November 27, 2024
JAMES PATERSON: Good morning. When it comes to immigration, border protection and community safety, everything this government touches turns to custard. But the opposition will not allow this government's weakness and incompetence on national security to put the Australian public in danger. We will always put public safety first. And so we have engaged in a constructive, pragmatic and bipartisan negotiation with the government over a package of immigration bills which are now before the Parliament. We have agreed to support the passage of three bills through the Parliament this week, which will remedy the government's unconstitutional laws for ankle bracelets and curfews passed in the wake of the NZYQ decision and deal with long standing issues that go to the heart of the integrity of our immigration system.
The first bill that we will support is in relation to the NZYQ cohort, ensuring that it is put on stronger legal footing that they can have ankle bracelets and curfews imposed and we expect the government to actually use these powers in the way they have failed to when it comes to, for example, preventative detention orders one year on from the passage of that emergency legislation. The second thing we've asked the government to do is to bring forward their immigration detention centres powers. This is a long held objective of the Coalition. Twice when we were in government we sought to legislate these powers because we recognised that detention centres were becoming lawless places and that Border Force and other officials were being put in danger by immigration detainees who were using mobile phones and other devices to run drug smuggling networks from inside. The government has agreed to bring that forward. And finally, we've asked the government to bring back the immigration removal powers bill which has languished before the Senate since May this year, when the government told us it was an urgent piece of legislation that had to pass in 48 hours, but they failed to bring it on for any votes. We have secured two important amendments to that bill. The government has agreed to sunset the power to designate a removal concerned country after three years, and the government has also agreed that the Minister should promulgate a list of reasons that a removal concern country is designated by the Minister.
These are important reforms the Coalition has negotiated in good faith with the government because we will not allow their mess and incompetence when it comes to community safety and national security to harm the Australian public any more than it already has. Dan.
DAN TEHAN: Thanks, James. We are basically running the immigration system for the government because they have failed to deliver it themselves. You will remember the removals power bill was rushed into this Parliament and had to be passed in 24 hours. One short senate inquiry aimed at fixing it and then for six months, the government did completely and absolutely nothing. The only thing it did was basically move the Home Affairs Minister Clare O'Neil and the Immigration Minister Andrew Giles from their portfolios because of their incompetence. We have worked cooperatively, constructively, with Tony Burke to put these three measures into the Parliament and to make sure that they are passed. It is embarrassing that the government doesn't have the wherewithal to do it themselves. But as part of the agreement we struck, we’ve also asked the government to go further. There was a review which was undertaken by Christine Nixon and the government has still not implemented all the recommendations that we think they need to continue to make our immigration system work well. Those recommendations in particular, recommendations 29, 31, and 32, the government agreed that they would seek to pass in this term of parliament. And one of the things we will be calling on is if we come back in February, as the Prime Minister has said we will, then we expect the government to have legislation ready on those three recommendations as well, which will mean that when it comes to people claiming asylum, and we're seeing record numbers, especially of international students claiming asylum at this time, then we will be able to deal with that issue in a much more succinct way and in a way that does not clog up our courts. So once again, this is us setting the agenda when it comes to national security and immigration. And the government, I hope, will admit that thanks to us and our cooperation our immigration system is getting to a state where it is not a complete and utter joke. Thank you.
JOURNALIST: When the bill first went to inquiry the Coalition called for amendments to protect the rights of children and safeguards against separation of families. Why are those amendments not happening to be announced now, did the government refuse to accept them or did you just pretend to care and then drop them?
PATERSON: Well I want to respect the confidentiality of our negotiations with the government. But there were negotiations, and we engaged pragmatically and in the national interest with the government. And you're right, we did believe that that bill should go to an inquiry. Recall that the government said that it couldn't possibly go to an inquiry, that it had to be passed in 48 hours. I think we've been vindicated in two respects. One, the government has agreed that there are flaws in the bill that need to be remedied by amendments. And two, it wasn't as urgent as the government said it was, and it justifies our decision to vote in the chamber to refer it to an inquiry and we've got an improved bill that will now pass, but also deals with long standing public policy issues in the immigration portfolio including people who refuse to cooperate with their own deportation after they have been found not to be refugees.
JOURNALIST: These powers will allow the government to deport people to third countries without arrangements. Where do you see that being used, and are you comfortable with some of the human rights concerns about that?
PATERSON: It's really up to the government to explain how they intend to operationalise these laws based on the advice from our departments and agencies, including Home Affairs. I think they should be transparent about their intentions about that. I think they should be open about the negotiations they may be having with third countries. We've been saying all along that a way to deal with this cohort of people who have been found not to be able to be detained indefinitely is to find third countries that will take them. The government should have done more earlier to try and identify those third countries. We hope that these new powers will allow them to do so because we have a recidivist cohort of more than 200 people. 65 have been charged with State or Commonwealth offences, serious crimes, that are out there free in the community because this government has preventively detained them or found a way to remove them.
JOURNALIST: What's your response to criticism that the trio of bills are Trump style and that they go to far beyond the recommendations of the Hume Rights Commissioner?
PATERSON: Well, we don't take advice from the Human Rights Commission on border protection and community safety, and on national security. They are a body that's got their own views and they are entitled to share them. I really think that's a question for the government. A lot of the measures in these bills are long standing Coalition objectives, when it comes to the migration system, in particular the detention centre powers bill, people like Andrew Giles and Josh Burns and Peter Kahlil in previous parliaments said that these bills were a solution in search of a problem. Well, right now immigration detention centres are out of control on this government's watch, and I think they've recognised that their decision to vote against those bills twice in previous parliaments was not in the national interest and we have forced them to act.
JOURNALIST: You said before that the Coalition had pushed for this removals power bill that was introduced in March to go through. Can you talk me through a little bit about the decision making behind that, considering that the case that it responded to ASF17 has now not come to pass?
PATERSON: Yeah, you're right. That case was not successful as the government feared it would be in the High Court. But the bill still has merits in its own ways. We've always said there is a public policy problem here. There are people in our country who have been found not to be refugees, who have used the legal system to its fullest extent to extend their stay. And then have refused to cooperate with their own removal, and the government should have power to compel them to do so. We think that's appropriate, and we think it is appropriate to have the power to designate a country as a removal concern country so that we can deal with this problem and prevent it from increasing in the future. But we wanted additional safeguards put around that power, and the government has agreed to that.
JOURNALIST: What is your expectation for how swiftly the government should start deporting people, what is your bench mark?
PATERSON: It should happen immediately. The government should be able to finalise agreements with third countries as soon as the legislation has passed. I assume and hope that they are engaged in those negotiations already, that they're ready to go now that the legislation provides a framework for them to put those measures in place. We hope we don't see a repeat of their failure to use the preventive detention powers. It is now for almost 12 months to the day since that legislation was rushed through the Parliament before last Christmas and not a single person in this cohort has been preventatively detained, and that shows that this government is not serious when it comes to national security and community safety.
JOURNALIST: As soon as next week?
PATERSON: Well it is up to the government, but as soon as this bill receives royal assent, I don't see what the obstacles would be.
JOURNALIST: So you have no concerns that the third countries don't have to be signatories to the refugee convention and that there are no safe guards preventing people being refouled from that country to the country they are receiving protection from?
PATERSON: Home Affairs officials addressed these questions in the Senate hearing on Thursday last week. We take them at their word that it is not their intention to refoul anyone in violation of our international obligations and in government the Coalition will act consistently with those obligations as well.
JOURNALIST: Were there any amendments that the Coalition pushed for as part of these negotiations that were a must have?
PATERSON: The amendments that have succeeded we are very happy that we've achieved and that the government has agreed to them.
Thank you.
ENDS
