|
November 29, 2023
JAMES PATERSON: Well good morning, firstly I want to start with a couple comments on the reasoning that the High Court handed down yesterday afternoon and then I'm very happy to take any questions. I think there's two things that become immediately clear from the high court's ruling. The first is it is a very narrow ruling that relates specifically to the case of the applicant NZYQ. The court is very clear that because NZYQ, who was a child sex offender and because Australia has never before successfully resettled child sex offender to a third country, therefore, his detention was indefinite because there was no reasonable prospect he could be removed and it is not open for the government to detain someone indefinitely if there's no prospect of their removal. What that also makes clear, though, is that it is possible that some of the 141 people who have been released may not have needed to be released. The court is very clear that it's the unique circumstances of a child sex offender that meant that his detention constituted indefinite detention and the court also said that it is possible to re-detain someone who was released if there becomes, again, a prospect of them being removed and prior to them being removed, that can be redetained. So, what the government urgently needs to answer today is, on what basis, on what advice, were all of those 141 people released from detention? Can any of them be redetained and when will they do so?
The second thing that's very clear from the High Court's ruling is the Parliament has a clear pathway to deal with this problem and it's the pathway that the Opposition has been recommending the government do for three weeks now. The day after the High Court handed down its ruling, I first called for either a preventative or continuing detention order regime to be introduced. It was clear at the time, based on the success of the high risk terrorist offenders regime, that it was lawful to do so. But the government has been saying it had to wait until the High Court's rulings were released before they were able to do so. Well, now we have that ruling. The High Court has explicitly said you can introduce a scheme based on risk where the government applies to the court for people to be detained, and so they really should be no further delays. The government cannot make the
same mistake it did when the High Court issued its ruling three weeks ago of not being ready. They should have draft legislation ready. They should be able to brief the Opposition this morning. They should be able to introduce it to the House today, it should be able to pass the parliament and receive royal assent this week and those who pose a very serious risk to the community should be able to be redetained immediately.
JOURNALIST: Senator, could you just clarify? Has the opposition been briefed yet on that new legislation?
PATERSON: No. Despite the Minister for Home Affairs going to the House of Representatives yesterday and saying the government intends to introduce a preventative detention regime, as we've been calling on them to do, and despite the Home Affairs Minister doing a series of media interviews this morning asking publicly for the support of the Opposition, we've heard absolutely nothing from the government at all. No briefings have been offered. No draft legislation has been shared. We are prepared to cooperate, of course, if the government introduces what we ask them to introduce. But we can't do that until the government acts, can't do that until the government produces a bill. And so far they haven't done so.
JOURNALIST: Senator, do you expect that we will see more people released and if so how concerning is that?
PATERSON: It absolutely is possible that more people will be released because the government has shown that it has a proclivity to release people even without the High Court's rulings, only based on legal advice. We think it is possible, maybe even probable, that some of those people who were released didn't need to be. I hope no additional people who don't need to be released are released. I hope the government redetains anyone who they can lawfully redetain.
JOURNALIST: What portion of people do you believe were released that shouldn't of been released?
PATERSON: I'd love to be able to answer that, but because the government hasn't been transparent about the circumstances of each of those people and the crimes they committed or the other reasons why their visas were cancelled on character grounds, we just don't know. All we do know is the High Court was very clear. It is only because NZYQ is a child sex offender and we have never successfully resettled a child sex offender. his detention was indefinite he had to be released. The other people in that cohort who committed other crimes may be able to be successfully resettled. The other people in that cohort who did not commit crimes but otherwise violated the character of the Migration Act, may be able to be resettled. And if there is a reasonable prospect of them being resettled, the High Court has clearly said they can be detained until they are able to be deported.
JOURNALIST: Senator, we saw earlier this week the Government introduced amendments to those existing laws that it raced through Parliament a couple of weeks ago and the Coalition were against it, saying that these laws are being rushed, even though the Coalition are calling on the Government to put through those laws every quickly. Why the sudden change of pace on those specific elements? And why would you say that don't introduce these amendments because you are rushing it because of the High Court and now you're saying introduce these preventative detention amendments now.
PATERSON: We only said that they were rushing these laws on Monday because we knew that the High Court was handing down its reasons on Tuesday. We don't think 24 hours is too long to wait to have the benefit of the High Court's reasoning and now clarity about what can and can't be legislated. Now despite the government saying that those laws must be passed on Monday, despite them ramming through the House of Representatives on Monday, They still have not put it on the Senate program on Wednesday. So, the government doesn't even believe itself that it is as urgent as they are saying it is, it appears to me to be completely confected to create a political controversy. We've said all along we will facilitate the tough laws that are necessary to protect the community, but we want the government to actually pass the laws that are necessary to protect the community and they have been ignoring our pleas for three weeks to pass a preventive detention regime. Finally, they've admitted they can. The question is when will they do so? Are they ready to go today? They should have had draft legislation ready to go.
JOURNALIST: Do you expect to be briefed on this legislation before it's introduced and have you had any contact with the government on that and will you commit to passing this legislation before parliament rises.
PATERSON: It is normal for the Opposition to be briefed on legislation before it is introduced, particularly if the government is seeking urgent passage. Although over the last two weeks that notice that we've had has been in some cases a matter of hours, we have not had any offers of briefing from the government. We've not had any contact with the government, but we expect to hopefully receive that soon. And of course, if the government now is doing what we have been calling on them to do, for three weeks, of course, we will facilitate. We are prepared to sit late tonight. We are prepared to sit late tomorrow. We are prepared to sit on Friday or over the weekend or whatever is necessary to get these laws passed before the Parliament leaves Canberra this week.
JOURNALIST: Senator, just to be clear, is it just the most serious high risk people that you would like to see subject to preventative detention? And Jane Hume this morning said Clare O'Neil should resign or at the very least apologise to the Australian people. Do you agree with that?
PATERSON: I've said from the very beginning that a preventative or continuing detention order regime should apply to, at the very least, the highest risk among this cohort. It may not be possible to redetain all of them, but we hope the government drafts the law as broadly as possible to capture as many as possible of these people that expose a risk to the community, and we have a rough sense of what the government thinks of that is because of all the 141 people who have been released, the Immigration Minister has required 138 of them to be wearing electronic monitoring. So that gives you a picture of how many of those do pose a risk to the community. I think the Minister for Home Affairs' performance in this saga has been appalling. The government was not ready when it should have been ready. It had to be forced by the Opposition to pass the initial legislation. They had to be forced again to toughen it up and now it is finally admitting that we were right for three weeks. I think the Minister should reflect on her own performance and I think the community does deserve an apology. Let's remember that right now, today there is a detainee loose in the community. The government has no idea where this person is, has not been able to track them down, they are refusing to wear an ankle bracelet that is an utter shamble.
JOURNALIST: Have you been given any further information on the whereabouts or in details regarding that person?
PATERSON: We've been given absolutely no information whatsoever. I don't know who this person is. I don't know where they're from. I don't know what crime they've committed. I don't know what state they're in. And nor does the public. And I don't think that's good enough. The government has totally lacked transparency on this issue, and I think the public deserve better than that.
JOURNALIST: What would you anticipate? What should they do? Should they be providing those details to the public?
PATERSON: Well, the minister's given half a dozen media interviews this morning. And every time she was asked, she refused to give that information, said it was a police matter. I don't think that's good enough. I think the government should be leading here. I think they should be demonstrating that they are pulling out all stops to redetain this person who has now breached the very serious vias conditions that the parliament imposed on them by refusing to wear an electronic bracelet.
JOURNALIST: And apart from a preventative detention regime, is the Coalition asking for anything else of the government in relation to other amendments?
PATERSON: At this stage, we think the preventive detention regime is the most urgent and the most important. We'll look very carefully at the legislation that the government presents to us when they eventually do so. But if it's not robust enough that we've got to ask for it to be stronger.
Thank you.
ENDS
