March 19, 2024
PETA CREDLIN: I'm joined now by shadow Minister for Home Affairs James Paterson. Senator, thank you for your time. A barrister working for the detainees says that the Commonwealth has covertly so secretly settled at least three High Court challenges to the mandatory monitoring. He says to avoid the embarrassment of losing these cases and further headlines, but without monitoring, James, and if it comes to this, let's say the other things, the ankle bracelets and everything else has to go off all detainees. What's the government going to do then to keep us safe? What's their plan B?
JAMES PATERSON: Peta, I had a sneaking suspicion that this was the case, and last month I put it to the Department of Home Affairs in Senate estimates, and they were horrified by the accusation that they might be taking ankle bracelets off applicants because their lawyers happen to be bringing cases to the court to argue the validity of doing so. They said they would never do something like this, but I think this barrister might be on to something. I don't think it's a coincidence that the people who brought cases have also been the ones who've been let off from their obligations under the scheme, which you might remember the immigration minister, Andrew Giles, said would apply to virtually every one of those 149 released detainees. Like you, I'm deeply concerned about these upcoming High Court cases because if these applicants are successful arguing on the basis that they've failed to cooperate with their removal and therefore are being indefinitely detained, that is effectively the end of immigration detention in Australia. It will effectively be impossible for the Australian government to detain anyone, even if they have breached the law, even if they have no right to be here, and it will bring to an end a key pillar of our immigration system and border protection system. And the most alarming thing about this, Peta, is that the government seems to be throwing their hands up in the air, saying this is out of our hands, it's with the court, there's nothing we can do. And that sends a shocking signal to people smugglers who will be using this weakness from the Albanese government to exploit and to get people to get back on boats again.
CREDLIN: But honestly, James, you and I know, I mean, if you've got legal ambiguity about the ability of law enforcement agencies via the government to put those bracelets on and keep these brackets on, if they are afraid of losing court challenges, the Parliament is sitting right now, they can remediate these definitions. They can also deal with the risk of another 127 that are currently before the High Court, and this cohort, I might add, Iran, Iraq, Sudanese people are involved here. I mean, that's not a trifecta of good countries. This is what disturbs me. Why can't the government, while Parliament is sitting, fix this mess?
PATERSON: Peta, that's spot on. The Parliament is sitting now. It has set for weeks already this year. There are two problems we could help the government solve if they exist. One is tightening up the legislation around ankle bracelets and other monitoring to make sure it is legally robust. If there are changes necessary, we will support them. The other thing we can do is help assist the government to make some applications for preventive detention orders, which they say, the Parliament has set the bar too high and that's why they haven't been able to make applications. Well, on behalf of the Opposition, I offer the government any support they need to fix those issues to get these dangerous people off the streets, so the community is safe. It is now four months since we rushed those preventive detention orders through the Parliament, and not one application has been made for the seven murderers, the 37 sex offenders or the other dozens of violent offenders that are out there in the community and are re-offending regularly against Australians.
CREDLIN: Talk to me about the government. They had a recommendation to list Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terror group. But they're now back flipping, I'm told, because they regard this Revolutionary Guard as an organ of a nation state. Now, correct me if I'm wrong James, but they are listed as a terror group in the United States. Why on earth aren't we listing them here?
PATERSON: You're right, Peta, and this has been outstanding work by my colleague, Senator Claire Chandler to point this out. It looks like the government started and went through a terrorism listing process for the IRGC. They stopped it at some point for an unknown reason and have offered no adequate explanation for why that's the case. I mean, let's remember that the IRGC is the principal state sponsor of terrorism across the Middle East. Some of its proxies include Hamas and Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Shia militant groups in Iraq and Syria who are right now launching attacks on American bases and troops in the region. The Houthis in Yemen. This is a very bad actor. And we should stand with our allies and our friends by listing them as a terrorist organisation. But this government is too weak to do so yet again.
CREDLIN: Alright, now I've sat in the National Security Committee, as an adviser, obviously. But I've watched evidence from ASIO and ASIS chiefs in that room, I've seen it turn the room and I've seen them contest evidence or advice or briefings from other senior people around the table. Perhaps in some instances they've been military, other times have been foreign service or politicians. To take them out of the room James, I think it's extraordinary. I think this is a big call. They've been in the room under Labor governments in the past and certainly under Coalition government. This is a concerning move. What's behind it?
PATERSON: You're right Peta, and this was an extraordinary scoop by your colleague Sharri Markson last night. I mean, no wonder the Albanese government has been so weak on national security. No wonder they have made so many poor decisions. They haven't had the key people in the room to provide them with the advice that they need, and maybe some of the advice that they don't want to hear. And maybe that's why they've been removed from the room. But I want to reassure your viewers, Peta, it's not all bad news, because the director generals of ASIO and ASIS have been replaced on the committee by the Minister for Energy and Climate Change, Chris Bowen. Now Chris Bowen obviously has much more insight to share on national security and intelligence that the heads of our intelligence agencies, who are involved day to day in collecting intelligence both offshore and onshore against the terrorism, foreign interference and espionage threats that our country faces.
CREDLIN: Yeah, you're no comedian there and it gives me no comfort of Chris Bowen in the room. You and I know how much you can deal with the other side on issues like this, James. Quietly and behind closed doors and get them to back down when they've made a dumb decision. I think this is a dumb decision. Are you hopeful you can have a word to Labor senior ministers, perhaps even the Prime Minister, and get them to rethink this move. I mean, we just only had that advice from Mike Burgess, the ASIO chief, for people at home, saying he is concerned about Islamist terror attacks in Australia over the next 12 months. So when this committee meets, he is not there keeping the room up to date, keeping the prime minister up to date about Australia's security. Surely they can back down here.
PATERSON: I really hope so, Peta. I hope sense prevails, but I'm concerned because it's my understanding this decision was made some time ago. It was not a recent decision, and for much of the past year or so, these meetings have been taking place without those agencies being represented in the room. And as you said before, you can't always anticipate when they've got a contribution of value to make. And if you don't regularly have them in the room, if they're only invited occasionally, you're missing out on the insight that they and all the thousands of patriotic members of the intelligence community are working hard to provide. I mean, what is the point of having intelligence agencies, funding them and giving them powers to provide advice and insight to government if you are not there to hear it at the critical point in which you're making decisions in the national interest? So I hope the Prime Minister is embarrassed by these revelations. I hope he revisits the decision that he has clearly made to kick these intelligence agency chiefs off the NSC, and I hope he quickly reverses it. But I'm not holding my breath.
CREDLIN: I think he would be a big man if he did, I think it's the right thing to do to reverse it. Thank you, James Paterson.
ENDS
