August 20, 2024
LAURA JAYES: Joining me live now as the Shadow Home Affairs Minister, James Paterson. James, thanks so much for your time. You've presented us with these numbers today. It shows that we are more generous than our Five Eyes partners. What is the concern here exactly? Why have you presented these numbers in this way?
JAMES PATERSON: Well. Good morning Laura. I think it shows that this government has taken a very different approach to accepting people from Gaza than our closest allies in the Five Eyes and fellow like minded democracies. In addition to those figures from the US, the UK, New Zealand and Canada that your colleague just shared then, it's also the same in France, in Germany, in Italy, in South Korea, in Japan. There is only two countries in the world that we could find, two developed countries, that have accepted more people from Gaza than Australia has in the last six months. And it's not just a little bit of a difference. We're talking about ten times as many people from Gaza coming to Australia than our closest partners. So really, it's up to the Albanese government to explain why they have taken this very unique approach and why they appear to have rushed it. The reason why many of our partners haven't accepted as many people as us is that they've insisted on much more stringent checks than us. For example, Canada and France both require that you go to a consulate or embassy for an in-person interview. Many other countries insist on biometric testing. These are all things that the Australian government has waived as a requirement to come from Gaza, and they've got to explain why that's the case.
JAYES: Okay. Would you accept that the generosity side of this and the speed in which this was done is because we can all see what the war zone is like, getting people out of the out of there. The ones that we could help, it was important to do so quickly. And I would also say that the Rafah border we know is closed. It has only opened over the last couple of months for very short periods of time. So just on the speed of things, do you accept that on face value? If I could play devil's advocate here?
PATERSON: Sure, Laura. Of course Australia has a role to play and of course there is a humanitarian crisis here. But should we be ten times more generous than our closest friends and partners? Should we be more generous than some of Palestine's strongest supporters at the United Nations and elsewhere, countries like Ireland and Spain who've accepted virtually no migrants from Gaza at all? I mean, these are the countries that are outspoken about their support, much more so than even Australia is. And yet they're accepting only a tiny fraction of what we have. Why is there such a disparity? Well, disparity seems to be because we've been willing to rush the process when others haven't. And I think Ed Husic really belled the cat on Sunday, speaking to your colleague Andrew Clennell, when he said we've opted for tourist visas because that's much faster than going through the proper process of refugee visas. When the truth is, these people coming from Gaza are not tourists. They do not intend to return to Gaza. Understandably, they intend to migrate here for as long as they can and stay as long as they can. So why were they granted tourist visas, a requirement of which is you intend to return to where you've come from?
JAYES: Sure. But the speed of things, and the Rafah border crossing only remaining open for a few hours at a time and months and months apart. Do you accept that, just the speed of things? We'll get to the security of it.
PATERSON: Certainly. We have moved very quickly to get people out. And I think the question is, is that in Australia's national interest? Is that putting our national security first? Because our closest allies and partners have made a very different judgement. They've decided not to rush it. They've decided to take the time, as we did in Syria and Afghanistan. I mean, Australia played a very significant role in those conflicts too. We settled tens of thousands of people from those countries, but we did so slowly, carefully, methodically. We insisted on processing in third countries where we could do those in-person interviews. We could do those biometric tests. In some instances, it took up to 12 months before those visas were approved and the former government was attacked for not doing it more quickly. But the fruit of doing it carefully and slowly is you make sure that they are no risk to the Australian community. And I don't think we can say the same in this case.
JAYES: You've just been in the last couple of weeks arguing that they're very different conflicts, and I accept that. The security situation, I think, in Gaza is far more complex it feels like than what Afghanistan was at the time. But I want to ask you about the checks because it was it has been pointed out that the border crossing in Rafah has been so tight. You've had the layer of Egypt's, security and intelligence there not wanting to let Hamas terrorists out. Also, can't we pretty much bank on Israel, not letting anyone with a questionable background or motive cross that Rafah crossing? Don't we have that Israeli security as a layer of protection essentially for us? I know it's not us, but isn't that a layer of protection that should, you know, allay some anxiety?
PATERSON: Laura, our Israeli partners and friends are very formidable. They have very significant capabilities, but no intelligence agency in the world is all seeing and all knowing. And in fact, there's a very serious debate in Israel right now about the failures of Mossad and Shin Bet to anticipate and to prevent the 7th of October. And Australia can't rely on any partner or friend to do for us what we must do for ourselves, which is assure ourselves that there's no risk to our country. And all the evidence you need of that, I think, is the fact that this government admits that 43 of the visas they issued, they themselves subsequently cancelled, apparently on security grounds. Why were those visas granted in the first place? And was the security checks adequate if they were subsequently cancelled? I mean, Tony Burke, and the Prime Minister have been assuring us that all the checks are in place.
JAYES: But is that not an example of the system working, though?
PATERSON: No. That's an example of the system failing, because these people, if they had their visas cancelled on security grounds, should never have been issued visas in the first place and probably wouldn't have been issued visas in the first place if the appropriate checks took place up front before their visas were cancelled. The reason why it's a problem is if you can get here on a visa before it's cancelled, then you get access to the Australian legal system and you can draw that out for years before you are ultimately sent home. With the right lawyers and the legal advice, you can take it all the way the High Court. That's the bitter experience of Australia in the past. And so that's why you have to take the time to get it right the first time.
JAYES: Oh, I just want to ask one final question here. And I think it's a really important one. The Director-General of ASIO, Mike Burgess, he has done a series of interviews in the last couple of weeks. His quotes have been used selectively or otherwise in Parliament. Now, politicians will play politics. That is absolutely assured. And I don't blame you or the government for doing that. But are you alive to the potential of undermining the work of ASIO as this debate rages on?
PATERSON: I think the world of Mike Burgess as Director-General of ASIO, and all the people at ASIO. They do amazing work which keeps Australians safe, which stops terrorist attacks, which thwarts espionage and foreign interference. And I think it is critically important that we keep ASIO out of the partisan debate as much as possible. One of the unfortunate things that happened in the last two weeks is the government, knowing that its public standing on national security, defence and immigration is not strong, is trying to use ASIO as a shield. They are trying to hide behind Mike Burgess and use him to burnish their credentials in this area. I don't think they should do that. I think it was a grave mistake for the Prime Minister to misquote Mike Burgess in the parliament, in attempt to mislead about what's been happening. I think the government's policy failures are their own. They should own them. All our criticism has been aimed at the government, not at ASIO or Mike Burgess, and I don't think the government should be hiding behind them either.
JAYES: So you are confident in the work that ASIO is doing right now? I just want to make that really clear. You think that Mike Burgess has actually been bang on in his public comments and his private ones as well.
PATERSON: I have total confidence in Mike Burgess. I have total confidence in ASIO. My questions are about government policy, because ASIO ultimately just works within the boundaries set by government. It's government which sets our immigration policy. It's government which has refused to say whether or not a Hamas supporter is allowed to come to our country or not. It's government which enforces the character provisions of the Migration Act. None of those are tasks for ASIO. All of those are tasks for politicians, and they're the ones who should take responsibility for them.
JAYES: Okay, we'll speak soon, James. Thank you.
ENDS
