August 6, 2024
.png)
KIERAN GILBERT: Let's return now to security and foreign affairs issues. Joining me is the Shadow Home Affairs and Cyber Security Minister, James Paterson. Let's start with the condemnation of the Iranian ambassador. Dennis Richardson was on the program earlier, calling him a rat bag for the tweet, the message that he put out, the anti-Semitic tweet. The government's been critical of this message from the Iranian ambassador, but you're saying they're not going far enough, what do you want to see?
JAMES PATERSON: Well, this is incredibly extreme, inflammatory and irresponsible rhetoric from my foreign ambassador. Frankly, if an Australian citizen was engaged in that kind of rhetoric, they would be running a very serious risk that they were guilty of incitement to violence or racial vilification, and they would be charged with that. But of course, foreign diplomats are immune from Australian law under the Vienna Convention. And so if the government is really concerned about what the Ambassador has said, then there are powers available to the Minister for Foreign Affairs to make an Ambassador persona non grata and send them home. And it's up to the government and the Foreign Minister to explain if she's not going to use those powers, if she's not going to do so, why isn't she? And how bad would it have to get? What could they say that would cause her to use that option available to her?
GILBERT: Would a Coalition government kick this person out?
PATERSON: Look, it's premature for me to say that now from opposition. Only the government is aware of all the facts of our bilateral relationship with Iran. But it is incumbent on the government to explain this, to say what they are going to do about it. It's all well and good for Penny Wong to be outraged. But what is she actually going to do about it? What are the consequences for the Iranian ambassador and his embassy in Australia from this conduct?
GILBERT: The government on another front on the UNWRA funding, the opposition leader says they've got some explaining to do. If this is all proven to be factual, that nine UNWRA staffers were involved in that October 7th attack, the government says their approach has been appropriate, pausing funding until the investigation was complete. Is that a fair justification of the way they've managed it from an Australian perspective?
PATERSON: No, it's not because it's not accurate. The federal government announced the resumption of the funding for UNWRA prior to the conclusion of this investigation. Australian taxpayers funds are again flowing to UNWRA, and we now know, in UNWRA's own estimation, that they employed nine terrorists who participated in the worst atrocity against the Jewish people since the end of the Holocaust on the 7th of October. These are Hamas terrorists who work for UNWRA and Australian taxpayers money goes to that organisation. I mean, it is a particular insult to Australians who are struggling with a cost of living crisis, that the increased taxes that they've been paying on this government's watch have in part been going to fund terrorists in the Middle East. And we've warned the government. There is no excuse, we called on them to stop funding. They paused it and then and then resumed it and so they are completely culpable for any funds that have gone to an organisation that employs terrorists.
GILBERT: Completely culpable, they have said, that they have paused it and that now, given this critical role that UNWRA plays in terms of providing humanitarian support. It was resumed. Do you believe that they should cease the funding once again?
PATERSON: No Australian taxpayer would tolerate the risk that their hard earned money could be going to terrorists or terrorist organisations. And unless the Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister can guarantee the Australian people that no Australian taxpayer dollars will be going to terrorists in the future, then they should stop funding to UNWRA and they should seek aid partners in the region who can provide that guarantee. It is not a risk any taxpayers should be willing to bear. And by the way, if an Australian citizen sent money to a terrorist organisation in the Middle East, they would be breaking the law. They could be prosecuted. They could be sent to jail under our terrorism financing laws. And so we should be no more comfortable with the risk that our taxpayers money would be falling into the same hands.
GILBERT: We've seen the elevated terror threat level. The message here is that this is a broad range of concerns that people are being radicalised quicker online. Is the job of ASIO harder today than what it was in years gone by?
PATERSON: Yes. There's no question at all that Mike Burgess and his team at ASIO have a tougher task than any previous Director-General or team at ASIO, because it's a much more complex threat environment. There are people responding to a range of, contradictory and extreme ideologies. They're young people who are being radicalised more quickly online, by accessing extreme content from all around the world. And some of these people can go from, no intention to commit violence, to intention to commit violence in a matter of days and week, a much more rapid radicalisation pathway than we've seen in previous iterations, even at the height of the Islamic state era. So it's a very complex environment. And I was concerned to hear the Director-General say in an interview last night, that ASIO is stretched. A key domestic security intelligence organisation should not be stretched. They should have all the resources they need to protect Australians from terrorism, from foreign interference, from espionage and all the other important work they do.
GILBERT: The appropriate checks are being made apparently according to Tim Ayres and Tony Burke; I spoke to Tim Ayres this morning he's reiterating Tony Burke's message about those that have been granted visas out of Gaza. I want to put to you, though, Tim Ayres had a crack at you today saying that you've been playing politics and jumping all over this issue. He says, and he said pretty quick out of the box, in making things up. He says all appropriate checks are being made on those that have been granted visas. Are you reassured by Tim Ayres and Tony Burke's comments in relation to those leaving Gaza?
PATERSON: Look Kieran, I will have to take some time to recover from that devastating attack from Tim Ayres. I don't share his confidence that the adequate checks were done because Home Affairs officials admitted to me in Senate estimates that of the more than 2500 visas granted to Palestinian document holders, including people coming out of Gaza, that on average, these temporary visitor visas were granted in 24 hours and in some instances as quickly as one hour. It's up to the government to explain how you can do an adequate identity check, let alone a full security check on someone leaving a war zone controlled by a terrorist organisation in such quick time. But there's good evidence to suggest that the adequate checks were not done, because they subsequently ended up cancelling some of those visas that they initially granted. So clearly more work was being done, security issues were identified and visas were cancelled. I think there's been an unseemly rush on this issue, and I'm concerned that Australians are being exposed to danger as a result.
GILBERT: Yeah. And does that extend to the possibility of a permanent residency granted to that cohort as well? Is that is that part of your concern here that or do you believe that once visas are granted, that appropriate security checks are being done onshore?
PATERSON: I am concerned by that, because when speaking to your colleague Andrew Clennell on Sunday, the Home Affairs minister implied that further and more extensive security checks would now have to take place if more permanent visas were granted. Well, if all the security checks that were necessary were done in the first place, why are additional security checks required? Why were these people given temporary visitor visas in the first place? Given that the minister has said there is no possibility of any of them returning to Gaza. There was never any possibility that anyone who left Gaza would want to return to Gaza. The terms of a temporary visitor visa are that you intend to return to where you reside, and you're only here on a temporary basis. So if the government's plan was always to bring these people out and to rehome them permanently, then why did they grant them these visas? Why did they not have adequate security checks? Why are they now having to do more security checks?
GILBERT: James Paterson. Appreciate your time as always.
PATERSON: Thanks, Kieran.
ENDS
