April 17, 2024
KIERAN GILBERT: Let's get some more analysis and reaction to the terrible events in recent days, particularly in Western Sydney. That church attack. Joining me is the Shadow Home Affairs Minister, James Paterson. I know you've got a busy day, lots of security meetings underway, but give me your sense. Should we be worried about the risks to social cohesion off the back of that most recent attack at the church in Wakeley?
JAMES PATERSON: I'm deeply concerned about that Kieran and frankly I have been for six months, ever since 7th of October. This is a great test for our nation and whether or not we can get through this period without awful scenes of division. And we saw already on Monday night how communities are understandably angry and respond with anger when there's an act of violence in Australia. But we don't have a system of vigilante justice in this country. We have law and order and the rule of law. That's the only way we can resolve our disputes and any breaches of the law. What I'm deeply concerned about is that the federal government needs to do more to lead the conversation on these issues and keep a lid on it so it doesn't break out.
GILBERT: And in terms of reprisals, what can and should be done to prevent them from happening?
PATERSON: Well I thought the New South Wales Premier Chris Minns showed good leadership when he very quickly convened religious leaders to talk about community harmony and to set his expectations clearly from them. I'm not aware of the Prime Minister having done so on a single occasion since the 7th October, other than to talk about Religious Discrimination Act. But why wasn't it immediately after the 7th of October that the Prime Minister used the convening authority of his office to get together religious leaders and say the anti-Semitism, the Islamophobia, the other instances of intolerance that we are seeing is totally unacceptable and I expect you as religious leaders to help me ensure that doesn't happen.
GILBERT: And you've also, I know, through your colleague Andrew Hastie, have suggested that ASIO and ASIS, the major security agencies, intelligence agencies should be brought back to the National Security Committee. Why is that important? Why can't they be brought in on occasions where their input is necessary?
PATERSON: Well, we always thought it was a bizarre decision to kick these two people off the National Security Committee. It's become more obvious in the last 48 hours why that's important. They have insights of value to add, and you shouldn't just invite them in on a case by case basis to present, because sometimes they'll have insights to add to the discussion outside where you might expect them to. And if they're not already in the room, they can't just speak up and add that. And I understand when we were in government, intelligence agencies often had relationships or insights or knowledge that government ministers weren't aware of, that they were able to contribute to the conversation because they were always in the room. So I think that's a basic principle they should be there.
GILBERT: What's your read on the terror threat level? It hasn't been raised from possible, should it?
PATERSON: It was lowered from probable to possible in November 2022 based on a very rigorous analytical assessment about the risks to Australia. I think there's a case to look at it very closely immediately after 7th October and look at it closely again after the events of the weekend. Because they are data inputs, they are not the only ones. There's a range of sources that ASIO relies on to reach that assessment, but I know that they will be carefully considering in light of these events too.
GILBERT: What's your analysis of the events in Bondi? Obviously not a terrorist act as the other event has been designated an alleged terror attack that was not in Bondi, but it was an appalling incident. What's your analysis of how we need to prevent that sort of thing from happening ever again?
PATERSON: Yeah, it's a deeply shocking incident. And you're right, in this instance, it wasn't terrorism, but it's the kind of tactics that a lone wolf terror actor would use and could use, which is a low sophistication device, like a knife or a blunt weapon or a car, against soft targets, against civilians who are not armed, in a public space with a lot of people. So those kind of things could happen again in with more malign intent, with a terrorist intent, or a mental health motivation. How much more can we harden our public spaces against that is a really important question to ask. How do people get radicalised to think that this is appropriate and also in the aftermath of it, how do we manage community cohesion as well? Because we saw pretty malicious weaponisation on social media of the identity or alleged identity of the person. We saw people saying it was this person or was that person, it was this community, it was that community. That's really dangerous, that really does undermine social cohesion and could lead to to a spiralling of events.
GILBERT: Yeah, indeed. Without any basis in fact. Now, on the, review that's being undertaken into strategic institutions, think tanks like ASPI, the government's got a former head of the Department of Foreign Affairs looking into whether government funding should continue. Why should those groups like ASPI be funded? Why is it necessary?
PATERSON: ASPI and our other think tanks like Lowy, the National Security College and others contribute enormously usefully to public conversation about national security matters. It's an expert area, but it's one that the public needs to have some familiarity with because we're expected to fund it and to support it. And so we need that public conversation. And it's critical that government support it because it is not always easy to find private sector finance for those kind of activities, and they have to be able to contest government policy. What I'm really concerned about is the possibility that ASPI, in particular, will be singled out and have its funding taken away as part of this review, because that was one of the list of 14 demands made by the Chinese Embassy of Australia. We can never back down to that kind of coercion, those kind of threats, and I would be terrified about the signal that would send other researchers, other think tanks, other independent people who get government funding that if you go too hard after China that you might lose your funding.
GILBERT: So you're saying it would be a capitulation of sorts?
PATERSON: I think that's exactly what it would be if for any reason ASPI's funding is taken away, even if they find some other ostensible reason to hang it off. It's not the fourteen demands, it's some other reason. Everyone's going to interpret as being responding to China's pressure.
GILBERT: James Paterson, appreciate it. We'll talk to you soon.
PATERSON: Thanks Kieran.
ENDS
