and we've only had it since 7:15 this morning.
STEFANOVIC: You would be brave to turn it down, would you not?
PATERSON: Well, look, we've said that we're prepared to wait and stay here. We don't need to go home, the Senate it's already sitting tomorrow anyway. We'll stay here all weekend, if necessary, to get this right. We're in no rush. If the government wants to rush away out of Canberra, then that's a matter for them. But we're happy to stay here to get this right, to actually protect the community, not just give them illusory protections.
STEFANOVIC: Sure. But I mean, you'd be aware that opens you up to attack if you reject it.
PATERSON: Well Peter, this is not on us. This is on the government, they should have introduced a bill on Thursday last week when the Senate was sitting and they should been introducing a bill now that would actually deal with this problem and actually removes the risk for the community rather than just putting this band-aid fix on the problem. I mean, this really is the absolute bare minimum of what they could have done, we think it should go a lot further.
STEFANOVIC: Okay, just finally here, James, I mean, I know been asked this a few times this week, but Clare O’Neil said this morning that we're up to her. She wouldn't allow this to happen. It was a court decision at the end of the day. So what should they have done?
PATERSON: They should have been ready. First of all, they should have been ready for the court decision with draft legislation ready to go. In June in a preliminary hearing, Justice Gleeson of the High Court sent a very strong signal about what the court was ultimately going to decide. And in any High Court case that challenges the constitutional validity of an important piece of national security protection, there must always be a plan B, there must always be a draft bill. It must always be ready to go and in fact, Clare O'Neil was saying only yesterday in the media that we could never out legislate the High Court and there was nothing that the government could do about this. Well, the government has been embarrassed into acting by pressure the opposition has put on them, I’m not sure we would left at all this week without any action had we not asked the questions we've been asking this week. So they should have been ready to go and they should be pursuing every possible lawful option to protect the community, and I don't think they're done that.
STEFANOVIC: Alright, Should the Prime Minister be here for it? Or do you think it's important that he's in California?
PATERSON: I do think the Prime Minister's international travel is important, is in the national interest. But while he is here he should be dealing with these things, he should have signed this off before he left. He should of seen this through the parliament before he left. There was nothing stopping the government introducing this in the Senate last week. It could have passed the House this week.
STEFANOVIC: That's a little different to what Peter Dutton was saying yesterday?
PATERSON: No, I don't think it is. Peter was saying the Prime Minister shouldn't leave until these things are fixed. And because the Prime Minister hasn't fixed those things in time, that's on the Prime Minister. There was plenty of time for him to fix this. There was plenty of time to act on this. It didn't have to wait until he's out of the country and I don't know why he feels the need not be here to make sure that it passes.
STEFANOVIC: James Paterson. Good to have you with us. Thanks so much for your time on a busy morning.
ENDS
