April 15, 2024
PETA CREDLIN: Joining me, Shadow Home Affairs minister James Paterson. Senator, welcome. I'm not going to labour the ins and outs of the attack too much I think people have had plenty of commentary in the last 48 hours. But what struck me on the weekend and you'll know, I was involved in the Lindt siege terror attack when I worked for the Prime Minister. But what concerns me most was how easy it was for very unsophisticated lone killer to cause such carnage. A knife is easy to procure, easy to conceal. If this had been a more coordinated attack. And we've seen plenty of that overseas. Even if it was just with a knife, let alone a firearm or an explosive device. Are we as prepared as we should be?
JAMES PATERSON: Peta, you'll understand why I'll be cautious drawing any direct policy lessons out of what happened on Saturday in Sydney. But speaking more broadly, it's absolutely the advice of our intelligence and security agencies like ASIO that the greatest terrorism threat that we face in this country is a lone wolf actor, often using a low sophistication attack like a blunt object, a knife, a car, or something like that, to cause very serious harm. And unfortunately, on the weekend we saw how one person with a weapon can cost the lives of at least six innocent people and many more still in hospital. And there will be many Australians asking themselves tonight, how do we stop that from happening again? And we need to study very closely the investigation by New South Wales Police when it's complete, and the coronial inquiry that's taking place to learn the lessons of. Were there any signs of this person's behaviour or risk to the community, and if so, how were they missed and why weren't they acted on? And is there anything we can do to further harden public places where there are significant gatherings of innocent people and civilians to make sure that someone who attempts anything like this in the future, for any reason, can be disrupted more quickly than they were to prevent more harm being done.
CREDLIN: You know, a coronial inquest could take at least 12 months. Is there any support for a quick review? Let's say there was one done by the Commonwealth after the Lindt siege attack. Do we need a national security review by the NSC? You know, should the ASIO chief now be brought back into the National Security Committee? He was put out the door by the Prime Minister. Should he be there as a regular attendee? I mean, are these some of the things, given his warning about the risk of an Islamist attack over the next 12 months. Is this the time now to say that look we got that wrong? Let's beef up our preparedness across the board?
PATERSON: Well Peta well before Saturday the ASIO director general and the ASIS director general should be back on NSC because they have insights of value to offer that the government can't always anticipate. And it's absurd that they have been excluded on a regular basis from that committee. But I think you're right to point to the policy lessons that were learnt from the Lindt cafe siege, change did follow from that to make sure that police and if necessary, the ADF can be deployed to respond to terrorism incidents like that, particularly in major cities, at quick notice, so that we can limit harm to the community if things like this happen in the future. And I do support quickly acting on this if there are evident lessons that come out of the New South Wales Police inquiry, which will be much more quick than the coronial inquiry, as you rightly pointed out, that could take some time. But as the police conclude their investigation on a much quicker time frame, then they will be very clear lessons that come out of that. And if so, we should move quickly and the federal government shouldn't hesitate to act on that.
CREDLIN: Can I ask you, you've been in those Senate hearings today in relation to the proposed new detainee laws? There's been some concern from Home Affairs that people smugglers could take advantage of the changes. That's a pretty concerning revelation. What do they mean by that?
PATERSON: Well Peta, this is the hearing that the government never wanted to take place, because they wanted to rush this bill through the Parliament without any proper parliamentary scrutiny. And after today, I can see why, because of the 101 people who've submitted and organisations have submitted to the inquiry, only one was in support of the bill and that was the Department of Home Affairs. Everyone else was thoroughly critical of the bill and even the Department of Home Affairs themselves, in their own submission, conceded that elements of the bill could be used by people smugglers to encourage people to get back on boats again as an unintended consequence of the legislation, which is, of course, the concern that the Coalition has been raising up for many weeks about this, in which we were previously accused by the government of politicising this issue. But in black and white, in their own writing, their own words, Home Affairs has admitted that risk now. And so I think it is legitimate that we have this scrutiny. I think it is legitimate that amendments are considered to this legislation because it is not clear on the face of it that the government has got it right. But unfortunately, we have been only limited to a single day of hearings, despite all of the submissions that have been made, and many people, including multicultural communities and diaspora communities, legal experts won't get the opportunity to testify before the committee, won't get the opportunity to answer questions. And that's clearly because that's politically inconvenient for the government. Well, that's not a good way to approach sensitive and important legislation like this.
CREDLIN: What's the timing on the legislation? We're still looking to have it back in the budget period? When will we see the report, James?
PATERSON: So the committee is required to report by the 7th of May. And that's a timeline that we set to make sure that when the Parliament returns the following week, if need be, the Parliament can deal with this legislation. We've got no indication from the government whether they're open to amendments or what timeframe they're seeking to move this legislation on. But there is the potentially relevant High Court case, ASF17 being heard this week, and we'll hopefully have more information based on that in the coming days.
CREDLIN: All right. I'll leave it there. I'm out of time. James Paterson, thank you very much. Thank you kindly. All right, off the break.
ENDS
