|
October 13, 2023
RAFEL EPSTEIN: James Paterson is Liberal senator for Victoria, he's actually shadow minister for Home Affairs. Good morning. Thanks for coming in.
JAMES PATERSON: Morning Raf thank you for having me.
EPSTEIN: Can I ask you to address Menal's explicit point, Peter Dutton wouldn't say the same thing about a neo-Nazi chant? A person on a temporary visa?
PATERSON: Well, when Peter Dutton was the Minister for Home Affairs in the previous government, he cancelled thousands and thousands of visas of people on character grounds without any regard to the race or their ethnicity or their background or their nationality. The important point here is that a visa to visit Australia, to be here temporarily, whether it's to work or to study or to engage in tourism, is a privilege and it comes with conditions. And obviously if you break the law, you can lose your visa.
EPSTEIN: So just to directly address Menal, is it race based?
PATERSON: Absolutely not. No, no, no. I mean, people of all ethnicities and nationalities have had their visas cancelled by Peter Dutton because they failed the character test. And the character test is a really important thing. If you are not an Australian citizen, if you're here as a visitor and you breach those character tests, your visa can and should, in my view, be cancelled because you are not allowed to come here and forment hatred and incite violence. And I don't care whether you are a neo-Nazi or a an Islamist, whatever you are, if you incite violence, if you think violence is an appropriate pathway to your political ends, you are not welcome in Australia if you're a non-citizen.
EPSTEIN: Nazi symbol in public. Temporary visa, kick them out?.
PATERSON: Sure, Absolutely. No hesitation.
EPSTEIN: James Paterson, To get more to where how governments respond as opposed to how protesters respond. Are you comfortable with all of Israel's response? Peter Dutton's been very firm in support of Israel. Israel has also said that, it's Prime Minister has said, Gaza will be a deserted island, they're not allowing water and food and fuel into Gaza. Is that appropriate?
PATERSON: Raf, I fear there is going to be a very high human cost in Gaza for what has happened. But the people that I hold responsible for that primarily is Hamas, because it is Hamas that initiated this conflict, it is Hamas who launched this attack. It is Hamas who targeted women, children, the elderly, as we now know, babies, including for beheading and being burnt to death. And no democracy, Australia included, could ever tolerate the existence of that existential threat on its borders and would have to respond decisively. And so if there are human casualties on the civilian side, which I fear there will be, and that will be a terrible tragedy, it is Hamas who is responsible for that.
EPSTEIN: It just if I can just pause that, I mean, it's just a terrible thing to say. But the beheading. That issue hasn't been substantiated.
PATERSON: I'm not sure if you caught up with the media this morning.
EPSTEIN: Unfortunately, I don't want to re-prosecute the way the media is responding to this.
PATERSON: This is really important Raf, if there was some conjecture about it yesterday, I acknowledge that there was a lot more reporting available this morning, which is much more specific and detailed. So it is pretty clear there have been babies who've been beheaded.
EPSTEIN: Well, I am not satisfied that is clear because the ABC's is not reporting. Can I put that aside because I want to get back to, and if you want to condemn Hamas, that's 100% within your remit. It just wasn't quite what I was asking. I'm just want to know your answer to if Israel is doing things like the warnings they're issuing before an artillery strike are now much broader. They are issuing warnings to whole neighbourhoods in Gaza. I just want to know if you're comfortable. Are you comfortable with that? Are you comfortable with stopping food going in?
PATERSON: Raf, what warnings did Hamas give to Israeli citizens before on the Sabbath, on a Jewish holiday? At 0630 in the morning, they launched a barrage of rockets and set hundreds of fighters into the streets to shoot civilians where they stood, to kidnap them and take them into Gaza. The fact that the IDF does those warnings actually demonstrates that they do more than almost any other military in the world to minimise civilian casualties. But the truth is one of Hamas's objectives is to have civilian casualties on the Palestinian side. And we know that because they stole their munitions in schools, in hospitals, in apartment buildings occupied by civilians. They do that for two reasons. One, they want to try and protect those munitions and they think the IDF will be hesitant in targeting them. And number two, for them, civilian casualties has propaganda value and they want to...
EPSTEIN: Theres no where else for those Civilians to go is there?.
PATERSON: Well, and that is a terrible thing and that is on Hamas. That is on Hamas. They have chosen to launch this attack. They have chosen to hide among the civilian population to protect themselves and to have civilian casualties as a propaganda tool and that is a despicable thing. This is a despicable organisation. We should regard it the same way we regard ISIS. I mean, really it is beyond, there is no defending of Hamas. There's no defending their actions.
EPSTEIN: I do want to get onto the voice, but collective punishment is a crime. Does anything is anything that Israel's doing conforming to that sort of collective punishment in your mind?
PATERSON: I know that Israel and the IDF will be extremely careful in the way they conduct these operations. But this is a war and it is a war in a densely populated area and so I fear there will be civilian casualties, and that is a terrible tragedy. No one should be in any doubt about that. But it really is Hamas who owns the responsibility for that. They have chosen this pathway and no democracy would behave any differently. Australia would behave the same if we were under the same attacks, if it was our cities that were being bombarded in this way.
EPSTEIN: James Paterson is Shadow Home Affairs Minister. He is part of Peter Dutton Shadow Cabinet. I've got a full board of calls, but I've got a few questions. First for James Paterson, if we can switch our attention to the voice James Paterson, vast majority of Indigenous leaders did support the voice and I think the vast majority of Indigenous participants in the conversation feel really bruised by this experience. Some of those Indigenous leaders would say it because the way the No case was run, but I think all Indigenous participants in the conversation feel really bruised. Are you comfortable with the way we've all handled this?
PATERSON: Yeah, look, I really do hear that Raf, and I agree with you. There are definitely Indigenous Australians have are feeling bruised right now and I fear an even greater number on Sunday morning when they wake up and see the result. And I've already seen some commentators try and say that if Australia votes no, that this would be a much broader rejection of Indigenous Australia and their aspirations. And I think that's a really irresponsible thing to do. If this goes down, it be a rejection of this specific proposal being put in the Constitution. Everyone has goodwill towards Indigenous Australians, everyone wants their circumstances to improve. Some people just disagree that this is the way to do it and we shouldn't broaden and overinterpret what the result might mean if it goes down, because I really do worry about how that makes Indigenous people feel.
EPSTEIN: You're happy with the way the No case was run. I hate to keep on dragging them back to your leaders words, but he said he was outraged actually when it was raised that the AEC were going to count a tick as a yes and a cross would not get counted because it is ambiguous. They rules that they've held for a long time. That's been backed up actually in two significant court cases, including a number of federal court judges. Was that the right thing? Was that a fair tactic or fair issue for Peter Dutton to raise if long established precedent and court cases this week say what the AEC doing is okay?
PATERSON: Well, to be fair Raf, the court cases have come after what Peter said and we now have the benefit of absolute clarity about where the law is. And my view is it's now a matter for the Parliament after the referendum is over, if it wants to make changes to resolve this and I think there are sensible ways you could deal with this. In the same sex marriage plebiscite which was conducted by the ABS, not the AEC. There was two boxes.
There was a yes box and a no box, and you could mark the yes and no box in any way you like. A tick, a cross, a question mark, whatever you liked, and that indicated your preference in the referendum. Because of the law, there is only one box and you have to write in English, yes or no, but there are savings provisions in the legislation that allow a tick to be counted and a cross not to be counted. And that is now very legally clear. I think that's a matter for the parliament to deal with.
EPSTEIN: I guess I'm asking you, is it a fair tactic?
PATERSON: Well, I hope I hope the referendum is not so close that that's not an issue. The worst thing would be if this outcome is disputed or disagreed in any way. And I really hope that there aren't people out there doing crosses and that that's the reason for the difference. I doubt it will be that close. No referendum in history has been that close. I don't think it'll be decisive.
EPSTEIN: I do want to say, by the way, just put the word yes or no. Get rid of any ambiguity. Put the word yes or no. Just do that and then it's 100% your choice, your vote. Just really want to empherise that. Has the referendum. Is that a debate that was worth having?
PATERSON: If the referendum fails, and particularly if it is quite comprehensively rejected as certainly the polls are indicating that, my personal view is it's going to be closer, but the polls are indicating it going to be comprehensively rejected. I think there is a question about the Prime Minister's decision to proceed with this because it has come at the cost of a pretty robust and sometimes challenging public debate.
EPSTEIN: You are equal partners in the debate?
PATERSON: Yes, we are. Yes. But I think it was very clear that this was the direction it was headed in. The Prime Minister chose to proceed. And if we're going to spend $350, $400 million for something that doesn't succeed, I think there are real questions about whether it was worthwhile, particularly because there were alternatives, there were other choices that the government and the Prime Minister could have made. There are other pathways they could have taken which would have had higher chances of success. So to proceed and spend all this money for no change at all, I think many Australians would question whether that was worth it.
EPSTEIN: Thank you for coming in. I appreciate it.
PATERSON: Anytime.
ENDS
